City councillor afraid of pro-life people

So yesterday I get a knock on my door. I answer it. One of Tobi Nussbaum's volunteers is there.

Her: Hi I am canvassing for Tobi Nussbaum.

Me: I won't be voting for him.

Her: Would you like to speak with him, he's just out here.

Me: No.

Her: Can I ask why not?

Me: I didn't like the way he handled the pro-life flag last year when it was taken down.

Her: Okay thanks.

And off she ran. She couldn't get away from the door fast enough.

Man our city councillors and mayor don't like being around us.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Here are my three previous posts on the subject.

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

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

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

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

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

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

To: Watson, Jim (Mayor/Maire) 

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

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

Importance: High 

Dear Mayor Jim Watson, 

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

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

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

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

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

Thank you very much for your consideration.  

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Nice way to treat your constituent.

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

"Mayor Watson,

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

Yours truly"

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

"Attached is the flag as per your request."

More later.

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

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

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

Members of Council,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

More on this later.

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

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

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

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

I've now asked him this question three times.

Dear Ms. Maloney,

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thank you for your feedback, 

Jim Watson 

Mayor

City of Ottawa