In a previous blog post, we went over three things that bubble zone laws wrongly prohibit: expressing disapproval of, providing information about, or persuading someone not to have an abortion. But expressing the pro-life message is not the only thing these laws prohibit. They also rightly prohibit far more serious activity including physically interfering with someone, intimidation, and engaging in threatening conduct.
The proponents of this law suggested that those in the pro-life movement were confronting women going into an abortion clinic not just with information about other options or counsel about the value of life, but with violence, threats, and harassment.
All these repugnant activities were illegal prior to the bubble zone law, not only near an abortion clinic but anywhere in Canada. Physical assault, threats, and intimidation are prohibited under the Criminal Code. But the narrative driving the bubble zone law was that the pro-life movement was engaging in these activities so often that we needed another law prohibiting them and, in that law, the pro-life movement needed to also be excluded altogether from being near abortion clinics.
Likely that narrative doesn’t sit well with you, as it didn’t sit well with me. As a movement, we are peaceful. Every year (except for 2020), the pro-life movement gathers for the March for Life. This annual event is the largest political protest at our Parliament buildings each year and is not marked by violence, anger, or harassment. Rather, we are consistent in our peaceful declaration of the humanity of the pre-born child and the need for their protection. Groups like 40 Days for Life are known for silently praying outside abortion clinics or holding pro-life signs on the side of roads. Individuals displaying abortion victim photography are regularly yelled and sworn at, even assaulted. Our own supporters have held flag displays that have been torn up by counter-protesters. Yet the pro-life movements remains peaceful, even in these heated moments.
The narrative of a supposedly violent pro-life movement didn’t sit well with Pat Maloney either. A pro-life advocate, researcher, and writer, Maloney filed a freedom of information request with the Attorney General of Ontario asking for evidence of the need for the bubble zone. If there was violence, threats, or harassment taking place against women outside of abortion clinics, then there should be police reports of pro-lifers being charged under the Criminal Code.
However, the information commissioner responded to Pat Maloney: “with respect to the police reports, I had followed up earlier with the ministry [attorney general] and they advised there were no police reports.”
This means that the Attorney General, when introducing this bill and speaking of protecting women’s safety, was doing so based on no actual evidence of any real threat to women accessing abortion services.
I’d like to see the bubble zone law struck down as unconstitutional by our courts. But I would be just as happy to see it amended by the legislature. We can keep the prohibitions against violence, harassment, and threats – the pro-life movement has no interest in those activities.
What we do want is the freedom to engage with a woman entering an abortion clinic, to inform her about the precious humanity of her pre-born child, to caution her against making a choice for abortion, to offer support, and to advise her to protect the life of her child. None of those conversations should be considered a crime.
Abortion is an ever-present topic in Canadian politics. It was former Prime Minister Harper’s supposed “secret agenda” and is current Prime Minister Trudeau’s public pro-abortion agenda, especially through foreign aid. As the CPC leadership race unfolds, those with aspirations to lead need to be able to speak confidently about abortion legislation.
In contrast to Andrew Scheer during the 2019 election, the 2020 leadership candidates have an opportunity to support their own party’s policy, be in line with the majority Canadians, and appeal to the pro-life members of the party. That opportunity is MP Cathay Wagantall’s private member’s Bill C-233 the Sex Selective Abortion Act. It seems like a win-win, but up until now somehow both O’Toole and MacKay have missed it.
Unlike Scheer, who was left to comment on any hypothetical piece of legislation that touches abortion, these candidates have a concrete piece of legislation that they can either support or oppose. And it is not a complicated bill: it prohibits a physician from knowingly performing an abortion because of the sex of the pre-born child, a practice that clearly runs contrary to Canada’s commitment to equality between the sexes.
Not only is it a straightforward piece of legislation, it is directly in line with Conservative Party policy #81 which address women’s rights and declares that, as a party, they “condemn discrimination against girls through gender selection abortions.” Additionally, this bill has broad support, with 84% of Canadians saying they support this type of legislation in a poll that came out earlier this year.
A leader of the Conservative Party of Canada needs to be straightforward and needs to represent their party – supporting the Sex Selective Abortion Act is a great way to accomplish this. Candidates Leslyn Lewis and Derek Sloan have confirmed their support for the legislation, and it is our hope to get clear statements of support from Erin O’Toole and Peter MacKay as well.
It is not about being pro-life or pro-choice – both O’Toole and Mackay have been clear that they are pro-choice. Rather, this is about addressing discrimination at the earliest stages of life, supporting their own party’s policy, and listening to what the vast majority of Canadians support.
There is much to gain politically for both MacKay and O’Toole by supporting this bill. All candidates should be concerned about what the membership wants, including pro-life members. While members may have already decided on their first choice, many are still figuring out how to rank their ballot. The way candidates respond to this bill could determine how and if certain candidates get ranked.
If you are a member of the Conservative party, or just a Canadian with an interest in what our leaders believe about pre-born human rights, consider writing to MacKay and O’Toole’s campaigns and ask them whether they would vote in favour of Bill C-233: The Sex Selective Abortion Act. Consider sharing our Position Paper on sex selective abortions or pointing them to DefendGirls.com for more information.
Erin O’Toole’s email: info@erinotoole.ca
Peter MacKay’s email: info@petermackay.ca
When will the Canadian public wake up to the deeply contradictory stance of staying home to protect the vulnerable, while keeping abortion clinics open to kill the vulnerable?
Recognizing the value of life
Earlier this month, groups of university students ignored social distancing recommendations to party in Florida for their spring break. The online reaction was harsh and unequivocal: go home. Think of others. Health care workers continue to share posts asking Canadians to stay home so that they do not become overwhelmed with patients. Canadians have responded with appreciation and applause for these selfless frontline workers.
An article on Global News stated that this virus is “bringing out the worst in a minority of people, even while others practice generosity and social distancing.” Isn’t it interesting that they characterize “the worst in people” as thinking only of themselves, at the possible expense of the vulnerable? The pro-life movement has always made this point: when it comes to the lives of others, we as society have a responsibility. All lives are valuable, and those who are more vulnerable need more protection.
The vast majority of those dying from COVID-19 around the world are elderly, and had some pre-existing health condition. We recognize the vulnerability of these people. Those of us who are less vulnerable to serious illness still stay home as much as possible, and look for ways to support those who are quarantined or isolated. We willingly close schools, stores, and churches. These are radical, selfless measures that show our recognition of and willingness to live in community.
A pro-life response
The response we see to COVID-19 is essentially a pro-life response. The majority of Canadians are willing to accept significant inconvenience, stress, and change in their own lives for the benefit of the lives of others. This is no different than being faced with an unplanned pregnancy and being willing to accept inconvenience, stress and change in your life for the sake of the life of someone else. Whether you are the one with an unplanned pregnancy or whether it is someone else in your life, we all have a role in helping the most vulnerable.
Perhaps the only difference is in the wave of societal support for the restrictive measures being used to fight COVID-19. Perhaps if we could see that same wave of support around a woman facing an unplanned pregnancy, we would see the same willingness to accept restriction and to adapt in a way that honours the value of all life. Protecting life should always have societal support.
Opportunity and responsibility
The response to COVID-19 contradicts the idea that individual autonomy trumps the collective good. COVID-19 will likely affect someone we know. Abortion likely already has affected someone we know. In this way, both also affect us. We are all connected as part of the human family and, in either case, we have both an opportunity and a responsibility. These are opportunities to shine light into darkness, to make someone feel valued, to care selflessly. There is also a responsibility, to speak up about the value of life, to be willing to sacrifice in order to give support, to point to what is good and what is wrong.
Hearts and minds
The sweeping, dramatic measures taken in response to COVID-19 have shown what Canadians are capable of doing. They have shown our ability to be selfless, our willingness to give up some freedoms for the greater good of the lives and health of others. We have seen a heightened recognition of our connectedness, and the impact our actions and choices have on the lives of others.
The care shown for our vulnerable neighbours in response to this pandemic is heartening. It reminds us that hearts and minds can be changed, and maybe the change needed isn’t as dramatic as we may have thought. Now we pray that hearts and minds may be open to see the connection between care for the born and care for the pre-born, and to be willing to make some radical changes to how Canada operates in order that all members of the human family may have their best chance at life.
]]>
Recent events are a testament to this growing discussion: the backlash to the Canada Summer Jobs attestation, Prime Minister Trudeau’s disallowing of pro-life views in the Liberal party, the Canadian funding of abortions overseas, the movie Unplanned, and the tragedy that a pre-born child cannot be recognized as a victim of crime. Canadians, including the media, politicians, and the general public, are talking about abortion. The debate is happening, and as voters this October we should expect MPs to represent us by engaging in this ongoing debate.
We are seeing this impact already in the lead up to the October 2019 federal election, including last week when Conservative leader Andrew Scheer held a press conference to deal with questions about his socially conservative views, including his view on abortion.
During his run for leadership of the Conservative party, Scheer went on record saying that while a Conservative government would not bring forward abortion legislation, private member’s bills could be introduced, and would be handled by a free vote. Since then, Scheer has not said much. In the press conference, he spoke again about recognizing MP’s freedom of conscience, but said he will “oppose any measures or attempts to open this debate.”
Scheer blames the Liberals for bringing up the abortion issue. But, it’s not only the Liberals who are talking about it; there are a growing number of Canadians who are looking to their elected officials to do something about the lack of abortion legislation. In fact, the case could be made that Scheer is the leader of the Conservatives as a direct result of Canadians who want legislative action on pre-born human rights. Scheer only has himself to blame if he’s wondering why abortion continues to be part of the election narrative.
Canadians are looking for a clear response. The question is, if an MP under a Conservative government puts forward a private member’s bill on abortion, what will Scheer do? Will he recognize that the MP is representing their constituents’ desire to see abortion debated in Parliament? We applaud his commitment to freedom of conscience and his party’s policy reinforcing this. But what does it mean, then, that he will “oppose any measure or attempt to open this debate”? Especially as the leader of a party, Scheer has a lot of influence even beyond government bills.
We have plenty of reasons to believe he will allow the debate, despite some of Scheer’s vague statements. He does still give strong acknowledgement to the freedom of conscience of MPs. Another indication comes from pro-life MP Arnold Viersen’s recent Facebook post:
What should you do?
Politicians are commenting on this because Canadians are talking about pre-born human rights. Keep that conversation going! Use this election period to ask your local candidate where they stand on this issue. Use the questions on our doorhanger to begin the conversation and ask any candidate how they will engage in the ongoing debate on abortion. Let them know that you expect your representative to participate in that debate in Parliament even after this election.
If you find a good pro-life candidate, consider volunteering for them. Continue to build the relationship and have that discussion about the importance of passing laws that recognize pre-born human rights.
As we have said before, the federal election provides a unique abundance of opportunities to talk to candidates about issues that matter to you. Candidates are listening. Let them hear from those who cannot speak for themselves.
]]>For the first 102 years of Canada’s existence as a nation, the pre-born child had full legal protection. That all changed a half century ago when Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau introduced and passed a bill that legalized abortion. Abortion has been legal in Canada for fifty years, the last thirty of which we have had no fetal protection laws whatsoever.
To mark this 50th anniversary, several producers have worked with a Calgary-based filmmaker in putting together The Missing Project. The Missing Project is a two-part initiative that was launched on Mother’s Day with the release of daily short stories on how abortion has impacted Canadians. The project culminates with the exclusive online release of a full-length documentary this Canada Day weekend.
The Missing Project documentary is a 70-minute film that documents what is missing in our nation because of fifty years of legal abortion. Missing laws. Missing people. Missing information. Missing voices.
Filmmaker and producer Ryan Stockert gathered stories from lawyers, politicians, medical professionals, post-abortive women and men, adopted children, foster families, advocates, and many others in the pro-life movement. Stockert was indifferent to the abortion debate prior to taking on this project, and therefore is well suited to provide a unique perspective on fifty years of history as it relates to women’s rights and fetal rights. “We called the documentary ‘The Missing Project’ because so much of the abortion discussion is now missing from public spaces,” said Stockert. “I always thought abortion is a private discussion and so no one else should be involved. But as I’ve talked to Canadians across the country, it’s clear the stories of Canadians affected by abortion need to be heard.”
The film includes a powerful segment on Bill C-43, an abortion bill introduced by Prime Minister Brian Mulroney in 1990. That bill was the last that any government has tried to pass. Former assistant to then-Member of Parliament Benno Friesen shares how the pro-life movement bears much of the responsibility for the defeat of that bill and of where we are today – the only country in the world without an abortion law.
The release of The Missing Project falls on the eve of the 2019 Federal Election. Prime Minister Trudeau has spent much of the past four years convincing Canadians he is a feminist, and a big part of that is sharing his obsession with abortion, both in Canada and developing countries. Trudeau’s fixation on abortion is sure to carry over into the upcoming election as he attempts to scare Canadians into thinking that Andrew Scheer has a hidden agenda of taking away a women’s so-called “right to choose.”
For his part, the Conservative leader consistently divorces himself from his Catholic faith by promising Canadians that they can have “absolute confidence” he will never reopen the abortion debate. This in turn has given the leader of the People’s Party of Canada, Maxime Bernier, opportunity to garner support from social conservatives. This is manifested in his support for outspoken pro-lifer Laura-Lynn Tyler Thompson to run as his first candidate in a byelection earlier this spring. Bernier also made an indirect appeal to this same voting block when he issued a series of tweets calling for sensible abortion regulations.
The abortion debate continues in Canadian politics. But the people whose experiences are documented in The Missing Project show that abortion is much more than a political issue. It is a tragedy that political leaders continue to use abortion, and their commitment to withholding rights from these smallest human beings, to secure votes for themselves, or scare Canadians away from voting for others.
More is missing from abortion than can ever be captured adequately by any film, but the people and stories featured in The Missing Project share the truth that the lives of all human beings matter. Canada is the only democracy in the world that refuses to deal with the legality of abortion. This is a reality we should never accept, and it’s certainly not something to be celebrated.
]]>
Mike Schouten has been the campaign director of WeNeedaLAW.ca since its launch in 2012. Mike has had a lifelong interest in politics and the sanctity of human life, and his position as campaign director blends these two passions wonderfully.
Aside from directing the day to day affairs of the campaign, Mike has been published many times in the National Post, Vancouver Sun, and the Calgary Herald. He also has been interviewed by Sun News, CBC News, CPAC and various radio talk shows across the country.
Mike lives in Metro Vancouver with his wife Jennifer and their six children. His goal for this campaign is to bury the status quo by helping to enact the first pro-life law this country has seen in nearly 30 years, and his ultimate goal is that Canada will have full legal protection for all pre-born children.
Contact Mike at mike@test.weneedalaw.ca
Assistant to the Director – Cassy Knegt
Cassy supports the work of WeNeedaLAW.ca by assisting our Director, primarily through communications and event management. She is responsible for keeping current and accurate databases, and delivering relevant and timely communication related to protecting pre-born children in our nation. Cassy helps coordinate events, from travel arrangements through to helping local groups host successful events with our Director, across Canada. In addition to helping grow the success of WeNeedaLAW.ca through online and traditional media, she is responsible for facilitating effective meetings between our Director and members of various levels of government.
For administrative matters please contact Cassy at cassy@test.weneedalaw.ca. For media inquiries please email media@test.weneedalaw.ca
Policy and Research Coordinator – Anna Nienhuis
Anna is responsible for conducting research which assists us in advancing pre-born human rights in Canada. She compiles information involving legal cases, news items and commentary that supports the mission of WeNeedaLAW.ca and strengthens our talking points. Anna also assists our Director in the promotion of the campaign via social media. In addition to these responsibilites she regulary reviews articles that are posted on our website.
Anna can be reached at anna@test.weneedalaw.ca
]]>
Should you have any questions, don’t hesitate to contact us at info@test.weneedalaw.ca.
Click on any of the images to enlarge. Print files are attached below!
- Respond directly to either a current news story or an article or commentary published within the last week. Follow the format used in the publication you are sending to. The standard format is: Re: “Be a voice for the voiceless” – June 21, 2012
- Focus on one issue only. Trying to address separate issues in one letter will decrease your chances of getting published. Be sure to follow the guidelines regarding word count. Most community newspapers allow a maximum of 250 words, whereas larger publications often limit it to 200 or less.
- Remove all non-essential words. For example, don’t say, “I think” or “I believe”. It’s obvious and will increase the chance of editors changing the letter.
- Use verified facts.
- Email your letter in the body of the email. Never send unsolicited attachments.
- Include your full address and daytime phone number with the letter.
- Pay attention to other letters that are published. Note what is effective and ineffective about them in order to help you improve your own skills.
- If your letter doesn’t get published the first time you send one in, don’t be disheartened. News publications receive many letters, so please try again.
We know that you can’t do everything. But one thing you can do is sign up for our newsletter if you haven’t already!
]]>