Thursday, November 16, 2017

New FOI reveals even less evidence for abortion bubble zone

Remember I told you about the police reports at 65 Bank St. for 2014 to June 2017? There were 64 incidents in 41 months. That's 1.56 incidents per month. Of those 64 incidents, there were no injuries and no charges laid.

Today I received more information from the police reports. This time for 2010-2013. There were 113 incidents in 48 months. That's 2.35 incident per month. Out of those 113 incidents, there were--once again--no injuries and no charges laid.

This means that in the most recent period (2014 to June, 2017), the number of police reports have actually decreased by 33.6% from the previous three year period (2010 to 2013).

So why do we need a bubble zone at all?

Also remember that the abortion bubble zone law is a direct result of Ottawa mayor Jim Watson who discriminates against pro-life people. Watson initiated this law. Watson also took down our pro-life flag at city hall during the March for Life. Watson also refused to respond to my repeated requests for an explanation for why our March for Life was rerouted so 100 masked thugs could divert 14,000 peaceful people.

I guess we could call Ottawa the abortion capital of the world:

  • No protection for life and no protection for the rights of those who defend life
  • Justin Trudeau is the most pro-abortion federal leader ever
  • Kathleen Wynne and Patrick Brown are the most pro-abortion provincial leaders ever. I guess you could say two for the price of one
  • And now we can add Jim Watson as the most pro-abortion mayor ever

China and North Korea have nothing on Canada. How embarrassing.

Friday, November 10, 2017

Conservatives in Ontario are puppets of the Liberals

During our Charter challenge, the Ontario government was told to overturn this clause Section 65.(5.7):
“This Act does not apply to records relating to the provision of abortion services.”
So what did this bunch do to effect this change? Yes, they repealed the clause. But then they added in a new clause. Now they won't allow anyone to go to a specific hospital and ask them how many abortions they are doing (see in red below):
Non-application of Act, provision of abortion services
(13) This Act does not apply to information relating to the provision of abortion services if, 
(a) the information identifies an individual or facility, or it is reasonably foreseeable in the circumstances that it could be utilized, either alone or with other information, to identify an individual or facility; or 
(b) disclosure of the information could reasonably be expected to threaten the health or safety of an individual, or the security of a facility or other building. 2017, c. 19, Sched. 2, s. 1 (2). 
Same, pharmacies
(14) A reference in subsection (13) to a facility includes reference to a pharmacy, hospital pharmacy or institutional pharmacy, as those terms are defined in subsection 1 (1) of the Drug and Pharmacies Regulation Act. 2017, c. 19, Sched. 2, s. 1 (2). 
Related statistical information
(15) For greater certainty, this Act applies to statistical or other information relating to the provision of abortion services that does not meet the conditions of clause (13) (a) or (b). 2017, c. 19, Sched. 2, s. 1 (2).
And to add insult to injury--they stuck this new section into Bill 163, Protecting a Woman's Right to Access Abortion Services Act, 2017.

Last time the PCs didn't know what hit them when the Liberals excluded abortion information from FIPPA. They didn't have a clue that it had happened while they slept. This time it's much better--the gutless PCs knowingly voted for the bill.

Thank you Patrick Brown. Kathleen Wynne must love having you in opposition.

Thursday, November 9, 2017

Health Canada ATIP on RU-486

Here is the information for an ATIP I made to Health Canada for the abortion drug RU-486.

There was one document for pages 345-2544. It is too large to be able to access from the Google drive. It appears to be 2000 pages of data, but impossible to decipher what the data means. It also seems to contain data other than misoprostol and mifepristone.

Pages 1-336
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B_QDsYLWnwO6d1lWbDI3MXNNeVU/view?usp=sharing

Pages 337-344
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B_QDsYLWnwO6MlItSm9Yd2lOeG8/view?usp=sharing

Pages 2545-2547
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B_QDsYLWnwO6WDlielFDXzlQLTA/view?usp=sharing

Pages 2548-2968
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B_QDsYLWnwO6azB5SnZqR2tIMU0/view?usp=sharing

Pages 2969-3050
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B_QDsYLWnwO6U19VSzRIWkJpdnc/view?usp=sharing

Wednesday, November 8, 2017

Abortion bubble zone FOI - "open government" is a farce Part II

Further to my last post on the ridiculous discriminatory anti-pro-life abortion bubble zone legislation, I received "answers" to my questions. See Ministry responses below (my points in black, government response in red).

First. You state:
  • "The records at issue may contain personal information and therefore does not fall within the Open Government initiative."
I am not requesting any personal information. If the records I am seeking, do contain personal information, the usual procedure is to redact this information. Therefore clearly releasing personal information to me is not an issue and my request satisfies the Open Government policy.
The Open Government initiative is intended for records that do not contain personal information, are not confidential, are not a risk to security (e.g., of vulnerable or targeted individuals) and do not contain sensitive/legal/contractual agreements. The records you are seeking may require a review in accordance with FIPPA and severances may be applied.

Second. The document you sent me states:
  • "When is it fair and equitable to waive fees?...whether the requester worked constructively with the institution to narrow the scope of the request; whether the requester has advanced a compromise solution which would reduce costs;"
I have twice now agreed to reduce the scope of my request.
Please be advised that the initial parameters of the request were very broad and the fee was much higher. Upon narrowing the request and in the interest of good customer service, the Ministry significantly reduced the fee from $675 for 22.5 hours to $450 for 15 hours.

Third. The document you sent me states:
  • "Generally, the requester must provide details regarding his/her financial situation, which may include information about income, assets and expenses." 
Obviously I have no intention of providing anyone with information "about my income, assets and expenses." This would be a breach of my privacy rights.
Further to the information provided about fee waivers, in order to assess whether there is a financial hardship the ministry has the right to request documentation in order to assess financial hardship.

Fourth. On numerous previous occasions I have obtained FOI information from the Ontario government. Fees have never been requested of me, except once. That one time I complained and that fee was waived. Therefore the Ontario government has clearly demonstrated a history of not charging me fees. Why should fees now be charged?
Every request is different and must be assessed on its own merits to determine whether fees are necessary. Waivers are granted when it is proven that there is a financial hardship (supporting documentation required) or a benefit to the health and safety of the public.

Fifth. You ask me how these records:
  • "at issue will benefit public health and safety". 
This abortion bubble zone law's alleged reason for being, is to protect the health and safety of women who go to abortion facilities. Notice that the intention is to protect these women. I see no allowance in the legislation that would provide protection to pro-life people whose health and safety is frequently in danger from people who spit at us; who rip up our signs; who threaten us; who confront us with verbal obscenities; and who block us from our annual peaceful March for life all the while hiding their identity by covering their faces. Our health and safety is threatened frequently in these many ways but we have no protection against that. This is why I want to be able to understand why this legislation was enacted--why are we not also provided with health and safety protection? Why are we being discriminated against by our politicians and others and why is this discrimination allowed to continue?
Please explain how the dissemination of the records at issue will protect the health and safety of the public per the criteria below:
·         whether the subject matter of the record is a matter of public rather than private interest;
·         whether the subject matter of the record relates directly to a public health or safety issue;
·         whether the dissemination of the record would yield a public benefit by disclosing a public health or safety concern, or contributing meaningfully to the development of understanding of an important public health or safety issue; and
·         the probability that the requester will disseminate the contents of the record.

Abortion bubble zone FOI - "open government" is a farce

Below is an exchange that I had today with the Attorney General's office. The AG wants to charge me $450 to find out how their bubble zone legislation came to be. Legislation which discriminates against pro-life people. Legislation that is not grounded on any evidence. Legislation that all began with Ottawa Mayor Jim Watson.

It wasn't bad enough that the government has enacted this legislation. Now they want to charge me $450 to find out what went on behind the scenes. They don't want me to know what went on. So they put up a financial roadblock. Pathetic. Unprofessional. Discriminatory. Secrecy is still alive and well in the halls of the Ontario government.

Kathleen Wynne's so-called Open government initiative doesn't exist.

__________________________________________________________________________________

Dear FOI office at the Attorney General's office,

I received your letter dated Nov 2 where you informed me that there will be a fee of at least $450 to get the information I requested:
  • "All information provided to the Ministry of the Attorney General from external sources from January 1, 2017 to October 30, 2017 regarding the need for bubble zones or safe access zones." 
Your letter states that I may request a waiver of this fee due to financial hardship of if release of the record will benefit public health or safety. 

First. This fee will indeed cause me financial hardship.

I have already reduced the scope of my request twice (at your request) in order to reduce the amount of information I requested and to lessen the burden on your office.

As a senior on a fixed income; together with the fact that information in custody of the Ontario government actually belongs to the taxpayer (me and every other resident of Ontario); along with the fact that Kathleen Wynne has publicly stated;
Second. Regarding health and safety. To date, we have seen absolutely no evidence of need for this abortion bubble zone. Yet the government has stated that this law is in effect because of harassment towards women who go for abortions. 

Ottawa police records show no charges or assaults being laid against anyone at the Morgentaler facility in a three and a half year period. Therefore my request is a direct attempt to see what evidence the government actually has concerning this reason for this law, based on the health and safety of these women.

I suggest that this fee be waived in its entirety. I am sure you will agree that citizen access to information--which is only held in custody by the government of the day, and not owned by the government of the day--should not only be accessible to those who have the financial means to obtain this data.

I look forward to hearing back from you at your earliest convenience.

Thank you.

Sincerely,
Patricia Maloney
__________________________________________________________________________________

Here is the response I received for my email above from the FOI office of the Attorney General:
Hi Patricia, thanks for your email below. Please note fees are charged in accordance with the legislation to ensure that the burden of processing requests is not passed on to the tax payers.

With regard to Open Government, it does not include the release of personal information, which must be protected in accordance with the privacy provisions of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act. The records at issue may contain personal information and therefore does not fall within the Open Government initiative.

Concerning your request for a fee waiver, thank-you for your explanations. As mentioned in our letter dated November 2, please provide proof of your financial hardship and/or how the dissemination of the records at issue will benefit public health and safety. For assistance, please refer to the “Fees, Fee Estimates and Fee Waivers” reference material produced by the Information and Privacy Commissioner: https://www.ipc.on.ca/wp-content/uploads/2016/11/fees.pdf.
__________________________________________________________________________________

My next response: 

Dear FOI office of the Attorney General,

First. You state:
  • "The records at issue may contain personal information and therefore does not fall within the Open Government initiative."
I am not requesting any personal information. If the records I am seeking, do contain personal information, the usual procedure is to redact this information. Therefore clearly releasing personal information to me is not an issue and my request satisfies the Open Government policy.

Second. The document you sent me states:
  • "When is it fair and equitable to waive fees?...whether the requester worked constructively with the institution to narrow the scope of the request; whether the requester has advanced a compromise solution which would reduce costs;"
I have twice now agreed to reduce the scope of my request.

Third. The document you sent me states:

  • "Generally, the requester must provide details regarding his/her financial situation, which may include information about income, assets and expenses." 
Obviously I have no intention of providing anyone with information "about my income, assets and expenses." This would be a breach of my privacy rights.

Fourth. On numerous previous occasions I have obtained FOI information from the Ontario government. Fees have never been requested of me, except once. That one time I complained and that fee was waived. Therefore the Ontario government has clearly demonstrated a history of not charging me fees. Why should fees now be charged?

Fifth. You ask me how these records:
  • "at issue will benefit public health and safety". 
This abortion bubble zone law's alleged reason for being, is to protect the health and safety of women who go to abortion facilities. Notice that the intention is to protect these women. I see no allowance in the legislation that would provide protection to pro-life people whose health and safety is frequently in danger from people who spit at us; who rip up our signs; who threaten us; who confront us with verbal obscenities; and who block us from our annual peaceful March for life all the while hiding their identity by covering their faces. Our health and safety is threatened frequently in these many ways but we have no protection against that. This is why I want to be able to understand why this legislation was enacted--why are we not also provided with health and safety protection? Why are we being discriminated against by our politicians and others and why is this discrimination allowed to continue?

I look forward to hearing back from you.

Thank you.

Sincerely,
Patricia Maloney