After almost seven years of fighting his abortion-protest conviction, Nelson B.C. abortion fighter Jim Demers hasn’t lost his passion or strong opinion of the judiciary.
“Gutless” was how he described the Canadian Supreme Court’s recent refusal to even hear his precedent-setting case. His trek began in 1996, when he was arrested under British Columbia’s draconian Access to Abortion Act, for parading a sign outside the Everywoman’s Health Centre.
The sign bore a message from the Organization of American States American Convention of Human Rights, which read, “Every person has the right to have his life respected. This right shall be protected by law and, in general, from the moment of conception.”
The battle was not just about the right to hold a sign, the bigger issue was the right to life of someone about to lose it. Jim Demers was just letting people know what was taking place.
After appeals to the B.C. provincial court, the B.C. Supreme Court, Court of Appeal, and then finally the Supreme Court of Canada, it would appear that his battle, at least for the moment, is over.
However, Demers protested: “Never. This case is a true case of justice denied. The Canadian courts pay homage to gay rights and anything promoting the fringes of civilized behaviour, but they maintain their refusal to even consider the human rights of the unborn.”
Undeterred, Demers and his legal team, which features U.S. lawyer Jeff Tuomala, will now turn their sites on the next stage of their plan: the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights.
The website for the IACHR states it “is one of two bodies in the inter-American system for the promotion and protection of human rights.” The Washington-based commission finds its mandate is found in the OAS Charter and the American Convention on Human Rights.
Demers is hoping to use the appeal process and apply to the IACHR for a hearing, which must take place within six months of exhausting all final avenues in Canada.
While Canada is a member of the Organization of American States, it has not yet signed on to the IACHR – although any decision targeting Canada would have huge implications, at least in the public relations realm.
Although not yet prepared, any presentation to the IACHR would implicate Canada on a charge of direct and deliberate violation of human rights.
Demers said, “I feel we have a good chance when we present our case before the IACHR. From the beginning, our argument has been thoughtful and well researched. But we have to continue, especially in a nation with the legacy of Trudeau. We pay lip service to the notion of human rights, civil rights. Canadian judges think nothing of inventing rights out of thin air – and then turn around and refuse to hear our side of the story, basically shoving their own beliefs on the rest of the country, especially the unborn.”
Campaign Life Coalition B.C. president John Hof agreed: “Jim needs to continue exhausting all the legal avenues open to us. It’s frustrating at times, because the judiciary takes so long, but a case before the IACHR might be heard and decided on a lot faster and might even embarrass Canada into some type of action recognizing fetal rights.”
Demers concluded: “I had no idea back in December of 1996 that we would still be here, with this case, trying to get heard. Yet this case cries out for a fair hearing – and if our Supreme Court won’t give us the time of day, we will find someone who will.”