Mar 142011

The facts of the case:

Who: Cecelia “Cissy” von Dehn, (63) and Don Spratt, (53) are well-known pro-life activists. Their informational protests have never involved violence.

What: Passed out copies of BC’s Access to Abortion Services Act on the sidewalk outside a Vancouver building that houses an abortion “clinic”. They were wearing placards that warned: “CAUTION: You can be arrested here under Bill 48!” and “BE INFORMED! This area is a legislated access [‘bubble’] zone under Bill 48”

When: June 19, 2009

Where: 2525 Commercial Drive in Vancouver.

Why: Because that Act makes it illegal to mention “abortion” within (500 feet) of a facility that provides abortions, and the people walking by could not know that they might be at risk of offending if they mentioned the forbidden word.

Background: The Vancouver Police had been called by the abortion mill three times previously, and had told the staff (and the protesters) that no law was being broken. On this occasion, however, the officer in charge called for a paddy wagon and arrested von Dehn and Spratt. They were charged with violating the Act. They came to trial October 8, 9 and 10 of 2010 and the case was put over until March 16, 17 and 18 of 2011 because the abortion mill needed more time to bring in an additional witness. The day before this event, the Supreme Court of Canada had refused to hear Spratt’s appeal of an earlier charge, appealed on the basis that the Act violates his Section 2 rights to free speech under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. While distributing copies of the Act, Spratt’s mouth was covered with duct tape to symbolize his loss of rights.

Spratt has been unable to get work for almost two years because the trial and the possibility of going to jail hangs over him, and no employer wants to start a new employee who may soon be doing time behind bars.

What arguments do the two sides present?

The defendants

  • The police had previously told us it was not a violation to hand out copies of a provincial law. This makes the actions of the defendants “officially induced error”.
  • No one mentioned the forbidden ‘A-word’.
  • Passing pedestrians and clients of the abortion mill were not stopped or interfered with; we only gave the copies of the Act to people who asked about the warnings on the placards.
  • Section 2 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees Canadians’ rights to free speech, freedom of expression, and freedom to assemble peacefully.
  • There’s nothing on the street to define the “zone”; unless passers-by are give information, they can’t know that their rights are limited.
  • The Act violates Canadians Charter rights, and must be struck down. The courts can only strike it down if there is an actual case—like this one—before them. We’re striking a blow for freedom.
The abortion mill

  • Because they were known protesters, it was obvious that their protest was against abortion, not for free speech. This was a protest against the fact that abortion, while not exactly legal in Canada, is not exactly illegal, either. There is no abortion law in Canada.
  • The “clinic” staff told us they felt intimidated.
  • The arresting officer says she wasn’t aware of the earlier
    incidents, when VPD officers told Spratt & von Dehn that passing out copies of the Act is not a violation of the Act.

It’s very clear that Spratt and von Dehn were protesting the infringement of Canadians’ rights, but the law does not forbid that kind of protest—only protests against abortion. Was the abortion mill simply phoning in repeat complaints, fishing for a feminist cop who would make an arrest? Were Spratt and von Dehn being hassled for their opinions? Why were they handcuffed and put in jail, when it is admitted by the arresting officers that they were cooperative?


[poll id=”2″]

Related questions:

  • What is the cost to the taxpayers of this mockery of justice?
  • Does that possibility that the judge, Crown Counsel, and management of the abortion mill may be militant feminists have any bearing?
  • Since January of 1989, when the Supreme Court struck down the last vestiges of protection for pre-born children in Canada, nearly four million Canadian children have lost their lives before drawing their first breath. That court decision said Parliament has a legitimate interest in protecting their lives. What responsibility do pusillanimous politicians bear in those four million deaths? Do our Prime Minister, the Leader of the Opposition, and other MPs have blood on their hands?

  2 Responses to “You Be the Judge: Regina vs Spratt & von Dehn”

  1. Real science proves unborn babies are living human who deserve our protection instead of Capital Punishment.

    The late Dr. Bernard Nathanson, formerly a socially engineered abortionist said,” real-time ultrasound, which gives a moving picture of the child in the womb; electronic heart monitoring,which detects fetal heartbeats, brainwave monitors,which measure brain activity, fetoscopy,which allows a physician to actually eyeball the baby,simply astounded him.

    Such techniques as cordocentesis even allow medical diagnosis,treatment and surgery in utero.

    There was nothing religious about it I finally came to the conviction that this baby was my patient. This was a person! This was purely a change of mind as a result of fantastic science and technology.”

    So what did Dr. Nathanson do to prove that abortion is cold blooded murder? He fastened an ultrasound machine to a woman undergoing an actual abortion, and produced ” SILENT SCREAM”,a film that justly horrified the nation. It showed the fetus trying desperately to move away from the vacuum, and then the baby’s body parts were successively sucked off. The film produced a massive campaign of defamation against Bernard.

    This only made him more determined to tell the truth, so he decided to show the world an abortion from inside the womb. He attached a camera to a fetoscope and inserted it during a D&E abortion, the cervix is stretched to permit socially engineered Medical Staff to insert a sharp knife to cut the child to pieces. The resulting film was “ECLIPSE OF REASON”.

    Abortion is the murder of babies regardless of what the so-called Civil Liberties Association’s, their Bull Dogs the Liberal-minded Judiciary, Politicians and Education Establishments socially engineer citizens to believe by decree. Please stop killing them Canada!
    Godless people don’t care,but we must care. What the Darwinian Humanists have done is given the power over life and death to Darwinian Humanist judges,politicians and professionals that they have programmed our schools. We are now a Godless Canada. This is certainly not the country our fathers fought for in the great wars.

    Lets take it back for our future and our children.

  2. There are striking parallels between what happened to the unwanted in the Third Reich and what’s happening to the unwanted today in Canada.

    It is the same kind of Socially Engineered mentality. We don’t respect human life and we dehumanize it and then get rid of it ! Even though our ill, weak and helpless deserve our protection Canada, not Capital Punishment.

    The Nazis dehumanized their victims by calling them subhuman, non-human, parasites, animals, objects, and non-persons. The same terminology dominates today’s pro-abortion semanticists.

    Do you realize that the Nazis “technically” did not break the “LAW” in the Holocaust ? They passed over 400 “LAWS “ leading up to the final solution ! Each defendant at Nuremberg invoked the ”LAW” to justify their involvement in the Holocaust. They said we are not responsible.

    “WHAT IS LEGAL IS MORAL,” is a frightening slogan used to justify all kinds of atrocities today in Canada and through history. This is done today through our Education Establishments who condition students, and thus this mindset permeates the professionals of our society.

    Legality was used to exterminate natives in Australia, Africa, North and South America, India, the killing of Jews and is used in the murder of the unwanted today. Legality was also used to justify slavery or human-trafficking, the slave trade, and do you remember that the so-called Darwin’s lower races only got the vote here in Canada in 1947, Native Canadians in 1960.

    The main term used by the pro-abortion propagandist in our Education Establishments is the term “CHOICE”. The right to choose.
    The main term used by the Nazis propagandist to cover up their killing was “SELECTION”. The right to select.
    It was the doctors who were conditioned into making selections in the Nazis death camps.
    It is the doctors today, in conjunction with pregnant women, who are conditioned in making “choices” in the abortion chambers.
    The right to select in the past and the right to choose today represents the “evil” power to destroy those who cannot defend themselves.

    After The Second World War, the Nuremberg War Crimes Tribunal indicted ten Nazi Leaders for encouraging and compelling abortions, which the West then considered a crime against humanity.
    ” Trials Of War Criminals”,Nuremberg Military Tribunal,Washington,DC: USGPO, VOL.IV,page610.

    In a democracy the citizens are accountable and responsible for electing politicians who pass or reject Bills into Canadian Law in our Legislatures and Parliament. Citizens what have many of you become?

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.