Steve Jalsevac

Thoughts on the arrest of Linda Gibbons on Aug. 4, 2011

Steve Jalsevac
Steve Jalsevac

TORONTO, Ontario, August 5, 2011 ( – On Thursday I once again filmed and photographed Linda Gibbons being arrested for doing nothing more than peacefully trying to convince women entering an abortion clinic to not make the same mistake she herself made years ago. Since Linda’s first arrest in 1994 I have covered the story of her arrests again and again.  In 1999, I was also arrested by police officers directed by a sergeant and sheriff who seemed to have a much too cozy relationship with abortion center staff.  Eight months later the phony charge was dropped.

Yesterday, however, seemed different and unreal. (See video)

The officers and the sheriff were again going through the usual required motions, but this time they seemed confused about how to justify a law enforcement contingent of 6 police officers and 2 sheriffs for this situation. The quiet, passive, soft spoken woman of conscience was obviously no danger to anyone. The severity of the penalties for violating these injunctions, which she has endured for years, is an embarrassment to anyone of reason.

The officers that arrived were the most respectful I have seen over the years and it seemed that this was an awkward and unwelcome task for them. They probably would much rather have been called to go after real criminals than do the bidding of that profitable, government funded baby killing business.

Linda arrived at the Morgentaler Clinic at 8:55 a.m. Thursday morning. She had never attempted her counseling and protest at this particular location before.  The permanent injunction at this location, which is not the same 1994 “temporary” injunction under which Linda has repeatedly been arrested at the Scott abortion mill, prohibits any pro-life activity within a zone of 500 feet from the abortion facility. That makes it impossible for any sidewalk counselors to offer alternative information or assistance to the women without risking certain arrest and heavy penalties.

An abortuary staff woman soon came out and warned Linda to leave.  At 9:15 a large, intimidating security guard arrived and posted himself at the non-descript baby-killing center entrance. At 9:30 two police arrived on bikes and a third, a woman officer, soon joined them. They consulted with abortion center staff, were given a copy of the injunction and consulted with each other over this mysterious document.

They took turns talking to Linda, finding out what she was doing and why, and trying to convince her to leave. They were notably professional and respectful in going about their business.

At 10:25 the police supervisor arrived in a cruiser to direct the officers who seemed unsure about what to do. This was all taking much longer than it usually does at the Scott abortuary on Gerrard St. where Linda experienced all her previous arrests.

The Ontario sheriff and his deputy finally arrived at 10:35. Police cannot arrest protesters at facilities covered by the injunction unless the sheriff first reads the injunction to the pro-lifer(s) and then gives direction to arrest those who refuse to comply after the reading. At least that is how it is supposed to go. Some officers and sheriffs have had their own creative understanding of who should be threatened with arrest, or actually arrested and intimidated, regardless of the stated rules.

Thursday’s tall, lanky sheriff, who participated in past arrests of Linda, unrolled himself out of his car and immediately called out “Hi, Linda”. His intense, eager deputy followed him.

The sheriff, police and abortuary staff had a pow- wow about the problem of that persistent, quiet little women. Another police car and officers arrived. All this backup was apparently needed to deal with Linda, this reporter… and no one else.

Then a roving CBC cameraman accidentally came upon the scene and started to film. He had no idea what was going on, so I briefly filled him in. He had just been filming and interviewing the Show the Truth group that was displaying their graphic abortion signs along the very busy Bayview and Eglinton intersection only two blocks and well over 500 feet away.

As for those people with the signs, I can only imagine the huge commotion if they came any closer with “The Truth” about what was going on in that respectable office building with that unmarked side door seemingly for deliveries and with two prominent “727 Hillsdale” signs over and in front of it.

For the next 20 minutes, the lengthy injunction was read to Linda. She was repeatedly asked to comply; she remained mute; her rights were clearly stated to her and she was given more opportunities to comply; she continued to remain mute and non-compliant.

Linda was handcuffed and walked to one of the police cars and gently guided into the back seat. I have in the past seen her roughly and painfully dragged and thrown into police cars by aggressive officers who obviously had no use for her pro-life views. But not this time.

Linda’s long, now over 8-years total time in jail resumes again. How many more months or years in jail remains to be seen. Her young, very determined current lawyer has notably advanced her cause, although it is still an uphill battle. Linda does not speak in the court, just as the unborn cannot speak as they are destroyed. A Supreme Court appearance is upcoming, probably in the fall.

The publicity of three significant articles in the National Post in the last year on July 30, 2010, Feb 21, 2011, and Jun. 6, 2011, and recent more favourable and extensive coverage than ever in the Catholic Register and reports in other media has changed the landscape somewhat.

The travesty of this injustice and the incomprehensibly privileged legal and political protection provided the abortion industry must finally be addressed. This continuing situation seems to present the “freedom of choice” movement as a fat, big money-making, choice-denying lie. Linda has proved that for 16 years.

After all, the police should be protecting Linda as she tries to offer help to those women, many of whom are forced by friends, family and others into an abortion they really do not want. Why, the police should even hold her sign at times as she tries to counsel the women and save the lives of their unborn children.

See and hear Linda tell her story:
Linda Gibbons: ‘The end of abortion is Armageddon’

Share this article

Featured Image
Dustin Siggins Dustin Siggins Follow Dustin

, ,

Clinton: US needs to help refugee rape victims… by funding their abortions

Dustin Siggins Dustin Siggins Follow Dustin
By Dustin Siggins

CLINTON, Iowa, November 25, 2015 (LifeSiteNews) – Leading Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton said on Sunday that U.S. taxpayers should be on the hook for abortions for refugees impregnated through rape.

"I do think we have to take a look at this for conflict zones," Clinton said at an Iowa town hall, according to CNN. "And if the United States government, because of very strong feelings against it, maintains our prohibition, then we are going to have to work through non-profit groups and work with other counties to ... provide the support and medical care that a lot of these women need."

Clinton also said that "systematic use of rape as a tool of war and subjection is one that has been around from the beginning of history" but that it has become "even more used by a lot of the most vicious militias and insurgent groups and terrorist groups."

The prohibition referenced by Clinton – and named by the woman who asked Clinton about pregnant refugees – is known as the Helms Amendment. Made into law in 1973, it prevents U.S. foreign aid funds from being used for abortion.

Abortion supporters have urged the Obama administration to unilaterally change its interpretation of the amendment to allow exceptions for pregnancies resulting from rape and incest, and if the mother's life is in danger. They argue that because the law specifically states that "[n]o foreign assistance funds may be used to pay for the performance of abortion as a method of family planning," women who are raped should be excepted.

Click "like" if you are PRO-LIFE!

In August, 81 Democrats signed a letter to President Obama that urged this course of action. CNN reported that while Clinton didn't call for the Helms Amendment to be changed or re-interpreted, she did support other actions to increase women's access to abortion facilities.

If the United States "can't help them [to get an abortion], then we have to help them in every other way and to get other people to at least provide the options" to women raped in conflict, she said.

"They will be total outcasts if they have the child of a terrorist or the child of a militia member," according to Clinton. "Their families won't take them, their communities won't take them."

A study of women who bore their rape-conceived children during the Rwanda genocide found that "motherhood played a positive role for many women, often providing a reason to live again after the genocide."

Featured Image
Cardinal George Pell Patrick Craine / LifeSiteNews
Andrew Guernsey

, ,

Cardinal Pell bets against the odds: insists Pope Francis will strongly reaffirm Catholic tradition

Andrew Guernsey
By Andrew Guernsey


ROME, November 25, 2015 (LifeSiteNews) -- Contradicting the statements of some of the pope’s closest advisors, the Vatican’s financial chief Cardinal George Pell has declared that Pope Francis will re-assert and “clarify” longstanding Church teaching and discipline that prohibits Communion for the divorced and civilly remarried in public adultery without sacramental confession and amendment of life.

In a homily on Monday, Pell stressed the importance of fidelity to the pope, especially today as “we continue to look also to the successor of St. Peter as that guarantee of unity in doctrine and practice.”

Pell was offering Mass at the Basilica of San Clemente in Rome on the feast of Pope St. Clement I, notable in history for being one of the first popes to exert Roman papal primacy to correct the errors in the doctrine and abuses in discipline which other bishops were allowing.

Turning to address the issues at the Synod on the Family, Pell rebuked those who “wanted to say of the recent Synod, that the Church is confused and confusing in her teaching on the question of marriage,” and he insisted that the Church will always remain faithful to “Jesus’ own teaching about adultery and divorce” and “St. Paul’s teaching on the proper dispositions to receive communion.” Pell argues that the possibility of Communion for those in adultery is “not even mentioned in the Synod document.”

Pell asserted that Pope Francis is preparing “to clarify for the faithful what it means to follow the Lord…in His Church in our World.” He said, “We now await the Holy Father’s apostolic exhortation, which will express again the Church’s essential tradition and emphasize that the appeal to discernment and the internal forum can only be used to understand better God’s will as taught in the scriptures and by the magisterium and can never be used to disregard, distort or refute established Church teaching.”

STORY: Vatican Chief of Sacraments: No pope can change divine law on Communion

The final document of the synod talks about the “internal forum” in paragraphs 84-86, refers to private discussions between a parish priest and a member of the faithful, to educate and form their consciences and to determine the “possibility of fuller participation in the life of the Church,” based on their individual circumstances and Church teaching. The selective quoting of John Paul II’s Familiaris Consortio that omitted his statement ruling out the possibility of Communion for those in public adultery has given liberals hope that this “fuller participation” could include reception of Communion.

Pell’s prediction that the pope will side with the orthodox side of this controversy lends two explanations. On one reading, Pell is uncertain what the pope will do in his post-synodal exhortation, but he is using such firm language as a way of warning the pope that he must clearly uphold Church teaching and practice, or else he would risk falling into heresy at worst or grave negligence at best in upholding the unity of the Church.

On another reading, Pell may have inside information, even perhaps from the pope himself, that he will uphold Church teaching and practice on Communion for those in public adultery, that the pope’s regular confidants apparently do not have.

This hypothesis, however, is problematic in that just last week, Pope Francis suggested that Lutherans may “go forward” to receive Holy Communion, contrary to canon law, if they come to a decision on their own, which suggests agreement with the reformers’ line of argument about “conscience.” And earlier last month, the pope granted an interview to his friend Eugenio Scalfari, who quoted the pope as promising to allow those in adultery back to Communion without amendment of life, even though the Vatican refused to confirm the authenticity of the quote since Scalfari does not use notes.

If Pell actually knew for certain what the pope would do, it would also seem to put Pell’s knowledge above that of Cardinal Robert Sarah, who in what could be a warning to Pope Francis, declared last week in no uncertain terms that “Not even a pope can dispense from such a divine law” as the prohibition of public adulterers from Holy Communion.

STORY: Papal confidant signals Pope Francis will allow Communion for the ‘remarried’

Several members of the pope’s inner circle have said publicly that the controversial paragraphs 84-86 of the Synod final document have opened the door for the Holy Father to allow Communion in these cases if he so decides. Fr. Antonio Spadaro, SJ, a close friend of Pope Francis and the editor of La Civita Catholica, a prominent Jesuit journal in Rome reviewed by the Vatican Secretariat of State, wrote this week that the internal forum solution for the divorced in adultery is a viable one:

The Ordinary Synod has thus laid the bases for access to the sacraments [for the divorced and civilly remarried], opening a door that had remained closed in the preceding Synod. It was not even possible, one year ago, to find a clear majority with reference to the debate on this topic, but that is what happened in 2015. We are therefore entitled to speak of a new step.

Spadaro’s predictions and interpretation of the Synod are consistent with the public statements of liberal prelates, some of whom are close confidantes to Pope Francis, including Cardinal Schönborn, Cardinal Wuerl, Cardinal Kasper, Cardinal Nichols, and the head of the Jesuit order, Fr. Nicolás. Fr. Nicolás, in particular, first confirmed that there would be an apostolic exhortation of the pope, and said of Communion for those in public adultery:

The Pope’s recommendation is not to make theories, such as not lumping the divorced and remarried together, because priests have to make a judgment on a case by case and see the situation, the circumstances, what happens, and depending on this decision one thing or the other. There are no general theories which translate into an iron discipline required at all. The fruit of discernment means that you study each case and try to find merciful ways out.

Although in the best analysis, Pell’s prediction about what Pope Francis may do in his post-synodal apostolic exhortation remains just that-- a prediction—he is drawing a line in the sand that if the pope chooses to cross, would bring the barque of Peter into uncharted waters, where the danger of shipwreck is a very real threat.


Featured Image
Lianne Laurence


Jennifer Lawrence just smeared traditional Christians in the worst way

Lianne Laurence
By Lianne Laurence

November 25, 2015 (LifeSiteNews) – It’s no surprise that yet another Hollywood star is mouthing the usual liberal platitudes, but the fact that this time around it’s Jennifer Lawrence, a mega-star and lead in blockbuster series Hunger Games, brings a particular sting of disappointment.

That’s because the 25-year-old, effervescent and immensely talented star often comes across not only as very likable, but also as someone capable of independent thought.

But apparently not.

Or at least not when it comes to Kim Davis, the Kentucky clerk famously thrown in jail for refusing to obey a judge’s order that she sign marriage licenses for homosexual couples.

Davis, Lawrence tells Vogue in its November issue, is that “lady who makes me embarrassed to be from Kentucky.”

“Don’t even say her name in this house,” the actress told Vogue writer Jonathan van Meter in an interview that happened to take place the day after Davis was released from her five-day stint in jail.

Lawrence then went on a “rant” about “all those people holding their crucifixes, which may as well be pitchforks, thinking they’re fighting the good fight.”

RELATED STORY: Wrong, Jennifer Lawrence! Real men don’t need porn, and women don’t need to give it to them

She was brought up Republican, she told van Meter, “but I just can’t imagine supporting a party that doesn’t support women’s basic rights. It’s 2015 and gay people can get married and we think that we’ve come so far, so, yay! But have we? I don’t want to stay quiet about that stuff.”

After conjuring up images of Christians as bug-eyed hillbillies on a witchhunt with her reference to “crucifixes as pitchforks,” Lawrence added darkly: “I grew up in Kentucky. I know how they are.”

Perhaps one should infer that it’s lucky for Lawrence she escaped to Los Angeles and its enlightened culture. That hallowed place where, according to van Meter, Kris Jenner (former spouse of Bruce Jenner, who infamously declared himself a woman) brought Lawrence a cake for her birthday that was shaped like excrement and inscribed: “Happy birthday, you piece of sh*t!”

Lawrence is reportedly now Hollywood’s most highly paid actress. Not only is she the star of the hugely popular and lucrative Hunger Games franchise -- the last installment of which, Mockingjay, Part 2 opened November 20 -- but she won an Oscar for Silver Linings Playbook and starred in several others since her breakout role in the 2010 moving and moody indie film, Winter’s Bone.

Lawrence has every right to express her opinion, although no doubt it will be given more weight than it deserves. It is unfortunate, however, that she’s chosen to wield her fame, shall we say, as a pitchfork against Christian moral truths.



Customize your experience.

Login with Facebook