Showing posts with label graphic images. Show all posts
Showing posts with label graphic images. Show all posts

Sunday, October 16, 2016

Toronto Area Police Display Cultural Bias Against Pro-Life Witness

Chief Paul Martin says the DRPS is working hard to reach new recruits from diverse backgrounds

Unfortunately cultural bias in the Canada of 2016 is decidedly against traditional Christian morality, in particular pro-life and pro-family witness. In this posting I share the content of recent letters to the Durham Regional Police Services Chief and the Chief’s response. The letters speak for themselves but I will preface each letter with a short intro. I make public this correspondence for the sake of transparency in law enforcement, for the advancement of freedom of speech and expression and for the greater good of the pro-life community.

I look forward to the readers’ comments and reactions to these letters.

Intro: On May 28, 2016 I was displaying signs in Oshawa at Taunton Rd. and Harmony Rd. intersection as I often do on Saturdays. On one side of my sign was a graphic abortion image and on the other a related text message for passers-by.


June 14, 2016

Chief Paul Martin,
Durham Regional Police Services,
605 Rossland Rd. E, Box 911,   
Whitby, ON L1N 0B8

Dear Chief Martin,

I am a resident of Oshawa, ON. I am a former high school teacher and a retired pastor.

On Saturday May 28, 2016 I had an encounter with one of your officers in Durham Regional Police Service; or rather I should perhaps say the Durham Region Thought Police. I have video and audio on file of this encounter. Officer Lee, a motorcycle patrolman, conducted an extensive inquisition into my activity at Harmony and Taunton Roads, sometime around 2 pm, while I was holding an anti-abortion sign at that intersection. Mine was a completely innocuous law abiding exercise, although the sign, one which I have used for several years, was of a graphic nature. Graphic pictures of abortion evince a strong response from some individuals of the public, as they rightly should, since they portray the results of a bloody violent act against a fellow human being.

Officer Lee approached me asking what’s up and proceeded to inform me that my sign was very graphic and asking why I was on the street corner with such a sign, inferring that I was engaged in doing something wrong. I informed Officer Lee immediately of my Charter rights in regard to freedom of expression and asked him what, if anything, I was doing contrary to the law, but it made little difference to his modus operandi, which, throughout the encounter, essentially consisted of harassing me with his opinions and point of view. He immediately insisted that I produce identification, without even providing just cause for his intervention.  I told him I was reluctant to lay down my sign in order to get ID from my car because I’d been through this routine before and it served no good purpose but he was adamant and so I complied and went to my car while he accompanied me.

From that point onward a discussion ensued wherein Officer Lee lectured me on why I shouldn’t be exposing others, particularly children, to such images. His opinion was clearly favoring the so called right of “Choice” i.e. the choice of women to kill their pre-born children and when I countered with my opinion he kept insisting that “it all depends on what you believe…what you feel.” So apparently Officer Lee’s opinion took precedence in the matter and he was determined to press that opinion as far as he could, against my protestations. Then followed a host of questions about how many other times had I been stopped by officers in the past, why did I feel so strongly about the issue that I would hold a sign at this street corner, had someone in my family been affected somehow by abortion, why is abortion a personal issue for me, why don’t I protest instead outside an abortion clinic (Officer Lee recommended that as a better choice!), etc. During the questioning I kept reminding him that he was violating my Charter rights but he simply dismissed my protests with comments such as “How, by talking to you?”

After he had run out of questions and excuses he finally said, “I’m going to read your sign before I let you continue.” The other side of my sign had some text referring to Canada’s evil culture and again, Officer Lee was making it sound as though my right to say such things was in question. We walked back to my sign and then he started to write in his notes the words that were on my sign, interrogating me all the while on my meaning. I offered to email him a copy of the text on the sign but he declined the offer, continuing the interrogation as he went down the list of items on my sign. Clearly this was pure intimidation and animus. He never let up first nor last on forcing his opinions upon me, availing himself of every opportunity to demean or contradict the message I was delivering. At no time did I solicit his comments or his opinions, rather I tried unsuccessfully to have him leave me alone and allow me to get back to my business at hand. I protested, “I have a different opinion Officer and I’m allowed to have it. We’re not living in North Korea or in Russia…” Eventually Officer Lee could avoid the question of the law and my rights no longer, although he never conceded at any point that he was overstepping his bounds, and when I finally  insisted “Am I free to go now, Sir?” he replied “Oh, I’m not stopping you…”

What outrageous behaviour for a professional in the service of the public! But that wasn’t the end of it. He went on to take a cell phone picture of the graphic photo on my sign and then interrogated me on where exactly I had obtained that photo, i.e. the source from which I purchased it. I answered his question precisely, wished him a good day and returned to my sign duty.

On July 7, 2015, a little less than a year ago, the Kingston police issued a statement on Facebook and Twitter regarding pro-life sign protests happening in their city at the time (see media story attached to this letter). This was their message to the public:

We are receiving numerous calls regarding “Pro-life” or “Anti-Abortion” protests happening around the city. We are aware of the activity, and the graphic nature of the images on display. To this end, we have sought a legal opinion from the Kingston Crown Attorney, which advises that this conduct is not an offence under law, and is protected by the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, specifically freedom of expression. We are aware that some may find these protests offensive, but we would kindly ask that you refrain from calling police to report.

A few years ago I was engaged in a perfectly peaceful and lawful pro-life activity in another city in Canada when I was seriously hampered and harassed by police officers without cause. I was strongly advised to file a human rights complaint against the police. I did not do so at the time and it would be a sad day for Durham Region, for Ontario and for Canada should I have to do so the next time a Durham Regional police officer misuses his authority and position.

Chief Martin, I trust that you will do everything in your power to ensure your officers are fully informed of the law regarding this type of demonstration and that they respect the rights of all law abiding citizens to express themselves, whether officers are in agreement or not. It’s simply the only professional response acceptable and it should be the only one tolerated.

Regards,


Attached: News article Vandal arrested after smearing black paint on graphic pro-life billboards

Link to Kingston Police Facebook notice


Info: By mid-September I still had not received an acknowledgement or response from the Chief of Police. For reasons stated in the second letter below I decided to write again. On this occasion I sent copies to other individuals listed.

September 18, 2016

Chief Paul Martin,
Durham Regional Police Services,
605 Rossland Rd. E, Box 911,   
Whitby, ON L1N 0B8
BY REGISTERED MAIL

RE: My Previous Letter Of June 14, 2016 Remains Unanswered

Dear Chief Martin,

I refer to my previous letter of June 14, 2016, copy attached, which remains unanswered to date, more than ninety days later. The letter demanded time and effort on my part and the incident which it described was quite unsettling and frustrating. Should it be altogether dismissed or unworthy of so much as a form letter by return mail? Although I did not specifically request a response, I certainly hoped to receive an acknowledgement of the same and at least a comment or two, perhaps offering some perspective on my concerns. My letter was hand delivered to a female staff person at your office reception desk.

I assume you received my letter but of course, without receipt of a reply, I cannot be certain. I therefore feel compelled to write this follow-up correspondence. I cannot help thinking that, had I been a member of the LGBTQ community who was reporting an instance of unjust discrimination or interference by a DRPS officer, my concerns would certainly have merited a quick reply of support and encouragement. Isn’t that what outreach activities relating to diversity and inclusion would mandate?  Am I or my politically incorrect cause to be excluded from the conversation exploring all the “dimensions of our diverse Region”? Is political correctness blinding us to the concerns of fellow Canadians? I can’t help but wonder.

With sincere regards,


Enclosure
cc.          John Henry, Mayor, City of Oshawa
Don Mitchell, Mayor, Town of Whitby
Roger M. Anderson, Durham Police Board Chair
Deputy Chief Chris Fernandes
Deputy Chief Uday Jaswal



Info: The following is a jpeg of the police chief’s response of October 5th. I was appreciative of the fact that he finally went on record with a response although it seems to me that he skirted altogether the facts of the matter and the concerns I voiced.


This is hardly the first time such bias showed up at my doorstep. However, there have been exceptions, this posting has further details.




Monday, December 23, 2013

Do Graphic Abortion Pictures Destroy The Innocence Of Children?



Yesterday I exposed the true nature of abortion at two parishes in St. John’s, NL. Outside St. Teresa’s Church a young father approached me to share his angst about his children being forced to look at my graphic picture of a 10 week old aborted baby. He took a very respectful attitude when he approached me, stating that he believed I was a person of some moral conviction for making my statement. However, he was disturbed because he said that his 5 and 6 year old children did not need to see that picture. “You’re taking innocence away from my two little children.” He then stated that he agreed with what I was doing but completely disagreed with my picture. I asked him if he had talked with his children about abortion to which he replied: “My son is 5 my daughter is 6, they think the world is a pretty simple place right now…you’re not helping, you’re not helping.” I replied. “The children will be fine, sir.” Clearly annoyed, he retorted, “I know my children will be fine, but that’s (referring to the picture) not fine for my children (to see)…you’re not giving my children a choice.” At this point the man left frustrated.

In retrospect I think I did a very poor job of consoling this father. My scripted answer to the charge that the pictures hurt children is to say something like:

“I’m sorry, ma’am, that children end up being exposed to this picture. I’m sorry that I have to take the approach I do. It is not my intention to target children with this message. In fact, it is out of concern for children that I am here.”

Clearly I should have stuck to my script but I suppose the charge of destroying the innocence of children caught me a little off guard.

When occasion permits I also like to assure parents that my prayers are with them, specifically asking that God would give them wisdom in debriefing their children after such an encounter. Personally, I cannot imagine that God would lead me by His Spirit to expose the horrors of abortion as I do using graphic images without at the same time offering a means, by His grace, to help parents safely interpret such an engagement to theirchildren.

At a recent pro-life conference in St. John’s a local psychotherapist presented her thoughts on many aspects of abortion impact on women and many aspects of our society, including the effects of graphic abortion imagery on children. She summarized her own comments succinctly on the latter aspect by indicating that children are much more resilient to these types of images than we think, perhaps much more resilient than adults.

On a related point, perhaps the most frequent question arising from people’s lips immediately after the shock of viewing my sign is,

“Why are you here, outside a Catholic parish, on Sunday morning, with your signs? You are preaching to the choir.”

I’ve pondered the best short answer to that question. Really, it comes down to this response, “Because you (we) are the only ones who can put an end to the killing.” The target audience is everything in this battle.

Should I instead stand outside the abortuary with my signs and expect the mothers, the abortionist, the abortuary staff, and the general public passing by to rise up with me and put together a serious plan to end legalized abortion? Or should I—like so many good souls in the pro-life movement—go regularly to the abortuary and make a token protest to assuage my outrage in front of those who are more or less directly involved with the killing? How many who do so really expect changes to happen or for anyone to take serious action to end abortion as a result of their visit?

I truly believe that if any one group is ever to be responsible for smothering legal abortion it will be Catholics. They have the power and authority in their hands, by means of their Bishops, the Successors of the Apostles, the guardians of Truth and the Moral Law.

I have addressed the controversy surrounding the use of graphic abortion imagery (more recently called “abortion victim photography") in a fairly comprehensive posting on this blog. The links provided in that posting lead to some of the best insights currently available. A recent online article is also well done. More discussion is certainly demanded given the inflammatory nature of reactions in the public square. This posting hopes to make a contribution in that regard.


Saturday, December 21, 2013

The “Disobedience Disconnect” Between The Bishops and The Holy See




I recently wrote about the need to defend life, in addition to “acknowledging” the pro-life position. A fellow Canadian pro-lifer from Ottawa area shares the same message:

The bishops are obligated to OBEY the directives of the Popes on abortion because what they are commanding is for the leaders of the Catholic Church to defend LIFE, lives of the unborn against abortion.

Pope John Paul II’s Encyclical Letter,  ’The Gospel of Life’ is very clear on the ‘obedience’ of leaders in this regard. John Paul said: “It is precisely from obedience to God–to whom alone is due that fear which is acknowledgment of his absolute sovereignty–that the strength and the courage to resist unjust human laws are born. It is the strength and courage of those prepared even to be imprisoned or put to the sword, in the certainty that this is what makes the endurance and faith of the saints. (Rev 13:10) (#73)

Read the rest of his worthy posting here.





Saturday, November 30, 2013

Who Should We Be Angry At?




Ms. Mallory’s reaction is telling, as images of dead babies should evoke this type of emotion from every human being. That abortion is juxtaposed with the treatment of Rwandan children is entirely accurate; it is the injustice of both situations - the inhumane treatment of human beings - that is fundamentally the same.