In 2012 the Government of Ontario quietly slipped in an amendment to FIPPA (Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act) that reads: “This Act does not apply to records relating to the provision of abortion services.” This amendment was embedded in an omnibus bill – an omnibus bill is one that covers a large number of diverse and unrelated topics – and was never debated in the Legislature. It was only discovered after Pat Maloney, an Ottawa area pro-life blogger, had a Freedom of Information (FOI) request denied on the basis of the recently enacted amendment.

After careful consideration, and I emphasize ‘careful’ as we should never take it lightly when we file a lawsuit against the government, we made the decision to partner with Pat Maloney in requesting a judge to review the constitutionality of the amendment to FIPPA.

But why this fixation with statistics and freedom of information? This is a good question to ask; especially considering abortion is wrong no matter how many or for what reasons they occur.

We Need a Law is devoted to promoting grassroots political action. We know that for us to expect changes in public policy we will need to have strong enough public opinion. That is why we strive to give all citizens of Canada the tools they need to become politically engaged so they can be a voice for truth, justice, freedom, and human rights. But in order to do that properly, we need accurate information. Freedom of information is protected by the Charter’s freedom of expression guarantee because without access to government information, a citizen cannot meaningfully discuss, debate, scrutinize or make informed opinions on matters of public policy.

Statistics matter because, in addition to knowing how many pre-born children are aborted, they show how abortion really impacts women. How can we know abortion is safe if the government refuses to let the residents of Ontario know anything that pertains to the procedure? How many physical complications were there in relation to abortion?  How would anyone know whether or not women have been hurt psychologically in the process?

The reality is that without access to the statistics, no one knows the answers to these questions and this presents an incredible challenge in proposing solutions. When the government withholds very important and relevant information on abortion, women cannot make informed decisions, and advocacy organizations cannot carry out their missions.

If you live in Ontario and have not yet done so we ask that you take a few moments to send this email to your MPP. Ask them to repeal Section 65 (5.7) because censoring abortion data is no way to deal with an injustice that affects over 100,000 lives every year in Canada.

While George Orwell’s ‘1984’ was a warning, it has become a ‘how-to’ manual of sorts for cultural Marxists. Telling the truth requires knowing the facts and being free to talk about them openly.

The STOP CENSORSHIP TOUR will be hosting events throughout Ontario and you are invited to learn about how the Government of Ontario is actively hiding abortion statistics in order to frustrate the ongoing work of helping women and advancing pre-born human rights.

This event is free to attend and will feature John Sikkema, a lawyer with ARPA (Association for Reformed Political Action) Canada and Mike Schouten, Director of WeNeedaLAW.ca. The event will also feature Pat Maloney, a pro-life blogger from Ottawa who has been fighting for access to abortion data in Ontario.

There will be a financial appeal to support the ongoing efforts of WeNeedaLAW.ca.

Check below for a full listing of events, head to our Facebook events page for more details and to RSVP, or email Cassy Knegt at cassy@test.weneedalaw.ca for more information.

Every dollar spent by government should be open to scrutiny by the taxpayer and voter. For this reason, we support the pressure on the Liberals regarding their deletion of sensitive emails, and we also support the criticism of their decision to stop tracking the numbers of people being turned away at homeless shelters, a decision that makes it near-impossible for policy makers to properly assess and address needs in our communities.  These types of government actions, however, are not new. The censorship of what should be public information began already in 2001, when a Bill was quickly and quietly passed by the B.C. NDP, blocking access to information regarding abortions in the province. 

David Eby, the MLA for Vancouver-Point Grey, has been particularly relentless in pointing to the unjust muzzling of Freedom of Information, and the accountability a government must be held to in its allocation and use of public funds. While understandable that the Opposition would take such an approach, we find Mr. Eby and the NDP’s response rich with hypocrisy, as this same party had no problem with the muzzling of statistics when they were in power.  

In 2001, as one of their last acts in government, the NDP introduced Bill 21, an Act requiring hospitals to perform abortions while at the same time allowing them to keep the resulting statistics secret. The legislation was a striking, unprecedented breach of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act. In fact, the Information and Privacy Commissioner at that time, David Loukedelis, wrote a letter to deputy premier Joy MacPhail the very next day, informing her in no uncertain terms that Bill 21 unnecessarily limited public freedom to information collected by the government. Nevertheless, the NDP pushed ahead with this blatant act of censorship.

There is no excuse for the Liberals to delete information that the public has a right to know. But make no mistake, it was the NDP’s censorship bill which was the first law to restrict specific public information and exclude it from the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.  The NDP took this step despite there having never been a case regarding abortion statistics where compromising personal data was or could have been released. This purely ideological decision ensured that the abortion debate in British Columbia and, by default, Canada, would be stifled.  It is no longer possible to state with accuracy what type of abortions are being used, which procedures carry higher risks or have more complications, the reasons women choose abortion, the gestational age at abortion, or even the simplest statistic: how many occur each year? 

We often hear that abortion should be safe, legal, and rare. Well, it’s already legal throughout the entire pregnancy and we know that abortion advocates have long parted with caring about how rare it is.  By refusing to let the residents of British Columbia know anything that pertains to the procedure, we now don’t even know if it is safe. More importantly, how can policy makers and advocates know what situations are leading women to choose abortion, and how can these very real cries of desperation be answered with programs that are actually pro-woman? The reality is that, without the information, no one knows, and therefore nothing concrete can be done for those who may be feeling like their “choice” is no choice at all.  

It is ironic that the same party that sought to muzzle the debate on abortion by eliminating access to accurate statistics is the party now criticizing the Liberals for muzzling the debate on homelessness by eliminating access to statistics.  Even more ironic is that the spokesperson for the NDP is an “award-winning human rights lawyer”, who previously served as executive director for the BC Civil Liberties Association. Freedom of Information should be David Eby’s area of expertise, yet he has never spoken out against Bill 21, and it continues to stand in law over this province.

Holding the government accountable is the opposition’s role, and an important one. As such, the NDP is right to criticize government control over statistics. Provincial governments have a responsibility to ensure that the citizens who elect them have access to all the information needed to understand the use of taxpayer funds – whether regarding homelessness or health policy. No matter what your thoughts are on pre-born human rights or abortion, this form of censorship is contrary to everything an open and democratic society should embody.

In response to the Paris tragedy Rex Murphy wrote, “The great institutions of the West, the press and the universities, have been at best complicit and at worst cowardly when it comes up to defending freedom of speech — not from threats of Islamist fanatics with guns, but in much less demanding circumstances.”

That cowardly attitude manifested itself in a British Columbia courtroom this week.

At issue was the tense, and at times hostile relationship between a pro-life club, Youth Protecting Youth (YPY) and the University of Victoria. Some of YPY’s activities included engaging their fellow students on the topic of abortion and pre-born human rights. In short, using science and logic they challenged the dogma that allows for abortion on demand at any stage of pregnancy. They didn’t have guns, only words. The result of YPY’s attempts at initiating what should be an intellectually stimulating conversation was that some students complained to university staff; they just couldn’t handle their pro-choice ideology being challenged so boldly. The university capitulated and in 2013 revoked YPY’s club privileges for a period of one year. Cameron Coté, who led the pro-life club during his time at the University of Victoria, went to the BC Supreme Court with a petition seeking clarification that the university’s treatment of YPY was inconsistent with the Charter rights of Canadians – mostly notably the freedom of expression.

On Tuesday, Chief Justice Christopher Hinkson, who reviewed the petition, ruled that the Charter does not apply on university property and they are not free-speech zones. The decision to rule against Mr. Coté shows just how schizophrenic society has become. As one friend said to me, “Some judges just don’t get diversity and free speech. How autonomous from the Charter can a University be if TWU [Trinity Western University] isn’t allowed a law school because of the same Charter?”

Universities, which should be welcoming venues for young Canadians seeking to find their place in the moral fabric of society, are becoming the most intellectually sterile environments. Not only are ideas no longer debated freely and openly, but the students are taught that if you don’t agree with any particular idea you simply call on the authorities to shut that person(s) up. It is obvious there are a wide variety of opinions on pre-born human rights. But rather than simply muzzling everyone shouldn’t universities be encouraging vigorous debate?

The British Columbia Civil Liberties Association is to be applauded for partnering with Mr. Coté in his legal action against the University of Victoria. Though staunchly in favour of abortion, they at least understand that people with differing views ought to be able to express themselves freely.

The clamping down of free speech is not surprising. Those who insist on the right to kill a pre-born child are having an increasingly hard time defending their views. Their last resort is to kill the conversation. And as long as we faithfully stand up for our pre-born neighbours, they won’t be able to.

Check out the rest of the comic on Pat’s blog.

ACTION ITEM FOR ONTARIO RESIDENTS: Use this SimpleMail to let your MPP know you are not pleased that abortion data is kept hidden.

Pat says in her most recent blog post:

I asked her why the government put the abortion exclusion clause into FIPPA.

Ms. Meilleur responded:

“We amended the Freedom of Information Act at the request of the hospitals to maintain the quality and the privacy of the information, so it was not specific to abortion. It’s among other things [in the act]. I don’t think you would like your private information to be disclosed to the public.”

We have a CALL TO ACTION for our supporters from Ontario! Take a moment to send this customizable letter to your MPP asking for the facts on abortion.