Ontario government tramples on civil rights.

The controversy about the Asian Pacific Economic Conference (APEC) demonstrations in Vancouver, which the Prime Minister ordered to be suppressed, has raised again the issue of freedom for demonstrators of various types. But demonstrations in Canada have, in fact, already been restricted by governments in the past. One example is the NDP-initiated bubble-zone injunction cases in Ontario (Attorney General v. Dieleman) and British Columbia.

The Ontario A.G. who started the civil action in 1993, London MPP Marion Boyd, sought to prevent all pro-life demonstrations whatsoever, including picketing and prayer at doctors' residences.

It is important to remember that the action in Ontario did not occur because of public or legislative pressure and, indeed, did not take place in a legislative venue. Rather, one department of the government--the A.G.'s office--sought a civil injunction on behalf of abortion providers (the clinics have intervenor status) without the input or consent of other duly elected members of the provincial legislature. The NDP government was able to pursue the judicial avenue instead of the legislative one only because as the governing party at the time (ardently pro-abortion) it had both the administrative power and the resources to do so.

It must be clarified, therefore, that an injunction is not a law; it is a civil action between two parties that attempt to control or stop certain behaviours of the defendant. Injunctions are enforceable through the criminal code by the charge "disobeying a court order."

Result

In Ontario, the result to date has been an interlocutory, meaning "temporary", injunction granted by Justice Adams on August 30, 1994. This does not restrict hospital picketing, but does ban picketing at the homes of abortionists for 500 feet. It also crafted bubble zones around abortion clinics, three of them in downtown Toronto, allowing no pro-life activity within 30/60 feet of the building and prohibiting approaching closer than 10 ft to a person who "does not wish to receive any communication from the first person."

The NDP government accompanied the injunction with a lawsuit against 18 named individuals selected at random from among pro-lifers, plus John & Jane Doe and persons unknown. Later, two of them were dropped because they had never participated in picketing at all, leaving the present 16.

In addition, the government demanded punitive damages in the amount of $500,000 plus costs. (The money the government paid out to pro-abortion lawyers Morris Manning and Clayton Ruby alone, came to over $750,000.) All this was part of the NDP harassment of the pro-life movement.

The above was the legal result. What about the political response? The Liberal opposition remained silent. The Conservative Justice critic at the time, Charles Harnick, stated: "I oppose the NDP government seeking the injunction solely on the basis of the restriction on the right to freedom of expression and freedom of assembly. If harassment is occurring during the course of pro-life activities, I believe there are other means the government should be taking to control these situations before turning to an injunction as a remedy."

That was then. Two years later the same Charles Harnick, today's Attorney General, had changed his mind about the court case: "I must be personally satisfied that continuing with this action would be in the public interest," he said. "I have therefore carefully reviewed and considered the facts and the law. I am satisfied that any limits on the freedom of expression which the injunction may impose are justified in the interest of public health and safety, and the safe provision of medical services. I have therefore decided that it is appropriate to proceed with this action and seek a permanent injunction" (February of 1996; emphasis mine). Today, in October of 1998, four years after it was granted, the "temporary" injunction is still on the books.

Health and Safety

What then are the "public health and safety" issues Charles Harnick feels are compelling enough to override the rights of freedom of expression of peaceful people protesting abortions? They represent the rationale of Justice Adams' imposition of the bubble-zones around abortion clinics.

1. First, Justice Adams held that "social science research has demonstrated the existence of personal space--an emotionally charged zone surrounding each individual that regulates one's social and physical interactions with others." The perception is that people are surrounded by a series of invisible bubbles which have measurable dimensions. Edward Hall, a social scientist, came up with the opinion that social distance between people ranges from four feet to twelve feet.

Public distance, the next "invisible", begins at 12 feet. A 10-foot bubble, which can be activated for 100 feet, recognizes "the health concerns of any potential interaction occurring on a public street between strangers who may or may not wish to speak to each other," Hall says.

2. Secondly Adam states: "A woman who is traumatized by protesters as she approaches an abortion clinic may, as the evidence indicates, remain in this emotional state after she enters the facility to receive medical care. This is particularly likely when the patient realizes she will encounter the protesters upon her departure. Medical staff at these clinics state that protesters leave patients crying and in great distress. This stress complicates counselling, increases the health risks, and prolongs recovery times."

The first argument concerns "space", personal and public. Applied to the Indonesian dictator surrounded by his gunmen in Vancouver at the APEC meeting, this social theory led to the repression of all demonstrations, apparently on the grounds that visual contact at whatever distance might upset Mr. Suharto and his gunmen. The PM's office was sympathetic and accommodating, with a result unacceptable to a democratic society.

With respect to the second argument, that of stress complicating the abortion procedure, it can well be argued that it is the trespassing of the natural and moral law of the heart that causes the distress. The presence of picketers only confirms what the woman already knows to be true. In which case her distress is the attempt of her own conscience to prevent or reconcile an unjust and immoral act. It is precisely through her natural distress that picketers attempt to achieve a change of heart.

"Obstructing a peace officer"?

In addition to the questionable motivations or justification given for the necessity of an injunction, there is administrative subterfuge and deception. Currently in Toronto, the injunction is being indirectly challenged by three individuals--Baptist pastor Ken Campbell; Linda Gibbons, an Evangelical Protestant who herself has had an abortion and who in a totally passive way has spent most of the last four years in jail for repeatedly returning to counsel women entering the abortuaries; and Mrs. Anneliese Steden, a Catholic, and a long-time pro-life activist from Cambridge, ON, whose conscience will no longer allow her to do nothing while the unborn are being killed and civil rights are trampled on.

Now, over a four-year period the charge against Linda Gibbons, who entered the bubble zone to protest peacefully, has been that of "obstructing a peace officer," when, in fact, no "obstruction" of any kind was taking place.

On July 15, 1998, Judge Milton Cadsby dismissed an obstruction charge against Mr. Campbell. His defence lawyer successfully argued that the only applicable charge was "disobeying a court order." This charge is a more serious offence than the obstruction charge. It would force the government to call for a trial with judge and jury--rather like Henry Morgentaler. In dismissing the charge--and therefore the case--the Judge rhetorically asked: "An interlocutory (i.e., temporary) injunction lasting from 1994 to 1998 with no further proceedings by the Province?"

On September 9, 1998, Campbell, once again in participation with Linda Gibbons, who refuses to speak to either police officers or the Court in order to identify with the unborn who have no voice, but this time also with Anneliese Steden, ventured arrest once again. Once again these three were charged with "obstructing a peace officer."

While under arrest, both Campbell and Steden inquired repeatedly why the charge of "disobeying a court order" had not been laid. In reply, police officers at Toronto's 51 Division informed them that higher-ups (i.e., the Attorney General's office) did not want to give them "a platform for their views." While Campbell signed an undertaking not to return, Anneliese Steden and Linda Gibbons refused to sign the conditions for their release. Hence both remain in jail awaiting trial. These two women report intense pressure from those in charge to sign the release.

How to resist?

It should be borne in mind that this anti-life attack and suppression of the civil right to protest is also an attack on religious rights, indeed on Christianity itself. As for now, the best resistance is a combination of pressure from the inside (Linda & Anneliese) and pressure from outside, meaning political action for the Christian community.

Our MPP's must be forced to explain why the Ontario Tory government feels such loyalty to a civil injunction brought forth four years ago by a political party formerly in power and loudly dismissed. It must also be asked why a party whose notion of fiscal responsibility supersedes all other issues is willing to spend hundreds of thousands of dollars prosecuting and incarcerating otherwise law-abiding citizens. (Why, too, do they continue to pay $50 million of taxpayers' money a year for the 40,000 annual abortions in Ontario?)

Ultimately, we must ask why a democratically elected government needs to hide behind judicial muscle and subterfuge to remove freedom of assembly and freedom of expression rights for tens of thousand of pro-life citizens. Remember, this is a civil judicial act, not a legislative one. It also named sixteen individuals at random and proceeded to strip the rights of all others through its broad reach.

Let us recall also that this stripping of fundamental freedoms was done without discussion, without the vote of duly elected officials, without public input, but solely through the power of the Attorney General and the courts alone. It is boldly undemocratic.

Like it or not, unless more people help to challenge the government's behaviour, threats or more government suppression are bound to follow. Let the efforts of these two courageous women not be in vain.

Bettina Hagey is a daughter of Anneliese Steden.