

Sebastian's Point
Sebastian's Point is a weekly column written by one of our members regarding timely events or analysis of relevant ideas, which impact the Culture of Life. All regular members are invited to submit a column for publication at soss.submissions@gmail.com. Columns should be between 800 to 1300 words and comply with the high standards expected in academic writing, including proper citations of authority or assertions referred to in your column. Please see, Submission Requirements for more details.
Why Fight Abortion Bubble Zones?
Quebec has some of the most stringent abortion bubble zone legislation in North America. All centers offering abortion—and there are over fifty of them in Quebec— are protected by a bubble zone of 50 meters (164 feet) according to Section 16.1 of the province’s Health and Social Services Law, which was enacted in 2016. Any engagement with an abortion-minded woman or an abortion worker inside that perimeter is liable to criminal prosecution, no matter how benign the conversation. In 2019, Campaign Life Quebec and two other activists filed a legal challenge to this bubble zone. Last November 11th, five years after the challenge was first filed, the arguments against the bubble zone were finally heard in Quebec Superior Court. Georges Buscemi, president of Campaign Life Quebec, claimed that abortion bubble zones infringed on the right to peaceful assembly and freedom of expression and treated pro-lifers like second-class citizens. He was quoted by Montreal’s La Presse as saying that sidewalk counseling is a completely peaceful activity, implying that it did not deserve to be criminalized.[1]
The judge in the bubble zone case is not expected to render her decision until February or March of this year. The odds of winning the court case are not in Campaign Life’s favor, as its president admitted in an interview with French Christian broadcaster Théovox.[2] Other Canadian provinces such as British Columbia (1995), Newfoundland (2016), Ontario (2018), and Alberta (2018), also have bubble zone legislation. All attempts to challenge them have met with failure, as the Supreme Court of Canada refused to hear these cases, reinforcing the perception of constitutionality.[3] Canada is virulently pro-abortion. Canadian courts have opted to act according to the 17th century Common Law principle known as the “Born Alive” rule which does not recognize the personhood of the child until birth. The fetus’ existence is only recognized under very limited circumstances; thus, the fetus is not considered to have any interest in legal proceedings. This tends to put pro-lifers at a disadvantage in any court case.
If the odds of winning a challenge against the bubble zone are slim, then why challenge the law at all?
One reason is that the courtroom provides a venue to cross-examine conventional wisdom that circulates unchallenged. Many bubble zones are legislated on the premise that pro-lifers are violent and intimidating. Journalists often echo the pro-abortion establishment’s views without verification. For instance, in the above-cited La Presse article, an abortion provider is quoted as saying that bubble zones are crucial because in jurisdictions that don’t have them, abortion clients must be escorted to the clinic entrance, and they are harassed by activists with bullhorns. That statement was printed without question. The journalist never bothered to investigate whether that ever happened in Quebec, or whether this corresponded to the principles of sound sidewalk counseling. In a courtroom setting, such statements can be cross-examined so that the truth can be brought to light.
The courtroom can also provide an opportunity to make the pro-life case. Many people in Quebec act like they don’t understand why abortion is considered morally wrong. Many have never heard the case against it. Since abortion is deemed “healthcare,” its status seems unchallengeable. Campaign Life president Georges Buscemi used part of this three hours on the stand to explain that abortion kills a human being, something that is almost never said when abortion is discussed in the public square in Quebec. Buscemi said in his Théovox interview that he did not know whether his words made any impact on the courtroom audience, as a number of spectators were ideological and hardened. But like in the Parable of the Sower, he scattered his seed and let the Holy Spirit do its work.
I would also add that court cases provide a means to enter the historical record. Many losing court cases have highlighted the flaws in the legal system over time. Among the most notable examples are the Dred Scott case in which the United States Supreme Court decided in 1857 that African Americans did not have the rights of citizens. Another famous American case was Plessy vs. Ferguson (1896), which reinforced the principle of “separate but equal” that underpinned Jim Crow laws in the South. Closer to home, the Supreme Court of Canada ruled in 1928 that women were not “persons” and therefore ineligible to be appointed to the Senate. These court cases were decided by principles that were seemingly self-evident in their day. But in time, they came to symbolize the absurdity and injustice of discrimination. This has not happened yet with the unborn. Perhaps it speaks to the importance of history as an essential tool in the fight for justice.
The outcome of this bubble zone challenge does not only affect pro-lifers. Progressives do not seem to think that the principle of bubble zones undermines their own right to protest. The medical establishment has a history of contested practices that are now the object of widespread condemnation. In decades past, forced sterilization and unconsented experimentation (often using human subjects from minority groups) were defended by medical authorities. In the future, the same arguments used to discriminate against pro-lifers could be easily used to shield medical authority from criticism in questionable practices so that medical workers “feel safe” from harassment.
The principle that protects medical workers from criticism could be easily expanded to “protect” countless others. Last October, Mark Sutcliffe, the Mayor of Ottawa, proposed a bubble bylaw to limit protests concerning “vulnerable communities” around various institutions such as schools, houses of worship, and community centers [3]. In part, this bubble zone was proposed to fight antisemitism, but it was quickly expanded in the name of protecting the Muslim and LGBTQ communities. This measure would have a chilling effect on protests in general. Ottawa, the capital of Canada, is dotted with countless public buildings that could be the object of protest, but because they are near institutions with what are deemed “vulnerable populations” that right to protest would be effectively nullified. The proposal is being examined by City of Ottawa officials as part of a by-law review and the topic will be revisited by City Council in the coming months. It risks silencing a multitude of voices. The fight then against bubble zones is not just for pro-lifers but is for everyone’s right to free speech and protest.
____________________
[1] Marie-Ève Cousineau, "Des militants antiavortement veulent manifester près des cliniques," La Presse, November 13, 2024, https://www.lapresse.ca/actualites/2024-11-13/des-militants-antiavortement-veulent-manifester-pres-des-cliniques.php#.
[2] Procès Campagne Québec-Vie vs. Gouv. du Québec, interview with Georges Buscemi, TheoVox, November 14, 2024, video, https://theovox.tv/videos/proces-campagne-quebec-vie-vs-gouv-du-quebec-avec-georges-buscemi-theovox-actualites-14-nov-2024/.
[3] For example: R. v. Lewis (1996); R v. Demers (2003); R. v. Spratt (2008).
[4] Ottawa to Mull Restricting Protests Outside Vulnerable Institutions," CBC News, October 20, 2024, https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/ottawa/ottawa-to-mull-restricting-protests-outside-vulnerable-institutions-1.7354066.
​
​