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.

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.

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

By Patricia Maloney

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

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

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

The writer said:

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

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

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

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

The person who tried to engage Watson then said this:

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

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

Then the person said this:

"And finally, I brought up the issue of the pro-life flag at City Hall being taken down after complaints by some city councilors, and I expressed my concern about an interview he had given to Global News where he said pro-life campaigns are "divisive" and have no place at City Hall...I reminded him that he allowed an LGBTQ flag to fly, and I asked, shouldn't pro-lifers be treated equally and be allowed to have their flag flown as well? Isn't that only fair? Why the double standard? His response hit the nail on the head for me as to why he feels it is fine to discriminate against us. He said (paraphrasing): "The LGBTQ community promotes human rights. You want to take away women's rights." So that was it. Plain and simple."

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

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

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights states:

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

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

Finally the person conversing with Watson said this:

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

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

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.

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.

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.)

Abortion bubble zone goes after Catholics: we are in the world we are not of the world

From LifeSite News:

"Ontario’s legislators passed a bill criminalizing pro-life speech and expression outside abortion clinics today by a vote of 86-1. 

MPP Jack MacLaren, a member of the Trillium Party, cast the sole dissenting vote. 

PC Conservative MPPs Sam Oosterhoff, Monte McNaughton and Rick Nicholls were not in the House for the vote."

This morning my sister Maureen and I were scheduled to pray at the abortion facility on Bank St.  We went as planned. We prayed the Rosary. Another lady joined us from Our Lady of Fatima parish. The three of us prayed the Divine Mercy Chaplet.

We made sure we didn't "observe" the abortion facility because that is now illegal. I "observed" the ground in front of me.

None of us "observed" the abortion site.

Heck the birds started singing when we were praying.

Fr. Raymond de Souza calls it secular fundamentalism.

It's amazingly hypocritical that Jim Watson is speaking out against the Niqab ban in Quebec but is perfectly fine with banning Catholics from being at the abortion site.

"In his letter dated Tuesday, Watson pointed out that Ottawa residents regularly use public services across the Ottawa River. 

"I am saddened that, in doing so, they will not enjoy the same freedoms as they do in Ottawa," Watson wrote...  

"...I sincerely hope that, with the opportunity for reflection, your government will abandon what can only be described as a thinly veiled appeal to populist sentiment, in light of the divisive effects."

"They will not enjoy the same freedoms as they do in Ottawa"? 

"Thinly veiled appeal to populist sentiment, in light of the divisive effects"?

Does Watson have a clue as to the hypocrisy and irony of what he's saying? Maybe Watson should do some "reflecting" of his own. In fact it was Watson who instigated this anti-free speech bill. 

Please email Kathleen, Patrick, Nasir and Jim and tell them what you think of this anti-freedom, anti-Catholic, and anti-free speech bill.

kwynne.mpp.co@liberal.ola.org
ynaqvi.mpp@liberal.ola.org
patrick.brown@ontariopc.com
jim.watson@ottawa.ca

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

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

Read from the bottom.

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

Dear Tobi,

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

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

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

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

Sincerely,

Patricia Maloney

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

Dear Patricia,

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

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

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

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

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

I hope that helps clarify my position.

Signed,

Tobi Nussbaum

Tobi Nussbaum

Councillor/Conseiller, Rideau-Rockcliffe

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

  

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

Dear Jim Watson,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sincerely,

Patricia Maloney

March for Life 2017 - a letter to Jim Watson

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

To: Jim Watson, Mayor, City of Ottawa

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thank you, and I look forward to your response.

Sincerely, 

BM

Double standard alive and well for pro-life people

By Patricia Maloney

Mayor Jim Watson and my councillor Tobi Nussbaum never had the courtesy to answer my question as to why our rights of peaceful protest were ignored when the Ottawa Police re-routed the March for Life. Mind you I'm used to politicians not answering my questions since apparently we don't deserve the same respect as other people.

Now Watson is asking for a bubble zone. Christie Blatchford's take on this in today's National Post:

"Let it never be said that the state is shy about using an elephant gun to kill a flea.

I give you the latest musings of Ontario Attorney General Yasir Naqvi, who this week announced that next fall, his government is going to legislate “safe access zones” around abortion clinics to “help ensure the safety and privacy of women, visitors and health-care workers travelling to and from these facilities.”

Naqvi, who represents a downtown Ottawa riding where a Morgentaler Clinic is located, alluded to recent “serious instances of intimidation, harassment and even assault” towards patients there. Urging the province to act were Ottawa Mayor Jim Watson and Catherine Macnab of Planned Parenthood Ottawa.

Perhaps there’s a real issue in Ottawa, though there has been little hard reporting of it. Some protesters there wear sandwich boards featuring photos of lurid and cut-up bodies, and yell at patients that they are killing their babies, clinic staff say."

Good point. If there's been so many problems at the Morgentaler facility, where is all the reporting of it? And if there are bone-fide problems why don't the police deal with them? Like they do everywhere else there are harassment problems?

In fact in 2012 abortion doctor Wendy Norman said this in her study Abortion health services in Canada:

“Facilities reported very little harassment. 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.”

So if one of Canada's premier abortion doctors says there is virtually no harassment or problems at abortion facilities, why is Yasir Naqvi and Jim Watson using an elephant gun to to kill a flea? It's because there are two sets of standards in "civilized" society today. One set for pro-life people. And one set for everybody else.

New FOI reveals even less evidence for abortion bubble zone

Remember I told you about the police reports at 65 Bank St. for 2014 to June 2017? There were 64 incidents in 41 months. That's 1.56 incidents per month. Of those 64 incidents, there were no injuries and no charges laid.

Today I received more information from the police reports. This time for 2010-2013. There were 113 incidents in 48 months. That's 2.35 incident per month. Out of those 113 incidents, there were--once again--no injuries and no charges laid.

This means that in the most recent period (2014 to June, 2017), the number of police reports have actually decreased by 33.6% from the previous three year period (2010 to 2013).

So why do we need a bubble zone at all?

Also remember that the abortion bubble zone law is a direct result of Ottawa mayor Jim Watson who discriminates against pro-life people. Watson initiated this law. Watson also took down our pro-life flag at city hall during the March for Life. Watson also refused to respond to my repeated requests for an explanation for why our March for Life was rerouted so 100 masked thugs could divert 14,000 peaceful people.

I guess we could call Ottawa the abortion capital of the world:

• No protection for life and no protection for the rights of those who defend life
• Justin Trudeau is the most pro-abortion federal leader ever
• Kathleen Wynne and Patrick Brown are the most pro-abortion provincial leaders ever. I guess you could say two for the price of one
• And now we can add Jim Watson as the most pro-abortion mayor ever

China and North Korea have nothing on Canada. How embarrassing.

Pro-life - We will not be cowed into submission

to: Jim.Watson@ottawa.ca,

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

diane.deans@ottawa.ca,

Marianne.wilkinson@ottawa.ca,

Tobi.Nussbaum@ottawa.ca

Jim.Watson@ottawa.ca,

jeff.leiper@ottawa.ca,

Jan.harder@ottawa.ca,

Mathieu.Fleury@ottawa.ca

Dear Jim Watson,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sincerely,

Patricia Maloney

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

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

By Patricia Maloney

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

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

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

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

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

Double standard.

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

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

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

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

Double standard.

Jim Watson - tell us what you really think

By Patricia Maloney

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

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

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

How peaceful prolife people are treated

By Patricia Maloney

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

He replied:

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

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

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

My subsequent reply:

Dear Chief Bordeleau,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sincerely,

Patricia Maloney

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