http://www.cbc.ca/canada/ottawa/story/2007/09/19/ont-adoption.html
Court strikes down new adoption law
Last Updated: Wednesday, September 19, 2007 | 2:25 PM ET
The Canadian Press
A Superior Court judge has quashed an Ontario law allowing past
adoption records to be opened.
The legislation, which was years in the making and took effect Monday,
allowed birth parents and adoptees to access information about each
other, but Wednesday's ruling struck down the law.
Noted civil rights lawyer Clayton Ruby launched a constitutional
challenge to the Adoption Information Disclosure Act last year,
arguing a form that parents and adoptees could sign saying they
preferred not to be contacted was too flimsy to protect their
identities.
He filed the challenge on behalf of four Ontario residents: three
adoptees and one who gave up a child for adoption.
British Columbia, Alberta and Newfoundland and Labrador each have
similar legislation, but those provinces have a "disclosure veto,"
which allows birth parents and adoptees to retain their anonymity.
Ontario's information commissioner says the ruling confirms the
importance of an individual's right to privacy.
Marley Greiner - 19 Sep 2007 23:45 GMT
I'm not surpirsed. Of course, none of this has anything to do with our
objections and we opposed teh bill all the way. However, this decision just
validates the state protectionist argument--and that never helps us.
So, how many ways does theOntario government spy on it's citizens and break
their privacy every day? I bet there's a lot, in the name of "safety"--and
the state.
Marley
> http://www.cbc.ca/canada/ottawa/story/2007/09/19/ont-adoption.html
>
[quoted text clipped - 23 lines]
> Ontario's information commissioner says the ruling confirms the
> importance of an individual's right to privacy.
kippaherring@hotmail.com - 20 Sep 2007 01:13 GMT
On Sep 19, 6:45 pm, "Marley Greiner" <maddogmar...@worldnet.att.net>
wrote:
> So, how many ways does theOntario government spy on it's citizens and break
> their privacy every day? I bet there's a lot, in the name of "safety"--and
> the state.
I bet you're right.