Freep-mail me to get on or off my pro-life and Catholic List:
Please ping me to note-worthy Pro-Life or Catholic threads, or other threads of general interest.
Posted on 03/22/2012 12:56:37 PM PDT by Morgana
TORONTO, Ontario, March 22, 2012 (LifeSiteNews.com) – An Ontario Court of Justice judge erupted in a lengthy, angry tirade against pro-life activist Mary Wagner – and ejected a spectator from the public gallery – in a downtown Toronto courtroom Wednesday. The judge then sent Wagner to jail for an additional 92 days, added to 88 days already served prior to trial, after finding her guilty of mischief and two counts of failing to comply with probation orders.
The charges related to Wagner’s November 8 arrest at the site of the Bloor West Village “Women’s Clinic.” Wagner has been arrested on several occasions for peacefully entering abortion facilities in Toronto, where she presents women in the waiting room with a rose and offers them pro-life counseling.
The remarkable scene played itself out after Crown attorney Derek Ishak and defense counsel Russell Browne made a joint submission to Mr. Justice S. Ford Clements for time served plus a three-year probationary term. But Clements emphatically rejected the submission.
“She can sit in jail, if that’s the only way to protect people,” he fulminated, calling Wagner “cowardly” for “abusing other human beings” and not having the courage to make her views known through other channels. “This is an extraordinary waste of resources. Get a grip!”
“You don’t get it, do you? What’s the rule of law? You’re required to abide by it … You’ve lost the right as a citizen to be anywhere near an abortion clinic or to speak to an employee,” he said.
“You’re wrong and your God’s wrong,” he continued. “You have complete contempt … There is a right to (abortion) in this country … You don’t have a right to cause (abortion-seeking women) extra pain and grief the way you do.”
“[Abortion] is legal,” he continued, “that’s all you have to understand … You start causing people emotional pain and harm, you think that’s okay?”
He then asked Wagner whether she would stay away from abortion sites for three years as required by the proposed terms of probation.
“I will not,” Wagner replied firmly.
“Then you’re going to jail,” said Clements.
Earlier, one of Wagner’s supporters in the public gallery spoke up and was addressed by Clements. “These (life issues) are deeply held beliefs. We respect the rule of law. There are ways to change the law. The rule of law is absolutely fundamental. We see what happens in the streets when the rule of law is ignored,” he said. “You wouldn’t like someone in your vestibule every night. People who can’t deal with that, we lock them up.”
When the man attempted to reply, he was ejected from the courtroom by Clements.
After a noon recess, Clements observed that joint submissions by the Crown and defense were not binding on a judge. He said in his view, the submission as it was would be contrary to the public interest and would bring the administration of justice into disrepute.
Asked whether she had anything to say prior to sentencing, Wagner said she saw the rule of law as a guidepost, not an absolute. “The letter of the law does not always maintain justice … abortion is a short-term solution but causes long-term pain,” she said.
She added she never acts out of a lack of sensitivity, but rather attempts to love the women to whom she speaks. She also pointed to examples from history where people who were initially regarded as criminals were later found to be in the right.
Clements was unmoved. “You have, in some measure, displayed utter contempt for the courts and the rights of others,” he said. “You appear to be governed by a higher moral order than the laws of our country.”
“Your determination to break the law is a potential threat to the well-being of society and plants the seeds of lawlessness, perhaps even anarchy … You are unable to accord some civility and respect to others. Your view in law is wrong.”
In concluding, Clements accepted the testimony of abortion site co-owner Patricia Hasen, who filed a victim impact statement that claimed financial hardship caused by Wagner’s actions, including the necessity to hire a “counselor” from another abortion site. Hasen also said she was “scared a bit” when Wagner allegedly held a door open, adding she “doesn’t trust this woman’s peaceful demeanour” and worries about potential aggression. “These people do not work alone.”
Crown attorney Ishak, in his submissions, charged that pro-life activists “prey upon the emotional vulnerability” of abortion patients as “they evidently pursue martyrdom.” The “flouting” of laws, he charged, harken back to “the Dark Ages” and blurs the line between might and right. He suggested Wagner’s actions mark an increase in “the aggressive nature” of pro-life demonstrations, creating emotional distress.
There was no immediate word on whether Wagner planned to appeal either the verdicts or what amounted to a six-month jail sentence. There is also an option to file a complaint with the Ontario Judicial Council over Clements’s statements and conduct in the courtroom. According to the OJC website, “If you have a complaint of misconduct about a provincial judge or a justice of the peace, you must state your complaint in a signed letter. The letter of complaint should include the date, time and place of the court hearing and as much detail as possible about why you feel there was misconduct.”
To write to Wagner in prison:
Mary Wagner Vanier Centre for Women 655 Martin St., Box 1040 Milton, ON L9T 5E6
Cowardly? She's got the courage to stand up for her convictions and calmly defy you, you overreaching chucklehead.
Your final analysis is spot on.
One comment regarding the slave - the slave WAS the property, and slaves represented a large part of the owner’s capital assets. So, while a bit tenuous, the slave property/real property do have some parallels, though not perfect (but what analogy is perfect?).
In the Bible, in "Acts," you'll find many accounts of Apostles preaching in defiance of the "law."
God called on them to preach His Gospel, even though the authorities rejected it. They were beaten, imprisoned and murdered for their stand with Him. You don't strike me as one who would suffer for God; rather you would compromise with evil.
The legality of an action does not make it right, nor acceptable to God. Consider the actions of the NAZIs. Technically, their actions were "legal." Some churches chose to "go along" with the law. Do you think this was acceptable to our Lord?
If an atheist came into my Church, I'd consider that an incredible opportunity to witness for Jesus, the King of kings and the Lord of lords. I serve him rather than your temporal masters.
Bringing up the Nazis when there are innocent people (born or pre-born) being killed is completely legitimate. Bringing up the Nazis or the Taliban because someone thinks fornication, pornography, or public nudity is wrong and should be discouraged is a violation of Campion’s Law.
When Mormons come to my door, I let my sons talk to them about Boy Scouting, when we have time. The Jehovah’s Witnesses are neighbors and know I’ll be friendly and take their literature (which I sometimes read - forgiveness, sensible child rearing, and family togetherness are universal), so they can count me for their quota, and also my dog likes them.
“In NC, we can’t even pray on the side of the street with the abortion clinic. “
They arrested civil rights leaders for praying on the street in the 60’s.
Well...one gives honor and glory to Jesus and the other offers praise and the other gives honor and glory to molech.
Who do you worship, slumber1?
So...what would you choose?
Freep-mail me to get on or off my pro-life and Catholic List:
Please ping me to note-worthy Pro-Life or Catholic threads, or other threads of general interest.
My God just happens to have created the universe.
What did this bozo ever do ? Collect a State salary ? Mumble a bunch of jibberish no one will remember or care about in a 100 years ?
‘Clements was unmoved. “You have, in some measure, displayed utter contempt for the courts and the rights of others,” he said. “You appear to be governed by a higher moral order than the laws of our country.”
You appear to be governed by a higher moral order!?! You think? That is kind of the whole point.
“You appear to be governed by a higher moral order!?! You think? That is kind of the whole point.”
Lib-ism only recognizes government as the Supreme Being.
Religion is an opiate for us Proles, remember ?
:)
God bless,
Alan
O Canada!
Land of our forefathers,
Thy brow is wreathed with a glorious garland of flowers.
As is thy arm ready to wield the sword,
So also is it ready to carry the cross
Thy history is an epic
Of the most brilliant exploits.
Thy valour steeped in faith ...
A society that will not defend the unborn ... soon, they will not defend themselves ... and will surrender and sue for peace when militarily invaded. The people feel guilty when fighting in defense of their homeland and soon stand down.
The abortion rate in Yugoslavia was the highest in Europe and plunged to almost zero ... as they blew up their country.
Pro-Life bump
i’d have to pray on it. and the situation and consequences would have to be real not hypothetical. it’s tough, i’ve got kids to support.
Yeah, and slavery was legal at one time, too, Your Dishonor.
God bless this brave woman.
If this were a liberal, everyone would be fawning over her, how “brave” and “wonderful” she was for “taking a stand”.
Oh, and one final thing, Judge: Her God is NEVER wrong!
(1) The atheist in slumber1's example is specified to be "handing out literature" and not "trying to protect someone who is about to be beheaded and dismembered."
You're right in thinking that handing out literature is not an absolute right (not always and everywhere) but attempting to save someone about to kill or be killed is not just always and everywhere a right, but a duty.
(2) Even if the arrestee was indeed just handing out literature (without any larger justification of preventing imminent bloodshed), a penalty of 88 days plus 92 days (total 6 months in jail) would be excessive.
The excessive severity of the penalty was apparently motivated by the judge's view that Mary Wagner's actions were "aggressive" and they "victimized people," when what she actually did (according to the record) was open a door, give one or more women roses, and speak to them by offering to help them.
Not aggressive, no victims.
See the differences?
Almost any law is properly set aside in application if there is a life-saving necsessity, and this is recognized in law. I don't know what the principle is called in Canada, but in US law it is called a "necessity defense" or "competing harms defense."
For instance: say you look into a parked car on a day when the temperature is 85 degrees, and see a baby in the back seat with the windows all closed and the doors locked, the the child sweat-drenched, red-faced and apparently unconscious. You can smash open a window, unlock the door, and take the child out of the car, before you even call 911. You could carry the baby into te nearby ER, or try to revive him yourself.
Ordinarily smashing the window of somebody's car, orening their locked car door, and removing their child against their express will would be property destruction, trespassing, abduction. Illegal. In this case, however, police would not arrest; charges would not be made; juries would not convict; judges would not sentence.
It doesn't even have to be for the sake of saving a child's life. You could even do it for a valuable dog.
There as a series of cases in the USA (IIRC in St. Louis in the 1980's) where pro-life defendants were acquitted on just these grounds. It should be so everywhere.
If somebody was for some reason (drunk, psychotic) about to smack a toddler on the head with a concrete block, would the proper response be going to a public thoroughfare and leafletting against head trauma?
Fair enough questions. If all the pro-abortion woman did, in your example, is exactly what Mary Wagner did (enter the property, hand out flowers, and talk in a reasonmable way, i.e. with no force or threat of force o coercion) it would be reasonable to request her to leave or to engage her in conversation. If it became necessary to arrest her (e..g it was closing time and she wouldn't leave) I think it would be reasonabel to have the police removfe her, but not arrest heer, and certainly nmot jail her for 6 months.
However this case is different, due to lives being in imminent danger.
Do you think the purpose of law is the protection life and property (in that order)?
Or is it "the orderly administration of injustice"?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.