Linda Gibbons at the Supreme Court yesterday

I'm working on my story now. It was great to meet her yesterday and interview her. She has spent more than nine years in prison for peacefully protesting against abortion, in violation of a temporary injunction forbidding any protests within 500 feet of an abortuary. She is a heroine to the pro-life movement.

Wonderful editorial in the National Post today, an excerpt:

Should this woman really be in jail? It's true that her behaviour has technically put her afoul of Toronto's 18-year-old injunction. But perhaps it is that "temporary" injunction that should be under scrutiny - not Ms. Gibbons' own peaceful behaviour.

The issue of the injunction is not some mere procedural issue that is divorced from the underlying bioethics of abortion. If abortion were not such a controversial and wrenching issue - if even many of the women procuring abortions were not themselves torn over their decision - then injunctions against protesters would not still be in place. For it is not just the physical threat posed by protesters that these injunctions seek to avoid, but the painful self-reflection - both personal and societal - that the protesters' presence imposes on a nation that has brushed the issue of abortion under the carpet. Even pro-choice and secular Canadians (the morally serious ones anyway) must concede that Ms. Gibbons' concerns and arguments are not frivolous.

Moreover, as Ms.Gibbons' lawyer has said, given that the temporary injunction was put in place by a civil court, Ms. Gibbons should have been dealt with there. Fines could have been levied, community service ordered. Or, perhaps the validity of the injunction itself could have been successfully challenged. But there has been no opportunity to do that, because using the criminal courts has been the default response. (On Wednesday, Ms. Gibbons' lawyer appeared before the Supreme Court, to make exactly that argument.)

Contrast the treatment of Ms. Gibbons to that of the recently dispersed Occupy Toronto protest. That, too, was a peaceful protest that violated relatively minor city laws. If anything, the Occupy Toronto movement, through its unsought but unavoidable damaging of St. James Park and disruption to local businesses, was actually more destructive than anything Ms. Gibbons has been accused of.

Postmedia's Jordan Press reports on the court case:

“I want these injunctions brought down,” said Gibbons, one of the country’s most prolific anti-abortion protesters.

“They are not just being misapplied or misdirected in court procedure. . . . There’s the abuse of process. . . . The Crown is using these injunctions to stifle pro-life activism.”

-snip-

The soft-spoken Gibbons said Wednesday she believes the Crown should not have an absolute right to slap injunctions on behaviours and actions it doesn’t like. Doing so is an injury to democracy, where differing views are and should be allowed, she argued.

“I believe the injunctions do not represent proper law, that they do violence to the law, that they’re a malconstruct, that they’re there for political purposes,”said Gibbons.

Dave Chan for National Post

Linda Gibbons

-snip-

Gibbons’ lawyers argued that under Section 127 of the Criminal Code of Canada the courts had other means to punish her, specifically going to civil court rather than making her peaceful protest a criminal matter worthy of jail time.

Her lawyers argued the court should more narrowly define the law to prevent the Crown from funnelling a broad range of disobedience issues into criminal proceedings.