4 reasons Ontario does not need an abortion bubble zone

I have repeatedly said that there is no need for an abortion bubble zone in Ontario. This is based on the following facts. (Emphasis added in all quotes.)

First, from abortion doctor Wendy Norman from her 2012 study of Canadian abortion clinics. These are the different texts she wrote in this study pertaining to harassment at abortion places, where she explicitly says that there is little to no pro-life harassment at abortion facilities.

Page e209

"We identified 94 Canadian facilities providing abortion in 2012, with 48.9% in Quebec. The response rate was 83.0% (78 of 94). Facilities in every jurisdiction with services responded. In Quebec and British Columbia abortion services are nearly equally present in large urban centres and rural locations throughout the provinces; in other Canadian provinces services are chiefly located in large urban areas. No abortion services were identified in Prince Edward Island. Respondents reported provision of 75 650 abortions in 2012 (including 4.0% by medical abortion). Canadian facilities reported minimal or no harassment, in stark contrast to American facilities that responded to the same survey."

Page e209

"More than half of all abortion providers in Canada are family physicians or general practitioners. Medical abortion is rare, as is harassment of facilities."

Page e212

"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."

Page e215

"Canadian abortion facilities reported rare harassment. In contrast, among American abortion facilities sampled concurrently 83% reported substantial episodes of harassment, and 10% reported staff resignations owing to harassment."

Page e216

"Conclusion. Equitable access to abortion service varies by region across Canada. Medical abortion is rare, as is harassment of facilities. Provincial government leadership in BC and Quebec has demonstrated effective strategies to address inequity. Regulatory advances that could improve abortion service access include improved access to mifepristone for medical abortion; provincial leadership supporting abortion services through policy and legislation; implementation of routine training in surgical and especially medical abortion within family medicine residency programs; and regulations to broaden the scope of practice for nurses, midwives, and other allied health professionals to include abortion provision. Health policy and service improvements have the potential to address current abortion access inequity in Canada."

Second, an FOI I did to the Ottawa Police, identified no arrests and no charges in a period from 2010 to June 1, 2017. Then with a subsequent conversation with the Ottawa Police, this was confirmed for me.

"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."

Third, besides Ottawa's lack of any problematic police reports, the fact that there were no other police reports in the entire province of Ontario, to support a bubble zone law. The Attorney general of Ontario quite unbelievably has no police reports from anywhere in Ontario to support this unconstitutional law against our freedom of expression rights.

"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."

Finally, the Ontario government has never provided an actual reason for the need of a bubble zone.

Conclusion, there is no need for an abortion bubble zone in Ontario. Not now. Not ever. This legislation is purely about pro-abortion ideology that permeates the powers that be.

Information Commissioner orders 287 pages released from FOI on abortion Bubble Zone Law

As I told you back in 2018, I appealed the Attorney General's hiding of their alleged "evidence" for the need of an abortion bubble zone. Because there was nothing in the FOI I received that showed a need for the bubble zone:

"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."

Recently I heard back from the Information Commissioner. They agreed with me that a large part of the information that was withheld from me, should not have been withheld:

"The adjudicator also upholds the ministry’s decision to withhold some information under the personal privacy exemption at section 21, but finds that portions of the withheld information are not “personal information” once identifiers are removed, and orders disclosure of that information."

Here are the 287 pages that the Attorney General wouldn't let me see because they said I might be able to figure out who wrote the emails. (The bolded statement above is exactly what I argued and the Information Commissioner agreed with me.)

What these 287 pages actually reveal, is that there were three times as much support against the bubble zone, as there was support for the bubble zone. (55 letters for, vs 154 against).

You can view those letters yourself.

Some interesting comments from these letters:

"If such a law is passed, then pro-abortions should not be able to organize rallies either."

"Our Charter protects our right to show the truth. Freedom of expression is fundamental to democracy. I hope you will publish my point of view as you have published that of the pro-aborts."

"We just keep getting more and more restrictions on the freedom to have a different point of view in our nation."

"Just because you don't have the same views doesn't give you the right to take away someone else's right to express their opinion in a peaceful way."

"Please rethink your opinion regarding above. Unborn cannot protest but are still human."

"I am not associated with either pro-life or pro-choice advocates...I urge you not to pass laws prohibiting abortion protests. Laws exist to deal with criminal forms of harassment, and these should be applied as warranted. The singular fact that a protest offends some people is completely unacceptable as a justification for banning the proponent's freedom of speech. We do not need liberties diminished issue by issue and one by one until we find ourselves unable to protest, express an opinion or offend someone."

Conclusion? We still have no evidence that the abortion bubble zone was needed. 

A small sample of the letters that I was refused access to on my original FOI.

Update on donations for Fr. Tony's constitutional challenge

1) Cheques may be made payable to Philip Horgan in Trust, and sent to:

Philip H. Horgan Law Office
301 - 120 Carlton Street
Toronto  ON  M5A 4K2

2) Online donations can be made here:

https://www.wonderwe.com/helpfrvanhee

Update on Francis Barrett being carded by Ottawa Police

"After watching me from across the street (in front of 65 Bank) they [the police] came across the street, stood behind me (see picture below), said nothing for a couple of minutes until I turned and said, is there a problem? That is when he [one of the police officers] said you're breaking the bubble zone law. I said your joking, can't you see the sign right beside me? Don't you know were the bubble zone is?" Francis Barrett

It is abysmal how pro-life people are treated in Ontario. 

First we were prevented from praying in front of the abortion site with the abortion bubble zone law. This forced Fr. Tony Van Hee to bring a Charter Challenge against the government for this discrimination. 

Now Francis Barrett has been carded. 

He first complained to the Ottawa Police about the treatment he and others received at the abortion site (outside the bubble zone). After multiple meetings, phone calls, emails, and four months of waiting, Mr. Barrett never received an apology for his treatment.

He then complained to the Office of the Independent Police Review Director (OIPRD). The OIPRD is an "independent" group in charge of complaints against the police:

"OIPRD is responsible for receiving, managing and overseeing all public complaints about municipal, regional and provincial police in Ontario. As an independent civilian oversight agency, we make sure that public complaints about police are dealt with in a manner that is transparent, effective and fair to both the public and the police." 

What did the OIPRD do with Mr. Barrett's complaint? They dismissed it:

Not 'transparent'. Not 'effective'. Not 'fair'.

Even though these peaceful pro-life persons, acting within the law, were asked for ID for no reason, and subsequently intimidated by the Ottawa Police, the appeal was dismissed. (The OIPRD reports to the Attorney General's office. How can an appeal board be independent when they report to a government bureaucracy?).

Mr. Barrett was also told that there is no other appeal, and that his only other recourse was to go to Judicial Review, ie, go to court. All he wanted was an apology for their behaviour. They wouldn't give him one.

(When I had my own Charter Challenge with the Attorney General, the judge who ruled against the AG for hiding abortion information actually noted that the only recourse a citizen has in these circumstances, is to go to court. That this was unfair. We see this exact same behaviour today: A citizen must go to court--at great personal expense--to get justice in Ontario against the AG and its army of highly paid lawyers.)

This:

"the officers were acting in their authority in checking the permission of the group to be there." 

So I asked. What authority is that? They refused to answer my question.

This:

"The circumstances outlined in his complaint do not suggest that the police were engaging in that prohibited activity at the time they requested his identification." 

The police were definitely engaging in a prohibited activity. It's called carding. 

"This regulation describes the limitations and duties of police officers when collecting identifying information (also known as “carding” or “street checks”).The regulation applies if a police officer asks a person for identifying information or to see an identifying document while:

• Looking into suspicious activities
• Gathering intelligence
• Investigating possible criminal activity

During these interactions officers must inform the person of their right to not provide identifying information and provide a reason for requesting identifying information. The reason cannot be:

• Arbitrary
• That the person declined to answer a question or attempted to end the interaction
• Based on race or solely because that individual is in a high-crime location"

None of these conditions apply here. Again I asked, which of these was Francis Barrett and his small group of seniors doing that required this harassing behaviour?

No answer.

To add insult to injury we have this:

"the police have a discretion as to the nature of the identification that they may accept, and absent evidence that police exercised the discretion improperly, it is unlikely that an investigation would result in grounds to believe misconduct occurred."

Except the police had absolutely no grounds to ask Mr. Barrett for ID in the first place. So the kind of ID they would accept is entirely moot. They weren't supposed to ask for ID in the first place. 

This:

"it is unlikely that an investigation would result in grounds to believe misconduct occurred."

The OIPRD is actually admitting here that they didn't even bother to investigate Mr. Barrett's complaint. Presumably they just unilaterally decided it wasn't valid. Prejudice: 'preconceived opinion that is not based on reason or actual experience'.

And "lead to tensions"? What does that mean? The only tensions that day were the tensions caused by the police, not the peaceful senior citizens silently praying outside the bubble zone. They were intimidated for no reason. They were carded for no reason. They deserve an apology.

Peaceful protest in Ontario is only allowed if you are not pro-life.

Update from Fr. Tony on his constitutional challenge

The civil case challenging the constitutionality of the bubble zone law is taking longer than expected so we have agreed to delay the criminal case against me from July 2020 to July 2021.

With much gratitude for your support, daily prayers, and God's Blessing+,

Fr Tony

P.S. Something early for Mother's Day.

"The Most Important Person is a mother. She cannot claim the honor of having built Notre Dame Cathedral. She need not. She has built something more magnificent than any cathedral--a dwelling for an immortal soul, the tiny perfection of her baby's body... The angels have not been blessed with such a grace. They cannot share in God's creative miracle to bring new saints to Heaven. Only a human mother can. Mothers are closer to God the Creator than any other creature. God joins forces with mothers in performing this act of creation...What on God's good earth is more glorious than this: to be a mother." Joseph Cardinal Mindzenty

(From a prayer card with no further information)

Two pro-life heroes

As I mentioned in my last post, it's pretty disgusting how pro-life people are treated in this country. That being said, it doesn't stop us from doing what we do. Thank God for that. No matter how hard they try, they can't keep us from witnessing and praying for children in the womb and for their mothers. Even if it has to be outside the abortion bubble zone.

Harassment by police of 90 year old pro-lifer

UPDATE December 27, 2019

A friend contacted the Ottawa Police regarding this harassing behaviour by Ottawa Police. Here is the response she received from Jamie Dunlop Superintendent of the Ottawa Police:

"In regards to your request, you, and all persons are free to pray at this site while respecting the bubble zone and any other legislation that may be in effect that respects your right and the rights of others.

I am not able to comment on the veracity of the article further for privacy reasons."

So we are still allowed to pray? Too bad the police's words don't correspond to their actions.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I think they call this carding?

This is a sad and disturbing story about how pro-life people in Canada are treated. We are used to being treated badly by pro-abortion people; to being marginalized by the media; to being thrown under the bus by politicians. But this is a story of police harassment of pro-life people. One of whom is a 90 year old man who calls himself a pro-life warrior.

Frank Barrett signed up for the first 40 Days for life peaceful pro-life vigil, 11 years ago. This is where people stand in silent witness and prayer in front of the abortion killing places. Originally the vigils were held around the clock, and Frank would witness for two hours in the middle of the night.

By his own words Frank says:

“I prayed and put this time in to thank God for my health, my wife, and my family. I've continued every Tuesday since then for all these years, across the street from 65 Bank St. and even continued outside the Bubble Zone until this date.”

Here is more of what what Frank told me.

On Tuesday, Oct 1, 2019, around 2:45 he was praying with his sandwich board on the corner of Bank & Queen outside the abortion bubble zone (in front of CIBC see picture below).

A police van pulled up in front of McDonalds beside 65 Bank St. Frank assumes the Officer went into 65 Bank St, then came out and watched Frank from there for a time.

Then a second police car parked behind that van, and two officers watched him for a time then came over and stood behind him. They said nothing.

Frank turned and asked the police officers if there was a problem. One officer said he was breaking the bubble zone law and wanted to see Frank's identification.

Frank replied to him, that the officer was wrong, and explained the bubble zone law to him. The officer was not interested in listening to his explanation. After a few words Frank agreed to show the officer his retired RCMP Government issued identification card. But the officer refused it, saying it was no good. Frank was upset and then showed the officer his driver's license. This was after he showed the official permit they had for the 40 days for Life

(Note: a person in Canada can still stand and pray anywhere he or she likes without producing a permit or identification. Can't they?)

The officer didn't bother to read the permit. The six others who were with Frank praying, were also asked to produce their identification. Frank felt like he was being bullied.

Frank then told the officers they did not know what they were doing. They then called their sergeant.

Another officer arrived and now there were three police officers, with three police vans with all their lights flashing,

These were seven peaceful pro-life people (one in a wheel chair), praying; outside the bubble zone; in a supposedly free and democratic society. And this is how they are treated.

Frank thought that it must have looked like they were bank robbers.

Then the sergeant spoke to the two officers and asked Frank to stand out of earshot, which he did. The sergeant then left and Frank then asked the two policeman “So what now?”

Their answer? “You can stay here for now”. (thanks for that). Then the officers left.

Here is the final kicker. When Frank went to submit his own police report to the Ottawa police, they had no record of any of this. They even tried to discourage Frank from making a report. But he did report the incident.

Frank received a confirmation of his report and was given a case number and told it could take up to 6 to 8 weeks for them to get back to him.

Ottawa Police "Ethics" policy.

“We are committed to having a highly ethical police service, to obtain public trust and maintain public confidence that we are an honourable, courageous and service-oriented police service.”

We assume that most Ottawa Police officers know how to conduct themselves with politeness and courteous actions, all the while doing their job. However these two Ottawa Police officers did not do the force credit with their heavy handed approach with peaceful pro-life people.

Truth and lies about pro-life people

Dear Canadian media,

I wanted to give you some important truths about the leading pro-choice group in Canada, Abortion Rights Coalition, and it's founder Joyce Arthur. The media quote Arthur all the time, whether it's about bubble zones, the movie Unplanned, crisis pregnancy centres, or any other topic concerning abortion.

But Arthur doesn't exactly speak the truth about pro-life people.

You know the abortion bubble zone Ontario now has? Well it is there because of Joyce Arthur. It is not there because of any pro-life violence at Ontario abortion clinics.

Arthur began this crusade (one of many against us) by writing to mayor Jim Watson providing him with some of her "research" on the supposed need for a bubble zone. Mr. Watson then wrote to the (Liberal) attorney general who gladly enacted a bubble zone law. But Arthur's "research" didn't include any real research. Such as 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. This information does not support the need for a abortion bubble zone. In fact, when I asked the Ontario Information and Privacy Commissioner about possible police reports on pro-life violence in the entire province of Ontario, 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."

Also missing from Arthur's letter to Watson 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."

Unfortunately, a lot of politicians, and even some average Canadians, believe the misinformation and untruths Joyce Arthur disseminates regarding pro-life people. She spreads a lot of untruths about us.

For some reason that I cannot fathom, politicians listen to her. I think it's because they are afraid of her.

My friend Jonathon Van Maren spoke about this lie that pro-life people are violent, recently in his podcast which is about 20 minutes long. You really should listen to it.

In particular, Jonathon discusses Ms. Arthur's fabrications that violence in Canada is perpetrated by pro-life people. In fact, it has been at least 20 years since any such violence has occurred. And all pro-life organizations and activists strongly condemn any such violence.

The flip side to this is, that there has actually been, and still is, a lot of pro-choice violence against pro-life persons. It is tragically a very common occurrence. You might say, "well I never hear about that". And you would be right. This kind of violence is almost never covered in the mainstream media. Do you ever cover that fact?

Jonathon provides us with some very concrete vicious examples of the violence we endure. In fact, it would make far more sense to have bubble zones around pro-life people, than around abortion clinics.

Joyce Arthur and the Abortion Rights Coalition do not speak the truth about pro-life people. Quote her if you must. But please, what comes out of her mouth isn't necessarily factual or the truth about us, and almost always is a lie.

Thank you.

Sincerely,
Patricia Maloney
p.s please also listen to Jonathon's latest analysis on Joyce Arthur's current obsession regarding the movie Unplanned.

Positive news on Freedom of Speech Charter Challenge

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

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

OTTAWA CITIZEN - KELLY EGAN

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Fr. Tony Van Hee's court dates

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

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

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

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

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

Free speech is a crime if you are pro-life

I've posted all information on Fr. Tony's case is here.

Fr. De Souza has the best analysis yet of Fr. Tony Van Hee's case:

"The Crown appears to consider it an offence to protest restrictions on free speech if, in the past, you protested against abortion. The crime is exercising free speech while pro-life."

I think we finally know now why pro-life people aren't allowed to practice their Charter right to free speech. It's actually because they are pro-life. If you were pro-choice and carried that exact same sign inside the bubble zone, you wouldn't be charged with anything.

So now we know.

Dear Doug Ford and Caroline Mulroney. Can you please explain why?

Here are their email addresses if you'd also like to ask the Premier and the Attorney General this question.

doug.fordco@pc.ola.org
caroline.mulroney@pc.ola.org

Freedom of information is neither free, timely, or accurate

As I've written before, I am appealing the information I received on the abortion 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.""

Lastly, I am appealing the cost to get this "free"dom of information (not free at all at $552.50)
that was very sloppy work.

And I have now received (in December) a new package that contains a pile of pages with document numbers to match the pile of pages. Finally.

And it only took 14 months. Such great service. So cheap. These bureaucrats are amazing.

How does one not get sarcastic when they are dealing with such incompetence?

So now I will peruse what I received, and continue with my appeal with the Privacy Commissioner. For as long as it takes me.

More on Fr. Tony's bubble zone constitutional challenge

From DEBORAH GYAPONG, CANADIAN CATHOLIC NEWS

"The case has been adjourned to Jan. 24 and “transferred to the Ontario Court of Justice so it can be heard before a judge,” said constitutional lawyer Albertos Polizogopoulos, who is representing the 83-year-old Jesuit priest. 

“This is because we have challenged the constitutionality of the legislation in question and a justice of the peace cannot strike legislation as being unconstitutional,” said the lawyer. 

Polizogopoulos said they will likely set a trial date at the Jan. 24 court appearance."

Update on Fr. Tony's bubble zone constitutional challenge

Fr. Tony's next appearance in court will be Jan 24th. It will be for scheduling his case at most.

Many people have donated to the case, but more money is still needed. Much thanks to everyone who has donated thus far.

You can still donate on line here. If you prefer to send in a cheque for Fr. Tony's case, you can write a cheque and make it out to "Vincent Dagenais Gibson, In trust” and send it to Fr. Tony's lawyer Albertos Polizogopoulos.

Just include a cover-letter, or in the re: line of the cheque note that the cheque is for Fr. Tony Van Hee's case.

Send cheque to:

Vincent Dagenais Gibson LLP/s.r.l.
260, rue Dalhousie Street, Suite 400
Ottawa, Ontario K1N 7E4

Tel.: (613) 241-2701 Ext: 243
Fax: (613) 241-2599
albertos@vdg.ca

Archbishop Prendergast supports Fr. Tony's Charter challenge

Fr. Tony received this beautiful note from the Most Reverend Terrence Prendergast, S.J. Archbishop of Ottawa regarding Fr. Tony's Charter challenge.

"November 12, 2018 

Dear Tony: P.C. [Pax Christi]
             
             Here's some financial support for your upcoming trial and legal expenses. It comes with the assurance of my prayers for the cause, and for you, as well as my fraternal support. 

Sincerely in Christ,
+ Terry S.J."

This support from the Archbishop is great news for Fr. Tony, for all pro-life people, and for freedom of expression rights. Because this law that Fr. Tony is fighting specifically targets freedom of expression rights only for pro-life people and not for pro-choice people. 

This Safe Access to Abortion Services Act is clearly discriminatory and must be thrown out.

Here is the donation link if you would like to help Fr. Tony's case.

Or send a cheque and make it out to "Vincent Dagenais Gibson, In trust” and send it to Fr. Tony's lawyer Albertos Polizogopoulos:

Vincent Dagenais Gibson LLP/s.r.l.
260, rue Dalhousie Street, Suite 400
Ottawa, Ontario K1N 7E4

Just include a cover-letter, or the re: line of the cheque note that the cheque is for Fr. Tony Van Hee's case.

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.

How the abortion bubble zone creates two classes of people

One of the inconsistencies of the Bill to Create Safe Access to Abortion Services is that if you're pro-life, you can't carry a sign inside the bubble zone. But if you're "pro-choice", you can carry a sign. See here and here.

And this week, once again, we see this discrimination in action:

"We had some protesters at the 40 Days for Life mid-point rally. They were inside the bubble zone with their usual signs. I asked the Ottawa police if they (so called pro-choicers) are allowed signs within the bubble zone and I was told that they are."

In other words, we only apply freedom of expression rights to people, if they are "pro-choice". 

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.

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.