The Acceptability of Hatred
or... shouldn't police protect us all?
Featured Rightgrrl May 1999
August 23, 1999
Recently I was involved in a discussion regarding whether a pro-life person choosing not to become a police officer was guilty of "hatred".
A pro-life woman, active and well-known within the pro-life community, told of how she had advised her son that if he became an officer, he would be duty-bound to protect the property of abortionists. He chose to select another career.
On a pro-choice forum, the comments of this pro-life woman were used to begin a discussion as to how this "attitude" constituted hatred. Despite efforts to show that this man was excercising his right to "choose" a career he could give his total devotion to, the choicers remained convinced that his admission he could not in good conscience, protect the property of an abortionist meant that he was guilty of hatred. Protecting the person was apparently not enough. It seems they felt that in saying he could not protect the very paraphernalia used to effect the abortions that he was against, and that instead he would choose to forego his ambitions to become an officer rather than go against his personal morals, he was guilty of hatred.
Let us now put aside the obvious issue of whether or not individuals opposing abortion should be forced to participate (even indirectly) in them. Let us now examine whether or not this attitude applies in reverse. It seems that a pro-lifer is guilty of hatred if they do not aid and abet the abortion, but is the pro-choicer ever guilty of hatred?
On June 8, 1999, pro-life advocate Bill Whatcott was assaulted, and his property was destroyed by an angry opponent outside the Scott Abortuary in Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
Police refused to act.
Despite the fact that Whatcott had an audio recording of the assault, had names and addresses of two passing-by witnesses willing to assist, and the license plate of his assailant's vehicle, police were unwilling to do anything.
Whatcott waited patiently, several hours for police to arrive at the scene. After a host of police excuses including the typical "a car will be sent shortly", Whatcott and Aid to Women counsellor Robert Hinchey went to 51 Division to file the complaint in person. When they got there, they were told that a car had been sent to the scene, however sources inside the clinic say that at no time did police arrive there that day.
Whatcott again attempted (the next day) to make his complaint. He was told by police, that the situation was "no big deal", and that his complaint "wasn't going anywhere"; their dismissiveness chalked up to their opinion that Whatcott's sign was offensive to some people.
Let a pro-lifer suggest that violence against a choicer is "no big deal", or imply that violence against a choicer or abortion provider is acceptable because pro-lifers find abortion "offensive", and we'll likely see that one on the evening news, broadcast from sea to shining sea! For the officers attending Whatcott though, it was apparently an adequate response.
After Whatcott refused to accept inaction, police finally conceded, but said that the most they would charge the assailant with was mischief. Police refused to take Whatcott's list of witnesses or his audio tape of the attack... but they did choose to threaten his fellow pro-lifer (Hinchey) with obstruction of justice. Hinchey's "crime"? Asking the officers what constituted assault. Mischief for Whatcott's assailant, but obstruction of justice for the pro-lifer wanting to know why his fellow pro-lifers' assailant wouldn't be charged with assault.
More alarming though, is the fact that a staffer at the front desk of 51 Division tried to convince Whatcott that the badge numbers of the two officers he was attempting to complain about (for this treatment) were false. Further investigation proved that Whatcott did not have the incorrect badge numbers. Was it a sorry attempt to keep the original officers from bearing responsibility for their treatment of Whatcott? After all, 51 Division is the "home" of the officer that mocks Whatcott to his face, calling him "Mr. Abortion".
I must now question the logic of the earlier mentioned Pro-choicers, who insisted that it is the fellow with the conscience; the fellow responsible enough to know he would not want to protect the property of an abortionist, who is practicing hatred. Nay, he is saying he recognizes that even the property of an abortioinist deserves to be protected under our laws, but is honest enough to question his own ability to do so fairly. I find that honesty admirable, and as the incident with Bill Whatcott on June 8 illustrates, perhaps more potential police officers should do such soul searching before putting their efforts into obtaining that badge. Perhaps then, we lifers wouldn't have to live ever-fearful that when it is a lifer whose life or property needs protecting, police will not be there for us.
Perhaps though, it's only hatred when a lifer suggests they couldn't protect the property of an abortionist, and not when a police officer refuses to protect a lifer or their property? The more research I do, the more I'm beginning to see that while authorities call in the reinforcements when it's a member of the pro-choice community as a complainant... there's a clear message that it's open season on Pro-lifers, and it's not a big deal at all.
So who is really guilty of the hatred here?
~Paul Tuns - "Pro-lifer assaulted, but Police refuse to act" - July 1999 Interim written publication
~~~Take me to The Home of The HOT Debate~~~
Copyright 1999 by Sass Seagal. Not to be reproduced in any fashion, in whole or in part, without written consent from the author. All rights reserved.