It can’t be repeated often enough: abortion is the act of violence.  The most violent members of our society are those who approve, or who promote, or who perform abortions.


Bombing an abortuary is trivial by comparison: the only damage is to property.  It may close the place down for a while, and thus may save the lives of some children.  But, let us be quite clear: we neither approve nor condone violence, nor do we urge pro0lifers to act outside the law.


We do support all forms of non-violent action; such as pickets, marches and demonstrations.  We do support completely those men and women who have taken non-violent direction action and who have been arrested for sitting on abortuary steps.  Toronto organizers confirm that pickets and sit-ins will continue until the law is enforced and the illegal abortuary is closed down. 


The tide of public opinion is now turning in our direction.  Over a million Canadians recently informed our Prime Minister, through the Jury for Life postcards, that they support legislation to protect the unborn.


The immediate aim, then, is to prevent the franchising of abortion-mills across the country.  That done, we can return to the main battle, that of providing legislation to protect the unborn babies of Canada.


Tighten Law Against Pornography


Flipping through a file of clippings on the subject of pornography and obscenity, the following headings flashed by: “Anti-strip bill illegal in New Brunswick;” “Cambridge Council plans porn by-law;” “Vancouver bans sexshops;” “Ottawa women deplore porn;” “Toughen law on porno Ontario Liberals urge Ottawa;” “Mayors rap pornography;” “Niagara stripshow angers Mayor;” “Backlash over sadistic porn.”  From coast to coast, Canadians are increasingly angry at the flood of pornography, yet everywhere they have run into opposition to more effective control.


The chief opponents of better protection from the sex-exploiters are found among those most committed to a secularized, so-called neutral society: groups of academics, intellectual liberals, writers, editors, journalists, some radical feminists, film producers, actors and those who support deviant social behaviour (e.g. homosexual).  These, in turn, are supported by those who make money from the billion-dollar porn industry.


Among the most determined opponents of pornography-control are the editors of many daily newspapers.  Editorial writers state that “control means censorship,” so, control is seen as a threat to two freedoms, of thought and of the press.  In editorial after editorial, they have attacked and ridiculed the idea of film-censor boards, claiming that the only place for judging obscenity is the courtroom.  They choose to ignore that censor boards screen material before it reaches the market, thus preventing harm.  Censor boards are able to respond to the anger and disgust of the community.  Courts, on the other hand, can react only after the harm has been done.


The Ontario Minister for Consumer Affairs, Robert Elgie, and his parliamentary assistant (the newly-appointed solicitor-general) John Williams, are to be congratulated for standing firm against media pressure.  The interpretation of community standards should be left in the hands of the people, through their elected delegates, rather than left in the hands of the courts.


We support the Ontario government’s decision to enact the Ontario Theatres Act.  This act reaffirms the powers of the censor board (now called the Ontario Film Review Board), expands its mandate to allow it to regulate video tapes, doubles its membership of ordinary citizens, and endows it with specific guidelines as to what is deemed unacceptable.


The Federal Government should note this step in Ontario and pass national legislation.  It should toughen Criminal Code legislation on obscenity, child pornography and violence.