Discriminatory bubble zone law 'not in the public interest'

The charges against Fr. Tony have been dropped. Good. But they never should have happened in the first place.

'Bubble zone' law constitutionally challenged

“Our position is the legislation is such a serious Charter breach that it should never have been available to prosecute a man in his 80s peacefully carrying out his priestly duties, and protesting legislation that effectively amounts to anti-blasphemy laws,” Polizogopoulos said. “Just its attempt to outlaw ‘discouraging language’ on a public street in the nation’s capital — or anywhere in Canada — seems to exemplify what the courts have defined as legal overreach.” ... 

..."On the day he was arrested four years ago, Van Hee was deemed to be within the 50 metre legal “bubble zone” around the Morgentaler clinic on Bank Street.He held signs that read: “The Primacy of Free Speech: Cornerstone of Western Civilization” and “Without Free Speech the State is a Corpse.” 

He was subsequently charged with intimidation or attempted intimidation. The single initial charge was later dropped and replaced by two charges of “inform(ing) or attempt(ing) to inform a person concerning issues related to abortion services, by any means, including oral, written or graphic means,” and “perform(ing) or attempt(ing) to perform an act of disapproval concerning issues related to abortion services, by any means.”"

Fr. Tony's charges were a witch hunt. I have been with Fr. Tony when he holds that sign--a sign that does not even mention abortion. Charged with 'intimidation or attempted intimidation' is a joke. Fr. Tony is the least intimidating person I have ever met. He surely did not 'inform anyone concerning issues relating to abortion'. How could he? He never speaks to anyone about abortion when he sits there quietly holding his sign, and his sign said nothing about abortion.

In fact, if a person of the pro-choice variety, with purple hair and a ring through their nose and carrying the same sign, they would never have been arrested. Fr. Tony was arrested because he was a Catholic priest protesting the freedom of speech that this law violates. Everyone knows Fr. Tony is pro-life, so that just ticked off another of the check boxes that makes him a perfect a scapegoat for this Charter violation law that only targets pro-life people most of whom are Catholics or Evangelical Christians.

Fr. Tony's Charter Challenge against this discriminatory law goes ahead. Thank God for that.

Positive news on Freedom of Speech Charter Challenge

The Catholic Civil Rights League has joined Fr. Tony Van Hee in his constitutional challenge to Ontario's bubble zone law, Bill 163, Safe Access to Abortion Service Act.

As well, Dr. Jordan Peterson mentioned Fr. Tony's case in his June 10th newsletter when he referenced the recent article in the Ottawa Citizen on Fr. Tony's case:

OTTAWA CITIZEN - KELLY EGAN

Charged priest uses charter freedoms in strike at abortion bubble-zone law

"He is 83, tiny and, in the eyes of the law, a threat."

JBP: "Bubble Zone." Where the laws of the Dominion no longer apply?

It does seem to be the case as sad as that seems--that Canadians are forced to go to court to protect their freedom of speech rights.

As we already know, Fr. Tony's text for his signs were inspired from Jordan Peterson's talk at the Ottawa Public Library on March 11 or 12, 2017.

Here is something Fr. Tony wrote about his work for the Interim back in 1996. It is still applicable today:

"Randall Terry, founder and leader of Operation Rescue, prisoner for Christ and the child in the womb, along with Joan Andrews Bell, Linda Gibbons and all pro-life prisoners of a conscience, are such powerful witnesses.

A small but essential key to such outstanding service, however, is simply showing up “for work” each day.

If I’m not in my place when the right moment [comes] along, God has to wait for another right moment. 

As Mother Teresa said, I’m not asked to be successful, but to be faithful. “Paul plants, Apollo waters, but God gives the increase.” Faith, fidelity, courage, perseverance, are my part.”

"O my Jesus, You do not give a reward for the successful performance of a work, but for the good will and the labor undertaken. Therefore, I am completely at peace, even if all my undertakings and efforts should be thwarted or should come to naught. If I do all that is in my power, the rest is not my business. And therefore the greatest storms do not disturb the depths of my peace; the will of God dwells in my conscience." [Divine Mercy In My Soul, the Diary of St Faustina Kowalska, Marian Press, Stockbridge, Massachusetts, #952.]"

All posts on Fr. Tony's case here.
Donations are still being accepted for Fr. Tony's case here.  

The right to life and the right to free speech

From the Christian Heritage Party of Canada:

Dear Members and Supporters of CHP Canada / CHP Hamilton Mountain

Next to the Right to Life what can be more important in a nation than the Right to Freedom of Speech?  Without this right we cannot publicly scrutinize public policies or those who may have an agenda to bring harm to Canadian citizens. Yet increasingly we are witnessing attempts by government at various levels to shut down free speech.  This is a very dangerous trend.

CHP Hamilton Mountain has approval for 3 bus shelter ads to be placed on the Hamilton Mountain for the month of May (see sample image).  In addition to the bus shelter ads we also plan to produce flyers (see attached) and distribute them to homes in the area of the bus shelters and beyond.

The estimated cost of this ‘Free Speech Matters’ campaign is $1850 which includes 1500 flyers but we need people to partner with us. Currently we are appealing for funding partners.

Remember that donations to CHP Hamilton Mountain are considered political donations and as such up to 75% of your donation (provided you pay taxes) is refundable on next year’s tax return. So a $100 donation can cost you as little as $25 or a $50 donation could cost you only $12.50.

Please, at this time consider partnering with us financially by sending a cheque made out to ‘CHP Hamilton Mountain’ and on the memo line add ‘Free Speech Matters’.

Please mail your cheque to:

CHP Hamilton Mountain 

P.O. Box 30028

1599 Upper James Street

Hamilton Ontario

L9B 0E4

We need to sign the contracts for the Bus Shelter Ads by mid-February and so we ask you to please consider responding very soon.

Thank you so much

Jim Enos 

CEO

CHP Canada, Hamilton Mountain

The Christian Heritage Party of Canada

chphamiltonmountain.ca

Fr. Tony Van Hee's court dates

Fr. Tony Van Hee's case has been split into two parts and will be heard separately.

1) The civil challenge to the law, on the constitutionality of the abortion bubble zone law, will be heard in Superior Court. Date unknown at this point.

2) The criminal case will be heard July 6-7, 2020 in the Ontario Court of Justice.

Prayers would be good for Fr. Tony and his case. In fact the Rosary would be an especially good prayer to say.

If you want to hear some amazing stories on the power of the Rosary as a weapon against evil listen to Dr. Taylor Marshall and Fr. Donald Calloway. And you don't have to be a Catholic to say the Rosary either. Don't know it? No problem, just read here.

Ontario government will not appeal our FOI case

This is great news. For us. For Ontario citizens. For people who love democracy. For people who love freedom of expression rights. For people who love justice.

Charter challenge - we won - you can't hide abortion information

The Judge ruled in our favour. See judgement here:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B_QDsYLWnwO6ODBUTGM3d1liNG8/view?usp=sharing

We were successful and the portion of the law excluding abortion-related information was struck down.

Abortion information - ask and you shall receive?

I have now asked the Ontario Minister of Health and Long Term care for abortion information starting back on Feb 2, 2017 (that's over 10 weeks ago) and my fourth request was yesterday.

Dr. Hoskins doesn't respond to my requests.

I was in court on February 1, 2017 and was told by the Government's lawyer Dan Guttman, that all I had to do was ask for this information, and I would receive it. Mr. Guttman said this to judge Marc Labrosse who was listening to my charter challenge case against the Ontario government for hiding abortion information.

Contrary to Mr. Guttman's statement though, this is not a case of ask and you shall receive. 

Was Mr. Guttman speaking falsehoods to judge Labrosse? Was Mr. Guttman misinformed by Kathleen and Eric? Was Mr. Guttman hoping to dupe the judge into ruling against my case because, hey we'll just tell that Maloney person she can get this abortion information outside of FIPPA and maybe if we just tell her this she'll just shut up already?

I can't answer these questions, but they are pretty darn good ones even if I do say so myself.

In the meantime, I wait. And I wait. Hopefully the cows will come home soon.

Defunding abortion worries the Ontario government

I noticed something very interesting during our court session on Wednesday. The government's lawyer, throughout his arguments to the judge, kept bringing up the notion of defunding abortion.

Remember that one of the government's arguments is that I can still meaningfully comment on abortion without having accurate abortion statistics, or abortion costs or all the myriad things associated with abortion like abortion policy, gestational ages, repeat abortions, etc.

Not only did their lawyer argue that I could still comment on abortion without this information, he also raised what other pro-life people talked about and blogged about in the context of abortion as well. They could also comment on abortion without this information. (Also interesting that other groups and websites were entered into evidence when our case had nothing to do with them.)

So why this continual mentioning of how many of us would love to defund abortion, which also had nothing at all to do with my case? Why keep bringing it up?

I think this finally brings us to the heart of why the Ontario Government chose to hide abortion information in the first place. And it has nothing to do with their health and safety argument (more on that later). By their forcing us to rely on CIHI's very under reported abortion statistics (CIHI reported 23,746 while the government reported 45,471 for one year.) and not on actual performed abortions, the government is worried that our calls to defund abortion might finally get more traction from the public at large, if they only knew just how much we spend on abortion each year in Ontario.

For instance at $1000/abortion relying on CIHis numbers, that would be $23,756,000 compared to $45,471,000 spent on abortion in one year only. (This is an estimate of course, because we don't know the actual cost per abortion. In fact we are perpetually forced into estimating the cost of abortion because we don't have access to that information). That's public money spent on one medically unnecessary medical procedure. And it's almost twice as much as we thought it was. And it's completely hidden from the public.

With the Liberal government in such a mess financially, that's a lot of money to spend, year after year, after year, after year, on the willful killing of innocent, defenseless human beings.

This is the real reason the Ontario government decided to hide abortion information: they really don't like us talking about defunding abortion. Seems like their lawyer did us a favour.

Stop Censorship tour opens in Ottawa

Last night Mike Mike Schouten, and John Sikkema from weneedalaw.ca and ARPA Canada kicked off our Ontario tour to educate citizens on what the Ontario government is up to in censoring abortion information in Ontario.

There are eight more stops they will be making starting Monday. This affects all people in Ontario who care about open, accountable, and transparent government.

Our case is also about our Charter rights of freedom of expression, and freedom of the press. When we are stopped from having a meaningful discussion on a subject, any subject, especially one as politically charged as abortion, we need to stand up and challenge the powers that be.

Our case does this. I hope you can attend one of the upcoming sessions.

Stop Censorship Tour begins in Ottawa Jan 7, 2017

It doesn't matter if you are pro-life or pro-choice. You should be concerned about the Ontario Government's decision to hide all abortion information from Freedom of Information (FOI) requests.

Together with ARPA Canada I am taking the Ontario Government to court, to challenge my freedom of expression rights--rights that were trampled on when the Government secretly changed the law which previously allowed access to all abortion information.

This meant I could no longer request the number and cost of abortions performed in Ontario every year. It is now hidden from the public. This is information about only one tax-payer funded medical procedure--abortion. This government does not hide information about any other medical procedure. Not yet anyway.

This information has been unavailable through FOI requests since 2012 (the last year we have data for is 2010).

This week We Need a Law begins a series of open events to explain our case. The Stop Censorship tour begins this Saturday here in Ottawa from 7:30 to 9:00 at the Ottawa Reformed Presbyterian Church, 466 Woodland Ave, Ottawa.

Other venues in Ontario will take place around the province.

If we want an open, transparent, accountable government; if we want to protect our charter rights; if we want to be able to freely debate and comment on what our government does on our behalf, we have to fight for it. I hope you can attend one of the information sessions.

Ontario government wants suggestions for open government

The Ontario government tells use that they want to hear our ideas on their "Open Government" consultations.

"Submit your idea for the open government consultation 

We want to implement new open government commitments that help make Ontario more open, transparent and collaborative. We need your help. 

Your ideas could be used to:

• improve access to government-held information
• strengthen accountability and transparency
• increase public participation in government decision-making
• expand the use of technology to make life easier for people

For inspiration, check out commitments from other governments around the world.

Read the submission criteria below and submit your idea by August 26, 2016. 

We will report back on what we heard during this consultation throughout the summer and fall of 2016."

I will try and not let my extreme cynicism on this topic colour what I have to say next. Okay I lied.

I have absolutely no faith that the government of Ontario will heed anything we say on their decision to hide abortion information from the taxpayers of Ontario.

That being said, I think we should still give them our comments. We get so little opportunity in Ontario to participate in democracy (other than elections) that every opportunity we get to tell them how they could actually become open, transparent and accountable (because clearly they are not at the moment), we should seize on. If enough people did this maybe things would change. Probably not. But maybe.

So I hope you will fill out their survey. Comments must submitted by tomorrow, Friday August 26.

Here are a few ideas for you based on my own experience dealing with both the federal and provincial (ontario) access to information laws in Canada.

One of my points below is about fees for freedom of information requests that I do in Ontario (FOIs) and access to information requests I do federally (ATIPs). Both the province and the feds can charge for the work involved in providing information access requests. But my experience has been that Ontario is more apt to charge those fees than the feds are. 

All information requests (both for Ontario and federally) require a $5 up front fee and I have no problem with that, it's the subsequent processing fees that can be hundreds of dollars which make them prohibitive for the average person. Newspapers make access requests all the time, but they would have budgets for that, regular citizens do not. So it becomes very difficult to do information access requests when you are expected to fork out (In some cases) hundreds of dollars.

Access to information quidelines are always supposed to default to making information easily available in a timely manner. The practice though, is that there are so many exceptions, this rarely happens. There are limits defined as to how long you should have to wait, usually 30 days. But you almost never get the information in that time. Because of the numerous escape clauses they write into the access to information laws, they can always quote some section of the act, and tell you this is why there is a delay. I've waited up to a year at times for information and even longer.

Anyway below is what I will be submitting to their survey. This would would go a long way to making the Ontario government actually being open, transparent and accountable. Because I can assure you. They are not open, accountable or transparent now. 

• The government's decision to exclude abortion information from the Freedom of Information and Privacy Act (FIPPA) should be rescinded. This change affects all access to abortion information, even when there is no identifiable personal information like hospital names, doctor names or patient names. There is no privacy concerns at all with making this data available. This change was made to FIPPA without public consultation, and without debate in the legislature. This fact goes against the very goal of this survey which is about open, transparent and accountable government. The Information and Privacy Commissioner said in 2000, in regards to a similar situation, where an organization was refused abortion information by the Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care said: "In my view, to deny access to generalized, non-identifying statistics regarding an important public policy issue such as the provision of abortion services would have the effect of hindering citizens' ability to participate meaningfully in the democratic process and undermine the government's accountability to the public."
• When government asks for input (like this survey), the results of the input itself should be made public.
• Don't charge excessive fees for Freedom of Information requests. The $5 initial fee should be all that is required for an FOI. 
• Access to information held by government departments should be provided in a timely manner. The practice currently is that there are so many exceptions to the time limit (usually 30 days), that this rarely happens. One almost never gets the information in that time and one usually has to wait months to get it.
• When a citizen writes a letter to the premier or to a Minister, responses should a) be prompt and not take months, and b) should answer the questions asked, and not obfuscate and or write form letter responses. I have dozens of examples where my questions were never answered. Ministers and the premier should be accountable to the electorate, and not only by saying the words that they are accountable, open and transparent, but they should actually be open, transparent and accountable.

A final quote from Kathleen Wynne, Premier of Ontario:

"Our Open Government initiative will help create the transparent, accessible government the people of Ontario deserve. This is part of our vision for One Ontario, where every voice counts."

I hope you will also fill out their survey. Because you absolutely do deserve an open transparent government.

Ontario government wants suggestions for open government

The Ontario government tells use that they want to hear our ideas on their "Open Government" consultations.

"Submit your idea for the open government consultation 

We want to implement new open government commitments that help make Ontario more open, transparent and collaborative. We need your help. 

Your ideas could be used to:

• improve access to government-held information
• strengthen accountability and transparency
• increase public participation in government decision-making
• expand the use of technology to make life easier for people

For inspiration, check out commitments from other governments around the world.

Read the submission criteria below and submit your idea by August 26, 2016. 

We will report back on what we heard during this consultation throughout the summer and fall of 2016."

I will try and not let my extreme cynicism on this topic colour what I have to say next. Okay I lied.

I have absolutely no faith that the government of Ontario will heed anything we say on their decision to hide abortion information from the taxpayers of Ontario.

That being said, I think we should still give them our comments. We get so little opportunity in Ontario to participate in democracy (other than elections) that every opportunity we get to tell them how they could actually become open, transparent and accountable (because clearly they are not at the moment), we should seize on. If enough people did this maybe things would change. Probably not. But maybe.

So I hope you will fill out their survey. Comments must submitted by tomorrow, Friday August 26.

Here are a few ideas for you based on my own experience dealing with both the federal and provincial (ontario) access to information laws in Canada.

One of my points below is about fees for freedom of information requests that I do in Ontario (FOIs) and access to information requests I do federally (ATIPs). Both the province and the feds can charge for the work involved in providing information access requests. But my experience has been that Ontario is more apt to charge those fees than the feds are. 

All information requests (both for Ontario and federally) require a $5 up front fee and I have no problem with that, it's the subsequent processing fees that can be hundreds of dollars which make them prohibitive for the average person. Newspapers make access requests all the time, but they would have budgets for that, regular citizens do not. So it becomes very difficult to do information access requests when you are expected to fork out (In some cases) hundreds of dollars.

Access to information quidelines are always supposed to default to making information easily available in a timely manner. The practice though, is that there are so many exceptions, this rarely happens. There are limits defined as to how long you should have to wait, usually 30 days. But you almost never get the information in that time. Because of the numerous escape clauses they write into the access to information laws, they can always quote some section of the act, and tell you this is why there is a delay. I've waited up to a year at times for information and even longer.

Anyway below is what I will be submitting to their survey. This would would go a long way to making the Ontario government actually being open, transparent and accountable. Because I can assure you. They are not open, accountable or transparent now. 

• The government's decision to exclude abortion information from the Freedom of Information and Privacy Act (FIPPA) should be rescinded. This change affects all access to abortion information, even when there is no identifiable personal information like hospital names, doctor names or patient names. There is no privacy concerns at all with making this data available. This change was made to FIPPA without public consultation, and without debate in the legislature. This fact goes against the very goal of this survey which is about open, transparent and accountable government. The Information and Privacy Commissioner said in 2000, in regards to a similar situation, where an organization was refused abortion information by the Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care said: "In my view, to deny access to generalized, non-identifying statistics regarding an important public policy issue such as the provision of abortion services would have the effect of hindering citizens' ability to participate meaningfully in the democratic process and undermine the government's accountability to the public."
• When government asks for input (like this survey), the results of the input itself should be made public.
• Don't charge excessive fees for Freedom of Information requests. The $5 initial fee should be all that is required for an FOI. 
• Access to information held by government departments should be provided in a timely manner. The practice currently is that there are so many exceptions to the time limit (usually 30 days), that this rarely happens. One almost never gets the information in that time and one usually has to wait months to get it.
• When a citizen writes a letter to the premier or to a Minister, responses should a) be prompt and not take months, and b) should answer the questions asked, and not obfuscate and or write form letter responses. I have dozens of examples where my questions were never answered. Ministers and the premier should be accountable to the electorate, and not only by saying the words that they are accountable, open and transparent, but they should actually be open, transparent and accountable.

A final quote from Kathleen Wynne, Premier of Ontario:

"Our Open Government initiative will help create the transparent, accessible government the people of Ontario deserve. This is part of our vision for One Ontario, where every voice counts."

I hope you will also fill out their survey. Because you absolutely do deserve an open transparent government.

How can we discuss abortion when we don't have data?

If you Google "how many abortions are done in Ontario each year?" the first link that comes up is a four page chart by pro-abortion Joyce Arthur.

So what does this chart reveal? It reveals there is a lot we don't know about Canadian abortion statistics in general, and Ontario abortion statistics in particular. Of course we already knew this right?

What is interesting about Arthur's charts is that she makes a lot of assumptions about the rate of abortion in Ontario. Which is fair; I always have to do the same. Because when you try and discuss anything without accurate data, you have to make assumptions--you have no choice.

I won't get into why I disagree with Arthur's assumptions, as I've already done that many times before, but right now, that isn't the point. Right now the point is that if you're trying to have a meaningful conversation about anything, never mind about something with as many political, social, and financial repercussions as abortion--well it's all kind of ridiculous, isn't it?

How can she and I even talk about the data and what it means, when we don't even have the data?

In fact, in Arthur's four page analysis, she devotes quite a bit of space to the assumptions she makes about Canada's statistics, including Ontario's abortion numbers based on my freedom of information requests for 2010, the last year we have decent Ontario abortion data. And she has to make assumptions. We all do, because our data is hidden at the whim of a government who did it for political reasons. A non-accountable, non-transparent, non-open government.

As a pro-life person, how can I meaningfully refute Joyce Arthur's assertions that abortions in Ontario are going down when I can't see the data? If someone out there in google land searches for Ontario abortion numbers in Ontario, they may think rates are going up, or that abortion rates are going down, depending on whose information they read. 

If abortions are really going down, or if they're really going up, and we know which, there would be no need to speculate or assume. All of us could then meaningfully comment on the facts we see, and then we could meaningfully discuss the implications of that reality.

This is why our Charter case is so very important.

If I was still able to get abortion information through freedom of information requests (based on OHIP billings), I would be able to tell you AND the pro-abortions the following facts about abortions in Ontario:

• How many abortions are done in doctor's offices
• How many medical abortions there are
• How many fetal reductions there are
• The total number of all clinic abortions
• Gestational age (weeks) of abortions done in clinics
• Gestational age (weeks) for the large "unknown" figure for hospital abortions
• Information on the method of abortion for clinic data
• The costs of abortion to the citizens of Ontario

And then I could meaningfully comment on the implications of these facts. Now I am only left guessing. And so is Joyce Arthur. 

Charter Challenge for Freedom of Expression goes to court

We've started to raise funds for our Charter Challenge against the Ontario government for hiding abortion information.

We also have our court date set for Feb 1, 2017.

If you can help financially that would be awesome.

Medically necessary help for autism and not abortion

In 2010, Ontario spent at least 70 million dollars on medically unnecessary abortions. (2010 is the last year we have accurate statistics for, because of the Ontario government's Official Abortion Secrecy Policy.)

Now we learn that there are parents with autism, who can't get treatment for their children, and have to pay for the treatment themselves, at great personal cost.

"Antonio and Linda Dimanbro have spent over $40,000 to help their son Anthony, 7, in the absence of provincial funding. They waited over three years for treatment, from Anthony’s diagnosis at the age of two-and-a-half until last year, when a fundraisers and friends and family helped fund his treatment. Kara Onofino and her husband have poured over $60,000 into support for their son Justin, 7 — but she also noted “it’s not fair” to families who can’t afford that."

Does this make any sense at all?

That 70 million could go a long way to helping families suffering from the lack of proper medical care for their children suffering autism, help that is actually medically necessary.

Kathleen Wynne should be ashamed of herself.

Ontario PCs - hold Liberals to account for hidden agenda

Dear Monte [McNaughton],

I received your letter in the mail asking me for a donation to your [Progressive Conservative] party. I might consider giving the party a donation, if your party would stand up in the House and ask the question I asked Patrick Brown below (to which I never received a response). And, if your party would actively advocate and make an issue of this undemocratic, secretive law. 

If and when I hear that the PC Party is actively engaged on this issue, and holding the Liberals to account for their secret agenda on this, please contact me again.

Thank you.

Sincerely,

Patricia Maloney

http://run-with-life.blogspot.ca/p/blog-page.html

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Patricia Maloney <maloneyp64@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, Sep 15, 2015 at 1:44 PM
Subject: Liberals hiding medical information
To: patrick.brown@ontariopc.com
Cc: Patricia Maloney <maloneyp64@gmail.com>

Dear Patrick,

Congratulations on your recent victory for your seat in the Ontario Legislature.

As you know I am taking the Ontario government to court with my Charter Challenge.

Could you ask Kathleen Wynne a question during question period about their hiding information about a tax-funded medical procedure (abortion), and why they did it without a word of debate in the legislature?

I have asked Kathleen and the then Minister Deb Matthews for their reasons for this, and they have continually refused to answer me.

Please let me know if you need any additional information.

Thank you.

Sincerely,

Patricia Maloney

http://run-with-life.blogspot.ca/p/blog-page.html

Abortion cost in Ontario: it's a secret

Why is it that in Ontario, a mother of a child feels the need, to fund raise for a new cardiopulmonary bypass machine for CHEO? The cost for the new machine is about a half million dollars.

Don't get me wrong. I think it's awesome that this woman is doing this for people like her own daughter Adeline, and for other children just like her. What I have a problem with, is why can't Kathleen Wynne's government pay for this machine? Why is it left up to mothers like Sandra to raise the money? I thought we had public health care in Ontario?

Kathleen Wynne's government does fund abortions every year in Ontario though, to the tune of at least 44 million dollars.

(With 44,091 abortions done in 2010, which is the only reliable number we have for abortions, and at a cost of $1000/abortion. The cost could be even higher since Kathleen Wynne's government continues to hide all information about abortion, so we will never know what we are spending on abortion. It's a secret.)

The pro-abortions tell us that abortions are medically necessary. Which they are not. I would argue though, that these cardiopulmonary bypass machines might actually be medically necessary.

That 44 million could buy 88 of those machines. In one year alone. If we stopped funding abortion in Ontario.

Sticking to the facts and evidence on abortion statistics

I learned this week that Fake Person supports our Charter challenge with this tweet.

Makes sense, because we know officially reported abortion statistics in Canada aren't very useful. They are grossly under-reported (by at least 45% in Ontario alone). They aren't based on medical billings, but rather, on hospital records. So all abortions performed in doctor's offices are not reported, and it's not mandatory for clinics to report them, so many don't. Hence their inaccuracy.

So it's very important to be able to get accurate abortion information, hence our Charter challenge.

I write a great deal on this topic. I have published statistics based on doctor's billing records, information I have received from CIHI, from Stats Canada, etc. I'd say my track record for abortion statistics is pretty sound.

But this is what I don't understand. In this blog entry which was linked from her tweet above, Fake Person makes fun of me, and pro-lifers in general, using our charter challenge as a kick off point to launch into one of her typical ridiculing spree of us.

What is the point of that? If she agrees with what we are doing, what is the need to make fun of us?

Then she says this:

As a fan of facts and evidence, DJ! generally supports the release of information, provided the safety of patients and providers is guaranteed.

So she's a fan of "facts and evidence", but is worried about the safety of patients and providers? Since I never ask for private information, she can rest assured that this isn't the case. And that fact has been published numerous times by me, and by others.

Then she ends her piece by linking to Joyce Arthur's abortion stats, which are a compilation of CIHI's (self acknowledged) inaccurate stats.

I notice that in her chart, Arthur publishes a chart showing the gestational age of abortions from CIHI for years 2007 to 2013.

These numbers are for abortions done after 21 weeks, and range from 537 to 564 a year. What Arthur doesn't tell you, is that these numbers are based on only a small subset of all abortions, for which the gestational ages are known.

Arthur frequently concludes, that late term therefore are only performed in "exceptional circumstances" and are "extremely rare". But as I've shown on at least three occasions before, her "facts and evidence" on late-term abortions are wanting. As I detailed in the following posts below, there is no way Arthur can know if abortions are performed only in "exceptional circumstances" and are "extremely rare".

The actual late-term abortion numbers could very well be a lot higher.

For 2009 CIHI statistics.
http://run-with-life.blogspot.ca/2012/01/great-pro-abortion-urban-legend.html

For 2010 CIHI statistics.
http://run-with-life.blogspot.ca/2013/02/we-dont-know-what-were-talking-about.html
http://run-with-life.blogspot.ca/2012/11/anti-abortion-laws-are-unjust-harmful.html

For 2012 CIHI statistics.
http://run-with-life.blogspot.ca/2014/06/repeating-untruths-doesnt-make-them-true.html

Sticking to the "facts and evidence" is a good thing. I intend to keep doing that.

Access to information laws protects information seekers

Two weeks ago, in a press conference at Queen’s Park, I announced my Charter challenge against the Ontario government’s amendments to the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (the FIPPA).

Together with my co-applicants, the Association for Reformed Political Action (ARPA) Canada, we will argue that our Charter right to freedom of expression, which includes freedom of the press, is violated by this Act.

Some information is routinely made public by the government, and some of it is not. In order to protect citizens' rights to see information that isn't publicly available (e.g., communications between government officials on how they came to a decision, or how much they spent on a particular project) we have access to information laws. 

In Ontario, the purpose of this law, (called the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act or FIPPA), is twofold. It protects citizens' privacy. It also stipulates under what conditions information must and must not be made available to citizens.

Access to information requests are an extremely important mechanism to hold governments accountable to the electorate. As Pierre Trudeau once said:

"Democratic progress requires the ready availability of true and complete information. In this way people can objectively evaluate their government's policy. To act otherwise is to give way to despotic secrecy."

The media regularly makes Freedom of Information (FOI) requests to break stories on government spending, decision-making or other action. 

Anyone who reads this blog knows that I also make FOI requests regularly and that I can't do that anymore in Ontario. Because in 2012 the Ontario Government changed FIPPA to exclude one medical service from FOI requests, and one medical service only: abortion services. They added clause 65(5.7) 

"This Act does not apply to records relating to the provision of abortion services.”

(I only ever ask for aggregate numbers, and never ask for personal information, like doctor's or patent's names.)

So I can't comment anymore on doctor's OHIP billings for abortion services.

I took the government to court, and after two and a half years, they released the two page document I was looking for. So I should be happy right? Wrong. Because they released the document outside the Act, I was not protected by the Act. It also means that although in theory I may still be able to obtain information on abortion, there is no guarantee of my obtaining such information. The government can arbitrarily refuse me.

It is far preferable that information be released through the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act. That's because the government must follow its own rules in releasing information. But there are no rules for releasing abortion information outside the Act. And if they refuse to give me the information I am looking for, I have no recourse. 

When information is subject to FIPPA, not only do I have recourse (for instance if I am refused information), but the act also offers guarantees of response rates (like 30 days), etc. And if information is not released within the required 30 days, they must tell me why there is a delay.

So the Act protects my rights. When information is released outside the Act, I am literally at the mercy of the government. They can just say "no", with no explanation, since no reason is required. When information is refused inside the Act, I must be provided with an explanation as to why it was refused. For example, cabinet confidences, or legitimate privacy concerns. 

Releasing information inside the Act, although far from perfect, does ensure a lot more accountability from the government, and more protection for me. 

FIPPA ensures that the government is accountable to all of us, and that includes the media, with the information it holds on our behalf. This clause is a bad law and it must be struck down.

More information:

The ARPA Canada FIPPA challenge - FAQs

Our case

Why a Charter challenge for hiding abortion statistics?

More on our Court Challenge against the Ontario Government for hiding abortion information.

UPDATE: Here is our factum.

This was taken yesterday at Queen's Park at the Ontario Legislature.