January/February 2009

BACK TO TABLE OF CONTENTS

There are many ways to be pro-life.  Some pray, donate time and money, write letters, volunteer at Right-to-Life offices, or attend annual Life Chains.  Linda Gibbons’ commitment to the pro-life cause goes back almost fifteen years.

On August 30, 1994, the Ontario NDP government of the day, under Premier Bob Rae, passed an injunction, prohibiting counselling and any other pro-life outreach, within sixty feet of two Toronto abortuaries, and within thirty feet of another.  That same week, Linda Gibbons, along with two friends, was arrested for breaking that injunction.  The three stood silently and prayerfully within the “bubble zone”, and were arrested and charged with “obstructing a police officer.”  Linda was found guilty, and spent three months in jail.  Released on December 17, 1994, she was re-arrested two days later, as she prayed outside another Toronto abortuary.

This pattern continued, off and on, for the next fourteen or so years.  Many times, Linda was alone when arrested.  She has also been arrested in conjunction with others.  In some instances, others have also done time in jail.  In total, Linda has spent six years of interrupted time in prison, including the Christmas of 2008.  In 1994, Linda Gibbons’ name was far from a household word - the media ignored the situation entirely. However, internet advances have allowed pro-lifers to circumvent mainstream media sources and Linda’s story is much more widely known today, thanks to the many articles about her published in Campaign Life News and LifeSite News.com

Perhaps this “increased recognition factor” led to the interesting development at Linda’s court appearance this past fall.  After fourteen years of being charged with “obstructing a police officer”, on September 30, 2008, Mr. Justice Ford Clements of the Ontario Court of Justice ruled that the diminutive grandmother's peaceful and silent conduct could in no way be interpreted to mean she was making any peace officer's job more difficult and, therefore, did not constitute obstruction.  Linda, as always, remained silent during her court appearance, in “solidarity with the unborn child who has no voice.” As always, she did not acknowledge her pro-life supporters in the courtroom that day.

At her October 23rd court appearance to determine bail, a Justice of the Peace, unfamiliar with Linda’s decision to stay silent during her court appearances, sent her for a mental health assessment, which, not surprisingly, she passed.  Linda was back in court the next day, with her (case remanded to January 12, 2009, when she was to stand trial on the charge of “disrupting a court order.”  She was held in prison from October 8th, the date of her arrest, until the January 12, 2009 hearing.

There are many interesting facets to this case.  To begin with, the NDP injunction was a “temporary injunction”, and yet still stands on the books, despite the passage of merely fifteen years.  This is unprecedented.  The decision to charge Linda with “obstructing justice” is laughable - one only has to look at the tiny grandmother to know the absurdity of the charge.  The Ontario Criminal Code was recently changed to allow for the prosecution of “disobeying a court order” on a summary offence, meaning that Linda would not be allowed trial by jury under the new charge.  (A jury trial would bring unwanted media attention.)  Furthermore, the injunction itself is suspect - why doesn’t the Ontario government want a prayerful pro-life witness in front of these abortion clinics, offering women and their unborn babies an alternative to abortion?  Surely, the government is not trying to stifle freedom of speech in Ontario?

At the January 12, 2009 hearing in a Toronto criminal court, the charges against Linda were dismissed on the grounds that the “court order” of which she was charged of violating was a civil injunction imposed by a civil court.  That is, it was not a matter over which a criminal court had jurisdiction.  The judge stated:

There are rules for civil matters and there are rules for criminal matters.  They’re separate and apart … The rules are clear and mutually exclusive.

The latest development presents an interesting conundrum for those who have prosecuted Gibbons over many years.  With judges having successfully thrown out charges of obstructing a peace officer and disobeying a court order, the province and Crown Attorney’s office appear to be left with little option but to launch a civil proceeding against her, if they wish to pursue the matter at all.  They have two years from the date of the alleged transgression to do so.

If a civil proceeding is now launched against Linda, then the validity of the “temporary” injunction itself will become an issue before the court.  Quite a problem for the Attorney General, since the “temporary” injunction has now been in effect for going on to 15 years. 

Linda Gibbons is a quiet woman, a woman of deep faith, for which we are all deeply grateful.  She is a genuine heroine.                   

BACK TO TABLE OF CONTENTS