Post 168--Court Rules Against Government Censorship

A report from ARPA--Association for Reformed Political Action:

This afternoon we received news that the Ontario Superior Court has sided with us in ruling that Ontario’s law censoring abortion statistics infringes on freedom of expression as outlined in Section 2 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

We know that censorship is the new weapon of choice for those intent on preventing Canadians from knowing the truth about abortion. This decision is a huge victory for us and ensures that we can more effectively work to advance protections for pre-born children!

ARPA Canada, the parent organization of We Need a Law has put a lot of resources into this case. In fact, it was one of the reasons we went on the STOP CENSORSHIP tour earlier this year.

A quick recap:
In January 2012, the Government of Ontario amended the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA) by adding Section 65 (5.7) which reads: “This Act does not apply to records relating to the provision of abortion services.” In 2015, together with Pat Maloney, a pro-life blogger from Ottawa, the Association for Reformed Political Action (ARPA) Canada filed a notice of application asking the Ontario Superior Court to strike down this censorship provision.

The case was heard on February 1, 2017 where the applicants asked Mr. Justice Marc Labrosse to rule that Section 65(5.7) of the FIPPA was unconstitutional because it censored the residents of Ontario, indeed all Canadians, from having access to meaningful abortion related information.

From ARPA’s press release earlier today:
ARPA is very pleased that Justice Labrosse came to this conclusion. “This is a huge victory for freedom of expression,” said André Schutten, ARPA Canada’s director of law and policy. “It’s historic. There has never been a decision granting access to information from the executive branch based on the freedom of expression provision of the Charter. All disclosure orders to date have been made on a statutory rather than constitutional basis. Abortion is a matter of public importance and the courts have long recognized this. Abortion is also a recognized political issue, and political expression is at the core of protected speech under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.”

“This decision strengthens democracy,” continued Schutten. “The question at the heart of this case was whether governments can avoid accountability on a particular matter simply by excluding information related to that matter from the access to information law. We are very pleased that the court has struck this censorship provision down.”

The hard work of ARPA lawyers John Sikkema, André Schutten as well as outside counsel Albertos Polizogopoulos is to be commended! We also express deep appreciation for the perseverance and dedication of Ms. Maloney. Thanks Pat!

We are not sure how the Government of Ontario will respond to this decision. The court has given them a year to allow for the adoption of remedial legislation. Suffice to say, this case was about transparency and democracy. In our view, the actions of a democratic government and the money it spends should be open to scrutiny by the taxpayer and voter.

But more importantly, this case is about justice. It is a scientific fact that each abortion takes the life of a human being. Even if many wish to condone or even celebrate this, nobody can deny that a human life has been taken. The way to deal with this is not to censor all abortion-related information. Rather it is to allow the truth to be known, and then to engage in meaningful public discourse about how to address the over 100,000 abortions that occur in Canada every there. There must be documentation, recognition and, hopefully one day, public acknowledgement of the injustice of abortion and regulations put in place to limit it.

We hope you will join us in remaining diligent in ensuring that the state cannot simply hide information they feel is not in their political interest to discuss.

Post 119 Election Mudslinging

US Campaigns in the Media

The media, especially TV, have inundated us poor Canadians with election rot. There’s this interminable US presidential campaign that’s been going on for ages--for years it seems, especially if you’re not particularly enamoured with that kind of public engagement. Though we don’t have a voice or any influence whatsoever in this process, even our own TV stations bombard us with talk shows and news talk about that drawn-out procedure, if you can dignify it as such. Of course, our stations are nothing compared to CNN and its competitors. With CNN it seems it’s 24/7. 

Canadian Campaigns

And in the middle of all that, we had a double doze with our own Canadian road show that ended with Harper out and Trudeau Jr. in, this boy who, the Harper wordsmiths continually maintained, was not ready for such elevated office as Prime Minister of the world’s second largest country. In hindsight, there’s a lot of evidence that this claim may well have been right on. As to the rest of their claims and the opponents’ counterclaims, it was at the same sordid sewer level we still suffer daily from down south.   

Campaign Levels 

The language political opponents use to describe each other is really out of control. In any other cultural segment the insults and outright lies would end up in legal suits and in the courts of the land, with our friendly lawyers having a hay day. What’s unacceptable in every other segment seems to be the thing to do or say in the realm of political campaigns. Of course, that should not surprise you, since the segment is laden with lawyers in whose realm half truths and outright untruths appear to be the daily diet. 

You, readers of this blog, have witnessed the Canadian show and continue to witness its prolonged American variety. You probably shake your head occasionally in consternation at the level to which our honourable leaders can sink. Just now, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, a US Supreme Court Justice, one burdened with the awesome responsibility of speaking and judging the truth of things told CNN that Donald Trump, the Republican presidential nominee, is not consistent and says “whatever comes into his head at the moment. He really has an ego.”  Of course, Republican leaders disagreed, while some on the other side agreed.  However, even some left-leaning newspapers called the justice on it. As a Supreme Court justice, she is expected to maintain an impartial stance and not sink into the sewers of politics. The Washington Post commented, “There’s a good reason the Code of Conduct for United States Judges flatly states that a ‘judge should not . . . publicly endorse or oppose a candidate for public office.’ Politicization, real or perceived, undermines public faith in the impartiality of the courts.”  That may be true, but such public comments are an indication of the low level to which participants in the race and their henchpeople sink today. (Sorry for the awkward neologism. “Henchmen” would not do it today and a bare “hench” is not acceptable to the Webster crowd. I’m caught between the linguistic “devil and the deep blue sea.” I am open to suggestions here, please.)

Fathers of the Nation

But if you think this is a recent phenomenon, think again. You may have a surprise coming.  People identified as fathers of the United States used the same kind of language. The Denison Forum shares the following shockers:  

The 1800 election pitted John Adams against Thomas Jefferson. A Jefferson surrogate labeled Adams a "repulsive pedant" and "gross hypocrite" who "behaved neither like a man nor like a woman but instead possessed a hideous hermaphroditical character." An Adams surrogate warned that electing Jefferson would create a nation where "murder, robbery, rape, adultery, and incest will be openly taught and practiced." Stephen Douglas claimed that Abraham Lincoln was a drunk who could "ruin more liquor than all the boys in town together." (Actually, Douglas was a heavy drinker, while Lincoln abstained from alcohol.) Lyndon B. Johnson ran an ad against Barry Goldwater claiming that the latter would bring about nuclear destruction, killing America's children.

A Questionable Corollation 

So, if these greats did not shun such language and, apart from Johnson, they left us with the legacy of a great nation, I guess we should not worry about the low level of our Canadian politicians. There’s hope for us. Is this a case of the deeper the filth the greater the legacy?  Who knows what greatness lies ahead for us in Canada! Hmmm. This conclusion somehow does not have the ring of truth about it. Can anyone point out the logical fallacy I employ here? 

Exporting Democracy

Apart from the legacy question, one of the problems I recognize here is that the nations who practice this kind of shenanigans are also the nations who export “democracy” to the “primitive” nations of other continents and, by so doing, destroy the unity of ethnic groups. I will try to bring some details of this in the next post.

If you have been with me long enough, you may remember previous posts in which I promised not to make any more promises to you, my readers. You may have noticed that in the previous sentence I have just sunk back into the morass of promises, a place where long ago I promised not to descend. I retract that promise. I just can’t live without making promises. But if that’s true for politicians, perhaps I should loosen up as well and just fly with them. If I can’t live without promises in this blog, then I will just have to break that one promise. Just that one!