Protesting public policy on public property - prohibited

Fr. Tony's lawyer Albertos Polizogopoulos has filed two letters: one to the Attorney General of Ontario, and one to the Crown regarding charges against him. Fr. Tony who was charged under the Safe Access to Abortion Services Act which prohibits freedom of expression rights for pro-life people only.

If a pro-choice person held a sign in the same place, they wouldn't be charged. Therefore this bill not only prohibits free speech, but is also discriminatory against pro-life people. 

Letter to Attorney General

Letter to Crown Prosecutor’s Office

According to the letter:

"The Defendant intends to question the constitutional validity of the Safe Access to Abortion Services Act, 2017 S.O. 2017, chapter 19 Schedule 1.

...

The following is the legal basis for the constitutional question:

10. Father Van Hee was protesting a political and public policy issue on public property. The Act has resulted in his freedom of expression pursuant to section 2(b) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms being violated. The limits cannot be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society. 

11. The Act is arbitrary and overbroad and contrary to the Charter. As such, the Act is null and void. 

12. The limits on Father Van Hee’s freedom of expression do not serve a pressing and substantial objective. The limits cannot be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society. 

13. The means chosen to serve the Act’s objective are not rationally connected to the objective, are not minimally impairing and are not proportionate. 

14. The limits on Father Van Hee’s freedom of expression cannot be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society."

It's pretty pathetic how pro-life people are continually having to defend our right to freedom of expression by going to court. It's supposedly a right but it sure isn't free when you have to go to court and pay for it. Over and over again.

Educating MPs on the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child

Letter from Theresa Winchester to her MP Neil Ellis

Just thought I'd write to you to remind you that Human Rights Day is coming up on Dec 10, same as every year for some time now. 

So why would I want to remind you of this, you ask?  Because Canada is doing an incredibly BAD job of protecting its children in spite of being a member of the United Nations.

Please confirm my belief that Canada is a nation state of the United Nations and as such, as party to Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the International Covenants on Human Rights.   

And why would I say that?  Because the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child state a few things that somehow, the government of Canada and therefore you, do not honour or respect in Canada.  Let's just copy and paste from this very credible website:

https://www.ohchr.org/en/professionalinterest/pages/crc.aspx

...as indicated in the Declaration of the Rights of the Child, "the child, by reason of his physical and mental immaturity, needs special safeguards and care, including appropriate legal protection, before as well as after birth",  

...in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the United Nations has proclaimed that childhood is entitled to special care and assistance, 

...the United Nations has, in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and in the International Covenants on Human Rights, proclaimed and agreed that everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth therein, without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status, 

Article 6

1. States Parties recognize that every child has the inherent right to life.

2. States Parties shall ensure to the maximum extent possible the survival and development of the child.

Article 7

1. The child shall be registered immediately after birth and shall have the right from birth to a name, the right to acquire a nationality and. as far as possible, the right to know and be cared for by his or her parents.

So, you likely are a pretty smart dude, having made it to be my local MP.  Tell me how you reconcile all of these rights of the child with the approximately 100,000 yearly deaths of Canadian children by abortion.  And even more baffling, how children who survive abortion are left to die or deliberately killed after birth and no one is held accountable under the Criminal Code of Canada.  Cause I just can't get my head around that. 

There are some very very basic, easy to understand facts at play here that neither right nor honourable Justin Trudeau and the entire Liberal Party seem to be unaware of:

a.  The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees all Canadian humans a right to life;

b.  There is no right to an abortion under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.   Because JT keeps referring to it again and again, I've looked at the Charter again and again -- it just ain't there!  Or does he perhaps have an unpublished but more official version of the Charter?  That would explain it.  

Please correct me if there is something that I do not understand.  After all, you're an Member of Parliament and I am only a taxpaying retired 30 year Canadian Forces Human Resources specialist.  You likely understand these documents far better than I.  Cause to me, simple-minded as I am, it seems to me that every abortion to which there is no right in Canada or in the UN takes life which is a protect right from a child.  What am I missing here?  

Sure is baffling.  And yet it continues.  And the PM continues to say things that are not true.  And all his MPs nod in agreement on that side of the house like a bunch of Bobbleheads.  

Just saying. 

Priest challenges Safe Access to Abortion Services Act

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Okay class, let's review.

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

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

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

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

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

His letter to the Attorney General concludes with this gem:

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

I am not kidding.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

"Intimidation or intent to intimidate a person."

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

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

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

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

Yes. This law is political. Pure and simple.

Praying to end abortion standing in the corner

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

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

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

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

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