HUGE win for pro-choice in PEI

Well, that didn't take much.

Just three-plus decades.

A horrifying story of a woman needing medical care turned away from a Prince Edward Island hospital.

A clever guerrilla poster campaign featuring a likeness (maybe) of the Island's most famous fictional character.

Bunch of rallies and demonstrations.

A scathing video on abortion access in the Maritimes.

Oh, yeah, and a constitutional challenge.

Today, the government of PEI threw in the towel on abortion.

The Prince Edward Island government announced today that it will not oppose a constitutional challenge to provincial policies regarding access to in-province abortion services.

“Based on legal advice that current policies regarding access to in-province abortion services would likely be in violation of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, government determined that the most responsible approach is to revise the policy rather than embark on a long and costly court case,” said Premier and Minister of Justice Wade MacLauchlan.

Not only that, Health PEI will open a new women's reproductive health centre that will offer medical and surgical abortions, along with other needed reproductive care.

Abortion had been available in PEI until 1982 when two hospitals merged, on the condition from the Catlick one that abortion be banned.

Aaaaand cue the lying liars.

@JustinTrudeau Extremely disappointed that #PEI health practitioners will now be forced to kill babies.

— Mike Schouten (@mike_schouten) March 31, 2016

Nobody is being forced to do anything, Mike, least of all "kill babies."

Access to abortion in Canada is not uniformly good. A government's acknowledgement that denying abortion is a constitutional no-no is a HUGE step forward.

Brava! and Bravo! to all the hard-working, committed, and smart activists who made this happen.

But, of course, there's still much to do.



DAMMIT JANET! has been on PEI's case for ages. Some previous blogposts.


ADDED: Why have I not heard of this blog before? Screaming in All Caps on PEI win.

When femicide is justified by men who feel their "honour" has been soiled.

The first post of an informal series, illustrating how and when all the elements of the legal system do work and justice is served.

Dorothy Woods.

Police officers meticulously collected evidence to document a complicated investigation in a rigorous, professional manner.

Here's an interesting series of posts, following the release of her accused killer - presumed innocent as the legal system goes, and this feminist agrees - on bail after he was charged.

The Crown proceeded with skill, compassion and due diligence.

The defendant's lawyer attempted to impugn the integrity and the objectivity of the prosecutor.

Outside court, defense lawyer Michael Nolin took issue with how the texts presented to the jury portray David Woods as a racist. "I'm very disappointed that this is the line that the prosecution has chosen to draw in the sand," he said. "I find it interesting that the only prosecutor of colour in the Saskatoon provincial prosecution office has been drawn to try this case. And he's been on it from the beginning."

Nolin concluded his case for the defence by stating Dorothy engaged in a high-risk lifestyle with several strange (code for black) men*, and exhorted the jurors to "vote with their conscience".  Oddly that doesn't sound at all like a closing argument to me though it does seem to be a judgement.

The judge carefully presided over the trial and instructed the jury members.

The attentive jury reviewed the details of evidence that was gathered and presented.

After a finding of first degree murder, the prosecutor Michael Segu was able to offer observations to the media in his measured, thoughtful manner.

Oh. Was it racism, the "the elephant in the room" that Woods' lawyer Michael Nolin kept tripping over?

Nonetheless David Woods refused to take responsibility for the aggrieved male honour and patriarchal privilege that motivated him to plan and execute the vengeful murder of his wife.  He appealed his conviction.

*The testimony of Dorothy's friend was challenged by Woods' lawyer; the judge allowed it.

-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-* 

ADDED: to provide a context for this post.  There have been many confrontations after the Ghomeshi decision, particularly with regard to those who seem compelled to police what can be properly criticized.  On both sides of the divide, many have descended into use of hyperbole.

These screen caps indicate how most criticism of Justice Horkins' judgement is met with hostile screeching of SO YOU WANT TO ABOLISH THE PRESUMPTION OF INNOCENCE! 

When those accused of being "anti-presumption of innocence" attempt to clarify - they're then accused of being in league with some RWNJ advocacy for victims, such as the useful con job Pierre-Hughes Boisvenu.  Err, no. 

Ghomeshi Lessons, part 1.

What to write about the trial of the decade? The banal evil of social media hyperbole + a depraved legal system can devour events and regurgitate a perfectly horrifying dawg's breakfast.

The cathartic element in this case and trial is a histrionically skilled and malignant narcissist who has benefitted immeasurably from patriarchy AND feminism.

Seasoned feminists observed that in the 1970s women acquired the right to say YES enthusiastically to sexual activity.  This *revolution* was immediately countered by many men who exploited it to their advantage by denying a woman's right to say NO.

Generations of men then followed, some who claim not to understand what consent is, others who whine about being "friend-zoned" and those who aspire to PUA summits of Roosh-like action.

Jian Ghomeshi falls into the latter category.  His public schtick, which worked admirably well for pseudo-feminists in the 1970s, was refined to the point that many staunch feminist acquaintances were completely scammed by his Support Bro' demeanour.  Meanwhile, in his private life he was the guy who badly needed to hurt women to get a really good hard-on.

In late 2014, when rumours about certain proclivities became too loud, he deployed a well-honed tactic of pre-emptive aggression.  He showed a video of one of his rough sex episodes to his CBC bosses.  It's not known whether the other participant consented to the activity, its recording or its presentation to Ghomeshi's superiors.

That didn't go well.  So he cranked up the campaign by posting a self-indulgent piece (Just a lad with a kink!) on his Facebook website, not anticipating this would provide leverage to The Toronto Star to publish their story.

This led to an outpouring of many other women reporting that Ghomeshi had physically assaulted them.

When his PR firm failed him, Ghomeshi hired Marie Henein as his criminal defence lawyer, weeks ahead of actually being charged with criminal assault.

Here's a chronology of events.

Back in 2014, I anticipated Henein would find ways of stitching-up the evidence.

Playing Cassandra is an unpleasant role though somebody has to do it.

This was before the trial commenced.  As it unfolded, I wrote a blogpost and used tweets to observe, from afar.

Horkins' pontification seems to confirm that Henein used the knowledge she gleaned from his previous judgments to map out a strategy that played to his beliefs and principles.  A specific approach to cross-examination was required to demonstrate the complainants were unreliable and that their testimony wasn't credible.

But. If the prosecution's case could be so easily destroyed, why didn't Heinin approach the Crown, as she did with the Michael Bryant case, to lay out the full content of the defence preparation and suggest that the charges be dismissed?

In the Bryant file, technical experts dismantled the sloppy evidence-gathering TPS produced. As well, there was considerable information with regard to Darcy Sheppard and manifestations of physical threats he expressed against other drivers.

Wait.  Here's the difference between the two cases, in addition to the possibility one of the accused is a basically decent person and the other one isn't.

I am not a lawyer, but I believe that a professional would have to consult their client before engaging with the prosecution in matters such as plea bargaining or suggesting charges be dismissed.

With Bryant's case, proceeding to trial meant that Henein or her assistant counsel would have to set up Crown witnesses as well as TPS staff testimony for demolition and in the process, embarrassing the police department as well as the prosecution lawyers.  Proof of Darcy Sheppard's previous violent behaviour would have to be thoroughly documented.  Bryant was likely to be acquitted, why not avoid the expense of a prolonged trial that besmirched the memory of his victim?

In light of what's been revealed with regard to the pleasure he takes from manipulating, degrading, harming and injuring women, I believe that if Ghomeshi had been informed of Henein's strategy, he would have licked his chops at the eventuality of seeing these women savaged in the court-room.  No way would this vindictive man have chosen to deprive himself of a privileged front-row seat to their humiliation.

That trial stands not only as a warning to women who have been physically and sexually assaulted to avoid reporting the crime to the criminal injustice system, but to those who might now and in the future, be approached by Ghomeshi.  His sexual fetish is violence against women and girls. (Some of the women who claim he approached them online are under 21 years of age. He is 46.)

A woman who was a graduate law student when she dated Ghomeshi in 2002, described what occurred and why she chose at that time not to report his violent, coercive attack on her.

Cops, crown lawyers, defence attorneys, judges: anybody who continues to exonerate and justify the way in which the legal system crushes complainants and re-victimizes them, explicitly colludes with patriarchal violence.

Unless they speak up against such travesty, and work to change this injustice.

ADDED: _What Ought Crown Counsel to do in Prosecuting Sexual Assault Charges? Some Post-Ghomeshi Reflections_ March 29, 2016 from Alice Woolley.

"[..] preparation is still essential for the prosecution of a criminal trial. Witness preparation does more than tell the lawyer about the nature of the evidence. It allows the lawyer to assess the witness’s ability to present the evidence, to determine whether the witness will advance the lawyer’s trial strategy and, ultimately, to determine if that trial strategy has a viable chance of succeeding given the nature of this witness’s evidence and capacity to testify. Further, it allows the lawyer to help ensure that the witness gets to provide her testimony, and that she will not end up looking like a liar when she is telling the truth.

Because let’s be absolutely clear: it is the ethical duty of a defence lawyer to make prosecution witnesses look like liars, even if those witnesses are telling the truth. That duty is constrained; a defence lawyer must not harass a witness, and must remain within the boundaries of the legal restrictions on cross-examination (in a sexual assault case, e.g., not asking improper questions about the complainant’s sexual history). But within those constraints a defence lawyer will do his best to exploit any inconsistency or weakness in the witness’s evidence to make that witness appear to be non-credible. Whether or not the witness is in fact telling the truth is not only irrelevant, it may make discrediting that witness essential to the defence lawyer’s ability to obtain an acquittal for his client [..]"

Read the whole magnificent thing here.

ALSO: This. _Mastery or Misogyny? The Ghomeshi Judgment and Sexual Assault Reform_ April 1, 2016 from Joshua Sealy-Harrington.

As discussed earlier, Justice Horkins’ judgment has deeply polarized Canadian discourse on sexual assault, receiving both warm praise and vitriolic criticism.However, in my view, neither approach is optimal for deconstructing the judgment with a view to improving the Canadian administration of sexual assault law. Rather, a careful consideration of the judgment’s strengths and weaknesses permits the most comprehensive analysis of the genuine mistakes made by Justice Horkins (and others), and how best to avoid those mistakes in future cases.We need to address the problems that pervade the Canadian administration of sexual assault law, and those problems must be understood before they can be solved.

In my humble opinion, Kwe Today presents the best pragmatic and theoretical arguments for a timely and necessary revision of the criminal code and its sexual assault provisions.

Theses are the thinkers who are raising their voices, after Marie Henein blew the lid off the festering legal system rot.

We might listen, then actively support law reform in this regard.

Health Minister Philpott Blows a Dog Whistle

Health Minister Jane Philpott blew an anti-choice dog whistle on Tuesday. Did you catch it?

While pro-choice activists marched through Charlottetown's streets to protest the lack of abortion services on P.E.I., the issue received some attention in the House of Commons Tuesday.

It came in the form of a question from the NDP MP from Nanaimo-Ladysmith, Sheila Malcolmson, who said the service must be available to all Canadian women.

...

[Health Minister Jane Philpott] pointed out that abortion is not the only service not available across the country.

"There are inequities in access to a number of health services across the country, including abortion," she said.

"There should be access to all medically-necessary services on the basis of need and not on the basis of ability to pay. I will continue to work with my colleagues to make sure access is available to all Canadians."

Before I get to the dog whistle, let me address Philpott's assertion that other services are not available across the country. Yes, indeed, this is true. Smaller centres do not have the expensive equipment or trained specialists to carry out a number of procedures, like organ transplants, complicated surgeries, etc.

But abortion, especially the more than 90% done in the first trimester, requires no expensive equipment or extensive training. In fact, if a hospital or clinic can treat a miscarriage, it can perform abortions.

In PEI, the government inexplicably turned down a proposal to provide abortion services on the island that would have actually saved money.

So, the argument that abortion is in the same category as a coronary by-pass is a non-starter. And Minister Philpott is being disingenuous at the very least to suggest it is.

Back to the dog whistle. It's the "medically necessary" (with the grammatically unnecessary hyphen) bit.

"Medically necessary" appears just once in the Canada Health Act, under "interpretations".

hospital services means any of the following services provided to in-patients or out-patients at a hospital, if the services are medically necessary for the purpose of maintaining health, preventing disease or diagnosing or treating an injury, illness or disability, namely....

But google "medically necessary abortion" and you'll find a slew of fetus fetishist screeds like this one: "Abortion is Never Medically Necessary to Save a Mother's Life, This Case Shows Why."

If you haven't had a whanging headache in a while and feel the need, read the mental gymnastics fetus freaks perform around ectopic pregnancy or the totally unnecessary death from septic miscarriage of Savita Halappanavar, in order to maintain the fantasy that abortion is never medically necessary.

"Pregnancy/childbirth is not a disease!" they SHRIEEEEEK. No, but it has significant risks and, in fact, a higher mortality rate than abortion.

The phrase "medically necessary" from the mouth of the Liberal Health Minister is simply music to fetus freak ears.

It is used by provinces like PEI and New Brunswick to restrict funding of abortion. And, it sounds like Minister Philpott is going to continue to give them this wiggle room.

This is worrying, to say the least. Especially as Philpott herself is a bit conflicted on the issue. From a 2014 article on vetting Liberal candidates, here what she had to say about it:

“That’s where we need to clarify the nuance on it,” she said. “I can support the policy but abortion is not a great thing.”

Oh lard, that "nuancy" thing again.

When so-called progressives go nuancy on abortion, it does NOT bode well.

Here, by the way, is the Abortion Rights Coalition of Canada's position paper (pdf) on "medically required abortion."

Mocking the Predators: Guelph Report

40 Days of Preyers seems to be rather a fizzle in Canada this year.

First, they're down to only 8 cities -- and a part-time vigil in Saskatoon -- from 15 in the fall last year.

There's not much bragging on social media of huge turn-outs or of women successfully coerced convinced to turn around.

And if a Québécois MNA is successful with her private member's bill, all such predatory demonstrations would be barred in Quebec.

Shorter: Anti-choice is losing in Canada and they know it.

We reported on one counter protest in Calgary.

Now here's a report by pro-choice activist Wednesday Bell from Guelph, where, note, the fetus freaks of targetted Guelph General Hospital which does NOT perform abortions. Go figger.

The counter protest was awesome! We outnumbered the anti-choicers the entire time, and they left before we did!

Best moments:

1. One girl wanting a group hug from us

2. A man thanking us because his wife had been complaining about the anti choicers for two weeks and was happy to see some resistance to them

3. The hospital security guard supporting us!

Weird moments:

1. When the anti choicers claimed it was illegal for us to be there because we were blocking the sidewalk...while they were blocking the sidewalk

2. One guy walking up to us just to tell us he was pro-life. Okay? Good for you?

And the signs were fabulous.

Nope. This "Preborn" Victims Law Won't Pass Either

I'm loath to get into this one again, as it drives people cuckoo-bananas, but this is my beat and this story is part of it.

Just about a year ago, we reported on the fallout from a brutal murder of a pregnant woman that also resulted in the death of her fetus.

That fallout was a petition titled "Molly Matters: Reconsider and Pass Bill C-484."

Ken Epp's private member's bill C-484, or "Unborn Victims of Crime Act," was hugely problematic, as it sought to redefine a fetus as a person for the purpose of adding another murder charge.

It was, simply, a "personhood law", and therefore unsupportable by reproductive rights proponents.

Personhood laws seek to classify fertilized eggs, zygotes, embryos, and fetuses as “persons,” and to grant them full legal protection under the U.S. Constitution, including the right to life from the moment of conception.

Personhood laws criminalize abortion with no exception, and also ban many forms of contraception, in vitro fertilization, and health care for pregnant women. Personhood laws also increase an already dangerous trend of criminalizing pregnancy, by mandating that women who terminate a pregnancy be arrested, prosecuted, and even imprisoned because of the supposed injury done to a separate “person”—namely, the fetus. So-called fetal homicide laws are already being used in many states to arrest and prosecute women who miscarry pregnancies or are otherwise seen as “harming” the fetus.

In short, "personhood laws" do nothing to protect women or fetuses, but DO create a premise to criminalize contraception, abortion, and pregnancy itself.

Yesterday, a new private member's bill attempting to accomplish the same end as C-484 was announced. Here's the press release.

Note that the murdered woman is referred to as "Cassie" only and her full name, Cassandra Kaake, is never mentioned.

I can't find the text of the bill online yet except for this anti-choice site.

Note the language. "Unborn" from C-484 has been replaced by "preborn."

1 This Act may be cited as the Protection of Pregnant Women and Their Preborn Children Act (Cassie and Molly's Law).


2 The Criminal Code is amended by adding the following after section 238:

Definition of preborn child

238.‍1 (1) For the purposes of this section, preborn child means a child at any stage of development that has not yet become a human being within the meaning of section 223.

Beyond the language and the erasure of Ms Kaake, there are some other MASSIVE flags here.

First, the proponent of the bill is MP Cathay Waganall, who has a "perfect" anti-choice record according to Campaign Lie.

Next, the accompanying FAQ document, in trying to slither around anticipated pro-choice objections, gets into some weird territory.

Such as equating fetuses with animals and property, albeit NOT animals or property presently encased in a living person's uterus.

If the fetus is not a “human being” or “person,” then how can you create an offence for killing it?

Not being recognized as a human being under the Criminal Code does not mean that a preborn child does not deserve some protection under the law. The criminal law can be used to protect entities other than what is covered under the Criminal Code’s definition of ‘human being.’ For example, the Criminal Code has laws against animal cruelty and the unlawful killing and injury of animals (sections 444-446). It also has protections against the destruction of private property.

We at DJ! have no problem with legislation to protect pregnant women from assault, especially since it is reported that for 1 in 6 abused women, the abuse began during pregnancy.

But a vengeance-driven law focussed on the "preborn" promoted by fetus fetishists intended to be twisted to attack reproductive rights is not the way to do it.



ADDED: CBC story.

ADDED March 4/16: Abortion Rights Coalition of Canada's position paper (pdf). Hint: Nope.

Abortion in Canada: Good and Not Nearly Good Enough News

To its credit, Global News has been running several stories lately about abortion -- especially abortion access -- in Canada.

Yesterday, it had two.

First, a new poll on unrestricted abortion.

Canadian attitudes toward abortion appear to be shifting, according to a new Ipsos poll, as six in ten say abortion should be permitted whenever a woman decides she wants.

The Ipsos poll, given exclusively to Global News, found 57 per cent of Canadians endorse a women’s right to choose – up almost 10 points from 2015 and up from 36 per cent from when the question was asked in 1998.

Here's the graphic from the article:

When I tweeted that last night, Mike Schouten of We Need a Law, Any Old Law, Seriously, Give Us an Abortion Law to Fuck Around with as in the US, replied.

@fernhilldammit Likely b/c most Canadians haven't seen what abortion is. #stillworktodo pic.twitter.com/WKsmti6iAR

— Mike Schouten (@mike_schouten) February 24, 2016

Fetus fetishists like him seem NOT to get the message. Back in 2012, as antichoicers were trying to ignite the abortion "debate" yet again, various polls reported that Canadians did not want to reopen the debate, but when actually asked, the majority of us responded to the law of unintended consequences.

The National Post reported: "As debate heats up, Canadian support for unrestricted abortions skyrockets."

So, yes, please, Mike, keep trying to show us what abortion is.

The other story was about the plan by new Health Minister, Jane Philpott, to address abortion access.

Well, it seems, she doesn't have much of a plan beyond "checking" on the provinces.

Also, in the video clip at the link, at least, she can't seem to say the word "abortion."

Bulletin, Madam Minister: the purpose of the Canada Health Act, a federal law, is:

The purpose of this Act is to establish criteria and conditions in respect of insured health services and extended health care services provided under provincial law that must be met before a full cash contribution may be made.

The program criteria is:

In order that a province may qualify for a full cash contribution referred to in section 5 for a fiscal year, the health care insurance plan of the province must, throughout the fiscal year, satisfy the criteria described in sections 8 to 12 respecting the following matters:
(a) public administration;
(b) comprehensiveness;
(c) universality;
(d) portability; and
(e) accessibility.

That's a pretty big stick you've got there, Madame Minister. We'd would like to see the most pro-choice government evah wield it around a bit.

Zika, Like Rubella, a Game-Changer?

I’ve been collecting links on the Zika virus for weeks now.

If you haven’t been keeping up, here are some points to know:
• there isn’t a concrete link yet between reported cases of microcephaly and the Zika virus in Central and South America;
• some researchers in Latin America suggest that it is not Zika but a Monsanto-linked larvicide causing microcephaly;
• microcephaly is a variable diagnosis depending on the size of the head, unlike anencephaly, which literally means “no in-head”;
• microcephaly is also a variable condition affecting some infants not much, others catastrophically;
• microcephaly cannot be reliably diagnosed in utero until quite late in pregnancy and then, see above for variable diagnosis and prognosis.

So, while this is a fascinating epidemiology narrative, it has devastating consequences for the region.

And may well serve as a game-changer in reproductive rights.

Several writers have drawn parallels between the Zika and Rubella viruses.

The Guardian:

It’s early spring in London. Some of Britain’s leading medical researchers have convened to discuss alarming new evidence linking a virus long presumed to be harmless with a spate of defects in newborn babies. It’s not 2016, it’s 1946, and the disease is not Zika, but German Measles, or Rubella.

The writer goes on:

Such women [infected with Rubella and seeking an abortion], historian Leslie Reagan has eloquently argued, were ‘moral pioneers’. The accidental combination of pregnancy and disease put women in the complicated position of having to assess scientific information about the probability of foetal malformation, and confront the anxieties and uncertainties associated with either terminating a pregnancy or carrying it to term. Not all medical practitioners agreed that infection with Rubella in early pregnancy justified abortion. But many did, to the extent that termination had become the ‘recognised treatment’ for maternal Rubella in British hospitals at least a decade before abortion was made legal.

But beyond individuals’ ethical and medical quandaries, there is now in Latin America a helluva public health mess.

Ilana Löwy, historian of science and medicine, writes:

Brazil is facing an epidemic of a severe birth defect: microcephaly (abnormally small head size), a condition linked with important neurological impairments and developmental delays.

Brazil, don’t forget, is also hosting the Olympics this summer.

Brazil and other countries are focussed on trying to control the spread of Zika infection, as Löwy says, “undoubtedly an important goal, but difficult to achieve rapidly.”

But the point here, as with Rubella, is that even if the cause of microcephaly can be nailed to Zika and even if a rapid diagnosis for Zika-infected fetuses is devised, what bloody good will it do?

Abortion — and in many countries in the region, contraception as well — is pretty much totally illegal.

So, there will be not only thousands, perhaps tens of thousands, of panicky women demanding some recourse, but there will be entire states gazing with despair at a generation of brain-damaged children.

Löwy again:

Microcephaly is scary. As reported in an article published by BBC Brazil on December 15, 2015, pregnant women in rural zones of Pernambuco say they are terrified by what they know about the zika epidemic and its consequences. Brazilian doctors have no answer to their fears. Public health experts are predicting 15,000 cases of microcephaly—and possibly up to 50,000 zika-induced birth defects—before the end of 2016. When asked about the possibility that women will be allowed to abort fetuses at risk of birth defects induced by zika, the answer is: “Abortion is a crime.”

In response to the Rubella epidemic, many doctors in Western countries acted in the best interests of their patients and risked their careers to offer terminations.

Löwy concludes: “One must wonder whether Brazilian doctors’ unwillingness to consider interventions beyond the strict limits of the law reflects such strong convictions, or is influenced also by the fact that the majority of women at high risk of giving birth to children with microcephaly live in poor, often neglected areas.”

And Brazil is just one of the affected countries (animated map of Zika’s spread).

Will Zika start to change the discussion of women’s own moral agency as Rubella did? Will a massive public health emergency force priest-ridden states to reconsider privileging medieval views over ordinary citizens’ well being?

We live in hope.

Mocking the Predators, Day 1

From Calgary. Countering #40DaysOfPreying, aka #40DaysOfHarassment, #40DaysOfBullying.

Apparently only three people are allowed on the sidewalk at any time and these two shit-disturbers snuck in during shift change for the fetus freaks.

If you can't read the signs, they say: "We love you and support your choice," and "Belieber."