To the Editor:

I would like to make a few comments on the reader's letter "Public's Perception" The writer feels that Mrs. Gibbon's tactics in her pro-life actions are counter productive to the pro-life movement. I beg to differ: it is not the public that needs to be educated, it is those who are guilty of fostering an unjust law for political purposes, who need instruction. The injunction was put into place at the request of the abortion providers by the former NDP government.

The ever "politically correct" NDP government of Premier Bob Rae was most willing to bow down to the unscrupulous pressures of a special interest group in enacting this injunction. Its main political objective was two fold, to silence legitmate protest in front of the abortion clinics and to engage pro-life supporters into a prolonged and costly legal in order battle to break them financially.

In Mrs. Gibbon's case, she is challenging the injunction in her own way. she is being denied of her right to a peaceful and letitimate protest against an activity whicy offends most fair minded people, and she places a moral value to the protest in which she is willing to defy the law and suffer the subsequent consequences of imprisonment for her beliefs.

What is even more appalling, is that she is being charged with nuisance offenses rather than with the letter of the injunction. The Crown does not wish to have the injunction challenged by the Canadian Bill of Rights, and thereby is satisfied to continue this charade of handing out six months sentences every time Mrs. Gibbon's appears before the court.

It would seem to me that the judges might clue in that there is something wrong with the law that allows this spectacle to go on indefinitely. We have already read of two judges who have made comments that the Attorney General's office is being remiss in pursuing the matter properly. I have written to the Attorney General a number of times, about the injustices perpetrated upon Mrs. Gibbons and the other 16 pro-lifers, but he deigns not to answer them. I shall continue to press the issue with the Attorney General until hell freezes over.

I have corresponded with Mrs. Gibbons over the past several months, and she strikes me as being a very unselfish, warm and committed person, who is placing herself before the powers of the legal establishment for the cause of justice and for the unborn. But it seems to me that the Attorney General's office is not inclined to pay attention to Mrs. Gibbons, because most of the legal staff are pro-choice who are not will ing or able to see that justice being done, and who are more than willing to drag this case into the next century.

However disconcerted the reader may feel about Mrs. Gibbon's trial and continued persecution by the justice system, we must keep in mind that God is still in charge. His ways are not always our ways. That our secular society is not willing to support God's rights, is not His problem, and as long as they continue to defy Him, they will have to pay the consequences for their continued refusal, namely, more abortions,more crime, more broken families, and finally moral anarchy.

Thomas Michael Gannon
Delhi, ON

To the Editor:

I would like to make a few comments on the letter "Public's Perception" in the August Interim. The writer feels that Linda Gibbons's tactics in her pro-life actions are counterproductive to the pro-life movement. I beg to differ: it is not the public that needs to be educated, it is those who are guilty of fostering an unjust law for political purposes, who need instruction. The injunction was put into place at the request of the abortion providers by the former NDP government.

The ever "politically correct" NDP government of Premier Bob Rae was most willing to bow down to the unscrupulous pressures of a special interest group in enacting this injunction. Its main political objective was twofold, to silence legitimate protest in front of the abortion clinics and to engage pro-life supporters into a prolonged and costly legal battle in order to break them financially.

In Mrs. Gibbon's case, she is challenging the injunction in her own way. She is being denied of her right to a peaceful and legitimate protest against an activity which offends most fair-minded people, and she places a moral value to the protest in which she is willing to defy the law and suffer the subsequent consequences of imprisonment for her beliefs.

What is even more appalling, is that she is being charged with nuisance offenses rather than with the letter of the injunction. The Crown does not wish to have the injunction challenged by the Canadian Bill of Rights, and thereby is satisfied to continue this charade of handing out six-month sentences every time Mrs. Gibbon's appears before the court.

It would seem to me that the judges might clue in that there is something wrong with the law that allows this spectacle to go on indefinitely. We have already read of two judges who have made comments that the Attorney General's office is being remiss in pursuing the matter properly. I have written to the Attorney General a number of times about the injustices perpetrated on Mrs. Gibbons and the other 16 pro-lifers, but he deigns not to answer them. I shall continue to press the issue with the Attorney General until hell freezes over.

I have corresponded with Mrs. Gibbons over the past several months, and she strikes me as being a very unselfish, warm and committed person, who is placing herself before the powers of the legal establishment for the cause of justice and for the unborn. But it seems to me that the Attorney General's office is not inclined to pay attention to Mrs. Gibbons, because most of the legal staff are pro-choice who are not willing or able to see that justice being done, and who are more than willing to drag this case into the next century.

However disconcerted the reader may feel about Mrs. Gibbon's trial and continued persecution by the justice system, we must keep in mind that God is still in charge. His ways are not always our ways. That our secular society is not willing to support God's rights, is not His problem, and as long as they continue to defy Him, they will have to pay the consequences for their continued refusal, namely, more abortions, more crime, more broken families, and finally moral anarchy.

Thomas Michael Gannon
Delhi, ON

To the Editor:

I wish to express my disagreement with the letter of Larry Wood (August) that Linda Gibbons's actions "are misguided and even counterproductive to the pro-life movement."

I have been in court to witness Linda's silence in the face of criminal charges to her breach of the injunction order in front of the Scott abortion clinic.

The impact of her silence, which is a total identification with the silent baby victims in the womb threatened with abortion, is profound. Judges and court staff are forced to wrestle with their consciences more than they would if they listened to a verbal defence.

Our Lord Jesus in His passion was also silent in the face of His accusers. There is room in the pro-life movement for both a vigorous defence to charges and also total silence.

Never mind what the media may say or think. We can never satisfy the secular media whatever we do because it is generally so pro-abortion and so responsible for the current nightmare of abortion. We must do what is right and just. Linda is in the vert forefront of the battle by means of her silence - which speaks volumes.

Paul Vandervet
Brantford, ON

To the Editor:

While I think it's commendable of pro-life activist Linda Gibbons to do all she can to promote life, I don't understand why she can't stay within the law to do it.

The time she spends in jail - at taxpayers' expense - she could be using to speak to teenagers and pre-teens in schools, in library seminars and the like.

I believe such an approach would make more of an impact for her cause. If she wants to change the law which keeps pro-lifers away from the immediate vicinity of abortion clinics, she could write letters, organize petitions, plan marches, all of which can be done as a law abiding citizen.

Linda has people working for her behalf, praying for her to get out of jail. Then once she is free, she promptly does what she knows will land her right back in jail again. That approach rather irks me. It makes we wonder, why bother?

Mary Agbakli
London, ON

To the Editor:

The current legislation that defines a couple as two people of the opposite sex serves a societal need. Some might argue this discriminates, but it does so by acknowledging the God-given characteristics that make women and men different.

Caesar Squitti
Thunder Bay, ON

To the Editor:

As a longtime supporter of the Interim, I was pleased to learn that Voters' Guides made an impact on the way people voted in the recent election. This is a most powerful way to help people understand the position of the politicians and the platforms of the various political parties towards the pro-life view.

After thinking of the relative power of polling guides, I believe this technique ought to be used to help us assess the position of the secular media as to pro-life issues. The media after all, with its driving policies, the beliefs of its elite opinion makers, and the attitudes of its owners have a negative impact on the way consumers see pro-life issues. One only has to view the pages of most Canadian newspapers and magazines, or follow TV and radio to sense a lack of objectivity and balance in the treatment of pro-life issues.

The media is a most powerful opinion-making tool. It is careful not to divulge its agenda, and its influence is pervasive. We ought to focus attention on the media and its responsibilities toward fair and objective reporting. We need to know where each important media agency stands on the issues. This is as important as knowing where the politicians and the parties stand.

I am sure I'm not alone in asking you to consider creating some "key" questions to present to the secular media on pro-life issues and publishing the results in The Interim.

J.F. Hopwood,
North Vancouver, B.C.

To the Editor:

As an Evangelical Christian, let me tell Roman Catholics that Michael Enright's comment about the Catholic church being the greatest criminal organization outside the mafia (Interim, July, 1997), represents only left-wing journalists who occupy many top media positions in the country.

If he had said the same thing about Jews, Muslims or others, he would be public enemy number one, and out of a job.

I stopped listening to As it Happens because of Mr. Enright's and others' extreme bias toward pro-life, pro-family issues. He was unrepentant then and he's unrepentant now.

Others should join me and get their news elsewhere, perhaps from The Interim.

Robert Byers,
Etobicoke, ON

To the Editor:

It occurs to me, as it probably has occurred to you, that in recent months there has been a spate of abuse to some children - including murder. This could be a major story.

The connection between this abuse and the abuse of the unborn through abortion could lead to an important point in the debate e.g., no respect for the pre-born transfers to those who have beeb born. The debate could lead to some interesting inconsistencies for the politicians and the abortionists.

F.V. MacKinnon
Ottawa, ON

To the Editor:

I would like to thank you for noting in the August issue of your always fine and inspirational journal that I have been singularly honored this year to receive the Kurelek prize from Alliance for Life. Your news report stated: "Ironically, it was learned the same night as the award presentation that Leishman will be laid off by The London Free Press."

Allow me to share some good news with your readers. After word got out that the new owners of the Free Press had decided to drop my position as a full-time national affairs columnist, John Paton, the publisher of the newspaper, was inundated with letters, phone calls and faxes from readers who back my work. Many of these supporters were fellow Christians and pro-lifers.

While only Mr. Paton can say how much influence this collective effort has had, I am pleased to report that we have reached an agreement whereby my column will appear in the Free Press once a week on a freelance basis and will be distributed to other Sunmedia newspapers over the chain's newswire. In addition, The Free Press is now publishing a weekly column by Michael Coren, whom most of your readers will recognize as a far more prominent pro-life journalist than I.

I know that Michael would like to join me in most sincerely thanking all our friendly readers, without whose support, we would not have the enormous privilege of being able to express our moral convictions in print.

Rory Leishman,
London, ON