Steve Jalsevac

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

Steve Jalsevac
Steve Jalsevac
Image
Image

TORONTO, Ontario, August 5, 2011 (LifeSiteNews.com) – 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’

FREE pro-life and pro-family news.

Stay up-to-date on the issues you care about the most. Subscribe today. 

Select Your Edition:

Donate to LifeSiteNews

Give the gift of Truth.


Share this article

Advertisement
Hillary Clinton
Shutterstock
Dustin Siggins Dustin Siggins Follow Dustin

, , ,

For Hillary Clinton, abortion access trumps religious liberty

Dustin Siggins Dustin Siggins Follow Dustin
By Dustin Siggins

WASHINGTON, D.C., May 1, 2015 (LifeSiteNews.com) -- For Democratic presidential hopeful Hillary Clinton, apparently abortion trumps religious liberty.

It may have gotten bipartisan support in the House of Representatives last night, but a spokesperson for the Democratic Party's leading presidential candidate says a resolution protecting religious liberty in the District of Columbia "overrule[s] the democratic process" and hurts women.

The vote, which saw three Democrats join the GOP majority and 13 Republicans stand with Democrats, was meant to protect pro-life and religious organizations in the District from the Reproductive Health Non-Discrimination Act (RHNDA).

RHNDA was signed by the mayor of the District of Columbia, Muriel Bowser, in January, and makes it illegal for any employer, including religious and pro-life organizations, to use a person's belief or actions about abortion in employment considerations. It also requires employers to provide abortion coverage.

The resolution now goes to the Senate, where it is expected to fail due to the Senate being on recess. Under existing federal law, the measure has 30 legislative days to be disapproved by Congress and President Obama. If this does not happen, it becomes law.

The 30-day window ends on Saturday. President Obama promised a veto of the resolution on Thursday, even though RHNDA was opposed by former District mayor Vincent Gray. According to Gray, while he "applaud[s] the goals of this legislation," the former mayor believes RHNDA could violate the U.S. Constitution's guarantee of equal treatment under the law.

Click "like" if you are PRO-LIFE!

The statement by the Clinton campaign left no doubt that she stood with Obama and a majority of Democratic legislators. Spokeswoman Jennifer Palmieri told CNN, "Hillary Clinton has fought for women and families and their right to access the full range of reproductive health care without interference from politicians or employers."

"Hillary will fight to make it easier, not more difficult, for women and families to get ahead and ensure that women are not discriminated against for personal medical decisions."

The remarks come a week after Clinton took criticism for saying that "religious beliefs" critical of "reproductive rights" must "be changed."

“Yes, we've cut the maternal mortality rate in half, but far too many women are still denied critical access to reproductive health,” she told the Women in the World Summit on April 23.

“Rights have to exist in practice, not just on paper," said Clinton in her speech. "Laws have to be backed up with resources, and political will."

“Deep-seated cultural codes, religious beliefs, and structural biases have to be changed,” said the candidate.

Advertisement
Featured Image
Dustin Siggins Dustin Siggins Follow Dustin

, ,

Social conservatives may be funding the destruction of marriage: corporate watchdog

Dustin Siggins Dustin Siggins Follow Dustin
By Dustin Siggins

May 1, 2015 (LifeSiteNews.com) -- With over $55 million in annual revenue, the Human Rights Campaign may be America's most powerful LGBT activist group. And according to a conservative corporate watchdog, that's in part because social conservatives are funding it.

"Conservatives would be surprised to know that many of the dollars they spend every day are helping fund an agenda that seeks to destroy traditional marriage and undermine religious freedoms," said 2nd Vote National Outreach Director Robert Kuykendall. "Even when they purchase a beverage from a company like Coca-cola or Starbucks, their dollar is going to support HRC's liberal agenda to redefine marriage."

Less than 18 months old, 2nd Vote has graded hundreds of corporations on six issues -- corporate welfare, the environment, education, support for the Second Amendment, abortion, and as of two weeks ago, same-sex "marriage." Using their "scoring" system, 2nd Vote ranks corporations on their direct or indirect involvement with these hot-button public policy and cultural issues.

And according to them, some of America's favorite corporations are making the radical HRC agenda possible.

"HRC is the largest LGBT lobbying organization in the United States with reported revenues of over $55 million," Kuykendall told LifeSiteNews. "The redefinition of marriage and the undermining of religious freedom are major components of HRC’s policy agenda. To fund their policy goals, HRC has enlisted the help of many major corporations that we do business with every day to help fund. Over a third of the contributions received by HRC are listed as 'Corporate/Foundation Grants.'" 

Why should conservatives care about corporate donors to HRC? Kuykendall says the organization is both politically influential and publicly deceptive. "Last election cycle, HRC spent around a million dollars on electioneering activities and in support of liberal candidates willing to push their legislative agenda. HRC is responsible for spreading much of the misinformation regarding [Religious Freedom Restoration Act] laws and has also mischaracterized the protections provided by these laws."

"HRC organized a massive grassroots campaign in support of the legal battle to overturn state laws protecting marriage and influence the Supreme Court’s decision in Obergefell v. Hodges," said Kuykendall.

Marriage isn't the only issue on which conservatives may be at odds with HRC's corporate backers. "2nd Vote’s research into other issues such as life, the environment, and the 2nd Amendment shows that many of the companies supporting HRC have taken liberal stands on other issues as well,” he said. “For example, Apple, Citigroup, Microsoft, and Coca-Cola are Platinum Partners, the highest level of HRC’s National Corporate Partners, that have also funded the liberal Center for American Progress [CAP]."

Click "like" if you want to defend true marriage.

"Bank of America, Google, Goldman Sachs, Starbucks, PepsiCo, and Morgan Stanley are also HRC Corporate Partners that have funded CAP. Furthermore, all of these companies signed the amicus brief asking the Supreme Court to overturn state marriage laws."

In Indiana, the state's religious liberty law was modified because of corporate pressure led by Tim Cook, Apple's gay CEO. Kuykendall says conservatives should not give up, though he acknowledges that "for too long, conservatives have let liberals and groups like HRC bully companies into not just going along with their agenda, but actively funding and promoting it."

"However, conservatives have also proven their ability to mobilize and use their dollars in support of traditional values as we’ve seen through the fundraising campaigns for the pizza parlor and wedding cake makers who have been attacked by liberals for their beliefs. Conservatives need to turn the tables on the left, and groups like HRC, and motivate companies to stop funding the liberal agenda through the power of their shopping habits."

Only nine companies have ranks of "five" or "four" on 2nd Vote's ranking system, indicating a pro-marriage perspective. They are outnumbered more than 10 to 1 by organizations that support redefining marriage.

Concerned citizens can download the app on 2nd Vote's website. The full list of corporation scores can be found here.

Advertisement
Featured Image
Shutterstock.com
Fr. Mark Hodges

First graders exposed to book about transgender boy—without parental notification

Fr. Mark Hodges
By Fr. Mark Hodges

KITTERY POINT, ME, May 1, 2015, (LifeSiteNews.com) – Parents at one Maine school are upset that children as young as six were exposed to a book promoting transgender issues, in the name of "acceptance."

Parents were not only not consulted, they were never even notified of their children's exposure to transgenderism.

Horace Mitchell Primary School read the book I Am Jazz to first-grade students. The book is about a boy who identifies as a girl from the age of two, "with a boy's body and a girl's brain." He eventually finds a doctor who tells his parents, "Jazz is transgender."

Parents began to inquire about what was being taught at Horace Mitchell Primary after children came home with questions about their own sex and wondering if they, too, might be transgender.

One mother, upset that teachers would broach the subject of transgenderism with her little boy, said the primary school ignored her complaint. "I feel like my thoughts, feelings and beliefs were completely ignored...My right as a parent to allow or not allow this discussion with my child was taken from me," she told Hannity.com.

"When I spoke with the principal he was very cold about it," the mother continued. "It's amazing how thoughtless the school has been with this whole thing."

Only after Sean Hannity made national inquiries did Horace Mitchell Primary School suggest that teachers should have told parents ahead of time.

Allyn Hutton, the superintendent of the local district, said she supported reading the book but admitted that parents should have been given advance warning about the subject matter. "We have a practice of – if a topic is considered sensitive – parents should be informed. In this situation, that didn't happen," she said. "We understand that toleration is tolerating people of all opinions."

Horace Mitchell Primary School sent an e-mail, after the fact, to concerned parents, including a link to a blog post of the school's guidance counselor, explaining their motivation was "cultivating respect."

"Some may think primary school students are too young to worry about addressing issues surrounding gay, lesbian, bisexual, transgender and questioning (LGBTQ) students. Not so, experts say,” the school's guidance counselor wrote. “It’s never too early to begin teaching children about respecting differences."

Homosexual activists say they support the teaching of transgenderism to first-graders, with or without parental notification. "The staff of Mitchell School is...shedding a light on [LGBTQ] issues,” said a column in Gay Star News.

The LGBT puublication goes even further, advocating homosexual propaganda be commonplace in elementary schools across the country. "LGBTQ issues should never be classified as a 'sensitive subject,' [because] there is nothing sensitive about the way we are born. Blonde hair, brown hair, gay, straight or somewhere in-between."

Brian Camenker of MassResistance commented on the infiltration of homosexual propaganda in children's schools. "We deal with parents and teachers a lot, and the idea that teachers would do this is unconscionable. It's like the people that promote this stuff are evil. It's demonic. You can't imagine adults that would do this to other people's children, and do it with such anger, and such vitrol.”

Camenker emphasized that this is “not an isolated incident with just one, rogue teacher. This happens because the whole administrative hierarchy buys into it.”

Click "like" if you want to defend true marriage.

“The new generation of educators is very, very frightening,” he said.

Advertisement

Customize your experience.

Login with Facebook