London, Ontario City Council Urged to Restrict & Censor Right-to-Life Groups
City Councillors in London, Ontario are trying to censor pro-life activism and hide the truth about abortion in their city.
There are two by-laws being proposed to London’s Community and Protective Services Committee that were explicitly designed to censor pro-life activists by stopping the distribution of pro-life flyers that show the reality about abortion through graphic imagery.
One of these by-laws proposes fining people for delivering unaddressed flyers to properties that have “No Flyers”, “No Junk Mail”, or “No Unsolicited Mail”. The other bylaw bans the distribution of any flyer that contains graphic imagery, with the example being “dismembered human beings or aborted fetuses” but also bans anything that “may cause or trigger a negative reaction to the health and wellbeing of any person at any scale”. The maximum fine for violating either of these bylaws is $5,000.
These by-laws censor peaceful pro-life protests and deny pro-life activists their freedom of expression, which is guaranteed to them in The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. On Tuesday, March 22nd, they’ll be debating and possibly voting on these by-laws!
These by-laws were drafted largely as a response to activism that pro-life groups such as The Canadian Centre for Bio-Ethical Reform (CCBR) have done in London in 2020, though these forms of activism have happened in London long before then from groups like London Against Abortion.
Radical pro-abortion groups such as Pro-Choice London and Viewer Discretion Legislation Coalition have been doing everything they can to censor London’s thriving pro-life movement. They’ve been crafting their own petitions and lobbying politicians, with the support of the mainstream media at every step.
So even by-laws that pretend to be neutral by censoring all flyers must be called out for what they are: an attempt by radical-leftist activists to use the government to censor their political opponents.
CCBR has stated that they believe they’re being denied their Charter right to freedom of expression, and other local pro-life groups such as the London Area Right to Life Association have stated the same.
Governments must never ban the distribution of “triggering” images when they depict the harsh reality of evils that are occurring in society.
Images that cause discomfort or even have graphic material have been essential to many protest movements, whether it be ones opposing unjust wars and tyrannical dictatorships, or social evils such as slavery and child labour.
It’s always in the interests of those in power who support such evils to sanitize these evils and keep them invisible. It’s the only way their propaganda can be effective.
This is why there are bubble zones around abortion clinics throughout much of Canada, and why London is trying to punish anyone who dares to show an image of an aborted baby in public. These images decimate the narrative that abortion is merely a “women’s choice about her body” and shows it for what it really is: the brutal killing of an unborn human child.
Manitoba medical student expelled over ‘pro-gun and pro-life’ Facebook posts wins court ruling
__________
Well, here’s a rare victory for free speech and the Charter’s feeble guarantee of freedom of speech and belief. The story shows the strident Cultural Marxist forces at a major university determined to expel a student for his Facebook postings opposing abortion. ” Rafael Zaki said he was expelled for his conscientious and religious beliefs. The judge said the university appeared biased in its decision. Rafael Zaki, a Coptic Orthodox student at the University of Manitoba who was supposed to graduate in 2022, posted three items on his Facebook page in February 2019. He was expelled in August 2019.” (National Post, August 11, 2021) Note the rush to judgement and expulsion, despite five letters of apology written by Mr. Zaki, all of which were rejected as insincere or incomplete. Dr. Ira Ripstein, who, the judge said, served “multiple roles including investigator, prosecutor and judge” rejected the letters of apology saying it “not clear to us that you have had any change of your opinion on sensitive topics.” To save himself Mr. Zaki would have to have renounced his sincerely held religious beliefs. So much for freedom of religion or belief at the University of Manitoba.
Dr. Ripstein argued in favour of expulsion, saying that “views based on misogyny and hate cannot be accommodated or condoned by the (medical school) programme.” Thus, in the intolerant ideology of Cultural Marxism rampant in academe, opposition to abortion is “hate”.
“Rafael Zaki said he was expelled for his conscientious and religious beliefs. The judge said the university appeared biased in its decision.” Judge Ken Champagne “found that there was a perception of bias and the university discipline system had failed to consider Zaki’s Charter rights to freedom of expression.” — Paul Fromm, Director, Canadian Association for Free Expression
The University of Manitoba lost its case against medical student Rafael Zaki. Photo by Brian Donogh/Winnipeg Sun/Postmedia Network
A Manitoba medical student who was expelled after failing to satisfactorily apologize for his controversial views on guns and abortion has been granted a new adjudication of his expulsion.
Rafael Zaki, a Coptic Orthodox student at the University of Manitoba who was supposed to graduate in 2022, posted three items on his Facebook page in February 2019. He was expelled in August 2019.
One year later, after losing two appeals within the university system, Zaki asked Manitoba’s Court of Queen’s Bench to review the decision made by the University Discipline Committee. Zaki said he was expelled “for holding conscientious and religious beliefs that abortion is harmful.”
The university, meanwhile, said that it must ensure professional behaviour and attitudes in order for its students to become doctors, and that Zaki was expelled for failing to reach that standard “even after numerous attempts … to assist (him) in remediating his conduct.”
Ken Champagne, the provincial judge in the case, found that there was a perception of bias and the university discipline system had failed to consider Zaki’s Charter rights to freedom of expression.
“The decision is quashed,” Champagne wrote, calling it “incorrect and unreasonable.”
Carol Crosson, Zaki’s lawyer, said the family had emigrated from Egypt because of concerns over freedom of religion.
“They came here to find freedom, and then their son went through this at the university,” Crosson said. “I’m very happy for the family that the trek to freedom has been positive in the final result.”
Two of Zaki’s Facebook posts were about the right to bear arms in the United States. The last, a lengthy essay he wrote for Sunday school, was about abortion, entitled “Refuting the ‘Final Solution’ for Undocumented Infants: A Reconciliatory Formula.”
“The posts can be characterized as pro-gun and pro-life,” Champagne wrote in his judgment.
In his essay, Zaki argued a doctor who provides an abortion — which he calls an “abortionist” — should be charged with first degree murder, and mandatory referrals to a doctor who provides abortion services constitutes “forced labour.”
Zaki’s posts received 18 anonymous complaints to the university and he was brought in for meetings with top faculty members. Zaki agreed he had written the posts and that they were unprofessional. He then made five attempts to write an apology letter regarding the posts, none of which were deemed satisfactory.
Failure to account for this serious concern is unreasonable and the decision cannot stand Judge Ken Champagne
“Your fifth apology lacked sincerity, as no evidence of any personal exploration or self-examination of any of your attitudes was provided,” the 2019 expulsion decision states, according to court documents. “Further, you continued to apologize for the impact your article had on readers, suggesting it was their fault for being offended.”
Zaki appealed the decision through the university’s internal processes, but it was upheld in January 2020 and again in July 2020 by two other school committees. In spite of his expulsion, he was allowed to continue in the program until the final appeal was dismissed.
The University Discipline Committee, the final appeal within the university, found that the Facebook posts were misogynistic and had a negative impact on the learning environment, Champagne wrote.
The judge considered a number of factors, among them, whether or not a university can judge someone based on their Facebook posts (the answer is yes) and whether or not there was a sufficient degree of procedural fairness in the university’s discipline system.
The judge found the process was largely fair, except when it came to a perception of bias on behalf of the decision-makers. And that, the judge concluded, was because of the role played by Dr. Ira Ripstein, the associate dean of undergraduate medical education, who was involved not just in the medical college’s decision to expel Zaki, but also in the final decision to affirm the expulsion.
“Failure to account for this serious concern is unreasonable and the decision cannot stand,” the judge wrote.
The Progress Committee had already concluded Mr. Zaki should be dismissed Judge Champagne
After Zaki sent his second apology letter, Ripstein sent him a letter saying it was “not clear to us that you have had any change of your opinion on sensitive topics,” and that the belief of the Progress Committee — responsible for student evaluation within the college — was that Zaki should be expelled. Three more times, Zaki sent in apology drafts.
“It is hardly surprising that they were all deemed insufficient, as the Progress Committee had already concluded Mr. Zaki should be dismissed,” the judge wrote.
Ripstein did abstain from the vote on whether or not to expel Zaki, “but that hardly matters,” the judge wrote, as Ripstein and another doctor jointly wrote the decision to expel him.
“(Zaki) describes Dr. Ripstein as serving multiple roles including investigator, prosecutor and judge. That is a fair description,” the judge wrote.
When Zaki entered the appeals process, Ripstein was involved, writing a “lengthy, comprehensive and powerful written submission” to the next committee, arguing in favour of expulsion, and saying that “views based on misogyny and hate cannot be accommodated or condoned by the (medical school) program.” The committee dismissed Zaki’s appeal.
(Zaki) describes Dr. Ripstein as serving multiple roles including investigator, prosecutor and judge Judge Champagne ruling
When the appeal went to the top committee at the university, the judge says, it “embraced the written submission of Dr. Ripstein.”
“Dr. Ripstein played a central role in the expulsion of the applicant,” the judge concluded. “Failure to examine and address his role and the reasonable apprehension of bias is a serious shortcoming.”
The judge also found that the university discipline system failed to consider Zaki’s Charter rights to freedom of expression.
I hope you had a wonderful Easter weekend. I enjoyed being at home with my family at this special time of year, before heading back out on the road today to continue campaigning.
I had the chance to read a number of articles that, unfortunately, remind us all that the war on free speech is far from over, and that political correctness is entrenched within Liberal ideology.
I thought I’d share a few with you, and ask you a quick question. Please have a look and take a few seconds to click on a response…
1. Liberal Minister Maryram Monsef Wants Pro-Life Ads Shut Down
Pro-life ads are being run on buses in Peterborough, and Status of Women Minister Maryam Monsef doesn’t like it. While she acknowledges on her Facebook page that these ads are legal and are protected under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, she encourages people to complain to the Advertising Standards Canada. It’s her stated aim to shut down this legally-protected expression of free speech.
As Status of Women Minister, you might think she would focus her efforts on protecting vulnerable pregnant women and the babies they are carrying against violent criminal assault. Not a chance under this Liberal government.
(Scroll past the poll for more examples of attempted Liberal censorship.)
Protecting free speech and pushing back against political correctness will be a key focus in a Lemieux government.
How important do you feel it is for a leader to defend free speech?
I have appreciated my many meetings and discussions with Dr. Peterson on topics such as C-16, M-103 and on how to best defend free speech. If you’d like to help him continue his work, you can contribute to a crowd-funding initiative that has been started.
3. Liberals Shutting Down Summer Student Funding to Pro-Life Groups
Apparently it wasn’t enough for Justin Trudeau that none of his candidates or MPs be pro-life. Now, if you’re a pro-life student who might want a summer job in this field, the Liberals will shut down opportunities available to you.
After a pro-abortion group complained publicly that Liberal MP Iqra Khalid (yes, the same MP who introduced M-103) had approved summer student funding to a pro-life organization, the Liberals quickly announced that this was “a mistake”.
They have now gone further, and said they will shut down all funding for pro-life organizations, even when the jobs are deemed to have merit by the Ministry of Human Resources and would provide meaningful summer employment to students.
The Liberals are trying to muzzle free speech and debate in this country.
Their actions speak louder than their talking points.
This is a government clearly seized with Liberal ideology, and not real concern for students, women, independent research or the middle class. They seek to punish those who do not agree with them.
Free speech matters to Conservatives, which is why I’ve put it at the heart of my campaign.
Please support me as a leader who will continue to lead the charge for free speech under this Liberal government, and not be bullied by political correctness.
