Dans ce court article, je propose en m'appuyant sur l’œuvre de Paul Ricœur que la réalisation de la liberté dépend en partie de l'anonymat des institutions politiques. D'abord, j'explique que les institutions constituent la nécessaire médiation de la liberté. Ensuite, je distingue deux formes d'anonymat des institutions. Alors que la première exprime la perversion de certaines institutions, la seconde appartient à leur essence. Je conclus en suggérant que toute critique de l'anonymat des institutions devrait prendre en compte cette distinction.

Current Canadian law, by silence rather than explicit choice, does not prevent anonymous sperm donation. Anonymous sperm donation, however, may soon disappear. In the recent Pratten decision, the Supreme Court of British Columbia determined that anonymity violates the constitutional rights of children born of Assisted Reproductive Technologies (ARTs). While finding that children should have access to genetic knowledge, the court failed to consider the impact of the elimination of anonymity on other parties to ARTs, both sperm donors and ART families. The case was appealed by the Attorney General of British Columbia and heard by the British Columbia Court of Appeal in February 2012 and was overturned. While agreeing with the decision of the Court of Appeal, this article argues that the court failed to provide a fulsome analysis of issues related to privacy, genetic knowledge, alternative family formation, and the false assertion that sperm donation makes a man a father.