CRIMSA Academic Symposium: Challenging Legal Norms

My paper challenges legal norms by employing an ethnomethodological approach to critically analyze the social interactions that shape and sustain legal systems. Rather than treating the law as a static or neutral entity, this paper explores how everyday practices and societal norms influence the creation, interpretation, and enforcement of legal principles. However, instead of attempting to determine larger patterns, the paper narrows down and focuses on a singular case. By examining the micro-level interactions through which legal norms are constructed, the analysis highlights the ways in which power dynamics, cultural assumptions, and unspoken biases permeate the functioning of the law.

This essay seeks to unveil norms of sexism in police culture and how they contribute to the underreporting of sexual assault and high attrition rates of sexual assault cases in the criminal justice system. I analyze the core system of norms and values involved in policing to find it imbued with hegemonic conceptions of gender, which can otherwise be understood as sexism in police culture. Hegemonic conceptions of gender in police culture involve the expectation of officers to act with values of competitiveness, aggression, and isolation; this expectation translates to sexism in police culture in that female officers are less likely to meet this expectation and are frequently met with sexual harassment and social exclusion in the workplace. I then consider how sexism in police culture, through its reflecting a bias toward women’s inferiority, inclines officers to regard women as less worthy of belief. This bias primes officers to regard women reporting sexual assault as unreliable. In the name of challenging sexist norms in police culture, I argue for a standardized police response to reports of sexual assault. A standardized police response may reduce discretion in processing sexual assault survivors. Reducing discretion in sexual assault response is important because it negates opportunities for respective officers to decide whether or not to pursue cases through the criminal justice system; I find that the decision to pursue cases has been largely dissuaded by norms in police culture perpetuating the notion that women are less worthy of belief. Limiting officers’ insertion of sexist norms in responding to sexual assault reports challenges the norm that women are prone to fabricating sexual assault claims.

The Mental Health Act (MHA) is an Ontario law that governs the rights and procedures for those in need of mental health care in the province (1990). Under the MHA, police can take a person into custody and bring them to a psychiatric facility to be assessed by a physician if they believe the person poses a danger to themselves or others. Although Ontario’s MHA aims to provide humane treatment for individuals experiencing mental health crises, it instead causes systemic discrimination, as police have excessive and unchecked authority under the Act to involuntarily admit individuals for treatment. This results in the disproportionate detainment and stigmatisation of low-income, racialized individuals by police. This research paper examines the origin and evolution of the MHA and how it perpetuates racial inequalities through the police. It also discusses a range of alternate policy delivery mechanisms that have been proposed or implemented in other jurisdictions in an attempt to address this issue. At the end, mental health community services are proposed as an alternate policy that will deliver a more equitable service to racialized individuals. Ultimately, forming reactive mental health policies or trying to change police bias may be less effective than tackling the core issue of low-income, racialized individuals not having as much mental health support services as other groups, which causes them to have disproportionate encounters with the police.

My paper, Legitimizing Discrimination: The Anti-Terrorism Act’s Impact on Racialized Communities, critically examines how Canada’s Anti-Terrorism Act (Bill C-36) has contributed to racial and ethnic profiling, particularly targeting Muslim and Arab communities. Enacted in the aftermath of 9/11, the Act granted law enforcement broad discretionary powers under the guise of national security, facilitating surveillance, preventative arrests, and investigative hearings. While framed as a necessary counterterrorism measure, its implementation has disproportionately subjected racialized individuals to discriminatory policing practices, legitimizing racial profiling as an institutional norm. Through an analysis of law enforcement training programs, statistical data on racialized policing, and first-hand accounts from affected communities, this paper explores how the Act embeds systemic biases within Canadian security policies. The research highlights the ways in which police discretion—reinforced by vague definitions of “terrorist activity” and preemptive policing strategies—erodes civil liberties, fosters community distrust, and exacerbates marginalization. Furthermore, this paper critiques the broader implications of the Act on citizenship and belonging, arguing that its enforcement contradicts Canada’s purported commitment to multiculturalism and equality. In line with the theme of Challenging Legal Norms, this paper interrogates the intersection of national security and racial justice, calling for reforms to ensure accountability, transparency, and equity in counterterrorism policies. Policy recommendations include narrowing the definition of terrorism, increasing oversight of police practices, and implementing cultural competency training to mitigate discriminatory policing. By critically analyzing the Anti-Terrorism Act’s unintended consequences, this paper contributes to a broader discourse on law, security, and human rights in Canada.

A homophobic society which respects the rights of individuals in same-sex relationships seems, at first glance, to be an oxymoron. Legal norms surrounding sexuality are often perceived as evolving in response to societal change. The Western model suggests that when societal attitudes shift, legislators subsequently amend the law to reflect new social norms. However, the rise of same-sex rights in the Caribbean demonstrates the possibility for legal protections for same-sex relationships even in the absence of societal approval.This paper examines how Supreme Court rulings in Belize, Guyana, and Saint Kitts and Nevis have created legal protections for individuals in same-sex relationships through judicial interpretation, aligning these protections with fundamental human rights. It explores how the "right to sex" can be framed within the broader, universally recognized principles of privacy, freedom of expression, and protection from discrimination based on sex.The Caribbean experience underscores the potential for safeguarding the rights of sexual minorities, even when political will is lacking from both society and legislators. It challenges not only social norms of what can be legitimately considered "public" morality, but also assumptions on how legal change may be achieved.

Explicitly prohibited under the Community Safety and Policing Act, an Ontario police officer discharging a firearm towards a vehicle is, on its face, an unreasonable act. Despite this, the Ontario Special Investigations Unit (“SIU”)—the province’s civilian police oversight agency—has continuously found that officers’ conduct in these incidents falls within the scope of “reasonableness”. As part of the “Charting the Reasonable Officer” project, this article expands upon the growing literature addressing how police use-of-force incidents are defined as “reasonable” and contributes to the nascent set of studies focused on the Ontario SIU. After identifying an emergent pattern within qualitative data collected from SIU Directors’ Reports, this article provides an empirical analysis of Firearm Discharge Towards Vehicle (“FDTV”)