Are the 'Speechies' Right, er, Correct?

Mark Fournier of Free Dominion is conducting on-line seminars on Bill C-51: Investigative Powers for the 21st Century Act.

Today's instalment (bold in original; one typo fixed): Canadian government plans to outlaw internet anonymity.

Yesterday we examined how the Canadian government is planning to effectively outlaw internet linking by making Canadians permanently legally responsible for the content of any webpage they link to using the Investigative Powers for the 21st Century Act. Today we will look at how the same Act will outlaw internet anonymity.

Clause 11: The existing provisions of the Code regarding the offences of sending a message in a false name and sending false information, indecent remarks or “harassing” messages (the French term “harassants” currently used in subsection 372(3) of the Code is replaced by “harcelants” in the bill) refer to certain communication technologies used to commit those offences, such as telegram, radio and telephone. Clause 11 of the bill amends those offences by removing the references to those specific communication technologies and, for some of those offences, substituting a reference to any means of telecommunication. As a result, it will be possible to lay charges in respect of those offences regardless of the transmission method or technology used.

This is an exact duplicate of the process that brought thought crimes legislation, Section 13 of the Canadian Human Rights Act, to the internet and enabled the Canadian Human Rights Commission to engage in acts that were finally ruled to be unconstitutional by the very Canadian Human Rights Tribunals that rubber stamped convictions in 100% of the cases brought before it. Only this time it is to be expanded upon and enshrined in the Criminal Code of Canada. If this Bill is passed the Canadian government can throw out the reviled Section 13 of the CHRA, they won't need it anymore because they will have something even worse to use against us.

Look very carefully at the wording of Clause 11 above. The key word is “and” which follows the words in bold text (text not bold in original document). It would be bad enough if the new law proposed making it an additional offense to use a false name (an internet alias) “while” “sending false information, indecent remarks or “harassing” messages”, like using a firearm in the commission of a robbery, but this wording makes “sending a message using a false name” a stand alone crime. Think long and hard about the implications and dangers of this part of this proposed bill.

Where are internet aliases most commonly used by Canadians today? They are almost universally used in internet forums, bloggers' comments sections, and comment sections of other websites. This law will make using an alias a crime. It is not likely they will try to prosecute everyone using an alias online but it will give the government the means to identify and criminalize anyone who writes anything the government disapproves of. Imagine an internet where Canadians were forbidden by law to speak anonymously.

Think it would never happen in Canada? Never forget what happened with the CHRC and never give those who enabled that disaster the means to do it again.

Yesterday, Fournier pointed out the dangers of linking contained in the same bill. He quotes Clause 5.

Clause 5 of the bill provides that the offences of public incitement of hatred and wilful promotion of hatred may be committed by any means of communication and include making hate material available, by creating a hyperlink that directs web surfers to a website where hate material is posted...

And goes on to explain.

Hyperlinks are at the very core of the internet, they are what enables every internet user to view any available page on the internet and direct others to view pages. This bill will put the control of all hyperlinks into the hands of government bureaucrats and put all Canadian internet users in legal jeopardy.

This clause essentially makes any Canadian posting a link on the internet legally responsible for the content of any web page linked to even though the person posting the link has no control over the content of that page. If the person who does control the page you've linked to changes the pages content you are still legally responsible because you posted a link.

This will make it unsafe for any Canadian to post a link to any page on the internet that he does not control.

This bill will also make it impossible for any Canadian to operate a forum or a blog that allows for public comments. Even if a blogger vets every posted link on his blog with a bevy of lawyers at his side he still will be held legally liable if the content of the outside web pages changes. The only way to safely operate a blog will be to disallow links to other sites and pages.

Beyond the dangers of this bill as it is supposed to function lies the massive potential for abuse by government agents and private individuals. A person who dislikes you for political, competitive or personal reasons could easily set you up with legal problems. Using readily available proxy servers and disposable emails anyone could set up a simple webpage outside of Canada with a theme of “I hate [enter favoured group here] and then post a link to it on your forum or blog. A screen shot of both the created page and the hyperlink on your page is all the evidence needed to show the new law has been violated.

I am no kinda expert on human rights tribunals/commissions (paging Dr. Dawg), but I do know that the speechies loathe them. (And today, we find out that Ontario Top Con Man, Tim Hudak, has backed off from his promise to axe the tribunal here. Building a 'big tent' party ain't so easy, is it, Timmie?)

But if Fournier's reading is correct -- if a little paranoid -- then blogs like DJ! are in beeeg trouble. Not to mention Facebook pages, Tweets, and whatever new fangled toys the Intertoobz geniuses come up with.

Given that we are facing four or five years of authoritarian, liberal-loathing Harperism, shouldn't we progressives be a tad worried?

And, for that matter, shouldn't the telcos and ISPs be howling at the expense of such monitoring?

It seems to me that this could be a great issue for the Fucking Useless Opposition® and a way to make some new and old Con MPs veeeery uncomfortable under a deluge of outraged letters, emails, tweets, and phone calls.

But, as Fournier points out, we'd better act quickly. SHithead vows to pass his omnibus Stoopid on Crime bill within 100 days.

Oh-oh. Brian Lilley is on it. I like his last paragraph.

The Harper Conservatives won a majority Monday, they can pass this bill without relying on any other party for support. But they still need your support and your donations and the Canadian public should tell them they will get neither if they put forward bills like this that attack liberty.

UPDATE: HOLY CRAP! Link to Michael Geist from reader Mark Francis.

. . . more important than process is the substance of the proposals that have the potential to fundamentally reshape the Internet in Canada. The bills contain a three-pronged approach focused on information disclosure, mandated surveillance technologies, and new police powers.

C-510 Officially Toast

Libby Davies tweets: Anti-abortion Bill C-510 defeated 97-178.

So. We're good. The fetus fetishists have been strung along again. They'll learn nothing from this and vote ReformaTory again and get strung along again.

Lather, rinse, repeat.

Xist, they're stoooopid.

ADDED: The SHRIEEEKING begins: Waaaah! PM Stevie Peevie voted against it!

New Poster Girl for Coerced Abortion? Probably Not.

As more information comes out, I'm guessing that Melinda Morin may not turn out to be the ideal new poster girl for the Stringing Fetus Fetishists Along Bill, aka C-510, Bruinooge's private member's bill on 'coerced abortion'.

The Calgary Sun reports:

Morin, under cross-examination by Crown lawyer Eric Tolppanen, denied allegations she attacked Godwin because he was tossing her off his gravy train.

“You were basically homeless if not for Neil,” Tolppanen told the Calgary woman.

“I would’ve went back to Saskatchewan if I wanted to, but I wanted to be with him,” Morin said.

She acknowledged Godwin was kicking her out of his northeast Calgary condo because she continued to live a drug lifestyle.

“It was a pretty low point in your life,” Tolppanen suggested of Morin’s prospects of being thrown out of Godwin’s home.

“You’re pregnant, addicted to cocaine, no job and the one person that was providing you steady shelter is kicking you out,” the prosecutor said.

“Yes,” Morin agreed.

But the confessed killer said she was willing to leave, but Godwin wouldn’t let her go until she agreed to abort the unborn child she says was his.

“I wanted to leave, I was trying to leave because I didn’t want the abortion.”

The Calgary Herald has this to add:

She testified they had been dating for about three months and she spent most nights at his home, but also worked as a prostitute. She said Godwin didn't ask her to stop turning tricks, as the money helped pay for her drug habit, but she just wasn't supposed to do it at his home.

Do you think the fetus fetishists will recognize what a can of worms they're trying to open with Bruinooge's badly camouflaged anti-choice 'chill' bill?

Nah, me neither.

But will they slooowly back away from championing Ms Morin?

You betcha!

Men! Beware!

Hmmmm. How will the fetus fetishists spin this?

Refusing to get an abortion left a pregnant Calgary woman in a life-and-death struggle with her boyfriend, an accused murderer testified Thursday.

And Melinda Morin insisted she had no choice but to use deadly force to repel an angry Barry Neil Godwin.

In November 2009, Morin stabbed Godwin five times, any one of which, according to the medical examiner, would have been fatal. There were no drugs or alcohol in Godwin's body, but cocaine was found in hers.

Aeeiiiii! Another of the multitude of coerced abortion attempts that Fetus-Fetishist-in-Chief, Rod Bruinooge, will put an end to with his private member's bill C-510, glurgily nicknamed Roxanne's Bill for the woman who was NOT murdered because she refused to have an abortion.

See? They're right. Coerced abortion is rampant and vulnerable women need Rod Bruinooge's protection. She had no choice but to stab the guy FIVE times.

Oh. Wait. There's a witness with a different tale to tell.

Witness Stephen Yetman said the couple's bickering outside the building woke him up at 1:30 a.m. that night. He said he looked out the window and heard the spat escalate to threats. He said Godwin blamed Morin for allowing drug dealers into his home.

Gee. Coerced abortion or pissed-off (pregnant) cocaine user? A classic he-said-she-said. But in this case, he's not around to say anything.

Well, it appears we'll find out sooner rather than later how this case will be spun. LifeShite reports that the second hour of debate and vote have been moved up to December 13 and 15 from February.

I'm watching the FF's Facebook page, but so far they seem blissfully unaware of the potential of this case for their cause.

I wonder how the TheoCon Patriarchs will feel if the bill becomes law and presto! becomes all-purpose excuse for pregnant women to attack and kill men.

UPDATE: And here it is, first take on spin at LifeShite. 'See? See? This bill is desperately needed!'

Any excuse for a party

The fetus fetishists are celebrating the fact that Rod Bruinooge's idiotic private member's bill, C-510, on 'coerced' abortion has NOT been deemed non-votable.

Despite the fact that it is toast. I'll spare you the creepy (is there any other kind?) photo of Soudas accompanying the article and quote:

Prime Minister Stephen Harper will vote against a private member’s bill promoted by one of his own MPs that would add new Criminal Code penalties for those who coerce women to have an abortion.

A senior government official also says that while the prime minister will not “whip” or demand Conservative MPs vote as he votes, it will be “very strongly recommended” that Conservatives vote to defeat the bill.

Meanwhile, Mr. Harper’s communications director, Dimitri Soudas, says that recommendation is consistent with Harper’s position since 2002 on any bill dealing with abortion: He and his government will neither introduce nor support any such legislation.

“The government’s not going to initiate or support legislation on abortion,” Mr. Soudas said.

And despite the fact that the criteria for votable and non-votable items are pretty darn basic. (Scroll down at the link for details.)

Coerced vs 'Coerced' Abortion

Now, this is an alleged attempted coerced abortion. From Columbus, Ohio:

A Near East Side man pointed a gun at a pregnant woman and forced her to go to a clinic yesterday morning after she refused to go through with a scheduled abortion there, Columbus police say.

Dominic L. Holt-Reid, 27, of 579 Kelton Ave., was arrested and charged with kidnapping and carrying a concealed weapon.

The woman managed to pass a note to clinic staff who called the cops. Nobody was hurt.

On the other hand, this is a 'coerced' abortion. Yes, the woman was killed by her boyfriend, but not because she refused to have an abortion, as the supporters of private member's bill C-510, the glurgily named Roxanne's Law claim. That is bullshit.

But even though Rod Bruinooge's bill is toast, kicked to the curb by a spokesthingy for Stevie Peevie himself last May, this gang of fetus fetishists still exists and people were writing on the wall as recently as yesterday.

Well, we did call it the Stringing Fetus Fetishists Along Bill.

They are pretty easy to string, aren't they?

97% of Fetus Fetishists Make Sh*t Up

JJ at Unrepentant Old Hippie, among others, doesn't think the Stringing Fetus Fetishists Along Bill has much of a chance of passing, mainly because we already have laws to deal with coercion and threats. Also:

There’s no legitimate rationale for amending the existing law to address so rare a circumstance as “coerced abortion”, especially within the hazy parameters defined by Bill C-510.

But, but, but, JJ, you're wrong! Coerced abortion is rampant! Here's what LieShite said:

A Canadian MP has introduced legislation similar to bills in the United States that helps women who face pressure or coercion when considering an abortion. With surveys showing anywhere from 40-60 percent of women are pressured into unwanted abortions, the legislation can help large numbers of women.

This struck me as totally bogus, so I got googling but I could not find anything that backs up that 40-60 per cent number, or the plural 'surveys'.

But I have found multiple citations of one very precise number -- 64% -- all with the same reference, for example, this 22-page pdf called 'Forced Abortion in America: A Special Report'.

Page 1 headline: 'Most abortions are unwanted or coerced. Many are forced.' Bullet copy detailing anecdotes, duly end-noted.

Page 2 headline: 'The Un-Choice', then some statistical bullet copy with end-note numbers. (There is a lot of bullshit there unrelated to coercion that I'm leaving out. Stuff about post-abortion depression, suicide, other health complications -- all thoroughly and regularly debunked by real researchers. This is the single page with anything like facts on it. The rest of the 22-page report is all anecdotal.)

64% of women reported feeling pressured to abort.1

Most felt rushed or uncertain, yet 67% weren’t counseled.1

79% weren’t told of available reasources.1

84% weren’t sufficiently informed before abortion.1

So what is that all-important Reference 1?

VM Rue et. al., “Induced abortion and traumatic stress: A preliminary comparison of American and Russian women,” Medical Science Monitor 10(10): SR5-16 (2004).

I ran it through Google Scholar and this is what turned up -- miles of anti-choice pseudo-science articles referencing it.

I chased down the abstract at Medical Science Monitor, a Polish monthly that styles itself as an 'International Medical Journal for Experimental and Clinical Research'.

Induced abortion and traumatic stress: A preliminary comparison of American and Russian women
Vincent Rue, Priscilla Coleman, James Rue, David Reardon
Med Sci Monit 2004; 10(10): SR 5 - 16
Manuscript ID: 11784

Institute for Pregnancy Loss, Jacksonville, FL, U.S.A.
Human Development and Family Studies, Bowling Green State University, Bowling Green, OH, U.S.A.
Sir Thomas More Clinic, Downey, CA, U.S.A.
Elliot Institute, Springfield, IL, U.S.A.

Background: Individual and situational risk factors associated with negative postabortion psychological sequelae have been identified, but the degree of posttraumatic stress reactions and the effects of culture are largely unknown.

Material/Methods: Retrospective data were collected using the Institute for Pregnancy Loss Questionnaire (IPLQ) and the Traumatic Stress Institute’s (TSI) Belief Scale administered at health care facilities to 548 women (331 Russian and 217 American) who had experienced one or more abortions, but no other pregnancy losses.

Results: Overall, the findings here indicated that American women were more negatively influenced by their abortion experiences than Russian women. While 65% of American women and 13.1% of Russian women experienced multiple symptoms of increased arousal, re-experiencing and avoidance associated with posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD), 14.3% of American and 0.9% of Russian women met the full diagnostic criteria for PTSD. Russian women had significantly higher scores on the TSI Belief Scale than American women, indicating more disruption of cognitive schemas. In this sample, American women were considerably more likely to have experienced childhood and adult traumatic experiences than Russian women. Predictors of positive and negative outcomes associated with abortion differed across the two cultures.

Conclusions: Posttraumatic stress reactions were found to be associated with abortion. Consistent with previous research, the data here suggest abortion can increase stress and decrease coping abilities, particularly for those women who have a history of adverse childhood events and prior traumata. Study limitations preclude drawing definitive conclusions, but the findings do suggest additional cross-cultural research is warranted.

We'll get to the authors and institutions in a moment, but first, a question. Do you see the words 'pressure' or 'coercion' anywhere in that abstract? Anything about counselling or information?

What I see is a pretty interesting cross-cultural study of the impact of culture on stress-inducing events.

With even more interesting implications. Why would Russian women -- where abortion has been very common and accepted as an unfortunate method of birth control for decades -- experience so much less stress than Merkin women -- where abortion continues to be one of the most hotly contested societal issues with a ton of stigma attached?

Oh. Did I just answer that question?

Still, coerced abortion is not the focus of the study. It appears that the authors were concerned to show a link between abortion and stress. Well, shit, anybody's who has had an abortion or knows someone who has had an abortion could have told them that.

Much more informative and interesting would be a comparison of stress measures between women who had abortions and women who gave birth.

But perhaps information about 'pressure' was gleaned from those Institute for Pregnancy Loss Questionnaires and inserted into a footnote or something. We don't know, do we?

Other obvious problems with it: number of participants (548, fewer than half of whom are Merkin) and date (six years old).

Not to mention the fact that it seems to be the only study anybody cites.

On to the bias part. All the authors and three of the four institutions are anti-choice.

Vincent Rue is the coiner of the term 'post-abortion syndrome' and director of the Institute for Pregnancy Loss, which has no online presence, by the way.

We ran into Priscilla Coleman doing her SHRIEEEKY thing over the most recent -- and no doubt not last -- scholarly debunking of the 'abortion=insanity' equation.

Coleman has published twelve articles in peer-reviewed journals that claim there is a causal relationship between abortion and poor mental health. Her co-authors are pro-life advocates J.R. Cougle, Vincent Rue and David Reardon. Reardon is controversial for misrepresenting his academic credentials and for his research methods.

The statistical methods Coleman and her co-authors use have been criticized by the American Psychological Association (APA). A panel convened by the APA has written that the studies by Coleman, and her co-authors have "inadequate or inappropriate" controls and don't adequately control "for women's mental health prior to the pregnancy and abortion."

And now, the clincher -- the 'controversial' David Reardon, founder of the anti-choice Elliot Institute, creator of the 'pro-woman pro-life' strategy, and profiled in 2005 as an example of 'Christian conservatives [who] have gone a long way towards creating their own scientific counter-establishment.'

Right. The 'make-up-the-facts-to-fit-the-agenda' gang.

So this is what the HonMem Bruinooge is relying on as evidence for his urgently needed bill. Oh, and the tragic murder of Roxanne Fernando who was NOT murdered because she refused to have an abortion, but, seemingly, because she was infatuated with a Really Bad Boy who was so dim that the only way he could think of to get her to leave him alone was to kill her.

And other anti-coerced abortion legislation is based on the same bogus 'research'.

Sen. Jack Johnson has sponsored legislation requiring abortion clinics in Tennessee to post anti-coercion signs. He cites statistics that purport to show that 64 percent of women “were coerced into having that abortion.” Let’s dig a little deeper.

(snip)

In other words, these statistics are 6 years old, are based on a very small data sample (over half of which wasn’t even in the U.S.), and were prepared at the behest of organizations with a clear bias about the outcome.

Is this the sort of informed decision-making we should expect from our legislators?

Apparently. ReformaTories and ReThuglicans never let facts get in the way of their authoritarian, paternalistic, misogynist agenda.

My Bad?

Those hapless fetus fetishists. Remember when Ken Epp was yelping all over the place that his private member's bill, C-484, had zip zero nada to do with abortion and his lie was abruptly and definitively shot to shit by the big-mouthed blogger subsequently dubbed Mr Kicking Abortion's Ass?

It seems that Rod Bruinooge's current backdoor attempt to restrict abortion, aka Roxanne's Law, has just had its very own Kicking Abortion's Ass moment.

And I may be responsible for it.

Yesterday, I blogged about the bill and included a link to its inevitable Facebook page and my intention to join to ask questions.

I did and my question was deleted, so I unjoined. Others reported that all critical and/or pro-choice comments were being deleted. Fine.

I didn't keep a copy of the question -- my first bad -- but it was along the lines of: 'I'm getting flashbacks to C-484 which was also not atall atall about abortion except all its supporters knew it was. If this new bill is not atall atall about abortion, why are all Canada's most famous fetus fetishists joining this group, starting with Faytene Krystow as administrator?'

I did not mention in my comment that I had noted Canada's maddest homophobe and fetus fetishist, Bill Whatcott, was also a member.

Sometime yesterday or last night, as reported by Bene Diction Blogs On's Rick Hiebert and BeneD, the group disappeared.

When I last looked before it hit the black hole, there were almost 300 members and lots of comments on the wall.

Well, now it's back, whittled down to only 99 members and three comments.

Oooh, and Faytene is no longer administrator. Just Bruinooge is listed as 'creator'. I bet he likes that. ;) Faytene is not even a member.

The members list has been purged. No more Bill and no other notable fetus fetishist that I recognize anyway.

Did they twig? Did I help? My bad?

'Coerced Abortion': A Whole New Branch of Lying Lies

Having run into what seemed to me totally bogus numbers on the frequency of 'coerced abortion', I just spent a fascinating couple of hours discovering an entirely new (to me) branch of lying lies fetus fetishists tell -- many blogposts to come.

But for now, let's deal with Lie Number One. It's right there in the preamble to Rod Bruinooge's private member's bill, C-510, or Roxanne's Law.

Whereas Roxanne Fernando was a Winnipeg woman whose boyfriend attempted to coerce her to abort their unborn child and subsequently murdered her for refusing to do so;

That's just a great big porky pie.

At the sentencing of her murderers, the lawyer for one of the convicted men rejected that motive.

Fernando had learned she was pregnant with Plourde's child weeks before her death, court heard in the teen's case. In the youth's case the court heard her murder was planned because she refused to have an abortion, but Plourde's lawyer told the court today that the pregnancy had nothing to do with the offence.

Well, he would say that, wouldn't he? Because killing someone who had refused herself to kill a defenceless bay-bee is just so much worse, isn't it? And defence counsel has a duty to mitigate the gravity of his client's crime, right? And the prosecution has just as much interest in making the crime sound most heinous, yes?

Oh. Wait.

In a brief summary of the facts of the murder presented in court Thursday, Crown attorney Mark Cantor said Plourde and the youth hatched a plot to kill Fernando if she wouldn't agree to break off pursuing a relationship with Plourde.

The abortion-refusal motive seems to have gone bye-bye.

So why was Roxanne killed?

Let's hear from the murderer himself:

“I didn’t want to be part of her life, but she didn’t take no for an answer,” Plourde told Winnipeg police homicide detectives in a February 2007 videotaped confession. “She was crazy about me. She had an obsession with me. I just couldn’t take it. Like, I’m 19. I can’t handle a 24-year-old.”

Plourde said he was facing additional pressure after learning Fernando was pregnant, a claim he initially thought was a ruse to keep them together following a brief romance that began while working together at McDonald’s.

“In my fears, she’ll come back in nine months with a kid or something,” he said. “I don’t understand why she liked me because I didn’t like her. I’m just a young punk. I showed no interest in her.”

During last year’s sentencing for a youth co-accused, Crown attorney Brent Davidson told court Plourde pressured Fernando to have an abortion. Fernando initially agreed, but later had a “change of heart.” Plourde admitted to police the pair discussed an abortion, but denied telling Fernando what to do.

Young murderous punk, yes. Evil abortion-coercer, maybe not.

But, hey, it's great optics. A law named after a victim is good P.R. Nemmind that it's -- at best -- a streeeeetch of the truth.

Roxanne's Law has a website and the inevitable Facebook group

All the usual fetus fetishists are at FB, including Faytene Kryskow as administrator (who knew there is a wikichristian?). Faytene is famous among zygot zealots for collecting signatures on a MASSIVE petition to revoke Dr Morgentaler's Order of Canada. She also seems to have something of a love-hate relationship with the media.

I've joined the group to ask some questions. *evil smiley*

h/t for the links

UPPITY DATE: Faytene deleted my question. Awwww, shucks. No truth allowed there, I guess.