The Harris Government and the Injunction

In 1995, the ideologically pro-abortion NDP government was defeated by the Mike Harris-led Progressive Conservatives. Pro-life citizens, most of whom had voted Tory, had high hopes there would now be positive developments in favour of protecting life. It was felt that the Conservatives, who emphasized common sense, rather than ideology, would not want to have anything to do with the repressive NDP court action.

Just after the election, Attorney General Charles Harnick indicated that the government planned to review the situation, and said that he personally feared the injunction was an unwarranted suppression of free speech. In part, because of obstacles erected by NDP-appointed bureaucrats, however, the government has not undertaken an objective review of the situation.

Premier, MPPs and Public Given Inaccurate Information by the Attorney General

The Harris government has been deftly manipulated and influenced by bureaucrats in the Attorney General's department and other departments.. For a number of months, the premier's office was not properly advised by the Attorney General that the injunction in place was only a temporary injunction and that the government could easily abandon the lawsuit. The temporary injunction restrictions would then end.

Campaign Life Coalition's Jim Hughes had great difficulty attempting to communicate the actual facts of the case to the premier. Letter's and calls to the premier and the new Attorney General, Charles Harnick, were not answered for months.

In response to many enquiries from the public, a number of concerned MPPs quizzed the Attorney General about his inaction on the case. These fellow Conservative Party back-benchers and the public have repeatedly been given false or incomplete information about the case by the Attorney General.

In his letter response to enquiries about the case, the Attorney General has continued for a few years now to make the following points:

1. "I am satisfied that any limits on freedom of expression which the injunction may impose are justified in the interest of public safety, and the safe provision of medical services."

COMMENT: The AG has never given any evidence whatsoever to indicate how public safety is endangered at all, let alone to such a degree that justifies this extraordinary injunction. There is no danger to public safety. It is well known, though, that abortionists and their staff, because of the vile nature of their work, find it extremely disturbing to have even one protester outside disturbing their consciences. In fact, this repugnance is so intense that abortion staff actually consider the mere presence of the pro-life message to be a "violence".

"The safe provision of medical services" is avoidance terminology frequently used by abortion advocates. Why doesn't he just say "abortion services".

2. "...incidents of violence associated with this issue have caused serious and significant harm to individuals".

COMMENT: There have been NO proven significant incidences of violence by pro-lifers regarding this issue- in all of Canada - since the legalization of abortion in 1969. The incidents abortion advocates cite to back up their portrayal of pro-lifers as violent have not been in any way connected to the pro-life movement. In fact, CSIS (Canadian Security Intelligence Services) documents reveal that the only lead in the case cited most often, the destruction of the Toronto Morgentaler clinic in 1992, indicates that it was an "inside job", perpetrated by people hoping to discredit pro-lifers.

A great deal of violence takes place inside abortuaries as living babies at various stages are ripped apart and killed with no one to protect them - not the police, not the courts, not the cowardly politicians and not even the paralyzed churches. The mothers are denied protection from medical and psychological harm, poor counseling, pressure from lovers, family, "friends" and pressure from zealous abortion advocates.

3. "As this matter is currently before the courts, it would be inappropriate to comment further at this time."

COMMENT: Although the matter is technically before the courts, the government has decided to keep it in permanent abeyance. Since it is a civil rather than criminal action, initiated by the province itself (quite unusual), it can easily be dropped by the province at any time and the matter would be over. No more jail sentences for Linda, no more repression of normal civil rights.

4. "The court awarded costs to the two defendants against whom no injunction was ordered and denied the request for costs with respect to the remaining defendants. The defendants did not appeal this decision and it is therefore binding on them.

COMMENT: The defendants had no choice in this matter. They made a strong case to recover costs and believed that their well-presented arguments, based on normal procedure and evaluation of evidence, would lead to a favourable settlement. The decision not to award any costs to the 16 remaining defendants was unexpected and unusual, based on the circumstances.

Legal technicalities prevented the defendants from appealing the decision on costs. They would have had to appeal the entire court decision in order to appeal the costs component and they first required leave to appeal from the court of appeal. They were checkmated by the system.

They do not have the funds to pay the huge legal bills of the injunction case. They therefore had every reason to attempt everything possible to obtain justice from the court and the province on this matter.

Harris Government Maintains and protects Liberal-NDP Abortion Status Quo