On March 6, Mr. Justice Josiah wood found 104 men and women in contempt of court and imposed three-month suspended sentences for returning to the injunction-protected Everywoman’s Health Clinic in Vancouver on February 7. Before doing so, however, Wood permitted each of the rescuers to address the court directly “to consider what I heard and make sure what I do is correct.”
Next day, March 7, three of the defendants – Jim and Karen Hanlon of Langley, B.C. and David Forsyth of Port Moody, B.C. – returned to the newly-established Everywoman’s abortuary. Their intrepid and sacrificial action condemned them to three months in prison. What follows are their words to the B.C. Supreme Court:
The Court:
All right. Now, I’m going to ask each of the defendants if they have anything, or if you have anything you wish to say, before I impose sentence.
I propose to proceed alphabetically through the list. I would ask those of you who wish to say something to come forward, down at least to the bar of the court here, of closer if you wish, so that I may hear you as you speak. Those of you who do not wish to say anything, would you please clearly indicate from where you presently sit that you so not wish to be heard by me.
The Defendant D. Forsyth:
My lordship, a primary concern of Justice McKenzie in granting the injunction which we have been found guilty of violating, and in the subsequent rulings of this court that upheld that injunction, was the preservation of law and order in our society. As has been clearly stated in these proceedings, and accurately, the worth of the unborn human being compares with the worth of plants and animals under the present state of our law and order. Given this reality, I would direct us to the remarks of the former Chief Justice of the Ontario Supreme Court, J. C. McRuer. He said:
“What is termed disrespect for law in fact may only be the manifestation of a burning desire for justice.
Order like law, to be respected, must deserve respect.
Disrespect for an order that does deserve respect ought not to be condemned as degeneration, but commended as a healthy regeneration.”
Further, we have been convicted of contemptuous conduct for violating a court order protecting a group of individuals in their act of systematically destroying human lives. We have been found guilty, in essence, of exhibiting disrespect for law. In answer to this I would invite us to consider another excerpt from Martin Luther King’s letter from Birmingham jail, in which he said:
“One who breaks an unjust law…-and I should explain that term. He was writing to a group of pastors and rabbis who had criticized his non-violent direct action protests against discrimination, and in the letter he explains that an unjust law is a law that does not conform to the moral law of God. So by that, that’s the term he is using and his listeners understood and accepted the existence of a moral law. He said:
“One who breaks an unjust law must do so openly, lovingly and with the willingness to accept the penalty.
I submit that an individual who breaks a law that conscience tells him is unjust and who willingly accepts the penalty of imprisonment in order to arouse the conscience of the community over its injustice is, in reality, expressing the highest respect for the law. I would add that our present case – at least I can speak for myself and it seems like I’m speaking for virtually everyone who’s spoken to this point – the primary motive was not the arousing of public conscience, though this may be a by-product of our actions, but it was the far greater and far more rewarding end of saving human lives from literal destruction. I count it an honour to serve mankind and my God toward that end. Give me a law that I can obey, a law that extends justice, mercy and the rule of love and care to our unborn children, as well as their mothers, and I assure you that I will obey it with all my heart. Thank you.
The Defendant J. Hanlon:
My lord, you have heard a lot about our beliefs and the most basic tenet of our belief is that we love God and love our neighbour and towards that end our Saviour told us that the greatest expression of that love is that a man can have no greater love than to lay down his life for his friends. The reason I call this to your attention is that, as I see it, we have been found guilty and convicted here because the unborn have no legal status and we are going to be sentenced as a deterrent to keep us from doing what we have proceeded to do in love. And I would just submit in all humility that, if I honestly had a choice, I would choose to live in a society of total anarchy, where there was much suffering and fear and yet there was love, than in a society where things were well-ordered and ran smoothly, but there was no love. Thank you.
The Defendant K. Hanlon:
My lord, you said earlier in the proceedings that you believed our motive was pure, that we came with sincere belief that we had come to save lives on February the 7th, but then you later said that you believe that we came on that particular date because of the hearing that was going on before Justice McKenzie, and I just want to assure you that the motives that we came with on February 7th to the clinic were purely because a child was to be killed that day. In fact, I admit I knew that the proceedings had continued over until the 7th and I was very grieved by that because I didn’t want any kind of contempt of this court to happen and it was a difficult decision to make, whether or not to go on February 7th, because the proceedings were before the court at that time, and yet I knew a child’s life was at stake and that life mattered so much to me that I had no choice in my conscience other than to go and sit in front of that clinic that day to try to save that one child’s life. If that child’s life had been saved because of what I did, then I’m grateful to God and I’m sorry if any inconvenience happened to the court, but it was not intentional and I am just very grateful that another child is alive today because we were there. Thank you, my lord.
