Toronto Politicians Seek to Ban Signs, Brochures Featuring Graphic Photos of Aborted Babies

Photo Credit: Twitter

TORONTO — A number of politicians in Toronto, Canada are seeking ways to ban signs and flyers featuring photos of aborted babies after some residents have complained that the images are “upsetting.”

“Women find them very upsetting,” City Councillor Sarah Doucette told reporters. “If you have lost a baby, this is very hard to see these sorts of images. Residents are just saying to me, ‘We don’t want to be going about our day-to-day lives and be confronted with these giant images.’”

She said that she plans on speaking to her colleagues about passing a law that would ban the display of such signs.

Fellow Toronto Councillors Paula Fletcher and Mary Fragedakis, along with Toronto District School Board Trustee Jennifer Story, have also sent a letter to Attorney General Yasir Naqvi, requesting that he seek an injunction from the courts regarding the matter.

“These images are placed in people’s mailboxes,” they wrote. “As parents have said to us, their young children often go to get the mail and would be traumatized by the images. Pregnant women have complained that they have been profoundly disturbed by the images.”

The images referred to are displayed by the Canadian Centre for Bioethical Reform, a pro-life organization which utilizes interns and other members to hold signs in the public arena to expose the atrocity of abortion.

“In 2001, the Canadian Centre for Bio-Ethical Reform was founded to expose the hidden injustice of abortion and create a public discussion concerning the rights and personhood of the preborn,” the group’s website states. “Through presentations and graphic image-based projects such as ‘Choice’ Chain, the Genocide Awareness Project, and the Reproductive ‘Choice’ Campaign, CCBR began to force the topic of abortion into the national consciousness.”

  • Connect with Christian News

“In addition to using the scientific and philosophical evidence for the humanity and personhood of the preborn, we must use images of the atrocity of abortion to tear away the flimsy facade of ‘choice’ and reveal what is being chosen: the decapitation, dismemberment, and disembowelment of an innocent pre-born child,” it outlines.

Many of the signs simply read “Choice?” and feature an image of a baby aborted in the first trimester—physical features being clearly visible. The group includes similar photographs in its pamphlets and brochures, which are distributed in neighborhoods throughout the region.

Because the signs are not illegal, and those holding them are not breaking any laws, legislators in Toronto are seeking other means to remove the images from public view.

“Abortion is a legal operation in our country and [the use of the signs and brochures] is an affront to women and to everyone that has worked so hard to have choice in Canada,” Fletcher told Global News. “This is a very pro-choice community and this is why people are so upset. They’re really not welcome in this community.”

However, Devorah Gilman, a spokesperson for the Canadian Centre for Bio-Ethical Reform, said that if the murder of children is so horrifying to look at, maybe it shouldn’t be permitted in the first place.

“If we want to stand up for justice for every member of the human family … the most effective way to do so is by providing people the photographic evidence of what abortion truly is,” she said. “If we’re asking if it is inappropriate for children to see these images, I think we also need to ask, ‘Is it inappropriate for children to be these images?’”

As previously reported, the organization released a report last year outlining its findings that public support for abortion decreases measurably when the public is shown images of abortion victims.

“By canvassing thousands across several neighbourhoods and surveying 1,741 diverse respondents, results found a statistically significant shift in pro-life worldview, a greater negative perception of abortion, a decreased degree of permissiveness and liberalism towards abortion law, and a significant gain in pro-life political views after seeing abortion victim imagery,” the report stated.


A special message from the publisher...

Dear Reader, because of your generous support, we have received enough funds to send many audio Bibles to Iraqi and Syrian refugees displaced by ISIS in the Middle East. Many have been distributed and received with gladness. While we provide for the physical needs of the people, we seek to provide the eternal hope only found in Jesus Christ through the word of God. Would you join us by making a donation today to this important work? Please click here to send an audio Bible to a refugee family >>

Print Friendly, PDF & Email
  • Recognizing_Truth

    Truth hurts. So we’ll just ban all depictions of truth.

    • james blue

      Should gun control advocates show pictures of dead children killed by guns, either negligent discharge or Sandy Hook types of incidents?

      I get your point and don’t disagree with it, but should there be a line and if so where should it be?

      • Nidalap

        If folks started declaring that those children weren’t actually people so their deaths by those guns was morally acceptable, I think you’d move that line toot-sweet…

        • james blue

          I made no comment about the line, however the argument the gun control people make is pretty close to the one you just made.

          So would you agree if the gun control people started showing those pictures?

      • Recognizing_Truth

        “Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.” John Adams

        The problem isn’t “where to draw the line” in how much a government should restrict the freedom of people’s speech (including the written word or pictures). The Constitution is clear: the people HAVE the freedom, the government CANNOT abridge (shorten/limit) the freedom.

        The problem is that we, as a nation, have and are straying so far from a godly morality that the Constitutional guarantees on personal freedom and limits on government authority seem inadequate to the task of a self-governed people.

        The morality of the action is the answer to your perceived conundrum:

        Gun control advocates would show pictures of murdered people (victims of a crime) as they attempt to limit the freedom of OTHER people to bear arms against tyranny and the violent who would perpetrate a crime against them. All data show that far from preventing crime, strict gun control actually creates victims as it leaves them exposed to more crime. It is immoral to willingly (and knowingly – the crime statistics comparing cities with and without strict gun control are available to all) promote an action which will make people more vulnerable to violent crime.

        Anti-abortionists would show pictures of aborted/murdered babies (victims of a crime) to overturn laws that protect those who carry out abortions (commit the crime, murder). It is not immoral to protect the innocent (who are in need of parent, government and health provider protection), and it is not immoral to remove protections for those who willingly hurt the innocent.

        Personally, I stick to argumentation, debate, and reason. In my experience “shock” never convinces anyone of truth – it creates “reactions” instead of “responses”. Therefore, PERSONALLY, I would not employ gory and grotesque pictures to make a point – whatever point would be made.
        But a law to prevent their use? That way lies the death of our country, and the last best hope for freedom:
        Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety. Benjamin Franklin

        • james blue

          The constitution of the united states does not have any relevance in Canada.

          However the question isn’t about free speech, your views on abortion or your views on gun control, it’s about appropriate speech. Even with you not wanting to force others to abide by your personal lines I’m betting you agree with certain bans on pictures in public. Should it be legal for someone to hold up hardcore porn pictures in the streets for example?

          • Recognizing_Truth

            True that the US Constitution isn’t applicable in Canada, but the morality test always applies.

            The further we slide away from godly morality, the more questions such as you pose will come up.

            While if we were restored to godly morality – these questions wouldn’t even need to be asked.

    • Charles Findlay

      This is what the “diverse” “compassionate” history revisionist political correctoids seek.

  • Nidalap

    Freedom of speech…so long as it agrees with our ideology…

    • Peter Leh

      yep.

  • Garbage Adams

    Those graphic signs have been proven not to work, all they do is infuriate people against the people who are forcing them to look at the disturbing pictures. It’s a subtle form of rape. In addition, it’s proselytizing, which is ALWAYS offensive.

    • Charles Findlay

      Jetwash.

    • Peter Leh

      Rape? By Who?

      • Garbage Adams

        All I mean is the sign wavers force you to look at images you don’t want to see. That’s why I said it was a subtle form of it.

        • Peter Leh

          Well.. maybe. which is why I threw the Nazi white supremacist in the argument.

          Sometime we don’t WANT to see what we are doing.
          Maybe pick a better word than rape?

          • Garbage Adams

            I can’t think of one. They are insisting that people see these images. Forcing their will on us.

    • Peter Leh

      “it’s proselytizing, which is ALWAYS offensive.”

      ok.. this made me giggle.

      Cuz it is true… philosophically.

      I wonder If the Nazi’s think they are being “proselytized”? I wonder if we care?