| International News

Arrested under the province’s Access to Abortion Services Act, Spratt was eventually convicted in Dec. 1998 of “sidewalk interference” and sentenced to 30 days in jail.

Now the Spratt case has gone on to the B.C. Court of Appeal. An Alliance of groups concerned about religious freedom see the Spratt Case as a test for freedom of religious expression in Canada.

On Sept. 13, the Canadian Religious Freedom Alliance (CRFA), made up of the Catholic Civil Rights League, the Evangelical Fellowship of Canada, the Christian Legal Fellowship and REAL Women of Canada presented its arguments against the law.

“The right to peaceful protest is fundamental in a democracy,” said Catholic Civil Rights League President Phil Horgan in a Sept. 14 news release, after the appeal court reserved its judgment. “The alliance supports the principle that any restriction on civil liberties needs to be clearly justifiable. The decision in this case will affect what forms of protest will be restricted in future.”

“Those who feel compelled by their religious beliefs to ensure that women understand the decision they are making will affect them and leave a void in the next generation should not be made into criminals for sharing those beliefs in a respectful manner,” said Don Hutchinson, the Evangelical Fellowship of Canada general legal counsel. “Serious concerns arise when government gives itself the unfettered authority to restrict the freedom of opinion and expression of its citizens. Restriction in one area of public debate and expression may quickly lead to restriction in other areas.”

Evangelical Fellowship of Canada President Bruce J. Clemenger said, “Freedom of expression is one of our most cherished human rights. The government must show a compelling reason if it is going to be restricted.”

According to the Canadian Religious Freedom Alliance factum, or statement of facts, Spratt was “compelled by his religious beliefs to protest the Act, viewing it as evil as abortion itself.”

The Canadian Religious Freedom Alliance challenged the act’s “broad definitions” of “protest” and “sidewalk interference.” It also noted that the access zone in question was the public street, and the access zone could extend up to 50 meters.

“Certainly harassment, intimidation, besetting, and physical interference are all inappropriate and properly proscribed – by other sections of the act,” the factum argued.

Activity within these bubble zones that could get someone arrested could be as benign as handing out roses, leafleting, praying silently or holding up a sign saying, “It’s not just a pregnancy. It’s a person,” it said.

The Canadian Religious Freedom Alliance challenged the “cone of silence” around protestors, saying that women contemplating abortion also have the right to “think for themselves and be informed about important decisions they are making.”

The factum noted that no other jurisdiction in Canada has erected similar exclusion zones.

“The interests of the women using the clinics and making difficult choices, often without adequate information, are more pressing than the interests of the service providers and clinic workers, who should not be deciding for them,” CFRA argued.