Published online by Cambridge University Press: 28 February 2017
1 Doctrinal and fiscal examples are collected in Kathleen A. Lahey, the Impact of Relationship Recognition on Lesbian Women in Canada (2001). If anything, these forms of discrimination have become more numerous and pronounced since a minority conservative government was elected in 2005.
2 This section draws on Kathleen A. Lahey, Transnational Activism, International Law, Same-Sex Marriage, Class, Race, and Gender—What is ‘Winning,‘ and Who are the Losers? (forthcoming).
3 Toonan v. Australia (UN Hum. Rts. Comm.), Comm. No. 499/1992 (Apr. 4, 1994), UN Doc. CCPR/C/50/D/488/1992, available at http://wwwl.umn.edu/humanrts/undocs/html/vws488.htm.
4 Swiebel, Joke, Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender Human Rights: The Search for an International Strategy, 15 Contemp. Pol. 19, 22-25 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
5 Id. at 25-27. For details of how this was accomplished at the UN, see Lahey, Kathleen A., Women, Substantive Equality, and Fiscal Policy: Gender-Based Analysis of Taxes, Benefits, and Budgets, 22 Can J. Women & L. 27 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
6 E.g., Suzanna Dennis & Elaine Zuckerman, Gender Guide to World Bank and IMF Policy-Based Lending (2006), especially § 3.1-3.4.
7 See Kathleen A. Lahey, Are we‘Persons’ Yet? Law and Sexuality in Canada (1999), ch. 4.
8 This is the approach that was taken by the International Panel of Experts in International Human Rights Law and on Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity when the panel drafted the Yogyakarta Principles on the Application of International Human Rights Law in Relation to Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity, in Yogyakarta, Indonesia during November 6-9, 2006.
9 Declaration of Montreal, endorsed by the International Conference on LGBT Human Rights (Joke Swiebel, Co-President), 1st World Outgames, Montreal, July 2006, at 4, available at http://www.declarationofmontreal.org. Program Officer, Wellspring Advisors. The views expressed herein are not necessarily those of Wellspring Advisors.