I’ve written numerous times on the antics of B.C.’s pro-choice movement. Now and then you get additional information that shows how low and how desperate they really are. On March 25, 2002, the head of the Pro-Choice Action Network, Joyce Arthur, wrote to the Audit Division of the Canada Customs and Revenue Agency, formally calling for an audit of the Pro-Life Society of British Columbia, accusing them, among other things of contravening “charitable status requirements” and asking for their charitable tax designation to be revoked.

The presentation that Arthur has written is a fascinating glimpse into the so-called “pro-choice” mentality, because, if there was ever any doubt, it shows that Arthur and her gaggle of supporters are pro-abortion; choice never enters into the equation.

One of the examples that Arthur uses as evidence of just how nasty B.C. Pro-Life really is, is the fact that they intervened “in legal cases.” She uses this as one example of many, and claims that such activity contravenes the Income Tax Act.

Now, this is interesting. Interesting because I have before me a signed affidavit, signed by none other than Joyce Arthur of the Pro-Choice Action Network dated March 7, 2002, a mere 18 days before Joyce Arthur wrote her complaint to Revenue Canada. The affidavit was sworn and submitted for the upcoming Jim Demers court case dealing with the rights of the unborn. She writes: “I am authorized to affirm this Affidavit on behalf of the B.C. Pro-Choice Action Network Society (Pro-CAN), and do so in support of the application of Pro-CAN, the Elizabeth Bagshaw Society, Everywoman’s Health Centre Society (1988), the C.A.R.E. Program of Children’s and Women’s Health Centre of British Columbia, and the Women’s Legal Education and Action Fund (collectively referred to as the “Applicants”) for leave to intervene in this appeal.”

When I last checked, organizations such as Everywoman’s Health Centre, Vancouver’s first abortion mill, were a registered charitable organization. In fact, Everywoman’s won a federal court case in getting its charitable tax status.

Joyce wrote, 18 days before her complaint about BC Pro-Life, that she SUPPORTS Everywoman’s intervention in a legal case. How can you say that a charitable organization must not be involved in intervening in legal cases before the courts, even to the point of filing official complaints against them, knowing full well that you support the use of such tactics, as long as it’s your group doing the intervening.

On a side note, on the list of first directors for Pro-CAN, submitted to get her group officially registered in B.C., Joyce Arthur lists her confidential address; it just happens to be the same address as Everywoman’s Health Centre.

Also found in her wonderful and fascinating document is her complaint that the television ads that B.C. Pro-Life is assisting with, are “misleading advertisements.” Those who read the pages of The Interim will know that the ads in question are based on the Caring Foundation set of ads. For some reason, Joyce Arthur and Pro-CAN now feel these ads are a threat to democracy, and any organization using them must be stripped of any and all tax benefits bestowed upon them by our wonderful fellow Canadians in the tax office.

Joyce’s credibility on these matters is suspect. In 2001 under threat of legal action Pro-CAN posted an apology on their website and in the Vancouver Sun newspaper as a result of false statements regarding the Centre for Bioethical Reform. Arthur, who also serves as spokesperson for the Pro-Choice Action Network said in part that: “The Pro-Choice Action Network would like to retract the claim that Genocide Awareness Project staff or volunteers yelled racial slurs. We apologize sincerely to the Centre For Bio-Ethical Reform for any harm our unsubstantiated claim may have caused them.”

Then there is the lovely issue of Pro-CAN member Erin Kaiser. Kaiser and some of her friends demolished and vandalized a pro-life display at the University of British Columbia. The Students for Choice web site recently stated how to deal with subsequent pro-life displays. They write: “Civil disobedience is an option you may choose as well. You can set up large screen around the display so passer-by does not necessarily have to see it. You might also try draping the display itself with a cloth in order to cover it. Circle the display and link arms. Refuse to move. Another option is vandalism. Spray paint, scissors, etc., might come in handy. Or you could take it down. If you choose this option, DO NOT DO IT ALONE OR IN A SMALL GROUP. Make it a mass action or do not do it at all.”

This call for riot-based violence using weapons was in a publication called “A campus activist’s guide” found at www.studentsforchoice.com.

Elsewhere on the Students for Choice website, Hannah Roman states: “During the summer of 2000, Erin and I wrote a ‘Guide for Campus Activists’ with the help of Joyce Arthur of ProCAN.”

Interesting, no?