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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Abortion bubble zone goes after Catholics

Don't kid yourself. This new bubble zone legislation isn't about the supposed harassment that goes on at abortion facilities by pro-life persons. It's about discrimination against Christians.

And we have Strawberry Social Jim Watson to thank for this stupidity.

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.

This is what the bubble zone will do:

3 (1)  While in an access zone established under section 6 for a clinic or facility, no person shall,  (a)  advise or persuade, or attempt to advise or persuade, a person to refrain from accessing abortion services;  (b)  inform or attempt to inform a person concerning issues related to abortion services, by any means, including oral, written or graphic means;   (c)  perform or attempt to perform an act of disapproval concerning issues related to abortion services, by any means, including oral, written or graphic means;  (d)  persistently request that,           (i)  a person refrain from accessing abortion services, or          (ii)  a protected service provider refrain from providing, or assisting in the provision of, abortion services;  (e)  for the purpose of dissuading a person from accessing abortion services,           (i)  continuously or repeatedly observe the clinic or facility or persons entering or leaving the clinic or facility,          (ii)  physically interfere with or attempt to physically interfere with the person,         (iii)  intimidate or attempt to intimidate the person, or         (iv)  photograph, film, videotape, sketch or in any other way graphically record the person;   (f)  for the purpose of dissuading a protected service provider from providing, or assisting in the provision of, abortion services,           (i)  continuously or repeatedly observe the clinic or facility or persons entering or leaving the clinic or facility,          (ii)  physically interfere with or attempt to physically interfere with the provider,         (iii)  intimidate or attempt to intimidate the provider, or         (iv)  photograph, film, videotape, sketch or in any other way graphically record the provider; or  (g)  do anything prescribed for the purpose of this clause.

Notice this clause:

(i)  continuously or repeatedly observe the clinic or facility or persons entering or leaving the clinic or facility,

I am not kidding. You cannot OBSERVE an abortion facility.

Are Kathleen and friends serious? The only "observing" I've ever seen done at the abortion facility is when people stand across the street silently praying and "observing" said abortion facility. Which Catholics do. Which I have done. Which I will do. During this year's 40 days for life. And at other times. You can't do that. Anymore.

What about my religious right to say the rosary? Is that banned too? Is that what Kathleen and friends have in store for us next?

I'm not even talking about the gross trampling this law will have on our rights to freedom of speech, freedom or assembly, freedom of conscience and freedom of expression.

This is a sneaky witch hunt against practicing Catholics. Of course the Liberals are good at sneaky. They wrote the book on sneaky.

Will the leader of the opposition Patrick Brown speak up for us? I doubt it.

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.

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.)

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". 

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.

Abortion bubble zone question for PC leadership candidates

Yesterday I sent this email to each leadership candidate. Except Caroline Mulroney. Why? Because there doesn't seem to be an email address for her identified anywhere. And when I sent her an email to the one she sends me email from, the address isn't valid and I get a bounce back. Hmmm... Does this mean Caroline doesn't want to hear from us?

Dear PC Candidate,

I would like to know if you would repeal the abortion bubble zone law should you become the Premier of Ontario.

As you know freedom of expression, religion and conscience rights have been killed with this law. At a recent protest pro-life people had on Sparks St. in Ottawa, the discrimination against us was very clear. We were forced to be outside the bubble zone, while pro-choice protesters were allowed to protest inside the bubble zone. Both protests carried signs. But because we are pro-life we are marginalized and demonized. None of our signs even used the word abortion.

https://run-with-life.blogspot.ca/2018/02/po-choice-people-can-express-freedom-of.html

A freedom of Information request I made to the city of Ottawa revealed that There haven't even been any charges or arrests of protesters at the Ottawa abortion site in three and a half years.

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B_QDsYLWnwO6ZFVLU2FzYlV4SG8/view

Clearly there is no need for this law, other than to satisfy extremist pro-choice people like Joyce Arthur who have called for it. Look her up if you are not aware of her tactics.

So why is the current Liberal government harassing pro-life people with this law? Harass is a strong word, but that is what is happening here. We have done nothing wrong but the government penalizes us by stomping on our freedom of expression, rights, freedom of conscience rights and freedom of religion rights.

We are taxpayers just like the rest of Ontarians, but we are not treated with the same respect as other Ontarians. If I was pro-choice and stood with the same sign at the same place, with the same sign, I would not be charged. I'm sure you see the blatant discrimination and irony we are experiencing with this law. 

I would like to hear your thoughts on this law.

Thank you.

Sincerely,

Patricia Maloney

Abortion bubble zone FOI - "open government" is a farce

Below is an exchange that I had today with the Attorney General's office. The AG wants to charge me $450 to find out how their bubble zone legislation came to be. Legislation which discriminates against pro-life people. Legislation that is not grounded on any evidence. Legislation that all began with Ottawa Mayor Jim Watson.

It wasn't bad enough that the government has enacted this legislation. Now they want to charge me $450 to find out what went on behind the scenes. They don't want me to know what went on. So they put up a financial roadblock. Pathetic. Unprofessional. Discriminatory. Secrecy is still alive and well in the halls of the Ontario government.

Kathleen Wynne's so-called Open government initiative doesn't exist.

__________________________________________________________________________________

Dear FOI office at the Attorney General's office,

I received your letter dated Nov 2 where you informed me that there will be a fee of at least $450 to get the information I requested:

• "All information provided to the Ministry of the Attorney General from external sources from January 1, 2017 to October 30, 2017 regarding the need for bubble zones or safe access zones." 

Your letter states that I may request a waiver of this fee due to financial hardship of if release of the record will benefit public health or safety. 

First. This fee will indeed cause me financial hardship.

I have already reduced the scope of my request twice (at your request) in order to reduce the amount of information I requested and to lessen the burden on your office.

As a senior on a fixed income; together with the fact that information in custody of the Ontario government actually belongs to the taxpayer (me and every other resident of Ontario); along with the fact that Kathleen Wynne has publicly stated;

• "I believe that government data belongs to the people of Ontario and so we will make government data open by default, limiting access only to safeguard privacy, security and confidentiality"; 

Second. Regarding health and safety. To date, we have seen absolutely no evidence of need for this abortion bubble zone. Yet the government has stated that this law is in effect because of harassment towards women who go for abortions. 

Ottawa police records show no charges or assaults being laid against anyone at the Morgentaler facility in a three and a half year period. Therefore my request is a direct attempt to see what evidence the government actually has concerning this reason for this law, based on the health and safety of these women.

I suggest that this fee be waived in its entirety. I am sure you will agree that citizen access to information--which is only held in custody by the government of the day, and not owned by the government of the day--should not only be accessible to those who have the financial means to obtain this data.

I look forward to hearing back from you at your earliest convenience.

Thank you.

Sincerely,

Patricia Maloney
__________________________________________________________________________________

Here is the response I received for my email above from the FOI office of the Attorney General:

Hi Patricia, thanks for your email below. Please note fees are charged in accordance with the legislation to ensure that the burden of processing requests is not passed on to the tax payers.

With regard to Open Government, it does not include the release of personal information, which must be protected in accordance with the privacy provisions of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act. The records at issue may contain personal information and therefore does not fall within the Open Government initiative.

Concerning your request for a fee waiver, thank-you for your explanations. As mentioned in our letter dated November 2, please provide proof of your financial hardship and/or how the dissemination of the records at issue will benefit public health and safety. For assistance, please refer to the “Fees, Fee Estimates and Fee Waivers” reference material produced by the Information and Privacy Commissioner: https://www.ipc.on.ca/wp-content/uploads/2016/11/fees.pdf.

__________________________________________________________________________________

My next response: 

Dear FOI office of the Attorney General,

First. You state:

• "The records at issue may contain personal information and therefore does not fall within the Open Government initiative."

I am not requesting any personal information. If the records I am seeking, do contain personal information, the usual procedure is to redact this information. Therefore clearly releasing personal information to me is not an issue and my request satisfies the Open Government policy.

Second. The document you sent me states:

• "When is it fair and equitable to waive fees?...whether the requester worked constructively with the institution to narrow the scope of the request; whether the requester has advanced a compromise solution which would reduce costs;"

I have twice now agreed to reduce the scope of my request.

Third. The document you sent me states:

• "Generally, the requester must provide details regarding his/her financial situation, which may include information about income, assets and expenses." 

Obviously I have no intention of providing anyone with information "about my income, assets and expenses." This would be a breach of my privacy rights.

Fourth. On numerous previous occasions I have obtained FOI information from the Ontario government. Fees have never been requested of me, except once. That one time I complained and that fee was waived. Therefore the Ontario government has clearly demonstrated a history of not charging me fees. Why should fees now be charged?

Fifth. You ask me how these records:

• "at issue will benefit public health and safety". 

This abortion bubble zone law's alleged reason for being, is to protect the health and safety of women who go to abortion facilities. Notice that the intention is to protect these women. I see no allowance in the legislation that would provide protection to pro-life people whose health and safety is frequently in danger from people who spit at us; who rip up our signs; who threaten us; who confront us with verbal obscenities; and who block us from our annual peaceful March for life all the while hiding their identity by covering their faces. Our health and safety is threatened frequently in these many ways but we have no protection against that. This is why I want to be able to understand why this legislation was enacted--why are we not also provided with health and safety protection? Why are we being discriminated against by our politicians and others and why is this discrimination allowed to continue?

I look forward to hearing back from you.

Thank you.

Sincerely,

Patricia Maloney