Toronto police arrested three journalists covering a pro-life demonstration outside the Scott abortion clinic on Gerrard Street on October 15, thereby arbitrarily suspending freedom of the press.
Sue Careless is an award-winning freelance journalist, a member of the Periodical Writers Association of Canada (PWAC) and an associate member of the Canadian Church Press (CCP). Steve Jalsevac, a director of Campaign Life Coalition, who was video-taping the event for LifeSite News and Gord Truscott, a Guelph journalist, who is writing a biography on sidewalk counselor Linda Gibbons, were arrested for "obstructing a peace officer" when they allegedly violated the "temporary" injunction prohibiting pro-life demonstrations within 60 feet of abortuaries. The injunction was obtained by the NDP government in 1994 but is still in effect.
Linda Gibbons was also arrested. Gibbons, who has spent most the past five years in jail for her pro-life work within the injunction zone, does not acknowledge the sheriff or police as a protest against what she considers the injustice of the injunction and falls limp and doesn't speak as a form of identification with the unborn.
The three journalists informed the officers that they were media covering the event and were not there as protesters. According to several witnesses, the journalists did not interfere with the officers or the abortion clinic operations. "They were just were taking pictures," said Anne Dobson, "and then they were arrested. I don't think they could have heard the injunction being read."
Both Jalsevac and Truscott say they were not warned to leave the zone as required by the injunction procedures. Both told the police that they would have left immediately if asked to do so. But Truscott says the "police didn't seem to like pictures of them arresting Linda," and he was arrested without warning. He also says "I think the police are tired of pro-lifers standing up for their civil liberties like freedom of expression and freedom of the press."
Jalsevac was video-taping the injunction being read to Gibbons when the sergeant "pointed to me and directed the officers to arrest me." The sergeant also directed the arrests of the other two journalists. This is a violation of the injunction procedure. The sheriff is supposed to direct arrests after he reads the injunction to demonstrators within the injunction zone and warns them to leave. Not that the police had any right to arrest the journalists anyway. According to both Interim editor David Curtin and Jalsevac's lawyer Blaise MacLean, the injunction does not apply to journalists.
MacLean says his understanding of the injunction is that it applies only to "those conducting a demonstration or otherwise interfering with the trade of the clinics."
It should be stressed that journalists technically have no more rights than any other person in terms of access. A journalist does not have the right to impede the work of the abortion clinic nor the police. If a journalist is in the way of the police, normally, experts assure Toronto Free Press, they would be asked to move. That does not appear to be the case this time.
Jalsevac, who has covered several of Gibbons' arrests, says he sensed that something was different when police arrived on the scene. He recalls that there were numerous "unusual circumstances" that day, noting that the sergeant was "agitated the moment he arrived." This past summer, that same sergeant was forced to apologize to another pro-life protester Bill Whatcott after the sergeant disparaged Whatcott when he filed an assault complaint against a civilian. Other pro-life activists who regularly picket across the street from the Scott abortion clinic also report encounters with the man.
At least 11 officers and sheriffs were present that day. They were not the usual officers dispatched and were particularly intimidating. Activist Rosemary Connell says the police knew what they were doing. "It was well planned. They wanted to intimidate us. They get into your personal space, they arrested the journalists and then treated Linda roughly."
According to numerous witnesses, after the journalists were arrested and their camera and video equipment confiscated, the police treated Gibbons rougher than usual. She was handcuffed behind her back as two officers dragged her across the street, face down as her feet scraped the pavement.
She was then thrown into the police car. Dobson says, "they actually threw her in," adding that "Linda was near tears" as she was dragged across the road.
Another witness, sidewalk counselor Mary Burnie says that one person told the police that the handcuffs were cutting into Gibbons' wrists to which the officer rudely replied: "She won't stand up." Gibbons says her wrists were bruised and that it felt like her "shoulders were going to pop out" because of the way the police handled her.
The fact that police first arrested the three journalists and then handled Gibbons roughly during her arrest has raised some concern among journalists.
Denyse O'Leary, a friend of Careless and a member of both PWAC and CCP, says "the only reason I can think of for arresting them first is that the police were going to do something they did not want the public to see. I hope it's not true but I can't think of any other explanation." O'Leary says that normally police would want journalists to cover an arrest to have proof that everything is done alright.
Rose Anne Hart, president of CCP, says her organization is sending a letter to the Attorney-General, the premier, the mayor and all CCP members, to "deplore this outrageous infringement of freedom of the press." CCP is calling for an investigation and for the journalists' film to be returned. Police kept the film, saying it is needed for evidence.
O'Leary says, "professional associations (such as PWAC and CCP) don't want to see a precedent created where the police can ask journalists to leave an arrest." If the precedent is left unchallenged, the police will have "the right to say what journalists are allowed to cover and how."
PWAC is writing a letter to the detective involved in the arrest and is sending copies to the chief of police and the mayor's office in order to get answers about why the arrest was made. Victoria Ridout, executive director of PWAC, is doubtful that Careless would have acted improperly. Careless "is a fully accredited journalist", Ridout explains, "who would not in any way obstruct a police officer--she was simply doing her job as a journalist."
Ridout also doubts that this would have happened to a staff reporter from one of the daily newspapers. She notes that large newspapers have money and lawyers at their disposal that freelancers don't. Police would be hesitant to trample their rights because of the legal battle that would ensue.
MacLean criticizes the silence of the mainstream media over this gross violation of the rights of the press. Interim editor David Curtin has contacted numerous media but few reporters, editors and columnists seem interested in the story. That's because they incorrectly see this as a pro-life issue not an issue of freedom of the press.
David Harris, editor of the Anglican Journal and vice president of CCP, says this is not an abortion issue but an issue of freedom of the press. "Canadians should be concerned about this sort of heavy-handedness. It's outrageous."
MacLean says that media outrage at such police tactics would force the police to release the film and make them wary to attempt such arrests again. Without publicity, however, such arrests could become commonplace.
Ridout raises the additional concern that the police are depriving Careless of her "means of making a living," by confiscating her film. Lawyers for the journalists are currently coming up with a strategy to regain the film.
No matter which side of the abortion debate supports, this is clearly a violation of freedom of the press and precious few people have taken notice.
How little appreciated our freedoms are until we lose them. Just ask Careless, Jalsevac and Truscott about that.