May 14, 1986, was the seventeenth anniversary of the legalizing of abortion in Canada, and in Montreal, as in most Canadian cities, a pro-life demonstration was held to remind the public of the continuing destruction of innocent human life. Montreal’s demonstration, organized by Montreal Pro-Life, was at Montreal General Hospital which does more abortions than any other hospital in the province.
Montreal, unlike other cities in Canada, has a by-law which forbids public demonstrations except with a police permit. The police permit prescribes the conditions under which the demonstration may be held. These include the number of people who may take part, the precise location of the demonstration, whether speeches will be permitted or literature doled out, and they also require the department of supervisors to keep order among the demonstrators.
The permit issued for the May 14 protest allowed “a small, orderly demonstration of not ore than 50 people.” Participants were forbidden to shout slogans, use amplifiers, hand out leaflets, or obstruct traffic or pedestrians. Announcements (without amplification) were permitted, as was praying or hymn singing. Montreal Pro-Life was quite happy with these conditions, they were similar to what had been permitted on other occasions and local pro-lifers are quite used to demonstrating within such restrictions. But things turned out to be very different this time from anything experienced in the past.
This time pro-lifers were opposed by a counter-demonstration – and the counter-demonstrators were not bound by any restrictions. In the first place, they had not sought a permit, and should not have been allowed to demonstrate at all. The police who were on hand allowed them to behave in any way they wanted to. They were allowed to congregate at both ends of the section of sidewalk, while the pro-lifers were permitted only to walk in single file. They were allowed to obstruct the sidewalk and the roadway, to hand out literature, to should slogans and one of them used a bullhorn without any interference from the police.
A very noticeable, and objectionable, part of their repertoire was an obscene parody of the Hail May, in French – a string of sexual obscenities ending with the words, “rotten is the fruit of thy womb, Jesus.” As a matter of interest, the organizers of the counter-protest were members of Centrale de L’Enseignement du Quebec, the teachers’ union in French Catholic schools, and most participants seemed to be teachers, although a few were young enough to be high-school students.
At the end of two hours, the time limited stipulated on the pro-life permit, the lieutenant in charge of the police detachment, told organizers their time had now expired, and ordered them to disband the pro-life demonstration. They refused, telling him that they had obeyed the law, had been granted permission to demonstrate, and had obeyed all the conditions imposed, but he had allowed another group who had no permit to come there to harass. The police officer was told that the pro-life demonstration would continue until such time as he broke up the counter-demonstration, which had no right to be there in the first place.
After that, things happened quickly. The counter-demonstrators suddenly surged forward and the police withdrew from between the two groups. The pro-lifers continued to walk in single file, but now the opposing group mixed in among them and arguments and one-to-one face offs began all over the place. There was no actual violence, just a lot of confrontation and shouting which lasted until the riot squad arrived. On the arrival of the riot squad the counter-demonstrators decided that discretion was the better part of valour, they ran off in all directions. The pro-lifers picked up their placards and posters and left quietly after the others had all vanished.
That night, local news on CBC television was the first time Montreal pro-lifers have ever been given favourable coverage by the network. The footage shown, and the comments of the news reporter, made it clear that the pro-life groups were orderly and well behaved, and that their opponents were a noisy and disorderly rabble.
But this raises a question in my mind – and perhaps in the minds of others – and perhaps this is a question we should begin to consider seriously. The question is: if we really want to get governments to take us seriously, if we want them to hear our pleas for justice for the unborn, are we doing the right things to convince them that they must do what we ask?
At this demonstration, the police acted more favourably toward the noisy rabble than they did toward the well-behaved pro-lifers. Will governments also give more favourable hearings to those most likely to cause trouble? It’s nice to be nice – but do the nice guys always finish last? And if so, have we a duty to be less nice?
