Courts applied 'troublingly broad' definition of the law to anti-abortion activist's case, lawyer argues
Dec 14, 2011 – 5:32 PM ET | Last Updated: Dec 14, 2011 5:34 PM ET
Dave Chan for National Post
Anti-abortion protester Linda Gibbons arrives at Supreme Court of Canada Wednesday.
By Jordan Press
OTTAWA — Wearing a white shirt, a long, flower-patterned skirt, and holding a Bible under her arm, Linda Gibbons does not look like most people's idea of a hardened criminal.
Yet the 63-year-old spectacled grandmother has been arrested about 20 times and spent more than nine years in jail over the past two decades for protesting in front of abortion clinics.
On Wednesday, Gibbons spent the morning at the Supreme Court of Canada in a bid to have her most recent conviction quashed.
While her lawyers made technical arguments about the scope of a law that saw her violation of a 17-year-old civil injunction turn into criminal proceedings, she told reporters the courts have targeted her because of her views on abortion.
"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."
Gibbons was first charged in 1994 after an Ontario civil court judge ordered that she and more than 20 other people could not picket within 150 metres of several Toronto abortion clinics.
The temporary civil injunction, ordered at the behest of the of the province's attorney general, came six years after the Supreme Court struck down the country's anti-abortion laws.
The ensuing years saw a rash of anti-abortion protests in Canada. Clinics were vandalized — one, belonging to Henry Morgentaler, was even firebombed in Toronto — and staff and women entering clinics harassed by protesters.
Gibbons was repeatedly arrested for violating the original injunction against her, at one point spending 700 consecutive days behind bars.
Fourteen years after the injunction came into effect, on Oct. 8, 2008, Gibbons, then 60, was arrested again, this time for holding a sign within 18 metres of the Scott Clinic in Toronto.
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
In 2009, she unsuccessfully argued to the Ontario Court of Appeal that she shouldn't be tried criminally for a civil violation, and argued the same Wednesday in front of the Supreme Court.
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.
"It is extremely broad. Not only is it extremely broad, it is troublingly broad," said her lawyer, Daniel Santoro.
The Crown argued that while there were other options available, the law was applied properly.
While the law allows alternative means of punishment, it doesn't prevent the Crown from pursuing criminal proceedings against Gibbons, said Susan Margotiaux from the office of the Attorney General of Ontario. She urged the court not to limit the scope of the law.
The court reserved judgment Wednesday. A timeline for a decision was not given.
Gibbons said she feels confident the court will side with her. The issue, she said, is not directly about freedom of speech, but it hangs behind the veil of one piece of the Criminal Code.
"It's not my saying, 'My rights have been violated —my constitutional rights to be on a public sidewalk expressing my views.' It goes beyond that to why am I there? Because someone else's life is not being defended,"she said, holding her Bible in the lobby of the Supreme Court building.
"I think the real issue is a country that does not protect its unborn children is no longer a civilized or free country."
When asked, Gibbons said she is of "no fixed address" but that she can usually be reached through the Campaign Life Coalition, which is headquartered in Toronto.
Postmedia News
