To Justin Trudeau et al. - Letter from a grandmother

To: Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, The Ottawa Police, Ottawa Mayor, CTV Ottawa, CBC Ottawa, Global News Ottawa

From: Maureen Ward

February 24, 2022 

To whom it may concern,  

I am not sure who to address my outrage to in this matter because the people who should be concerned are the guilty parties.  

The horrific scenes in this video; the disgusting acts of violence against numerous peaceful protestors including an 80-year-old woman as well as Andrew Lawton, of True North and Alexandra Lavoie, of the Rebel disgusted me to my very soul and not a word of concern do I hear from our Prime Minister, the Mayor of Ottawa our mainstream media, CBC, and CTV, Global TV etc. Nothing! 

I transcribed the portion of the video that depicts some of the disgusting and violent actions of the Ottawa Police on the weekend. It begins around 10 minutes into the video, and I ask that you watch and listen to the entire video. Please take the time to watch it to the end to see the absolute hypocrisy of the legacy media spinning the events to suit their own untruthful agenda. It is absolutely hateful to demonize once again the protestors and ignore the truth and spin everything to suit an agenda. I can't even think of a word to describe such a web of lies surrounding the Freedom Convoy since the beginning including the demonizing of everyone involved with the protest along with their supporters. You know what I mean,

And I thank Candice Malcolm from True North for her truthful and honest presentation. What a breath of fresh air.

Maureen Ward, Ottawa Ontario 

Transcript of a small portion of the video beginning  at around 10 minutes into the video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=23RdwjBsiew&t=132s Unreal use of propaganda in Canada from True North.

What is happening in Canada? Great question. What is happening in Canada? Well, what is happening in Canada? It's a Great question. Well, over the weekend, what did we see? We saw a militarized police zone using undue force using over-the-top force and completely disproportionate force against a group of unarmed and peaceful protesters just by virtue of them being in Ottawa meant that they were the target of the police and the Trudeau government efforts.

And unsurprisingly, It devolved into a very chaotic, very dangerous situation, so I'll show you some of the low lights from the weekend of police brutality. And let me just make this point. If this was happening at any other circumstance in recent history. If this is happening at any other point in the last two years against any other group, if this was not a group of working-class truckers, of people who said we've had enough of this government overreach of this medical tyranny that we've been living under. If it was any other group and you saw images like this of the police, the left would be on the complete other side. There would be over the top calls for these cops to be fired, to be reprimanded, defund the police, any small act of police using force, not even disproportionate force, just police using force in their job over the past two years has been completely blown out of proportion as an instance of police brutality and why we ought to defund the police, OK? I see people who spent the last two years yelling about that issue are now either completely silent or they're cheering on the police brutality because they are cracking down on a group of conservative adjacent or conservative align protesters. People who come from a working-class background. It is so stark. It is so hypocritical. It is unbelievable.  

Regardless, here are a couple instances of what it looked like. So first we have a veteran who is manhandled by police officers: knee him several times in the kidney. Here's what that looked like.  

Next, we have a protester who is hauled away by cops. Watch for the end of the clip because a police officer takes his rifle, takes his gun, and uses it to beat a protester with the stock of his gun and you can see him do two solid blows there with a stock of his gun. This is police brutality. This is totally unacceptable. Here is what that looked like.  

Next, here is a police officer rushing a protestor and hitting him once he's already on the ground.  ( you can hear people crying for the police to stop)

And so, as the police were using increasingly violent tactics in order to crack down on these peaceful protesters, they at some point decided to bring in horses for what? To do some kind of crowd control? I don't even understand. This is right outside the Chateau Laurier hotel and upscale hotel, right in the heart of Parliament, right in the center of Ottawa. They bring out the police and as you can see in the kerfuffle in the excitement of police going through a crowd trampled 2 individuals and knocked them over, stepped on one of the women, including an 80 year old First Nations woman.. This is tough to watch, but here is what this looks like.  Just in case you want to see how bad it was Here Is the aerial view and still you can see the horses trampling on two individuals who just failed to get out of the way, you could see from the footage there that it wasn't like people knew that these horses were coming. They kind of came out of nowhere. They whipped around the corner. These two individuals clearly didn't see what was going on. The woman who was knocked over, the 80 year old woman was on a mobility scooter and from the aerial picture you can see the scooter on the ground. So its not like this is an agile woman who could easily get out of the way. She obviously had no idea this was coming, and I don't know what was worse the fact that this was the way the police were behaving and acting or the fact that there were a lot of people cheering them on cheering this kind of thing on and that the media didn't really bat an eye, didn't really bat an eye over the use if anything they were out there saying, oh, this isn't trampling. These people weren't trampled.  

And we had something new that I'd never seen before. The Ottawa police were tweeting in real-time pushing out their own propaganda, their own version of events. So they weren't really taking questions. They weren't really responding.  

Journalists at one point I was on the phone trying to confirm whether or not anyone had been killed in the protests. No response, no replies. I left messages. I called multiple lines. I emailed. I sent the messages on Twitter. No response. Whatsoever, the only response you get from the Ottawa police the're tweeting their own timeline of events in their own perspective, twisting and spinning the facts to fit their narrative of what was going on.  

So here is an example of that, Ottawa police wrote. We hear your concern for people on the ground after the horses dispersed the crowd, anyone who fell got up and walked away. We're unaware of any injuries. A bicycle was thrown at a horse further down the line and caused the horse to trip. The horse was uninjured. OK, so a lot of people on Twitter were really upset about this because the idea that everyone who was hurt got up and walked away. Well, it just simply isn't true. Here is a woman who was trampled. Her name is Candy, and she wrote this.   I dare to correct the "no injury" statement of the Ottawa Police.  I was nearly killed. Again, 80 year Old First Nations woman. Usually, this would be the kind of woman that the left would hold up as a victim of police brutality and they would be on her side and they would be there demanding the resignation of the officers of whoever ordered that, the police chief or the local politicians, but instead, because of the backdrop of this freedom convoy. Nothing. Nothing. No. No, you don't hear anything from the left in support of this woman.  

It is absolutely wild and his whole nonsense about a bicycle being thrown at the horse again. I tried to verify that I looked at a lot of footage over the weekend. A lot of people were saying that the bicycle was actually the mobility scooter. So we go back to that aerial photo. You can see how the horse knocked over the woman with the mobility scooter. And that is lying on the ground. So people were like, is that where you're talking about throwing a bicycle is actually just a mobility scooter. Someone did send me footage of a man with a bicycle. But In no way did he throw this at the police. He used a bicycle to pull himself back, if anything, to stop the police from beating him. He kind of had the bike in front of him. And then you could see him leave. So this whole idea that he threw at a horse and was causing the horse to trip. Is is just completely, completely untrue.  

OK, there is more. so, here is the police hauling away a protester and kneeing him once he's on the ground so here, that's what that looked like.  

And so it wasn't just this kind of force in kneeing people and hitting people with guns that we saw. We also saw the police start using pepper spray or some kind of a chemical irritant. And you can see it in this clip, the Ottawa police are just sort of wildly spraying this pepper spray, it's not targeted at any individual. It's not an individual in a crowd who is ruckus and who is causing chaos and you want to target that one individual. Presumably, that is what pepper spray is for. No, in this case, you're just sort of willy nilly just spraying the crowd, getting anybody who's there sort of punishing them for being there. Here's what that looked like.  

So caught up in all of this chaos was our own Andrew Lawton, journalist Andrew Lawton was on the ground for True North throughout the entire weekend. He was doing live streams. He was reporting he was talking to people. He was trying to keep an eye on what was happening in the same way as many journalists. There was lots and lots of journalists from lots of outlets who were right there, sort of on the front lines or a few steps back from the front lines filming this whole thing, taking pictures, relaying the information to Canadians and to people all over the world because people all over the world were watching, so Andrew Lawton was in there he was doing that and for the crime of committing journalism, 

Andrew Lawton was pepper-sprayed in the face by a cop. It seemed to be targeted. It seemed to be aimed directly at him. So here is what Andrew looked like afterwards. Not a pleasant feeling to be sprayed in the face pretty much point-blank, or at least at close range with pepper spray.  

He got it really bad and because of that we, here at True North, I decided to retain a lawyer. So we hired a lawyer we're now working with a lawyer here at True North. We are suing the police for assault and for targeting a working journalist. Andrew was just there doing his job trying to cover this event, trying to relay the information to Canadians. So we want to send a message to the police and Justin Trudeau and his emergency order. You don't get to beat up on journalists in this country. This is Canada. You do not get to do that and we will see you in court.  

Unfortunately, Andrew Lawton was not the only journalist to be the victim of police brutality. 

Over the weekend. Alexa Lavoie over at the Rebel was beat up by a police officer. This is unbelievable footage. She was pushed, she was hit multiple times with the baton from a large male police officer on the line. She's sprayed with pepper spray and finally, she was shot in the leg at point-blank from a few feet away with some kind of a rubber bullet or a tear gas canister. This woman was brutalized and beat up by a cop, all caught on camera. Here is what that looked like and just to warn you, this is pretty gruesome. It is pretty hard to watch, but I think it's important to show you what was happening to a working journalist in our country over the weekend. Here's that clip.  

So with a journalist sprayed in the face with pepper spray, another one brutalized and hit with a baton multiple times, you would think that the mainstream media, the legacy media there would be some kind of solidarity with journalists in this country that you would hear from legacy media saying, hey, that kind of force against journalists is absolutely not acceptable in this country. So did we hear that? No, no, we didn't hear that. What did we hear instead? Well, that the journalists thought it was disgusting? No, it wasn't disgusting that Andrew Lawton was sprayed with pepper spray. It wasn't disgusting that Alexa Levar was beaten with a baton.  What was disgusting? Well, there was this clip that was circulating of a Quebec TV journalist who got pushed on air by a protester. Here's what that looked like.  Incredibly stupid stuff. OK. Whoever pushes whoever pushed a journalist on air is just completely stupid. There's no reason to do this. It is mean. It is stupid. It doesn't help anyone. If anything, all it does is galvanizes people. against you, it proves legacy media point correct that the protesters are just a violent group of thugs and that they're here to harass, intimidate the media and the legacy media did exactly what you would expect and milk every last ounce of that clip that that footage of one guy getting pushed, that is the big story for the journalist out of the news.  Forget about all the police brutality that I just showed you. Forget about a guy getting hit with a stock of a gun. Forget about a woman getting trampled by a horse. Forget about a young female journalist getting beat up with a police baton. They didn't cover any of that. They don't care about any of that. What do they care about? A push? The guy getting shoved on air. That is the main focus.

This is what happens when you have brains scrambled by misinformation.

Well, the propaganda continues, Please watch the video to the end.

Maureen Ward

Ottawa Ontario

Pro-abortion violence never takes a break

It is a well known fact the the pro-abortions are violent against pro-life people. It is also a well know fact that the police are no friends to pro-life people. If I had to ask myself why this is so, I would say the pro-aborts get their marching orders from leading pro-aborts, like Justin Trudeau and other politicians like Jim Watson who discriminate against us at every possible turn.

Need more information on this? Read on.

Reprinted with permission from Alliance for Life Ontario.

Now here is the Thing…..

Here is the story as recounted to me regarding what I define as an assault at a 40 days for Life Vigil in Ontario.

“There were five of us standing at the vigil site, keeping 10 feet in between each of us. Two young women and a man (mid twenties, all of them) drive up in a car. They came out with a roll of paper, came up to us and said that we were “f**** ridiculous” and how dare we stand there, so they were going to block us. 

I replied, oh let me move my box for you and then instructed those with me to go to the various corners. She said, “What, you’re going to just keep moving?” I replied yes and she says “Well we’ll follow you.” I said, that’s fine. They rolled out their paper in front of me and I (stupidly, I know I shouldn’t have.) I didn’t even think walked up, placed my arms over it and held my sign in front of it (my arms were pushing the paper down). She told me to stop touching their property, so I lifted my hands up so that I wasn’t touching it, but my sign was still able to be read in front of it. 

She came up to me and slapped my face and pushed me away. As I was taking out my phone to take pictures and call the police, she grabbed my sign and hit me with it and then grabbed my phone from me and threw it. I went and got it and she fought me over it again, but I kept it. She hit me with the roll from the paper and was yelling at me that she didn’t care if I posted about it on social media. I responded that I was calling the police and then they left. 

The police say that their [perpetrators] reports, which were similar but not identical, showed that they didn’t go over the story together first, say that I ripped up their paper (here the officer inserts, “which was ripped”) and got up into her face so she pushed me away and then I put my camera in her face so she knocked it down the hill. 

The officer said that because it’s a controversial issue, things are bound to escalate and because I engaged with them by getting in their face (despite me telling her I didn’t) things like this can’t go to court. It’s a matter of he says, she says, so that’s that. “I got a call from the officer that came out when that woman slapped me; here’s what she said: 

They aren’t pressing charges because they say that I ripped up their paper and got into her face with my cell phone and she only pushed me out of her way and threw my cell phone because it was in her face. 

Also, because of the type of situation, it being so controversial it makes people react more, which of course doesn’t excuse it, but that is how it goes. The officer says that it’s a case of he says, she says, so there really isn’t any point moving forward. She’s says if even if I want to press charges, she won’t. They do have a written report so if she ever does anything again, she’ll be red flagged.”

So there is the story and I would like to make a couple of observations. In the same city within a couple of weeks either side of this incident a passenger on a bus slapped the driver and a customer at a grocery store spat on a worker – both incidents had details but also images that the police could use to identify the person and verify what happened. Charges have been made and are pending in both these cases because of the images together with the details provided by witnesses. Going back to the vigil incident – the woman was found because a photo was taken of the departing car which got the number plate – there were also 4 witnesses at the vigil who can verify our pro-lifer’s account but apparently were not trusted to tell the “Truth”.

However, it seems that because of the controversial nature of abortion we are to expect that “people react more”? Maybe that is true but I for one do not expect the police to react less. These folks drove to the vigil site intentionally and also intentionally endeavoured to”block” the pro-life message, used foul language and allegedly assaulted a young pro-life woman. I absolutely believe the account above and really wonder how police 50 years ago took witness statements and details and followed up with charges, minus the “images’ so readily available today which seem to mean everything?!!!! I shake my head that “there really isn’t any point moving forward” and charges would not be laid by police even if the victim wants them.

What this tells me is that the police no longer find pro-life Canadians credible witnesses or appear to doubt that anyone would actually tell the truth in this particular case, because of abortion’s controversial nature. Charges will not be pressed as it seems we are to expect people to react more in this circumstance – our only recourse is to have a video of the act itself. Now forgive the pun but that really seems like a “cop out” to me.

I know that I do not need to remind the pro-lifers in this province about the fact that we have 8 “bubble zones” around specific abortion facilities – well do you know how that came about? Claims were made by abortion staff in Ottawa that a pro-lifer had spat upon a couple as they entered the facility. Just for your information – no video, no image just claims or allegations that this had happened. Those allegations were enough to get the Mayor of Ottawa to contact the Attorney General of Ontario and set in motion, at a pace greater than the speed of light, the legislation “safe access zones”that unconstitutionally, bars pro-life witness outside these facilities within certain specific parameters. What is also amazing was that a report had been published a few months earlier saying that “harrassment” at abortion facilities “was rare” in Canada. So let us recap – claims of someone spitting on someone entering an abortion facility were enough to have draconian and unconstitutional legislation drawn up, debated and passed before you could say “”EH”. Even with evidence from the pro-abortion side that harassment was rare. I would remind you of the fact that we had already and still have laws to cover any assault of this kind if it had indeed happened outside the abortion facility.

One cannot help thinking that if you are pro-abortion your claims or allegations will be taken seriously even without “images”. However as a pro-life Canadian it is just “he says she says” and by the way get ready because people react more because abortion is controversial! We cannot nor should we stand for this in 2020.

I would like to end this piece with a story from my early days at the Scott abortion facility in Toronto where we used to go once a week. There was a particularly obnoxious facility “guard” who decided as I was alone at the time (my colleague was using the washroom) he would taunt me. He came out of the facility with a billboard with caricatures of pro-lifers on it and got right into my face asking me which one was me. He was a good 6 inches taller than me and he leaned down to me, I could feel his breath on my face and inside my heart was beating wildly, but I looked at him and said “does your mother know this is how you treat women?” It was the first thing that came into my head and it stunned him because he went back inside the facility. Needless to say the two police officers present at the time did absolutely nothing to come to my defense.

I am not really blaming the police then or now because they also have to work in an insane politically correct world. However, whether you are pro-abortion or pro-life your claims should be taken seriously with or without images and people should not be excused for violent behaviour because we and apparently the police expect them to react more when it is a controversial issue.

Safe access to abortion services is never safe for the fetus

Today Maureen and I joined Fr. Tony Van Hee witnessing outside the abortion bubble zone near the abortion site in Ottawa.

It was a very cold day with a -18 wind chill. Especially cold when you are standing there for any length of time.

Have you ever thought of the irony of this bill, the so-called "safe access to abortion services"? Imagine a person holding a sign that talks about free speech as being unsafe to anyone accessing abortion?

And what about the class of persons for whom abortion is never safe, and never can be safe: the child yet to be born? No such thing as safe access to abortion for her.

Why people silently witness at the abortion site

In Michael Gaitley's book The Second Greatest Story Ever Told, in chapter four he talks about St. Faustina. St. Faustina was a simple Catholic nun who died at 33 in 1939 right before Hitler invaded Poland.

Her Diary is am amazing story of God's Mercy.

But it was a footnote regarding St. Faustina's prediction of World War II that surprised me. I had read St. Faustina's Diary but was unaware of this fact. It is a sworn statement from Blessed Michael Sopocko regarding St. Faustina's beatification. Fr. Sopocko was St. Faustina's spiritual director.

"[Sister Faustina] also foretold the destruction that would afflict the Fatherland (Poland), that there would come most sorrowful times. She saw her fellow citizens expelled to the East and the West.

She wrote in her Diary that Jesus himself said he was about to destroy one of the most beautiful cities of our country like Sodom on account of the crimes committed there.

Having read these things in her Diary, I asked her what this prophecy meant. She answered confirming the things she wrote, and, responding to a further question of mine: On account of what sins God would inflict these punishments, she replied, "especially on account of the slaughter of infants not yet born, as the most grievous crime of all." (emphasis added)"

When I read this, all I could think of was: Fr. Tony's silent witness near the abortion facility. What could possibly be more important than this? 

Priest challenges Safe Access to Abortion Services Act

Fr. Tony Van Hee has retained constitutional lawyer Albertos Polizogopoulos to represent him against a ticket he received last Wednesday at the Ottawa Morgentaler abortion site.

Fr. Van Hee received the ticket last week for his silent witness in front of the abortion facility in Ottawa under the "Safe Access to Abortion Services Act Section 3(1)(e)(iii)". You know the one. Where Jim Watson got an Ontario law enacted by Kathleen Wynne's Liberals to prevent people from using their constitutional right to free speech? Yes, that one.

According to the ticket, Fr. Van Hee committed the offense to "intimidate or attempt to intimidate the person".

It's kind of hard to intimidate someone when you are across the street, looking away from the abortion site, holding signs that say absolutely nothing about abortion:

"The primacy of free speech - cornerstone of western civilization - without free speech the state is a corpse"

They really do want to shut us up don't they?

It will be interesting to see how this plays out. Polizogopoulos won my own freedom of expression case against those same Wynne Liberals, and more recently a court challenge for the Christian Heritage Party.

Fr. Van Hee will have to appear in court on Nov 16, 2018.

I know who I'm rooting for. And it isn't Jim Watson.

The Mad Hatter has nothing on Ontario's bubble zone law

Okay class, let's review.

This abortion bubble zone law has got to be one of the most moronic laws that the former Liberal government in Ontario--together with Ottawa mayor Jim Watson--ever dreamed up.

Of course, we know it was done for purely political reasons. In fact we have proof of that. But first let's recap this down the rabbit hole lunacy, and then update it with the latest.

It all begins with Joyce Arthur's writing to Ottawa Mayor Jim Watson. Arthur sends a submission to Jim Watson about a make believe need for an abortion bubble zone. Jim Watson parrots Arthur's submission to the Attorney General's office. He literally cuts and pastes Arthur's blah blah blah and sends that to the Attorney General.

Jim Watson falls for Arthur's nonsense and includes her make believe non-reasons for a bubble zone:

• Protecting the safety and privacy of providers, staff, and patients
• Protecting the right to access healthcare services
• Protecting women’s health by reducing the risk of complications
• Protecting the clinic and property from destruction and vandalism
• Fostering community peace by reducing neighbourhood nuisance and noise
• Reducing traffic problems, hazards, and accident risk
• Potentially reducing anti-choice violence and harassment
• Potentially lowering the levels and impact of anti-choice activism in general

His letter to the Attorney General concludes with this gem:

"Legal services has included the recommendations made by the Study's authors in its analysis of the available options."

I am not kidding.

The Attorney General buys this mythological need for a bubble zone and implements the new law.

I learned of all this through a freedom of information request on the bubble zone.

I am now appealing to the Information and Privacy Commissioner of Ontario because of all the information that I didn't receive.

In fact, what I did receive was pretty sloppy stuff. No index was included in my package. When an index finally arrived (after I told the information commissioner I hadn't received it when she asked), it referenced document numbers, but my information only had page numbers and no document numbers. So clearly it was impossible to match the index with the stack of papers I received.

One of my other complaints was the glaring omission of any police reports to support the need for a bubble zone in the first place. You know, like actual evidence for the need for a bubble zone?  When I asked the information commissioner about this, I was told:

"with respect to the police reports, I had followed up earlier with the ministry [attorney general] and they advised there were no police reports."

So the abortion bubble zone was enacted purely on the basis of Joyce Arthur's say so, and not on any actual concrete police reports. Political? You bethca. Of course I had already learned that there were no police reports for Ottawa, through an FOI of the Ottawa Police. So not only were there no police reports for Ottawa, but now I learn that there were no police reports for the entire province of Ontario.

Even a pro-abortion's own research corroborates the extremely low incidence of any harassment or violence at abortion clinics in Canada. This information was also not included in Jim Watson's so-called "rationale" for an abortion bubble zone.

"Facilities reported very little harassment (Table 4). No Canadian facility reported a resignation of an abortion provider–physician or any staff member owing to harassment. Only a single facility reported any resignation of an allied health professional staff member, and in this case the facility specified that the one resignation was not owing to violence, fear, or threats. Similarly, two-thirds of reporting facilities (49 of 74, 66.2%) indicated no episodes of harassment or violence in 2012, with a further 28.4% (21 of 74) reporting solely picketing without interference. Among 7 facilities reporting “other” episodes of harassment, half specified only receipt of harassing e-mail."

And now we have an elderly priest being charged with breaking this stupid law. Fr. Tony Van Hee's ticket tells us the reason he was charged:

"Intimidation or intent to intimidate a person."

A sign about free speech is intimidating? To whom? Jim Watson?

"The primacy of free speech - cornerstone of western civilization - without free speech the state is a corpse"

Fr. Tony was also facing away from the abortion facility when he held that "intimidating" sign. So he wasn't contravening this nonsensical clause in the law by:

"continuously or repeatedly observe the clinic or facility or persons entering or leaving the clinic or facility," 

Yes. This law is political. Pure and simple.

Praying to end abortion standing in the corner

Today Maureen and I joined other people who want to pray for an end to abortion during the 40 Days for Life. We prayed two rosaries and one Divine Mercy Chaplet. We were there from 7 am to 9:30 am. I also went to Mass at 8:00 at St. Pat's. Lots of prayers, which is what the scourge of abortion needs.

We have Jim Watson to thank for our being prevented from praying across from the abortion facility.

No freedom of expression rights for us, as we stood in the corner for our audacity at praying across from the facility in days gone by.

Maureen was so cold that she put a bag inside her coat to try and keep warm, like an insulation layer. I called it her bag motif. See bottom picture.

Jim Watson's attempt to move us out of the way only means we will now have to pray from a distance. Prayers work just as well no matter where you pray. He can't take away our freedom of conscience and religion rights as much as I'm sure he'd like to. Sorry Jimmy.

March for life 2018 - the real reason the police do nothing

Dear Jim Watson and Chief Bordeleau,

The reason that 125 people made it up Elgin street from Confederation Park is because our Ottawa Police stood on the west side of Elgin and watched and did absolutely nothing. Why is that? Were they told to do so by one of you?

We were lawfully protesting, with a police-approved route. These others had an illegal protest with masks and therefore should have had to stay off the roads. But they didn't.

This video is quite telling. See our police standing by for four minutes. 

See more pictures of these counter protesters hiding their faces and yelling at us and this video.

Can you please explain to me and twenty thousand peaceful pro-life marchers are treated in this disdainful way? You do realize we pay taxes like these "pro-choice" people, right?

In fact, why can't you just be honest and tell us you treat us like this because we are pro-life?

Looking forward to your response.

Sincerely,

Patricia Maloney

March for life 2018

I have no problem with counter protesters at the March for Life. What I do have a problem with is that they succeed in blocking our route, courtesy of the Ottawa police. Just like last year. And the year before that. There were almost as many police as there were counter protesters; they could have easily prevented them from blocking us, but they chose not to.

If the counter protesters want to hold their own march, why don't they? I can guarantee you that we would not prevent them from doing so. Unlike these people, we would never call for an abolition of their right to protest, even though they want to end our right to protest with their slogans, their taunts, their hidden faces and their signs that read "End the March for Life".

I've let Mayor Jim Watson, my councillor Tobi Nussbaum and Ottawa police chief Charles Bordeleau know my thoughts on this. You should too. But I doubt it if I will receive a response. Just like last year.

@OttpoliceMedia @ChiefBordeleau @JimWatsonOttawa

Us (Thanks to Maureen for these pictures)

And them:

Ontario Attorney General's office withholds letters against abortion bubble zone

Further to this post on the Ontario abortion bubble zones FOI.

I noticed that there were no letters from the public who wrote and who were against the abortion bubble zone (except for my own letters). I then asked for copies of those letters from other members of the public who were also against the bubble zone.

Surely I wasn't the only person in Ontario who wrote such a letter?

Their response:

"Requests are handled differently for each ministry and issue/context. You have assumed that there is no personal information in the body of the letters, which is not the case for this request. The bodies of the letters contain specific information to the individual, their situation and own personal experiences with the topic, which as you know is highly sensitive."

Nonsense. If other departments can do it, so can the AG. And remember, I paid $552.50 for the privilege of obtaining this information.

I then replied:

"I have seem hundreds of letters sent to politicians where personal information has been redacted. This is the only time I've ever done a request where letters of non-support have not been included."

Apparently our attorney general's office doesn't have to follow the rules other government departments do. I wonder why that is?

Jim Watson's biased submission to the attorney general for Ontario abortion bubble zones

In October 2017 I sent a freedom of information request to the Attorney General of Ontario, Yasir Naqvi.

This is what I asked for:

“Information the ministry possess about the need for abortion bubble zones.”

Six months and $552.50 later, I received some information. (There was a lot of redacting based on the large gaps between page numbers.)

In the package was Jim Watson's request to the AG for an abortion bubble zone. And his so-called analysis of its need.

Conspicuously missing from Watson's request, was the police report I obtained from the Ottawa police that revealed that there were no charges and no arrests at the Morgentaler facility in Ottawa in a three and a half year period, information that would not support the need for an abortion bubble zone.

Also missing from Watson's request, was abortion doctor Wendy Norman's own 2012 study on Canadian facilities that shows how little harassment is actually happening at abortion sites:

"Facilities reported very little harassment (Table 4). No Canadian facility reported a resignation of an abortion provider–physician or any staff member owing to harassment. Only a single facility reported any resignation of an allied health professional staff member, and in this case the facility specified that the one resignation was not owing to violence, fear, or threats. Similarly, two-thirds of reporting facilities (49 of 74, 66.2%) indicated no episodes of harassment or violence in 2012, with a further 28.4% (21 of 74) reporting solely picketing without interference. Among 7 facilities reporting “other” episodes of harassment, half specified only receipt of harassing e-mail."

Once again this information would not support the need for an abortion bubble zone.

What Watson did include in his submission, was a 2010 report done by the extremist abortion lobby group Abortion Rights Coalition of Canada headed up by the radical pro-abortion Joyce Arthur.

Who could have predicted that?

Watson even went so far as to cut and paste Arthur's "benefits" of an abortion bubble zone in his report:

• Protecting the safety and privacy of providers, staff, and patients
• Protecting the right to access healthcare services
• Protecting women’s health by reducing the risk of complications
• Protecting the clinic and property from destruction and vandalism
• Fostering community peace by reducing neighbourhood nuisance and noise
• Reducing traffic problems, hazards, and accident risk
• Potentially reducing anti-choice violence and harassment
• Potentially lowering the levels and impact of anti-choice activism in general

Jim Watson and his tax paid civil servant lawyers want to "lower the levels and impact of [pro-life] activism in general". How is that for staying non-partisan from the mayor of Ottawa and his bureaucrats?

Then in both Watson's analysis and conclusion, he again refers to his pro-abortion mentor.

Watson includes a report from a radical pro-abortion group to support the results he wants, then purposely excludes two objective reports that would not support an abortion bubble zone.

Voila. Abortion bubble zone. As you wish Mr. Mayor.

Jim Watson thinks pro-life people want to take away women's rights

The March for Life is coming up on May 10 this year.

You will remember last year's flag flap when Jim Watson and some of his councilors--and I mean that literally, they are not our councillors because clearly they don't represent us, they represent Jim Watson--took down our pro-life flag after they agreed to put it up.

I've been talking to some people and apparently they are wondering why the city took the flag down at all. That they never received a reason that made any sense. We do know that there was a lot of nonsense coming out of Watson's and his councillors' mouths trying to defend their discriminatory actions against it. But it was all a bunch of gibberish.

But we actually do have a reason why the flag was taken down. And the reason comes directly from the horse's mouth.

The reason is simple. As one person told me at the time: they went to the same strawberry social that Jim Watson went to and cornered him and asked him point blank. And Watson told them the reason was because pro-life people want to take away women's rights.

"...And finally, I brought up the issue of the pro-life flag at City Hall being taken down after complaints by some city councilors, and I expressed my concern about an interview he had given to Global News where he said pro-life campaigns are "divisive" and have no place at City Hall (http://globalnews.ca/news/3447325/pro-life-anti-abortion-ottawa-flag-jim-watson-what-happened/ ). He tried to avoid answering the question at first by diverting the issue away from City Hall and asking me why Parliament Hill wouldn't allow a pro-life flag to fly (which I had no knowledge of.) Getting back to City Hall, I reminded him that he allowed an LGBTQ flag to fly, and I asked, shouldn't pro-lifers be treated equally and be allowed to have their flag flown as well? Isn't that only fair? Why the double standard?

His response hit the nail on the head for me as to why he feels it is fine to discriminate against us. He said (paraphrasing): "The LGBTQ community promotes human rights. You want to take away women's rights." So that was it. Plain and simple..."

Watson was also rude to this (second-class) citizen of Ottawa:

"I couldn't just stand there and ignore such an accusation,so I started to say that that is not what we want to do at all, but I couldn't go any further because then he cut me off and said, "I'm not here to debate this issue; I'm here for a Strawberry Social," and he started turning to walk away. I remained calm and respectful the entire time, and in a last ditch effort, I politely asked him (even though I figured it was probably hopeless): "Would you be willing to meet with me sometime to discuss further." To which he curtly replied, "No, I'm not going to discuss this with you anymore; I've already given you ten minutes of my time" and he walked away. "Thank you for your time, Sir," I replied. (And I think it was actually only about 5 minutes of his time, not 10.)"

A rude mayor. Who has no idea what it means to be pro-life. Saying we want to take away women's rights which is untrue and unfair. Watson is just one more pro-abortion making stuff up about us to further his own agenda. Just like the other radical "pro-choice' chauvinist extremists in this country.

At least now you know. Let's see what Watson and company have in store for us at this March for Life.

Ottawa FOI Part 4 - the full FOI report for your viewing pleasure or displeasure as the case may be

For those of you who would like to look at the full 487 pages worth of my FOI to the city of Ottawa on the pro-life flag nonsense here is the link.

And if you wondered if your response from Mayor Jim Watson was a form letter or not. Rest assured that. It was.

Here are my three previous posts on the subject.

https://run-with-life.blogspot.ca/2018/02/ottawa-foi-part-2-joyce-arthur-compares.html
https://run-with-life.blogspot.ca/2018/02/ottawa-foi-part-2-how-jim-watson-and.html
https://run-with-life.blogspot.ca/2018/01/ottawa-foi-part-1-not-raising-pro-life.html

Ottawa FOI Part 3 - Joyce Arthur compares pro-life people to neo-Nazis and white supremacists

The FOI I did regarding the pro-life flag being flown over city hall generated hundreds of letters. Most were from pro-life people, with a handful from pro-choice people.

One of the letters was from pro-abortion Joyce Arthur. No surprise there. It's quite the letter.

From: Joyce Arthur (mailto:joyce@arcc-cdac.ca) 

Sent: Thursday, May 11, 2017 1:34 PM

To: Watson, Jim (Mayor/Maire) 

Cc: Deans Diane; McKenney, Catherine; Wilkinson, Marianne; Fleury, Mathieu; Nussbaum, Tobi; Leiper, Jeff 

Subject: Please remove anti-choice flag from City Hall TODAY 

Importance: High 

Dear Mayor Jim Watson, 

Please immediately remove the anti-choice flag from Ottawa City Hall. 

This flag is an affront to women's human rights, and I've heard visceral reactions from supporters in Ottawa who feet "sick to my stomach", "disgusted", "ashamed" and "embarrassed" that their City would disrespect women's rights in this way. 

Please be more sensitive to basic human rights. As a local government, you are bound to the Charter. It is wrong and discriminatory for the City of Ottawa to fly any flag espousing a cause that would remove the constitutional rights of women and transgender people who can get pregnant. The groups behind the March for Life seek to criminalize abortion, but our Supreme Court and lower courts have found that restrictions on abortion compromise women's Charter rights to bodily security, as well as life, liberty, privacy, and conscience. 

Please ask yourself whether you would fly a flag with a message from local residents who are white supremacists or neo-Nazis. We simply ask you to draw the line where it also respects women's rights, as well as the rights of group.  

They are protected as a vulnerable group under human rights codes and the Charter, just like ethnic and other minorities. 

Thank you very much for your consideration.  

Sincerely,
Joyce Arthur
Executive Director
Abortion Rights Coalition of Canada (ARCC)
P0B 2663, Station Main
Vancouver, BC, V6B 3W3
joyce@arcc-cdac.cawww.arcc-cdac.ca

First, It's hard to imagine a flag that says "March for Life" could actually cause someone to feet "sick to my stomach", "disgusted", "ashamed" and "embarrassed".

Second, "Be more sensitive to human rights". Is there anything more sensitive than supporting the right to life of all human beings, not just female human beings?

Third, " It is wrong and discriminatory for the City of Ottawa to fly any flag espousing a cause that would remove the constitutional rights of women and transgender people who can get pregnant". Since there's no charter right to abortion, nobody's discriminating against women's rights. If anybody's rights are being stomped on it's our right to freedom of expression and conscience.

Finally, "white supremacists and neo-Nazis"? Has it come to this? Comparing people who support the rights of all human beings, are now being compared to one of the most despicable movements on the planet. 

One final thing Joyce. The flag is not an anti-choice flag. It's a pro-life flag. I know you won't stop calling everything we do anti-choice, but you know, it is kind of pathetic.

Ottawa FOI Part 2 - How Jim Watson and Mathieu Fleury caved to the pro-abortions

Below I've transcribed emails I received from my city of Ottawa FOI, regarding the pro-life flag mess.

They tell the story of how the pro-life flag received authorization to be flown at city hall, for last year's March for Life.

You may recall that Mayor Watson blamed the flag mess on the fact that the bureaucrats approved the flag.

This may be so, but as you will see below, the request originally came via email and was addressed to both Mayor Watson and Councillor Mathieu Fleury. Fleury even spoke to the requester.

It seems that somehow the request was handled by the bureaucrats who by the way, clearly have a close relationship to the mayor. All you need to do is look at their positions:

• Protocol Officer
• Chief of Protocol
• Communications Director to Mayor Watson
• Executive Assistant to Mayor Watson

Why didn't Watson or Fleury refuse the request when it first came in? Do they not read their email?Fleury clearly did, because he even spoke with the flag requester. Instead they took the flag down, after it had gone through (we must assume) the proper channels and only when the excrement hit the fan with the pro-abortions screaming bloody murder did Watson cave.

It also seems that Fleury, who spoke to the flag requester, even told him that his request was being considered. The next thing we know Fleury throws the requester under the bus when he signed that horrid proclamation against the flag.

Nice way to treat your constituent.

Monday April 24, 2017 at 1:04 AM.
An email is sent from a person (name redacted) to Jim Watson, and cc'd to councillor Mathieu Fleury:

"Mayor Watson,

Mayor Greg Dionne of Prince Albert Saskatchewan a strong believer in freedom of speech and freedom of rights has flown the life flag in his city. Ottawa has a variety of flags, as a taxpayer I respectfully request that this flag could be flown also for the 20th anniversary of the March for Life here in Ottawa. Please advise if this request could be granted. Attached flag going up in Prince Albert.

Yours truly"

Monday May 01, 2017 at 1:06 PM
Another message came into the city via their website. The message says this:

"Spoke to Matthew Fleury this AM about a reply to my request to Mayor Watson, I received a reply it would be under consideration. Mr. Fleury advised me it would be your department. Would appreciate a reply ASAP."

Tuesday May 2, 2017 9:17 AM 
Email from Communications Officer, Mayor's Office to Executive Assistant to Mayor Jim Watson

"This is the original request" (Attached to this email is the original April 24 email flag request)

Tuesday May 2, 2017 11:07 AM 
Email from Executive Assistant, Mayor's office to Protocol Advisor

"[Communications Officer, Mayor's office] received this correspondence concerning your earlier inquiry."

Tuesday May 2, 2017 1:13 PM
Email from Protocol Advisor to the Chief of Protocol:

"This is the request that we received yesterday through Councillor Fleury's office. Councillor Fleury told the gentleman that we will give consideration to his request however raising the flag is very controversial. In having to reply to this request I need your guidance."

Tuesday May 2, 2017,  2:47 PM 
From Chief of Protocol to Protocol Advisor

"Can you see if we are proclaiming the day; if we are, it would be difficult to deny the request. We can discuss at our one-on-one tomorrow.

Tuesday May 2, 2017 2:52 PM:
From Protocol Advisor to Chief of Protocol:

"I will bring this forward tomorrow. A proclamation has been issued and sent to the organizer." 

Wednesday May 10, 2017 3:48 PM
From Protocol Advisor to Director of Policy

"Attached is the flag as per your request."

More later.

Po-choice people can express freedom of expression rights but pro-life people cannot

Today was the first day of the new bubble zone legislation. Pro-life people are now banned from exercising their freedom of expression rights to protest abortion within 50 metres of any abortion facility in Ontario.

We already know that there is no need for a bubble zone. My FOI on police reports at 65 Bank Street revealed no assaults where a charge was laid.

Here is the line we cannot cross.

Here's the sign that delimits the area. Do not protest on the wrong side of this sign unless you want a fine and or go to jail.

About 17 metres away at the corner of Sparks St. and Bank were the "pro-choice" protesters.

So here's the thing. Pro-life people are banned from exercising their freedom of expression rights and must do so outside the bubble zone. But "pro-choice" people can exercise their freedom of expression rights (they're actually protesting us) inside the bubble zone.

I think this is called a double standard.

This double standard is because in the Ontario government's paternalistic approach to pro-lifers. They must ensure that at all times our Charter rights are denied at every possible moment, and at any possible place they deem appropriate.

Paul Lauzon got some great pictures and footage of this continued campaign of discrimination against pro-life people.

Here is Maureen Ward's playlist of four short videos. Included in this list is a short video of the "pro-choice" people exercising their freedom of expression rights, the same rights we are not allowed to express.