The Use of Non-Discriminatory Language in the Law
The use of language is fundamental to law. This paper addresses three reasons why lawyers should use non-discriminatory (and especially non-sexist) language: to
promote accuracy in legal writing and speech; to meet current standards of
professional integrity and responsibility; and to be consistent with legal norms of equality and non-discrimination in Canadian law. The paper then examines ways of achieving non-discriminatory language in English and French in a number of concrete situations. The paper examines the `false generics" of "l'homme" and "man"; the problems of gender specific pronouns (a problem which has different implications in English and in French); and the use of a non-sexist vocabulary. Finally, it explores briefly the relationship between non-discriminatory language and other aspects of equality in the legal profession.
The Dictionary of Bias-Free Usage: A Guide to Nondiscriminatory Language
Part 1 User's Guide. Part 2 Writing Guidelines: Definition of Terms Sex and Gender Naming General Rules Pseudogeneric "He" Pseudogeneric "Man/Men/Mankind" Special Problems. Part 3 Word Finder of Non-biased Terms.
The Area of Freedom, Security and Justice ten years on: Successes and future challenges under the Stockholm Programme. CEPS Paperbacks. June 2010
This book celebrates the tenth anniversary of the Area of Freedom, Security and Justice (AFSJ) by bringing together the views of key practitioners and policy-makers who have played an outstanding role in thinking about and shaping EU policies on freedom, security and justice. 
 
Ten years ago, the member states transferred competences to the EU for law and policy-making in the fields of immigration, asylum and border controls, and began the transfer process for criminal justice and policing. This decade of European cooperation on AFSJ policies has experienced very dynamic convergence, the enactment of a large body of European law and the setting-up of numerous EU agencies working in these domains. Such dynamism in policy-making has not been without challenges and vulnerabilities, however. As this collective volume shows, the main dilemmas that lie ahead relate to an effective (while more plural) institutional framework under the Treaty of Lisbon, stronger judicial scrutiny through a greater role for national courts and the Court of Justice in Luxembourg, better mechanisms for evaluating and monitoring the implementation of EU AFSJ law and a more solid fundamental rights strategy. The contributions in this volume address the progress achieved so far in these policy areas, identify the challenges for future European cooperation in the AFSJ and put forward possible paths for making more progress in the next generation of the EU’s AFSJ.