The Liberal Party of Quebec and Québec solidaire recognized errors on Tuesday in the adoption, by the National Assembly, of a motion linked to the use of the expression “person with a vagina” in a decision of the Supreme Court .
“It wasn’t a good day that time,” agreed Liberal Leader Marc Tanguay. “It went much too quickly last Thursday,” also recognized Gabriel Nadeau-Dubois, from Québec solidaire.
Prime Minister François Legault admitted last Friday that he had not read the judgment to which the motion referred. The government’s parliamentary leader and Minister of Justice, Simon Jolin-Barrette, remained silent when journalists asked him, on multiple occasions, if he had done the reading exercise before proposing the motion.
Only the Minister responsible for the Status of Women, Martine Biron, attested to having read the judgment of the highest court in the country. It was she who filed a motion last Thursday aimed at “denouncing the choice of words used in a recent Supreme Court judgment to designate women”. She did so jointly with Liberal MP André A. Morin, Parti Québécois leader Paul St-Pierre Plamondon, and independent MP Marie-Claude Nichols.
Invisibilizing women
The motion, which was unanimously adopted by parliamentarians, affirms that the National Assembly “dissociates itself from the use of terms or concepts contributing to the invisibility of women”. In addition, she “reiterates the importance of retaining the word woman.” This word is used 67 times in the French version of the decision and 69 times in the English version, under “ woman ” And “ women “.
In this sexual assault case, it is written that “when a person with a vagina testifies credibly and with certainty to having felt penile-vaginal penetration, the trial judge must be able to conclude that it is unlikely that She is wrong “. The Supreme Court’s decision reinstates guilty verdicts. “While the trial judge’s choice to use the words ‘a woman’ may have been unfortunate and caused confusion, in the context it is clear that the judge believed it was extremely unlikely that the complainant would be mistaken. about the sensation of penile-vaginal penetration because people, even when intoxicated, are generally not mistaken about this sensation,” the Court wrote.
Minister Biron did not comment on the matter on Tuesday, since she was on mission in Belgium.
In an interview with Radio-Canada on Monday, she mentioned an “excellent judgment which advances women’s rights”, but affirmed that the expression “person with a vagina” is a “description which is loaded and which is debated in society “. The fact that the word “woman” is used 67 times in the French version of the judgment does not change anything: “I do not think that the 67 references to women trivialize this reference,” he said. -she says.
Marc Tanguay, for his part, recognized that his teams had not had time to “do all the necessary checks” before tabling the motion, and discredited Minister Jolin-Barrette. “We were already questioning the rigor of the office of the Minister of Justice, but here, I think that clearly, we have [vu] that we must be very careful when they assert things,” he said, promising to sharpen his vigilance. Liberal MP André A. Morin was among those who presented the motion with Minister Biron, the journalists reminded him. “As a group, it is clear that there is a lesson there,” agreed Chief Tanguay. “If we had to do it again, the wording of the motion would have been different on our side. »
On the side of Québec solidaire, Gabriel Nadeau-Dubois stressed that his party did not jointly present the motion “in particular because we had the feeling that we had not had time to do all the necessary checks.” This did not prevent the political party from supporting the motion. “Perhaps we should all take notes on the way we present motions when it is on subjects as complex as these,” he suggested.
Chief St-Pierre Plamondon assured that he had read the judgment in advance. “No, I don’t regret it,” he said of his support for it. In her opinion, the use of the expression “person with a vagina” “comes with a whole body of ideology and concepts that make women invisible.” And this “is not trivial”, he argued, nevertheless saying he understood the reasoning put forward in the judgment.