Fetus Fetishists: 'Waah! Our attack on pro-choice makes us look even more guilty!'

Fetus fetishists are at their most hilarious when they've just had their asses handed to them.

Remember the butt-hurt fake clinics whose attempt to SLAPP Joyce Arthur of Abortion Rights Coalition of Canada backfired so spectacularly?

Faye Sonier of the Evangelical Fellowship of Canada reports that the butt-hurts have recognized the utter idiocy of their case and will not appeal.

After repeating again that the judge found that Joyce's report on fake clinics in British Columbia did not specifically libel the two plaintiffs, Sonier is still whining.

So in the end, Arthur conceded in her legal submissions that she didn’t say that those CPCs engaged in the alleged behaviours. The CPCs are free to continue doing their good work and, as they announced yesterday, they will release a report rebutting Arthur’s claims. They’ll set the record straight.

So no harm, no foul, right?

Not necessarily. When people Google certain city names plus keywords such as “Crisis Pregnancy Centres,” Arthur’s report is one of the first documents to pop up in the search results. This negatively affects people’s understanding of Canadian CPCs.

In fact, if you Google 'crisis pregnancy centres British Columbia', it is the first document to pop up.

This next bit is really rich (bold mine).

And keep in mind, that these allegations are made within a report entitled Exposing Crisis Pregnancy Centres in British Columbia, where that title appears on the top of each page of the report, wherein the stated goal of the report is to “find out what these centres were doing and saying to women in B.C., and whether they were engaging in deceptive or harmful practices,” and where the appendix lists only B.C. CPCs. In think the average reader would likely assume that the allegations made within the report apply to B.C. CPCs, and likely to the two CPCs which launched the suit against Arthur.

'Waaahhh! Our moronic attempt to SLAPP Joyce Arthur not only failed, but the failure makes us look even more guilty!'

There's more.

This report is hugely damaging to CPCs in B.C., as well as the rest of Canada. I understand why the CPCs are not pursuing the suit further. Given how unspecific Arthur was in her allegations, an appeal of the decision would be a tough, uphill and costly legal battle. I like that the CPCs will issue a rebuttal of Arthur’s allegations. This is a reasoned response to a near impossible situation.

'Waaahhh! We're in an impossible situation of our own devising!'

And note that the gang is still concentrating on the general observations and conclusions in the report and totally ignoring the utterly damning appendices. (PDF available here.)

For the report, a volunteer 'infiltrator' went through the training provided by the Canadian Association for Pregnancy Support Services (CAPPS) and obtained a copy of its manual.

In the appendices, two experts dismantle the manual's misinformation and manipulative techniques. A manual presumably used by CAPSS member organizations.

And gee, look who belongs to CAPSS.

Among others, the two fake clinics in question, Burnaby and Vancouver.

We look forward to the fake clinics' rebuttal and will report. (And laugh and laugh.)

Reverse SLAPP!

While Canadian fetus fetishists are desperately trying to replicate the admitted successes of their USian co-religionists, the truth is they're losing.

And the most recent loss is significant.

A couple of BC fake clinics Crisis Pregnancy Centres took Abortion Rights Coalition of Canada Executive Director, Joyce Arthur, to court alleging defamation in a 2009 report she wrote for the Pro-Choice Action Network.

Titled 'Exposing Crisis Pregnancy Centres in British Columbia', the report documents the deceptions and manipulations regularly practiced by these outfits.

To make a long story short, the fake clinics were butthurt* and wanted a public forum to whine in. And maybe make a little cash.

The judge was having none of it and tossed the suit. (Read Joyce's account for details and links.)

(Delish sidelight: losing side must pay costs. We're hoping for a maybe-think-twice-next-time sort of amount.)

When the suit was brought, many observers thought it smelled suspiciously SLAPPy. A SLAPP case, or strategic lawsuit against public participation, is 'intended to censor, intimidate, and silence critics by burdening them with the cost of a legal defense until they abandon their criticism or opposition.'

That kinda backfired, didn't it?

Here's Joyce on why they failed.

The defamation lawsuit backfired on the Christian Advocacy Society because, in my view, the anti-choice movement doesn't always have a firm grasp on reality. They tend to be quite insular, and so become convinced their position is far more reasonable and defensible than it actually is.

(That's Joyce being polite. Not to put too fine a point on it, fetus fetishists are delusional.)

Of course, the fake clinics spun it as a partial victory, claiming that while they didn't get to sue, the court ruled that Joyce didn't actually say anything bad about them specifically.

They have until September 25 to file an appeal. Ya think?

Two main takeaways.

One, this is just the latest in a string of defeats for the forced pregnancy mob in Canada. They've been losing legislatively at every turn, as Joyce lists in her article and as regular DJ! readers know and revel in. They're losing the public opinion war, most recently with the Fetal Gore Pron Gang's failed summer offensive -- and we mean OFFENSIVE -- postcard campaign targetting insufficiently 'pro-life' MPs.

Most importantly, while they occasionally grab the media spotlight in creepy and off-putting ways, as when Dr Morgentaler died a few months ago, polls consistently show that a majority of Canadians want everyone to shut the fuck up about abortion.

Second takeaway: The public spanking and (we hope) MASSIVE kick in the pocketbook for costs may deter other members of the Butthurt Band.

Such as Alyssa Golob, whose knickers got twisted when yelled at by an exasperated pub owner.

Third takeaway (OK, I lied): Isn't it grand to live in Canada?

Congrats, Joyce. And thanks. You've done a service for all of us mouthy sane people who call these lying liars out for fun and profit.


*LATER: I've been informed that 'butthurt' is a homophobic slur used by gamers when they have 'raped' an opponent. Well, I couldn't find documentation on that. Which is good, because it's a great phrase for exactly what it sounds like.

SLAPP schtick goes to the movies.

A strategic lawsuit against public participation (SLAPP) is a lawsuit that is intended to censor, intimidate and silence critics by burdening them with the cost of a legal defense until they abandon their criticism or opposition.

The acronym was coined in the 1980s by University of Denver professors Penelope Canan and George W. Pring. The term was originally defined as "a lawsuit involving communications made to influence a governmental action or outcome, which resulted in a civil complaint or counterclaim filed against non-government individuals or organizations on a substantive issue of some public interest or social significance." It has since been defined more broadly in one state (California) to include suits about speech on any public issue.

The original conceptualization proffered by Canan and Pring emphasized the Right to petition as protected in the United States under the US Constition's specific protection in the First Amendment's fifth clause. It is still definitional: SLAPPs refer to civil lawsuits filed against those who have communicated to government officialdom (in its entire constitutional apparatus). The Right to Petition [granted by Edgar the Peaceful, 10 Century] precedes the Magna Carta in terms significant in the development of democratic institutions. It claims that democracy cannot work if there are, or if interest groups can erect, barriers between the governed and the governing.

According to New York Supreme Court Judge J. Nicholas Colabella, "Short of a gun to the head, a greater threat to First Amendment expression can scarcely be imagined." A number of jurisdictions have made such suits illegal, provided that the appropriate standards of journalistic responsibility have been met by the critic.

It appears multinational empires corporations are exploring new ways of bestowing pre-emptive SLAPP suits upon those who would dare to document their business practices and their impact on individuals and communities. The "rights" of big business to produce big profits and to keep the wheel of greed industry turning have become God-given entitlements, and the US Supreme Court seems happy to oblige them.

The director Michael Moore says that a federal judge’s ruling to allow Chevron to subpoena footage from the documentary “Crude” could have dire consequences on the documentary film-making process, and urged that film’s director to resist the subpoena if he can.

[...]Judge Lewis A. Kaplan of United States District Court in Manhattan said that Joe Berlinger, the director of “Crude,” would have to turn over more than 600 hours of footage from that documentary. The film chronicles the Ecuadorians who sued Texaco (now owned by Chevron) saying an oil field contaminated their water. Chevron said that Mr. Berlinger’s footage could be helpful as it seeks to have the litigation dismissed and pursues an international treaty arbitration related to the lawsuit. [...]

Should the decision of Judge Kaplan be upheld and a subpoena be served for Mr. Berlinger’s footage, Mr. Moore said, “The chilling effect of this is, someone like me, if something like this is upheld, the next whistleblower at the next corporation is going to think twice about showing me some documents if that information has to be turned over to the corporation that they’re working for.”

This seems the right moment to remind greedmongers of this Cree Nation wisdom:

"Only when the last tree has died and last river has been poisoned and the last fish been caught will we realize we cannot eat money"