Organized women\u27s groups, divisions in the constitutional lobby: One interest or many?

With the advent of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, came a new era in Canadian constitutional politics. The Charter empowered various organized interests in Canadian society by granting fundamental rights to a number of groups. Given that historically, women have experienced discrimination by the courts, political institutions and decision makers, the combination of sections 15 and 28 of the Charter were considered by many as a victory for women\u27s equality. For women\u27s groups in English Canada the Meech Lake Accord in 1987 represented a serious threat to these equality provisions. Women\u27s groups became divided over the distinct society provision of the Meech Lake Accord. Perhaps the greatest rift which developed in the women\u27s movement was that between women\u27s groups in English Canada and in Quebec. As the constitutional amending process continued with the Charlottetown Accord, it became increasingly evident that the interests of women\u27s groups were diverse, and that women\u27s groups desired a formal role in the amending of the constitution. By examining the actions of various women\u27s groups it is possible to understand why there is no monolithic women\u27s movement in Canada--nor should there be. Indeed women\u27s groups and the women they represent are diverse and divided along many lines including race and region. The problem for Canadian women\u27s groups today is that they seek to represent a sector of the population rather than a special area. In doing so, their structures compete directly with the Parliamentary system which is based on geographic representation. While Canadian women have had their concerns advanced through interest groups, in order for women to continue to influence the state, the movement must focus on commonalities and shared experience. Chapter one provides a historical background of women\u27s relationship to the constitution, and argues that this experience has been one of discriminatory treatment. Chapter two looks at current constitutional theory and introduces the literature by feminist scholars who identify women\u27s relationship to the state as being different to that of men. Chapter three compares the lobby by women\u27s groups in 1987 and 1992, and makes the case that women\u27s groups were marginally more successful in influencing the government in 1992 primarily due to public support and that of the Native Women\u27s Association. Chapter four concludes the paper by acknowledging that there does not exist a monolithic women\u27s movement in Canada. It is important however for women\u27s groups to reach consensus on some issues in order to reshape and redefine the present movement in Canada which is currently still recovering from the divisive rounds in 1987 and 1992.Dept. of History, Philosophy, and Political Science. Paper copy at Leddy Library: Theses & Major Papers - Basement, West Bldg. / Call Number: Thesis1993 .Z84. Source: Masters Abstracts International, Volume: 32-06, page: 1560. Adviser: Joan Boase. Thesis (M.A.)--University of Windsor (Canada), 1993