What began as a single letter questioning the tactics of a pro-life activist has developed into something larger.
That activist Linda Gibbons sits week after week in a jail cell should be no surprise to regular readers of The Interim. Linda’s activities in defence of unborn children, and her willful defiance of an Ontario injunction restricting pro-life witnessing in the province, have filled hundreds of column inches in these pages over the last three years. One minister described her as the finest example of Christian witness in Canada today, while an Alberta television station featured her in a news feature on the persecution of Christians.
She has been described as a pro-life political prisoner – even a martyr – for her beliefs. And those who are closest to Linda are not at all surprised by the personal sacrifice she makes to ensure that unborn children do not fade from the public consciousness or that this draconian injunction against freedom of speech is left unchallenged.
What may be surprising is that Linda’s behavior is beginning to draw criticism from well meaning pro-life supporters. As expressed by letters to the Interim’s editorial office, some have questioned the efficacy of Linda’s approach, particularly her habit of proceeding immediately to a Toronto abortuary upon the serving of her latest six-month sentence.
Linda is subsequently confronted by police officers who go through the motions of reading aloud the terms of the injunction. She greets each confrontation with total silence and is ultimately dragged away to the click of cameras and the gaping of misunderstanding or blase´ onlookers.
Silence again is her response in court when prosecutors ask Linda to explain her activity. But it’s a purposeful silence – linking her struggle with the silent unborn children, while at the same time forcing the justice system to examine its role in what many regard as a politically motivated charade.
Linda’s critics have suggested that she might make better use of her time organizing legal pickets, or educating students, justice officials and members of the public as to the absurdity of the province’s injunction. Some have hinted she craves the spotlight and would actually be disappointed if the police failed to arrest her.
They also suggest she is not serving any practical purpose with her continuing arrests. She may be inspiring they converted, they charge, but she is also inviting further scorn toward pro-lifers on the part of a cynical, indifferent public at large.
As one critical correspondent noted, “… does she hope that defying her probation order, saying her prayers in silence and being whisked off to jail, without explanation is going to be properly understood by the public? … If I were an uninformed member of the public, someone who gave little or no thought to the horror of abortion, I would be put off by such misguided antics.”
Dare we suggest that Linda’s critics are concentrating too much on the public relations worthiness of her crusade? The same things were said in criticism of U.S. activist Joan Andrews. She also refused to compromise on the right to life question, and eventually she won respect from a number of commentators in the secular media.
However cultivating a warm and fuzzy image in the mainstream media is at the bottom of Linda’s list of priorities. Undoubtedly some are put off by Linda’s unwillingness to bend even a little for the sake of PR. But for people like Linda, principle and popularity are not so easily reconciled. Linda’s concern is for the unborn children, and she simply cannot accept the oft-repeated phrase “I’m personally opposed to abortion, but …”
As a movement which strives for unity, pro-lifers should be open to well meaning criticism. Clearly Linda’s approach is not for everyone, nor is it the only way of drawing public attention to injustice. Nonetheless Linda’s supporters far outnumber her critics and many have been inspired by her Thomas More-like resolve in paying heed to this annoying thing called conscience.
