The “Official Version of the Law” is a key term when studying both the legal justice system and the injustice done in this system. This “Official Version of the Law”, also known as the OVL, was first suggested by a law professor, Ngaire Naffine. Naffine created the term to describe how the law sees itself; unbiased, just and righteous to each of its subjects (Comack, Balfour, 2004). The professor’s official definition for the term Official Version of the Law was “what the legal world would have us believe about itself-is that it is an impartial, neutral and objective system for resolving social conflict” (cited from Comack, Balfour, 2004, pg 16). Elizabeth Comack analyzed the OVL and related it to the image of lady justice and how she represents
…show more content…
The system clearly does not recognize the instances in which it has not only done an injustice to the people, but how the execution of the laws has gone against what the law believes. Firstly, with the case of the Indian Act and women. The written law shows a clear disparity between the way Aboriginal men are treated in the law and the way Aboriginal women are treated. As unbiased as the law thinks itself to be, it does give a gender bias to men, who get to keep everything upon doing things that, should a women do, lose everything. By forcing women to give up their identity due to their marital status, they are showing dominance of and submission to men. This is shown on two fronts; they are stripped of their native status, and forced to take on their husband’s culture, as well as submission to the men of law who do not have to give up their identity for marriage. In addition to this, when confronted about these sexist laws in place, not only does the Supreme Court dismiss the cases, essentially setting a precedent, but takes a step further and goes against the women, saying that there is no gender bias at all in the case of the Indian Act 12(1)(b). In this way were they not only oppressing women, but giving a precedent to the other courts that women have an unequal standing amongst men in almost every situation of
The system clearly does not recognize the instances in which it has not only done an injustice to the people, but how the execution of the laws has gone against what the law believes. Firstly, with the case of the Indian Act and women. The written law shows a clear disparity between the way Aboriginal men are treated in the law and the way Aboriginal women are treated. As unbiased as the law thinks itself to be, it does give a gender bias to men, who get to keep everything upon doing things that, should a women do, lose everything. By forcing women to give up their identity due to their marital status, they are showing dominance of and submission to men. This is shown on two fronts; they are stripped of their native status, and forced to take on their husband’s culture, as well as submission to the men of law who do not have to give up their identity for marriage. In addition to this, when confronted about these sexist laws in place, not only does the Supreme Court dismiss the cases, essentially setting a precedent, but takes a step further and goes against the women, saying that there is no gender bias at all in the case of the Indian Act 12(1)(b). In this way were they not only oppressing women, but giving a precedent to the other courts that women have an unequal standing amongst men in almost every situation of