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 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.

Ottawa FOI Part 1 - Not raising the pro-life flag was a concern for city lawyer

I recently made a freedom of Information request to the city of Ottawa for all the internal emails at the city regarding the city's decision to lower the pro-life flag last year on May 11, the same day as the March for Life.

Below is an email Rick O'Connor sent to council after falling on his sword about the "error" that was made in raising the flag.

Members of Council,

A number of Members of Council have contacted me with respect to the Proclamation and flag raising for today's March for Life.

First, I want to apologize to Members of Council with respect to today's flag raising. While the City's Flag Protocol Procedures mirror the City's Proclamation Policy in many ways, a review of this matter has determined that the request for the flag raising was made by an individual. This does not meet the criteria and, when this was discovered, the flag was taken down under my authority. The Mayor has requested a review of the Flag Protocol Procedures and the City's Proclamation Policy, which will be reported back. 

With respect to proclamations, all proclamations issued by the City of Ottawa are in accordance with a Policy adopted in 2002. The provisions in this policy reflect the law in Ontario with respect to proclamations, which ensures that the City's practices are in line with Ontario's Human Rights Code. The Ontario Human Rights Tribunal has ruled that, because proclamations issued by Mayors in Ontario are a service subject to the provisions of the Human Rights Code, the refusal of a Mayor to issue a proclamation may constitute a contravention of the Human Rights Code if the decision of the Mayor was based on any reason that is protected in the Code or by case law related to the Code. Therefore, based on the requirements of human rights law, most municipalities in Ontario have chosen to either eliminate the use of proclamations altogether or issue them using broad criteria. For this reason, the City of Ottawa's Policy specifically indicates a Proclamation "should not be interpreted as an endorsement by either the Mayor or the City of Ottawa." 

Because the City of Ottawa chooses to issue proclamations, they are provided on request to groups where the request does not violate the Ontario Human Rights Code. Only proclamations that are contrary to the City of Ottawa's policies or bylaws, discriminatory, espousing hatred, violence or racism, illegal, not located within the boundaries of the City of Ottawa, politically or religiously motivated or intended for profit-making purposes may be refused. It should be noted that "politically or religiously motivated" means affiliated for or against specific political parties or candidates or religions. 

I am attaching below an email on this topic issued by my office in 2011 to Members of Council to assist them in responding to resident inquiries for your information. 

The process for issuing proclamations and approving flag raisings is overseen by the Office of Protocol to ensure that the City's policies are interpreted without a political lens and in keeping with the Ontario Human Rights Code. As the request from this anti-choice group met the test of both policies, the proclamation was issued, as it has been for many years. This is the first year the request has been made for a flag raising. It was granted on the same basis as the proclamation.

Notice how the city is quite concerned with the Human Rights Code: 

"the refusal of a Mayor to issue a proclamation may constitute a contravention of the Human Rights Code if the decision of the Mayor was based on any reason that is protected in the Code or by case law related to the Code. Therefore, based on the requirements of human rights law, most municipalities in Ontario have chosen to either eliminate the use of proclamations altogether or issue them using broad criteria."

And also notice that the flag was raised based because of the same concern with the Human Rights Code.

This is the first year the request has been made for a flag raising. It was granted on the same basis as the proclamation.

You can also read the 2011 letter that O'Connor speaks about at the link above.

More on this later.

Tolerance isn't for pro-life people

Regarding the bubble zone at the Morgentaler facility in Ottawa.

Yesterday I spoke with constable Chuck Benoit at the Ottawa Police Service. There were two "level 1" assaults at the facility in three and a half years. One on October 25, 2016 and one on May 28, 2017. All the other incidents were run of the mill police work.

I was told that neither of these assaults resulted in injuries, and no one was charged with anything. So why do we need this bubble zone? Why did Jim Watson initiate this law? Because he doesn't like pro-life people. He prefers to treat us like second class citizens. If we try and discuss pro-life concerns with him, either by email or in person, his disgust for us is clear.

If we were pride parade people we would get respect from mayor Watson

By Patricia Maloney

Now we have police chief Charles Bordeleau and Jim Watson talking about the upcoming gay pride parade in August. The radio stations were all over this "story" this morning. Meanwhile Jim Watson still hasn't the time of day for pro-life people, and he is still refusing to answer my questions about why our March for Life was diverted.

If I were writing to Watson and Bordeleau about their participation at the gay pride parade I bet you dollar to donuts I would get an answer. And it would be written in glowing terms about the parade blah blah blah.

But if you're pro-life, well then we don't want to hear from you. In fact this person had a telling conversation with Jim Watson on his disdain fro pro-life people.

The writer said:

"I first asked Mayor Watson why the police were allowed to divert our March so that we were not allowed to proceed along our pre-approved route past the Human Rights monument, and why the police gave into the demands of the few pro-abortion protesters (maybe about 100) who wanted to block us. There were about 100 police officers there, so it was a mystery to me why they forced us to take another route. Why did the counter protesters have a right to disrupt our peaceful March, and for the second year in a row no less?  

Mr. Watson's reply was that that was not City Hall's responsibility. The City is not responsible for how the police do their job; the City just funds the police force, that's all. He told me that any complaints should be made to the Police Services Board."

Well I did ask chief Bordeleau about this, and his response was: "I can't speak to your question about a response from the Mayor or your Councillor. What I can tell you with respect to the demonstration is that the Ottawa Police Service is present during demonstrations to ensure the safety and security of all participants and observers. Although routes are pre-approved, officers on the ground may be required to make decisions to deviate from a planned route for a number of reasons including for reasons associated with public safety. Demonstrations are dynamic in nature and officers must make decisions on site which were required that day." 

I wonder if we protested the gay pride parade would Chief Bordeleau divert that for us? I know I know, that was an outrageous thought.

The person who tried to engage Watson then said this:

"I also asked him why the legislation was needed at all, since if someone was assaulted/spat on, etc (as media reports have claimed), then shouldn't the police be laying charges based on existing laws? Why is a bubble zone needed? To which he responded, we can't have police there 24/7."

Of course "we can't have police 24/7". What a stupid answer. That's why we have something called "call 911". That will get the police to respond to harassment, assault, etc. The rest of us use it. Why should an abortion clinic get special treatment not afforded to any other member of society? What about pro-life people who are harassed by pro-choice people? Why can't we get a bubble zone around us to protect us from pro-choice violence?

Then the person said this:

"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...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."

We want to take away women's rights? Obviously Watson hasn't a clue as to what being pro-life means. We support human rights for all people. Young people. Old people. Women people. Men people. Sick people. Pre-born people. Old and dying people. ALL PEOPLE. It's not a difficult concept.

Of course when Watson says "women's rights" what he really means, is the fabricated "right" for a woman to have an abortion. That is not a right. It's a made up construct that means nothing. Women have equality rights, charter rights, freedom of conscience rights, freedom of expression rights, freedom of religion rights. Just like every other human being. And yes we support those rights. We just don't support a woman's right to kill her pre-born child.

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights states:

"Whereas recognition of the inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family is the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world" 

Human rights belong to one person. They don't extend from one person to have dominion over another person.  Women's rights are the same as everyone else's rights. They don't get special rights. Even if people like Watson say they do, they don't.

Finally the person conversing with Watson said this:

"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.)"

Because Jim Watson has no respect for us and what we stand for, and even though he is also our mayor and has control over how our taxes are spent, he doesn't have the common courtesy to respond to, and discuss with us, valid questions regarding our rights.

Jim Watson - more on how pro-lifers are treated

I received this letter from a reader of my blog about her meeting with Mayor Jim Watson at a recent Strawberry social. I will comment on some of Watson's statements later. Previous posts on this topic.

This past Saturday, I attended a Strawberry Social put on by a local community association in Nepean. Ottawa Mayor Jim Watson gave a short speech, and then mingled with the crowd. 

I took the opportunity to speak to him and told him I was pro-life and that I was concerned about how Ottawa City Hall had treated pro-lifers on the day of the National March for Life back in May. (It's always good to take these opportunities to speak with politicians in person about things happening in your community that concern you, because it's often difficult to get direct answers to questions you send them via email. And besides, you can never be certain that office staff who handle your incoming emails will inform your elected representative of your concerns in the first place.)

I first asked Mayor Watson why the police were allowed to divert our March so that we were not allowed to proceed along our pre-approved route past the Human Rights monument, and why the police gave into the demands of the few pro-abortion protesters (maybe about 100) who wanted to block us. There were about 100 police officers there, so it was a mystery to me why they forced us to take another route. Why did the counter protesters have a right to disrupt our peaceful March, and for the second year in a row no less? 

Mr. Watson's reply was that that was not City Hall's responsibility. The City is not responsible for how the police do their job; the City just funds the police force, that's all. He told me that any complaints should be made to the Police Services Board. 

Then I asked him about his expressed support for  "bubble zone" legislation around abortion clinics in Ontario, specifically around the Morgentaler abortion clinic in Ottawa. He said the "bubble zone" would just prevent people from protesting right in front of the abortion clinic on the same side of the street. He said we could still protest across the street. When I responded that media reports had said the bubble zone would be 500 feet or 500 metres, I couldn't remember which. he said that was untrue and that we would still be able to protest right across the street from the Morgentaler clinic as we do today. Of course, it's provincial legislation that has not come out yet, but that is his understanding. 

I also asked him why the legislation was needed at all, since if someone was assaulted/spat on, etc (as media reports have claimed), then shouldn't the police be laying charges based on existing laws? Why is a bubble zone needed? To which he responded, we can't have police there 24/7. 

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.

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.)

Divisive is okay as long as you are on the right side of the division

By Patricia Maloney

I don't support pride parades. I find it offensive that these parades freely allow/condone nudity, and people simulating sexual acts. This kind of behaviour is not appropriate for many people (myself included), and certainly not suitable for children.

When Jim Watson removed the pro-life flag from city hall he told us that flying the pro-life flag was "divisive":

"That kind of divisive cause should not be promoted and publicized at city hall."

Yes abortion is divisive, and I am against abortion. That's why I am pro-life. Our flag was a manifestation of our free speech rights to say we are against abortion.

But wait a minute.  Pride and their public manifestation (parades) is also divisive. To many people. So why did Jim Watson fly the Pride flag at city hall? Because this clearly is also a "divisive" issue.

Double standard.

Watson also said that our recent March For Life and what we stand for is:

"Not acceptable...in a civilized society."

But simulating sex acts, and full nudity in public is acceptable behaviour?

And what is it exactly that we do on our peaceful March that is so unacceptable? It is that we peacefully and orderly witness to the killing of pre-born children in Canada. No nudity. No simulating of sexual acts. Just peaceful witness. This is our sin. This is our unacceptable behaviour.

Double standard.

Jim Watson - tell us what you really think

By Patricia Maloney

This is what Mayor Jim Watson thinks about pro-life people. He starts out discussing raising the pro-life flag at city hall and how it is unacceptable and how he and everyone else at city hall supports a "woman's right to choose". At the end of the clip Watson switches to discussing the bubble zone he wants to put around the abortion clinic and tells us what he really thinks of pro-life people:

"In the 21st century it's just not acceptable to have that kind of behaviour in a civilized society."

No wonder the mayor wouldn't respond to my emails. We are not worthy of a response because our behaviour is unacceptable

How peaceful prolife people are treated

By Patricia Maloney

Since I couldn't get my councillor Tobi Nussbaum or mayor Jim Watson to answer my questions about why the March of life was rerouted, I asked Chief Bordeleau.

He replied:

"What I can tell you with respect to the demonstration is that the Ottawa Police Service is present during demonstrations to ensure the safety and security of all participants and observers.

Although routes are pre-approved, officers on the ground may be required to make decisions to deviate from a planned route for a number of reasons including for reasons associated with public safety.

Demonstrations are dynamic in nature and officers must make decisions on site which were required that day."

My subsequent reply:

Dear Chief Bordeleau,

First I would like to thank you for responding to my letter. As I have mentioned already, my councillor Tobi Nussbaum and mayor Jim Watson have not responded to my question.

Second I am confused by your response. The counter protesters were originally stationed at the corner of Elgin and Slater on the East side of Elgin.

Then they began to cross to the west side of Elgin, stopping in the middle of the street, and then they stood in the middle of the street, all the while the police enabling this action, and not insisting that they stay put, and out of the path we were approved to take.

So...we were then diverted because the police were allowing the counter protesters to force us to change routes. Why instead were the counter protesters not kept back to their original spot? Why were the police's actions being dictated by a handful of masked angry protesters? At the expense of our 14,000 peaceful protesters? It is important to us to march past the Human Rights monument because we support human rights for all Canadians including unborn children, and this is why we take this route.

Why were we diverted because these others were allowed to prevent our charter right to peacefully protest and express our pro-life views? Why didn't the police divert them instead? 

With all due respect Chief Bordeleau, I will answer that question for you since I have no allusions that you will provide me with an answer that makes sense.

It is because there is a double standard in Ottawa. It is because there is a double standard in Canada. There are millions of pro-life people, and there is everyone else. Because we stand up and defend pre-born Canadians who are unable to defend or protect themselves--we are marginalized; we are shunned; we are spat on; we have profanities yelled at us; we get the finger as if we are some kind of disgusting human being. And we get angry masked protesters too cowardly to show their faces, threaten us. That's what it's like to be pro-life. And the police protect these other people instead of protecting the peaceful pro-life people.

Here's a thought  experiment for you. Imagine the gay pride parade going down Elgin St. Then imagine a group of 50 people counter protesting the gay pride parade. Would your police officers divert the gay pride parade because of these counter protesters? I guarantee you that they would not. If they did, there would be outrage in the land.

And now our mayor is asking for a bubble zone around the abortion clinic. Why? Because allegedly there were a few individuals who behaved improperly. If they did, why weren't they dealt with by the police when they did it? No the solution to the possibility of a few individuals behaving inappropriately, is for our Mayor to send a Tomahawk missile to curtail our rights of freedom of speech and freedom of assembly. That's how we are treated. 

And make no mistake. 99.9 % of pro-life people do not condone or would never engage in any kind of aggressive, abusive behaviour; they wouldn't dream of behaving this way. If some people did behave this way then deal with it with your police officers.

Once again Chief Bordeleau, I would like to thank you for having the courtesy and respect for a citizen of Ottawa--albeit a pro-life person quite used to not receiving replies--to reply to my email.

Sincerely,

Patricia Maloney

Jim Watson - Why did you divert our March for Life?

Jim Watson's response to my letter about his decision to take down the pro-life flag.

If you wrote, you probably received the same form letter response.

And notice how he doesn't answer my question about why the March for Life was diverted from its approved route.

I've now asked him this question three times.

Dear Ms. Maloney,

Thank you for your email with respect to the March for Life flag raising. 

The process for issuing proclamations and approving flag raisings is overseen by the Office of Protocol to ensure that the City’s policies are interpreted without a political lens and in keeping with the Ontario Human Rights Code.  As the request from the March for Life group met the test of both policies, the proclamation was issued, as it has been for many years.  This is the first year the request has been made for a flag raising.  It was granted on the same basis as the proclamation. 

While the City’s Flag Protocol Procedures mirror the City’s Proclamation Policy in many ways, a review of this matter by the City Clerk has determined that the request for the flag raising was made by an individual.  This does not meet the criteria and, when this was discovered, the flag was taken down under the authority of the City Clerk. 

With respect to proclamations, all proclamations issued by the City of Ottawa are in accordance with a Policy adopted in 2002.  The provisions in this policy reflect the law in Ontario with respect to proclamations, which ensures that the City’s practices are in line with Ontario’s Human Rights Code.  The Ontario Human Rights Tribunal has ruled that, because proclamations issued by Mayors in Ontario are a service subject to the provisions of the Human Rights Code, the refusal of a Mayor to issue a proclamation may constitute a contravention of the Human Rights Code if the decision of the Mayor was based on any reason that is protected in the Code or by case law related to the Code. 

Therefore, based on the requirements of human rights law, most municipalities in Ontario have chosen to either eliminate the use of proclamations altogether or issue them using broad criteria.  For this reason, the City of Ottawa’s Policy specifically indicates a Proclamation “should not be interpreted as an endorsement by either the Mayor or the City of Ottawa.’’ 

I have requested that the City Clerk review the Flag Protocol Procedures and the City’s Proclamation Policy, and report back. 

Thank you for your feedback, 

Jim Watson 

Mayor

City of Ottawa

March for Life 2017 - a letter to Jim Watson

I'm pretty sure a lot of people have written to our mayor about his decision to remove the pro-life flag from City Hall. Here is one such letter that was sent to me.

To: Jim Watson, Mayor, City of Ottawa

cc: Michael Qaqish, Councillor Ward 22 - Gloucester - South Nepean

Dear Mr. Watson (copy to my City Councillor, Mr. Qaqish),

I was so proud of you and the City of Ottawa last week when I heard that the Pro-Life flag would be flying at Ottawa City Hall on the day of the National March for Life.

At the pro-life rally on Parliament Hill, again, I was so proud of you and the City when your proclamation in honour of Respect for Life Day was read out loud to the cheering crowd of Canadians who came from across our great country to stand up for all those in our society who are too vulnerable to stand up for themselves.

That pride and joy I experienced turned into confusion and disbelief when the police blocked us from continuing down our pre-approved route past the Human Rights Monument. The police chose instead to give in to the demands of a few protesters (probably less than 100 from what I could tell) and refused to let us proceed towards the Human Rights Monument. This happened last year, and so I thought for sure the police would be prepared to not let this happen again this year. (And I know that the police were warned that protesters would be there.)

Then later, when I read the letter of complaint signed by seven city Councillors (Catherine McKenney, Diane Deans, Marianne Wilkinson, Tobi Nussbaum, Jeff Leiper, Jan Harder, and Mathieu Fleury) and learned that you had actually apologized for allowing the pro-life flag to be raised and ordered it taken down, I felt like I had been punched in the gut. 

Mr. Watson, why do you (and the signatories to that offensive letter) hate us so much?

Why won't you defend the rights of those who support laws that would protect vulnerable human beings such as preborn children? (Even if you don't personally agree with that viewpoint, it is a valid one to have in a free and democratic society.) Why do you allow a handful of protesters to take away our freedom to peacefully walk along a pre-approved route in solidarity with the women who have been harmed by abortion? Why do you fly the flag for those who are proud of their LGBTQ lifestyle, but treat with contempt those who are proud of their belief in the sanctity of human life? Why the double standard?

Mr. Watson, the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and the Human Rights Codes apply to all Canadians. Why are you treating us like second-class citizens?

I do not know if you failed last Thursday to uphold our freedoms because you personally agree with the pro-abortion/anarchist protesters who intimidated the police into diverting our March. And maybe you personally agree with the seven Councillors who signed the discriminatory letter that contained the lie that access to abortion in Canada is a constitutionally protected right, demanding the pro-life flag be taken down. (In fact, all seven Supreme Court justices in the 1988 Morgentaler decision agreed that the state has an interest in protecting the fetus; they all agreed Parliament could come up with a new abortion law to balance the interests of both women and unborn children). 

Or maybe you acted as you did because you did not have the courage to defend our democratic freedoms in the face of controversy. If that is the case, then, with respect, Mr. Watson, that is not leadership. 

But if the former--if you acted as you did because you agree with the pro-abortion/pro-euthanasia status quo in our country, that is, that there should be no legal protection at all for children in the womb; that abortion must remain fully funded by the taxpayer; that physicians should be coerced into collaborating with abortion, euthanasia, and assisted suicide against their deeply held religious and/or conscientious convictions; that a violent criminal who assaults a pregnant woman and intentionally kills the baby she did NOT choose to abort should face no consequences for killing her beloved child--if you acted as you did because you personally hold such views, then you have allowed your own personal views to cloud your judgment and take priority over your responsibility to uphold the democratic freedoms of a whole segment of Canadian society (the thousands who attended the March, and the millions across the country whom we represent).

Regardless of your motives, Mr. Watson, I'm now asking that you apologize to all who took part in the March last Thursday, and to all Canadians across the country who share our pro-life values, for the discriminatory actions taken by the City of Ottawa: the removal of the pro-life flag, your misplaced apology for allowing the flag to be raised in the first place, and the refusal by police to allow us to proceed along our pre-approved route past the Human Rights Monument.

I am especially disheartened that this discriminatory behaviour by the City of Ottawa would happen when we are celebrating our great country's 150th Anniversary. I thought we would have reached the point where our governments would treat everyone in Canada (including in Ottawa) equally and respectfully. There's nothing to celebrate about the way the City treated pro-life Canadians last week.

An apology from you, Mr. Watson, and a promise not to allow this to happen again is in the interests of the common good. It will send a clear message that our Nation's Capital is a city that respects freedom and justice, not just for some, but for all. Everyone benefits in that kind of a society.

And it will show true leadership on your part, Mr. Watson.

Thank you, and I look forward to your response.

Sincerely, 

BM

City of Ottawa council - that's what's "outrageous"

I am still waiting for a response from my counsellor Tobi Nussbaum and from Mayor Jm Watson.

Read from the bottom.

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Patricia Maloney <maloneyp64@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, May 12, 2017 at 5:11 PM
Subject: Re: Pro-life flag
To: "Nussbaum, Tobi" <Tobi.Nussbaum@ottawa.ca>
Cc: "Watson, Jim (Mayor/Maire)" <Jim.Watson@ottawa.ca>, Patricia Maloney <maloneyp64@gmail.com>

Dear Tobi,

You say it is about personal conviction. This is NOT merely the conviction of one person. This is the conviction of millions of Canadians so it is not a personal conviction at all, but an entire group of people who are pro-life but who are discriminated against continually, and our rights are not protected.

Second, there is no constitutional right to abortion, and the Canada Health act does not demand abortion be covered. Please see http://www.morgentalerdecision.ca/

Third, you have not responded to why we were forced to deviate from our approved route and protected by our police force because of a handful threatening masked counter protesters.

Fourth. Tell me. Who speaks for the personal conviction of the unborn? They can't. So we do it for them. And we are silenced.

Sincerely,

Patricia Maloney

On Fri, May 12, 2017 at 4:15 PM, Nussbaum, Tobi <Tobi.Nussbaum@ottawa.ca> wrote:

Dear Patricia,

Thank you for writing to me about this important issue. I understand that people have different opinions on what happened yesterday, and it’s good to hear from all sides of the issue. I wanted to make my viewpoint clear to you.

The flag raised at city hall yesterday represented a position that includes a conviction that women should not have the right to access legal and safe abortion services in our country. It was the first time this had ever happened on public grounds at City Hall – and it should not have been allowed to happen.

The City of Ottawa’s policy on proclamation which led to the flag-raising yesterday is clear: “a proclamation will not be issued for matters that politically or religiously motivated or represent individual conviction”. The flag and proclamation that led to it clearly represented an individual conviction, and therefore had no place on public grounds.

I was proud to join my colleagues yesterday in demanding that the flag be taken down (see attached). Shortly after we released that statement, the flag was removed. 

I want to be clear that I also strongly support the right to protest and demonstrate on any political or personal issue within the bounds of what is legally permitted - as we saw in Ottawa yesterday with the annual pro-life rally. 

I hope that helps clarify my position.

Signed,

Tobi Nussbaum

Tobi Nussbaum

Councillor/Conseiller, Rideau-Rockcliffe

City of Ottawa | Ville D’Ottawa
Tel/Tél: 613-580-2483

  

From: Patricia Maloney [mailto:maloneyp64@gmail.com]
Sent: Friday, May 12, 2017 12:00 PM
To: Deans, Diane; Wilkinson, Marianne; Nussbaum, Tobi; Watson, Jim (Mayor/Maire); Leiper, Jeff; jan.harder@ottawa.ca; Fleury, Mathieu
Subject: Pro-life flag

Dear Jim Watson,

I was very disappointed regarding your decision yesterday to lower the pro-life flag over city hall yesterday.

As pro-life people supporting the rights of preborn human beings, we are continually marginalized and discriminated against. This was just one more example of this kind of sanctioned behaviour.

The flag was a small symbol of what we stand for, and you bent to pressure to remove it, after allowing it to be raised. It's bad enough that Mr. Trudeau has banned pro-life people from his party; now you feel you must "apologize" for allowing us to fly our flag.

Your efforts would have been far better used in controlling the aggressive masked counter protesters, who blocked our way during our city approved March for Life. In fact can you please explain to me why these counter protesterswere allowed to block us and not reigned in?

I am so disappointed in this council for these actions, especially you and my own city councillor Tobi Nussbaum.

And please do not tell me that women have a constitutional right to abortion. This is an untruth that has been spread so often that some people still believe it is true.

We speak for preborn children who have no voice and have no protection as long as they are in the womb. These children are not a part of a woman's body and for those who say otherwise are wrong.

Sincerely,

Patricia Maloney

March for Life - Using our talents to promote the Life

Cardinal Collins pro-life homily. So beautiful and encouraging.

Pro-life - We will not be cowed into submission

to: Jim.Watson@ottawa.ca,

cc: Catherine.McKenna@parl.gc.ca,

diane.deans@ottawa.ca,

Marianne.wilkinson@ottawa.ca,

Tobi.Nussbaum@ottawa.ca

Jim.Watson@ottawa.ca,

jeff.leiper@ottawa.ca,

Jan.harder@ottawa.ca,

Mathieu.Fleury@ottawa.ca

Dear Jim Watson,

I was very disappointed regarding your decision yesterday to lower the pro-life flag over city hall yesterday.

As pro-life people supporting the rights of preborn human beings, we are continually marginalized and discriminated against. This was just one more example of this kind of sanctioned behaviour.

The flag was a small symbol of what we stand for, and you bent to pressure to remove it, after allowing it to be raised. It's bad enough that Mr. Trudeau has banned pro-life people from his party; now you feel you must "apologize" for allowing us to fly our flag.

Your efforts would have been far better used in controlling the aggressive masked counter protesters, who blocked our way during our city approved March for Life. In fact can you please explain to me why these counter protesters were allowed to block us and not reigned in?

I am so disappointed in this council for these actions, especially you and my own city councillor Tobi Nussbaum.

And please do not tell me that women have a constitutional right to abortion. This is an untruth that has been spread so often that some people still believe it is true.

We speak for preborn children who have no voice and have no protection as long as they are in the womb. These children are not a part of a woman's body and for those who say otherwise are wrong.

Sincerely,

Patricia Maloney

March for Life 2017 - we will never give up

I was very discouraged after returning yesterday from the March for Life.

Every year we do this march, but last year, and now this year, our city approved route was to go down Elgin St. past the Human Rights monument. We believe in human rights for preborn children.

But we were diverted at Albert St. because of other protesters. I took one of their brochures. Oh. And one of them told me she didn't want me video taping her. I ignored her.

The police told us we were diverted to prevent a confrontation with these other protesters. The thing is, the thousands of us are peaceful. So there certainly wouldn't have been a confrontation from us, but rather from these 50 or so threatening, screaming, masked protesters who didn't have the courage to show their faces.

Why did we have to be diverted because these others were allowed to prevent our charter right to peacefully protest? Why didn't the police divert them instead? Because the police knew they wouldn't get lip from us. But they would from these others.

And these people were threatening: they originally stood on the corner of Elgin and Slater; then they began to cross and then stood in the middle of the street (with police allowing this); then we were diverted; then when this wasn't enough for these aggressive people, they headed north on Elgin towards where we were being diverted. Reinforcement police came running past us towards these masked people to prevent them from encountering us.

And what were our city councillors doing all this time? They were complaining that a pro-life flag was being flown at city hall.

Our councillors were "outraged" at this. I am not making this up. They were outraged. They didn't like our "individual conviction" to stand up and speak out for preborn children who cannot speak for themselves; who are defenceless; who are killed every year in the thousands by abortion--and who don't have any city councillors brave enough to speak up or out for them. (Catherine McKenney, Diane Deans, Marianne Wilkonson, Tobi Nussbaun, Jeff Lieper, Mathieu Fleury, Jan Harder, followed by Jim Watson who then cowed to them and removed our flag)

But this morning I woke up and I felt much better. I remembered what Cardinal Collins said yesterday at the pro-life Mass at St. Pat's Basilica. We are to use our talents in the pro-life cause. We are not to be discouraged.

We will continue to speak up and to march in defence of preborn children and their mothers. With a flag or without a flag.

I videotaped the whole march. Thanks to Maureen for downloading it.