CAFE’S PRESENTATION TO ONTARIO LEGISLATURE COMMITTEE RE: BRUTAL RESTRICTIONS ON RIGHT TO PROTEST ABORTIONS

Canadian Association for Free Expression

Box 332,

Rexdale, Ontario, M9W 5L3

Canadian Association for Free Expression

Box 332,

Rexdale, Ontario, M9W 5L3

Ph: 905-566-4455; FAX: 905-566-4820

Website: http://cafe.nfshost.com

Paul Fromm, B.Ed, M.A. Director

October 19, 2017

Outline of Submission to the Ontario Legislature’s Standing Committee on General Government Regarding Bill 163. An Act to Enable the Safe Access to Abortion Services Act, 2017

            The provisions of this Act are a severe restriction on freedom of speech of persons wishing to protest abortions. This Act is less about “safe access” to abortion services than it is about preventing persons who oppose abortion possibly upsetting persons working in or accessing these services. There is no constitutional or human right not to be upset.

Abortion is a controversial and vexing issue. Following the Supreme Court’s 1988 decision in R v Morgentaler, Canada, in effect, has abortion on demand. A woman may destroy her unborn child almost until its head emerges from the womb.  Thus, abortion is completely legal. On the other hand, many people, whether from sincerely held religious beliefs or secular moral ethics, believe the unborn child is not a piece of extraneous protoplasm but a human life. As such, they see abortion as murder. Some wish to protest abortion in general; some gather outside abortion clinics hoping to bringing these concerns to the people involved.

Thus, we have rights in conflict. Under existing laws protesters have no right to block access to a building or to assault people entering the building. These laws should be enforced. On the other hand, anti-abortion protests should be seen as informational pickets.

A report by on picketing by Gary Catherwood of Fasken Martineau (2005)  may be useful to the Committee: “ Common law tort principles apply. At common law, the Courts have very recently concluded that secondary picketing is permissible provided it is not done in a way which is otherwise tortious. The Courts have found that the right of an unrelated employer to perform business activities is less important than a union’s right to picket and communicate information about its dispute. .. Common law tort principles apply. At common law, the Courts have very recently concluded that secondary picketing is permissible provided it is not done in a way which is otherwise tortious. The Courts have found that the right of an unrelated employer to perform business activities is less important than a union’s right to picket and communicate information about its dispute.” As in a labour dispute, it is important for anti-abortion protesters to be at the site where abortions are performed, as it is for strikers to set up their informational picket at the site of the business being struck.

The safe zone of 150 metres — a football field and a half  — make a mockery out of the right to effectively stage an informational picket. Anyone violating a safe zone faces a fine of $5,000 and up to six months in prison for the first offence and subsequent infractions could see fines increase to $10,000 with up to a year in prison.

For perspective on these proposed draconian punishments, for example,  Section 445 (1) of the Criminal Code of Canada provides a fine of up to $10,000 and or up to 18 months in prison for killing, wounding maiming or injuring animals under one’s control. Thus, peacefully supporting human life inside the 150-metre bubble zone would attract the same penalty on second conviction as taking an axe and terminating the life of one’s cat or dog.

Injuring or endangering other animals
445. (1) Every one commits an offence who, wilfully and without lawful excuse,

(a) kills, maims, wounds, poisons or injures dogs, birds or animals that are not cattle and are kept for a lawful purpose; or

(b) places poison in such a position that it may easily be consumed by dogs, birds or animals that are not cattle and are kept for a lawful purpose.

Punishment
(2) Every one who commits an offence under subsection (1) is guilty of

(a) an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term of not more than five years; or

(b) an offence punishable on summary conviction and liable to a fine not exceeding ten thousand dollars or to imprisonment for a term of not more than eighteen months or to both.

Section 3.1(c) of this Bill  makes it a crime, inside the bubble zone, to   “perform or attempt to perform an act of disapproval

concerning issues related to abortion services, by any means, including oral, written or graphic means. ” Would driving one’s car even inadvertently past an abortion clinic with a pro-life bumper sticker be an offence? This law criminalizes expression of sincerely held religious or ethical beliefs.

In our respectful submission, this legislation is excessive, severely infringes on freedom of speech, freedom of assembly and dissent and should be withdrawn or defeated.

____________________________________

The Canadian Association for Free Expression (CAFE) CAFÉ is a non-profit educational organization that was incorporated in the Province of Ontario, on April 13, 1983 CAFÉ has over 30 years of experience intervening in tribunals and court cases on issues of freedom of expression.