Free Linda Gibbons!

Ahhhh I was wondering when someone of note was going to pick up on this... Linda Gibbons is in jail because she has an unpopular opinion. There is only freedom of "correct type" of speech and there are only liberties for the correct type of actions in this not so fair country.

Ernst Zundle was a despicable disgusting specimen of a human being but it all started with his persecution.

Beautifully stated, Michael Coren!

Linda Gibbons is a hero of mine. Although she uses the Gandhi and Martin Luther King Jr. tactic of non-violent, civil disobedience, the left gives her a complete pass.

Linda Gibbons is Canada’s Rosa Parks: Amnesty International, Canada, ignores her—our very own prisoner of conscience.

If Amnesty International types show up at my door, I mention Linda Gibbons—who?—and I tell the canvasser that unless they put their organization into gear to advocate for her rights, they’ll get not a penny from me. (Even then, I’d have trouble donating to such an outfit: however, the chances of them ever supporting a principled, Christian person like Linda Gibbons are remote. But I’d give if they did!)

Mlle DePape is a demented, moral pygmy. Linda Gibbons is a gracious, heroic Canadian. Our society’s response to these two women proves just how out of ethical shape we are. Kyrie eleison.

May God bless and sustain Linda Gibbons, whose “help cometh even from the Lord, who hath made heaven and earth”. (Psalm 121)

The real question here is....when are we going to get a Prime Minister who has the cahones to DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT!

(It's spelled "cojones")

I agree. I respectfully bow to Linda Gibbons -- my rants are but "clamouring cymbals" before her silent prayer.

Linda breaks/broke a law, wether said law is good or bad is "opinion". Breaking laws has to be attended to legally. Now the other idiot, broke a "rule", big difference in the two, but as there are too many blind kristians in here this will not be noticed, and we will rant on foolishly.

GYM, until you learn how to spell, no one will engage you.

What Coren said. DePape is a ridiculous girl (moral pygmy- tee!) who doesn't deserve one minute of attention. Linda Gibbons, on the other hand, is someone's grandmother, a gentle woman whose very actions fry the left no end. That is the difference between the two. Only leftist morons can be "revolutionary".

GYM, it is you that is not getting the point. We all know the difference between a law and a rule. You are missing the place where the two women`s actions are simila: Namely that they are both engaged in acts of protest. And you also seem to be missing the point about where the reaction of the media is different. One`s action is applauded by the left, and her punishment decried. The other`s actions are decried while her punishment is ignored, if not applauded.

GYM to break an unjust law is the duty of all Freedom Loving Men and Women. Birdshit DePoop is Canada's shame. Linda Gibbons is Canada's Glory. "If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquillity of servitude than the animating contest of freedom, — go from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains sit lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen!” Samuel Adams.

You know its funny. People like the Wesley Brothers or iothers who actually went to jails for thier beliefs, including out lawing slavery are all remembered. None of thier jailers or opponents are.
DePape
By not prsonely making a statement but using Parliment as a foil Pissed on us all as a Nation. Yet is lauded in this time of relativistic nulity.
Yet one Quiet Women becomes a threat to the State, for standing up to life. The other gets a job & her 15 minites of infamy.
For breaking the law that dininshes us all.
Topsy turvy Libeals. May you names be blotted out of any rememberance.
JMO

GYM,

You got that wrong -- some laws are made to be broken. Suppose for example that the government passed a law saying: "All Black people must be lynched". It would be both our civil duty and Christian duty to break that law, and probably violently overthrow the government.

Defenceless babies being aborted and somebody engages in a minor act of civil disobedience with a silent non-violent protest? And you call that "breaking the law"? Where is it in the criminal code? It was a temporary injunction, and if judges without cojones weren't so terrified of the baby-killing fem-Nazi lobby, they would have lifted the injunction years ago.

But you are partly right about "blind kristians (sic)". Some Christians who are dogmatists believe that it is against the Bible to oppose the government or the law under any circumstances -- that all authorities "are placed there by God". But like all dogmatists, it is taken out of context -- good authorities are in fact "placed there by God"; evil ones are not.

Anyway, I don't think you will find any "blind kristians" here. We see clearly the difference between a spoiled Page fighting political windmills to gain fame on TV, and someone making a silent reverent protest for innocents being butchered in the womb, and paying the price of jail.

Outrageous!
As one person commented, where is Harper with Linda Gibbons?

Regardless of your views on abortion, Linda Gibbons has a right to her freedom of speech on or outside of any public place that our tax dollars pay for.

This is an outrageous abuse of Liberal power. Now that Canadians have seen the light with the latest elections, where is Harper’s voice against such injustice, along with the promise to scrap the Liberal’s useless, wasteful, totalitarian gun registry?

Canadians need to start holding Harpers feet to the fire. Glad you’re in with the majority, but what are you doing with it now that you have it????
1. Scrap the gun registry.
2. Official apology to Linda Gibbons, consider compensation for her ten lost years.
3. Privatize abortion, no public funds to allow Liberals to murder their children.
4. Privatize the CBC, no taxpayer money for Liberal socialist propaganda.
5. End government sponsorship of over 130 wasteful and deceitful multicultural programs.

Imagine the shrieks of rage if the seal costume retard in the previous thread got to share Linda Gibbons' fate. After all, sealtard is doing -exactly- what Gibbons was doing when she was arrested. The total difference was the lettering on the sign.

Stuff like this is why Justice is always portrayed in a blindfold. Liberals can't seem to get the concept. They like things the way they are in Caledonia: their pets get a free pass, everybody else gets the nightstick upside the head.

Linda breaks/broke a law, wether said law is good or bad is "opinion". Breaking laws has to be attended to legally.
- GYM

Just finished a long essay (an excerpt really) of the great 19th century libertarian/lawyer, Lysander Spooner: Trial by Jury. It's a shocker.

Did you know that initially a jury was 12 people chosen at random, that no briefings or instructions from a judge or screening interviews of lawyers were involved, that they could decide on any punishment on their own and most importantly that a jury could NULLIFY a law, i.e. toss the crap in the waste bin where most of them belong. Does anyone doubt that a rigorous jury of that kind would result in Lynda Gibbons spending 1 second in jail or paying 1 cent in fines?

Spooner referred to this process as "trial by country" as distinct from trial by government (conflict of interest) which is what we have.

Related: I must research this some more, but some cat stateside was arrested (and possibly now in jail) for distributing literature about jury nullification outside courts. Merely distributing literature about how juries were supposed to function!

FYI: Spooner's work is available in PDF version on line.

If true look on the upside of Moore offering dePape a job, perhaps it will require her to move to the States then we'll be rid of her. She'll obviously be much happier in the left wing world of Obamaland, laugh....laugh.

It's kind of ironic GYM. You hold Linda Gibbons responsible for breaking a law and believe she should go to jail (8 years now). But the reason for her civil disobediance is to demonstrate against what she feels is an unjust law. Meanwhile, the unjust law she protests came about because another "hero" (Morgentaler) chose to disregard a previous law and became rich and famous. Where is your sense of outrage that he was allowed to break a law and go unpunished by Linda Gibbons can endlessly return to jail?

That's why I call our justice system, Just-us because we Cons get persecuted whilst the left get away with bad behavior. The Black Bloc got to riot unmolested by cops but peaceful bloggers were rounded up like cattle. Our justice system is infested with leftwing activists, the fact that that women did one night in jail is a gross misscarrage of justice the fact that she's done nearly 18 years in jail for violating a stupid restraining order should be criminal against those that sentenced her.

GYM...to say Gibbons has 'broken a law' is a stretch.
I may need some help with the details here so feel free to fill in the blanks folks:
There was a 'temporary injunction' put in place many years ago (creating that bubble around abortion clinics) pending a court case to determine if pro-lifers have the right to be 'near' the clinics expressing their so-called freedom of speech.

Stay with me.
The court case has been conveniently delayed. Hence the temporary injunction has stayed 'in place'.
Linda knows the details and continues to take her stand...very brave woman imho.
Bottom line...she will continue to be treated as a criminal for the same reason the left has Palin Derangement Syndrome...they are 2 women that do not toe the angry feminist line.

Totally agree with lookout and Knight 99...well said!

Me No Dhimmi:

That "cat" would be the legendary libertarian Julian Heicklen.

Here is an article on his "charges"

http://www.examiner.com/libertarian-news-in-national/libertarian-rights-activist-charged-with-jury-tampering

Can you imagine how apesh*t crazy the leftoid sphere would be now if De Pape had held up a sign saying:

Stop Abortion.

The Grey Lady, thank you very much for that link.

WOW, "jury tampering". So, basically, for passing out information on jury nullification (the law of the land) he is being treated like a guy phoning up a jury member with some kind of enticement or threat. I'd say, 'amazing' but not really. As other links on that site suggest: POLICE STATE.

bluetech, curious your use of the phrase, "so-called freedom of speech".

This seems strange in light of your apparent support of Gibbons.

Me No Dhimmi:

It is even worse then some understand it to be. As a "cost cutting" measure the US has done away with the right to a jury of their peers for charges that result in 6 months or less jail sentence. You can only been seen by a judge for a verdict. As a result there has been an alarming trend of stacking charges of 6 months or less, after all almost everyone does something illegal/suspicious if interpreted the "right" way.

Now they are seeing cases of where folks are spending decades in jail for being found guilty of several stacked charges to be served consecutively. It's not pretty.

Gibbons has spent more time behind bars than Karla Homolka at this point, no?

Isn't that edifying!

For a vertically challenged person, Kathy Shaidle, on occasion, has a point.

MND...'apparent' would work for you?
or 'faux'?
How about "freedom of speech-not"?

Fred nails it.

IMO, Linda Gibbons is fighting for human being's right to live and the page is showgirl seeking a stage. Very, very different.

The Nazis really believed that Jewish people were not human beings - it was in the indoctrination program. If the German people had not been brainwashed to actually believe the educators, the Holocaust would have never been allowed to happen. The guilt after the war for many German people has made their lives hell - I've known a few of these people so I do know of what I speak. I also know woman who have had their child killed in the womb and I have heard their pain and sorrow and guilt. Linda Gibbons is a heroine of mine because she speaks for the people who cannot speak for themselves: she speaks for all those little souls and their right to live. She also speaks to those who would make a dreadful mistake, before they make that mistake.

Thank-you for the Samuel Adams quote RFB. Food for thought.

Linda Gibbon's jail time is a scandal and, as per usual in this Deranged Dominion (just crawling out from under the Librano rock), very few people even know who Linda Gibbons is.

Her persecution is a disgrace.

throw some logic into an emotional mtopic and the results are both comical and saddening

ricardo...as god can NOT be proven to exist, you should NOT drag the god concept into a logicalexchange, it just turns it into an emotional farce!!!!

as to the just-a$$ system's temporary "bubble" around publically funded abortion clinics, I don't like the amout of interference courts have on our laws, and would like to see that changed, but up until now we are stuck with that flawed system

as to abortions...I'm against publically funded abortions, but support the ritwe for people to make their own decissions on the matter and pay as they "GO". We should have the rite to make they types of decissions even if "I" think they are wrong

and so far as Linda Gibbons goes, she is her own worst enemy, and I have NO simpathy for her. I detest protesters who think they have the rite to interfer in others rite to make personal choices. And as far as most in here, you are exercising selective outrage, because you don't support other's rite to emotional protests when you don't support the cause, such as the Tamils blocking the Gardener, the Caledonian BS, and so forth!!

This is where some SDA posters lose me.

For whatever reason mainly because of social stigma and the fact that abortion was refused by our medical system women turned to backstreet butchers for abortions, many dying or severely injured in the process. Morgentaler refused to accept this and provided a safe solution for women to have an abortion and successfully challenged our laws to where today there is no law concerning abortion. Don't insult the man by saying he did this for money.

You hate him for doing this because it is not what you believe so anyone who, like Gibbons, who gets in the face of a woman trying to enter a clinic is somehow a heroine by breaking the law designed to allow these women unobstructed passage. Gibbons has the right to protest but not to harass.

We rightly protest, as GYM has noted, that the Tamils, striking unions, natives, the Black Block all seem to break the law with impunity and each time it weakens our society. Respect and upholding of our laws is the basis of democracy. You can't be selective of which one you support due to personal feelings.

Well Dave....I always ask myself a question on any ethical, legal matter. If Jesus was walking the earth and you asked him should a woman have free access to a clinic to enter and abort (kill, snuff out a baby) what do you think would be His reply.
Man makes immoral laws....there is only one law ...the law of God.

You pick which one you want but remember if you are a Christian one day you will have to pay the price.

Mike, once again that is your personal feelings and has no basis in Caesar's laws.

What you wrote, the law of god, sounds like something that we rightly criticize Muslims for as they behead someone who transgressed some mullah's interpretation of their god's law.

Please excuse my ignorance of Christian teachings as it has been awhile but quote me the passage of the Bible where abortion is forbidden by god.

Gibbons has spent more time behind bars than Karla Homolka at this point, no?

Isn't that edifying!

Posted by: Kathy Shaidle

No but, oh so Canadian.

Dave:
Thou shall not kill.

dave>

"This is where some SDA posters lose me".

No confusion from me. I think abortion should be available for emergency situations first off, and available for any mother that wishes to abort her kids, providing it’s not my dime paying for it. I won’t step in the way of natural selection.

The big issue for me is paying for it. I’m sick and tired of carrying these losers in our society that can’t survive on their own, much less feed themselves or raise children.

GYM and dave entirely miss the point. We’re talking justice and mercy here, concepts these shallow-brained sheeple seem unable to grasp.

At the top of the thread I wrote, “Linda Gibbons . . . uses the Gandhi and Martin Luther King Jr. tactic of non-violent, civil disobedience . . .

“Linda Gibbons is Canada’s Rosa Parks . . . our very own prisoner of conscience.”

It was non-violent, civil disobedience, you two, that lead to the change of unjust and repressive laws—or do the two of you support colonialism and racism? (One needs to think through one’s arguments . . .)

dave writes, “the Tamils, striking unions, natives, [and] the Black Block all seem to break the law with impunity and each time it weakens our society. Respect and upholding of our laws is the basis of democracy. [So far, so good.] You can't be selective of which one you support due to personal feelings”. Is that so? If what you say is true, how come we bother with Parliament and a court system, where laws are challenged—and changed—all the time?

The equivalency dave’s trying to make—typical, lefty tactic—is bilge: to contradict his misunderstanding, in theory, Canadians are free to NOT support any law they like, any time they like: it’s HOW they do it that’s germaine to this situation. E.g., Unlike the left-protected groups—socialism and multiculturalism run amok—in dave’s list, I guess he and GYM haven’t noticed that Linda Gibbons causes harm to no one. (Well, of course, witnessing to the truth of abortion, by her quiet presence and prayer, is an affront and does violence to the lefty brain.)

To equate the non-violent, very quiet, and merciful (re both child and mother) actions of Linda Gibbons—who is breaking a selective, unjust, repressive, NDP imposed law—with “Tamils, striking unions, natives, [and] the Black Block” is the height of idiocy. Add to that the fact that Linda also quietly accepts the punishment meted out to her by the thuggish, arbitrary actions of the state, and dave and GYM’s “argument” is entirely undermined.

GYM and dave, read and inwardly digest what I’ve written here. It may help you: logic beats bombast and shallow thinking every time!

GYM and Dave have missed the point.

What more can be said other than why should our money be used to eliminate babies?

Um Dave, please a holy book written hundreds of years ago is not going to have a chapter on Abortions nor face lifts nor dick implants. Pluseeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee.

As usual whenever anyone challenges Lookout and her ilk she reverts instantly to what we conservatives accuse the left of always doing, personal attacks, ad hominems, shallow thinking, racist, stupid, unable to grasp her simple statements.

In this case I am also accused of "typical lefty tactic". Tell this to John Tory, John Carmichael and all the other Conservative candidates I have worked diligently for in the past elections, succeeding in helping getting Carmichael to Ottawa in May. As a conservative poster to my favourite site SDA for several years I should have known better than to comment on this subject as I have read Lookout's snarling belittlement of anyone who crosses her Christian ideals.

One of the constant queries by my real lefty friends, mostly teachers, is the accusations of Conservatives being made up of the religious right. Our former Liberal MP, Oliphant, told me several times about his fear of the religious right, which I said was nuts. Reading Lookout, Rose and other's comments makes me think Oliphant may have been on to something.

If you don't like the law work to change it. No one said our laws are cast in stone, never subject to change. Gibbons knows the law, chooses to ignore it and pays the penalty. Of course if the province is forced by her to enforce the law Lookout's reasoning is then the province is thuggish.

How about we arrange for a homeless group to live in front of your house door, Lookout, they will be non-violent, very quiet and merciful. Though they will be breaking the law of trespassing I am sure you in your heart of hearts will be compassionate and understanding.

You have won Lookout, as it is pointless, as ET has shown, to discuss any subject that touches upon religious beliefs as that becomes the focus instead in this case of our laws and logic and reasoning quickly disappear.

If dave wants to be persuasive, I think a course in Logic 101 might be helpful. (As would disguising his obvious anti-Christian bias.)

dave seems to think I used religious/theological arguments to make my case about Linda Gibbons's situation. I've looked and don't see any such thing. Mere assertion isn’t very useful for making dave’s case.

dave: "If you don't like the law [,] work to change it." Hmm, Linda's doing that. (And taking the consequences.)

dave again: "No one said our laws are cast in stone, never subject to change." OK, but let’s make an inference: earlier he wrote, “Respect and upholding of our laws is the basis of democracy. You can't be selective of [sic] which one you support due to personal feelings.”

So, if we must “support” all laws—“you can’t be selective”— how would it be valid to change laws we think are unjust and arbitrary?

And if, as dave concedes—thus contradicting himself—that laws can be subject to change, but we aren’t supposed to make selections based on our personal feelings (arrived at, one hopes, via assessment of the facts), on what basis is the citizen to begin to challenge any law? As I said before, one needs to think through one’s arguments . . .

Non-sequitur on every count: “How about we arrange for a homeless group to live in front of your house door, Lookout, they will be non-violent, very quiet and merciful. Though they will be breaking the law of trespassing I am sure you in your heart of hearts will be compassionate and understanding.” Surely, dave can do better than that. (Rhetorical comment.)

Dave and Gym, your points are well taken. I don't know Linda Gibbon's history, I'm taking Michael Coren at his word that she's doing time for non-violent sign carrying outside abortion clinics.

I'm all in support of non-violent sign carrying, seeing as how that's what has gotten Gary McHale tossed in jail for 48 hours.

Others are getting away with shutting down highways, rail lines, beating people, X-rated Gay Pride Parade, etc.

The important point for me is the blatant abuse of power. Union protesters get to burn cop cars, abortion protesters get jail. You don't have to be bigtime pro-life to have a problem with that math.

Okay, here we go: This case illustrates beautifully the main weakness in socialism. The socialist believes in the law, above all else, as it is the system that ensures that all square pegs go in square holes, round pegs in round holes, etc., and guarantees the order that most lefties crave in their lives (read: laziness in personal affairs so someone else, like the government, can tell them what to do, how, where, when, etc. without the usual accompanying responsibilities). So rules, such as the law, is what they respond to the best. Unfortunately, this system is a legal system, and not a justice system. It's really a question of morals vs ethics. A moral person has two options: right or wrong. An ethical person has three: right, wrong, or that ephemeral state of "not wrong". This is what allows the lefty to justify things like throwing a peaceful protester in jail for longer than Karla Homolka. They can always say they were "not wrong" and "ethically correct", nevermind that they are morally bankrupt. It's in this grey area of ethics that evil lives, as it justifies committing wrong and hurtful acts against morally innocent people. Typically, in my experience, conservatives are more inclined to do what's right morally, ethics be damned, while good socialists would never, never break a law even if it meant good people are punished because of some arcane interpretation of said law, especially if it serves their purposes politically.

And it took only hours for the obese Yankee imperialist Michael Moore to offer her a job. Let’s hope it doesn’t involve going out to get the man’s Big Macs — the girl will be run off her feet!

No mirrors in corpulent Coren's glass house?? Proving yet again there ain't no hypocrite like a right wing hypocrite.

Hey, phil, you’re somewhat off base here. Check out Michael Coren on his show: he's looking positively svelte these days, WAY smaller than the corpulent, other Michael.

Dave. The Bible repeatedly offers up a phrase that describes one of the vilest and abhorred acts that G-d condemns “The shedding of innocent blood”. “ Innocent blood” refers to the sacrificing of children to the idols such as Molech, it sometimes refers to murder and never refers to battlefield bloodletting. For this shedding of blood, Israel (the apple of G-d's eye) was subjected to conquest and exile. The judgement fell on the entire nation as this shedding of blood is seen as a national crime. Pro-abortion advocates will even tell you; Canada is the only nation who has NO LAW controlling abortion. Despite the technology of today “The shedding of innocent blood” is the most accurate description of the act of abortion. That blood is not the mother’s own and it is being offered up for the same goals that blood was offer to the idols. Prosperity, power and sex.

Lookout, you seem to be terminally stupid. Talk about having zero logic.

One small example may work as anything challenging seems to be beyond your capabilities. The speed limit for the 400 series of highways is set by the Highway traffic act at 100 kmh. We support and obey that law, paying a fine if we ignore the law and exceed it, are you still following this? If it is deemed, as studies have shown, that 120 kmh should be the maximum speed and the law is changed to reflect the new speed we now support the new limit as the law. See that wasn't too hard was it?

Reread your condescending posts, abortion isn't the issue except you made it your whipping point because Gibbons is , in your view, breaking an unjust law so she is a heroine.

Phantom, I believe McHale was thrown in jail for carrying a Canadian flag. He was protesting not unjust laws but protesting that the backbone of democracy, the rule of law, was not evenly applied by that coward McGuinty and the incredible abandonment of Caledonia citizens as written about by Blatchford. Doubtful Lookout could link the two.

dave clearly doesn't know what he's talking about—or what I am, for that matter. And, if it punched him in the nose, he and logic would still be miles apart. (As penny used to say, “Is he a young person, perchance?”)

(Re the speed limit, it’s an established fact that it’s regularly set @ 20 km below the safe speed of normal traffic flow, which most drivers observe. Check it out: most drivers travel 60 in a 40 zone, 80 in a 60 zone, and 110-120 in a 100 zone. The limit is set to gain revenue. By dave’s narrow and unhelpful definition, this massive flouting of the law is a major insurrection by normally law abiding citizens. Right here. Right now. In Canada. On the highways and byways of our cities. Help!)

Laws are broken all the time, in big, violent ways—Caledonia—and minuscule, non-violent ways—Linda Gibbons. That the law turns its back on the big, violent ones and severely and, in the opinion of most of us here, unjustly punishes a passive and peaceful Linda Gibbons is the issue, which started this thread and which dave still doesn’t get.

One more time: when the state uses its considerable power to apply the law in an arbitrary manner, depending on one’s group affiliation, that’s where we see a break down in the rule of law. That’s what’s happening here, and Linda Gibbons is a victim of injustice—one she accepts—but it’s an injustice, just the same.

Lookout as I thought you would be too stupid to follow the simple example I wrote about laws and how they are changed to reflect new conditions. You rail on about speed zones and flouting this example of a law subject to change.

Wow, you really are thick as a brick. Its pointless even discussing anything with you. Are you sure you are not a lefty troll, you seem to display the same dogged mind set?

dave, I don’t quite understand the vehement and most unattractive animus of your posts. Besides your up-front, anti-Christian bias (if not, bigotry), perhaps it has something to do with the fact that you don’t appear able to process logical argument. So, I'll cease and desist in that department.

If I weren’t writing for a larger audience than you, a lesson for me, I guess, which the Bible, as usual, provides—the minds that created it understood human foibles and provided words of wisdom to deal with all our weakness—would be: “Give not that which is holy unto the dogs, neither cast ye your pearls before swine, lest they trample them under their feet . . .” (Matthew 7:6) Amen.

Over and out.

Posted by: dave at June 13, 2011 9:30 AM: "Lookout, you seem to be terminally stupid. Talk about having zero logic."

Dave, logic is based on cause and effect on the space/time continuum. E.g: "If an innocent baby dies in the womb, and abortion was the cause, then abortion killed the innocent baby the womb."

Now, can you please explain to me from your pseudo-intellect how the above statement breaks the rules of logic?

You don't have to believe in God to understand that abortion is illegitimate killing -- I'm sure there are complete athieists out there who understand that, but they don't get any press.

JJ

Exactly