OCAC had convinced Dr. Morgentaler to open a clinic in Toronto to repeat the success he had had with his clinic in Montreal. After three jury acquittals, the Parti Québécois government declared they would no longer prosecute a doctor for conducting abortions under safe conditions—in essence legalizing abortion in Quebec. Criminal law is decided at the federal level in Canada, but the provinces are charged with enforcing the law. Quebec would no longer enforce the restrictive abortion law, which forced a woman to appear before a Therapeutic Abortion Committee (TAC) of three doctors who would decide if her life or health was at stake. Since hospitals were not required to have TACs, the largely Catholic hospitals in Quebec provided little access to abortions.

Dr. Morgentaler had asked me to be the spokesperson for the clinic, so at 10 a.m. I unlocked the door. Some of the media had already shown up, and more and more were arriving. The clinic staff were there and a few members of OCAC were outside.

“Can you walk up the steps and unlock the door for us, Judy?” a camera guy asked.

“Sure.”

As soon as I opened the door, another camera crew arrived.

“Can you do it again?” they asked, again and again.

As the time of the doctor’s arrival drew near, there were close to a hundred people from the media—print, TV, and radio reporters, camera people, photographers—standing on the sidewalk and spilling onto the street.

We didn’t expect any trouble that day. Toronto Right to Life, the local anti-abortion organization, had announced that they would not hold a protest; instead they would rely on the Conservative government, then in power in Ontario, to shut down the illegal clinic. Just in case, we had organized a small rally of supporters.

When Dr. Morgentaler arrived, Cheryl, a calm and rational psychiatric nurse, and I were waiting to escort him to the clinic.

“Bit of a crazy scene with all the media, Henry,” I said as he stepped out of the cab.

“To be expected.” He laughed.

Cheryl was behind him on his left side, and I was on his right side, a few steps in front. A white van stopped to let us pass. As I turned to thank the driver, a short but sturdy middle-aged man violently grabbed Dr. Morgentaler’s arm. I stepped between him and the doctor and pulled his hands away, while Cheryl hurried Dr. Morgentaler into the clinic.

“Get out of here!” I said, pushing him away with one hand on his arm and the other on his chest. “What the hell do you think you’re doing?”

“Go away,” he said in heavily accented English.

Then he raised his arm and I blocked his arm with mine. That’s when I realized he had garden shears. He looked me in the eyes and put his arm down.

“I’m not going anywhere,” I replied. “You better get out of here and fast.”

He started to walk away and I was following him when I heard Cheryl, who had come back out and was running down the street, yelling my name: “Judy, stop!”

Her voice sounded very far away, but the urgency in her tone pulled me back to the present. I suddenly realized it was crazy to chase down the man. Dr. Morgentaler was safe; now we could leave it to the police.

That night I was staying with my old friend Susan Swan. I had met Susan two decades earlier at McGill University, where we both worked on the McGill Daily student newspaper. The week the clinic opened, she had broken up with her boyfriend and wanted company. I remember we were watching the news together. The clinic opening was the lead story, and footage of Morgentaler’s arrival played out on national TV. It was only then that I became fully aware that the attacker had raised the garden shears against Dr. Morgentaler.

The phone rang. It was Henry.

“Judy, I wish to thank you for saving my life.” Only when he saw the news coverage did he, too, realize that I had put myself in harm’s way to save him.

“I don’t think he wanted to kill you, Henry, but you’re welcome,” I said with a little chuckle. At that moment, I was still feeling quite relaxed.

That changed the next day. As soon as I woke up, all I could think was I have to go home, I have to go home. I realized something was wrong so I called my therapist at the time, Mark Smith. He hadn’t seen the news so I told him what had happened the day before.

“You’re in shock, Judy,” he said. “Even though you didn’t realize it at the time, you were traumatized by the violence and now you are in shock.” We talked some more and I started to cry. I wound up crying for more than an hour and called in sick to work, taking the day to recover.

The “garden shears attack,” as it has come to be known, has forever defined the pro-choice battle in Canada. A video clip of the confrontation is played on TV every time Dr. Morgentaler or the pro-choice struggle is mentioned. It was the beginning of an intense struggle on the streets, in the media, and in the courts, culminating in the 1988 Supreme Court decision that made abortion legal in Canada, a victory that even the right-wing government of Stephen Harper was unable to challenge. It was also when my public image as a warrior for women’s rights was established both in the public’s eyes and in my own.

I knew that cool, fearless woman who stopped the attack on Dr. Morgentaler: she had been protecting me for years. But it would take longer for me to understand who she was and why she existed than it would to make abortion legal in Canada.

The secret stayed buried for decades, through a clinical depression, several relationships, illness and injuries, world travel, and a life of activism. Here and there an image, a feeling, a shadow, a gap in time would appear only to be quickly relegated to that part of my brain that was separated from my consciousness by a concrete wall. Decades later, a tiny detail put a crack in the wall and before long it came tumbling down.

Excerpted from Heroes in My Head, copyright © 2018 by Judy Rebick. Reproduced with permission from House of Anansi Press, Toronto. www.houseofanansi.com

Our panellists include: Lia Grainger, a This Magazine reporter who visited nine camps across Canada and the U.S.; Krystalline Kraus, an indigenous activist with Idle no More and Occupy Toronto; Humberto DaSilva, a labour activist and organizer with Occupy Toronto; Nora Loreto, a Québec City-based activist who wrote about Occupy Sandy efforts and visited Occupy camps across Canada; and Emmay Mah, an organizer of the People’s Climate March in Toronto who has worked in the non-profit sector on issues such as HIV, child rights and Aboriginal health..

They will discuss Occupy’s effects today: the gains it has made challenging the one percent, ongoing displays of protest and activism, plus its role in inspiring other, modern movements. Panellists will also discuss threats to Occupy’s success and how we can sustain momentum.

The event starts at 5 p.m. and light refreshments will be provided after the talk. Donations are welcome. Location: CSI Spadina, Alterna Room.

Indigenous Day of Action against the G20 in Toronto, June 2010. Photo by Velcrow Ripper.

I am glad This has decided to celebrate this wonderful anniversary by looking at the organizations and individuals who are pointing the way to future change. It is time to stop talking about what went wrong with the left that was so effective in the 20th century and identify the forces who are leading change in the 21st century. Primary among these, in my view, are indigenous peoples and movements.

In Canada, the most important new group is one that many readers of This may not even have heard of: Defenders of the Land. I will let them tell you who they are, as they explain on their website:

“Defenders of the Land, a network of indigenous communities and activists in land struggle across Canada, including elders and youth, women and men, was founded at a historic meeting in Winnipeg from November 12–14, 2008. Defenders is the only organization of its kind in the territory known as Canada—indigenous-led, free of government or corporate funding, and dedicated to building a fundamental movement for indigenous rights.

“We reject the extinguishment of Aboriginal title through treaty, and any interpretations of historical treaties which falsely claim, against the united voices of our elders and ancestors, that we have extinguished title to our traditional territories. We reject any policy or process which aims at extinguishing Aboriginal title, including contemporary treaty and comprehensive land claims processes.

“The Indian Act is a fundamental injustice and the product of racism and colonialism. It has no basis in any treaty and has been imposed on our peoples by Canada without our consent. It imposes on us a foreign system of government in which accountability is to masters in Ottawa and not to our peoples. It denies us our freedom to define for ourselves who we are and who are the members of our nations. Only indigenous peoples have the right to make these determinations.

“We have the right to choose and practice our own systems of government, in accordance with our customs.”

While you may not know their name, you probably know some of their leadership, like veteran activist Arthur Manuel and youth leader Ben Powless. You will certainly know some of the 41 communities actively working together, including Barrière Lake, Ardoch Algonquin, Grassy Narrows, Haida, and Lubicon.

Defenders were also the central actors in the powerful Indigenous Day of Action against the G20 in June 2010. They also organize Indigenous Sovereignty Week, which was held in more than 10 cities across Canada in November 2010. At the sessions I attended, the majority of the audience were indigenous and they were discussing and debating strategies. I learned a lot.

Defenders are working across the numerous divisions created by colonialist structures to build strategies and solidarity among all indigenous peoples, using their wisdom and strength rather than trying to fit into a colonial system—whether it is created by corporations, government or left activists. They hold a gathering every year, bringing together indigenous leaders of land struggles from across Canada, including traditional and elected leaders, elders, women, youth, and non-native supporters. It is the only gathering of its kind in this country.

Defenders of the Land are slowly and carefully building a powerful grassroots movement of indigenous peoples to work together in defending their land and promoting their sovereignty. The primary work involved is indigenous-to-indigenous education on issues, movement strategy, and organizing skills. They are developing a very ambitious plan that needs lots of funding.

One of the central weaknesses of the left in Canada has been our failure to support indigenous struggles and our ignorance of their history and culture. As settlers on this land, we have responsibility to learn and offer support. Because they don’t take government or corporate money, Defenders need financial aid from those of us who support their approach.

But it is not a guilt trip. Canada is a key strategic place in the global ecosystem because of our wilderness, almost all of which is on indigenous lands. Not only is the indigenous struggle key to saving the planet, I cannot see how we have a true democracy in this country based on the exploitation and marginalization of indigenous peoples. For me, indigenous sovereignty is central to progressive politics in Canada.

Defenders of the Land is thus the most exciting organization in the country right now.

Illustration by Antony Hare

The recent U.K. election has raised the issue of electoral reform there, as the Liberal Democratic party made it a condition for propping up the Conservative government. This spoke to social activist Judy Rebick, who is a member of Fair Vote Canada, about her group’s campaign to bring some form of proportional representation to Canada.

This: What’s wrong with our current system?

Judy Rebick: Canada has one of the least democratic systems of election and governance in the democratic world. A party can win, and almost always does, a majority of seats with a minority of votes. Which means that a majority of our votes don’t count. Because it’s a winner-take-all system, if you vote for a person who comes in second, even if there are only 20 votes between them, your vote doesn’t matter. For example, we have a very radical right-wing government that only about 33 percent of the people voted for.

This: How would PR work?

Judy Rebick: There are several different forms of it, so it depends on which one you’re talking about.

This: Ontario had a referendum in 2007 that was defeated. It was on mixed member proportional reform (MMP). What’s that?

Judy Rebick: It can be confusing and there can be variations on how it works. To keep it simple let’s say you get two votes: one for your riding MP and one for the party you support. For argument’s sake let’s also say 50 percent would still be elected by first-past-the-post and 50 percent would be elected by PR.

This: How would the PR members be chosen?

Judy Rebick: You’d likely have to have fewer ridings, maybe double the size right now. And they’d be bigger. And the parties would choose who they appoint to the PR seats they have allotted to them.

This: So in the last federal election, for example, the Green party, which received 940,000 votes and didn’t get any seats, would have some members in Parliament.

Judy Rebick: That’s right.

This: And the Conservatives, who got a quarter million votes in Toronto but no seats would also get some there.

Judy Rebick: Likely. The Tories would have put their own list up and whether they had people in Toronto on the list would have been up to them.

This: Why was the referendum defeated?

Judy Rebick: The government in power is against change.

This: But the Liberals set up the Ontario Citizens’ Assembly on Electoral Reform.

Judy Rebick: And then they sabotaged it. There’s no other way to describe it. It was an excellent assembly. But when the assembly decided to go for MMP they completely cut off its resources. They refused any government financing for the campaign, either for or against. And many of the policy wonks, who supported other purer forms of PR, fought against it because their system wasn’t on the ballot. They said, I’m for PR but against MMP because it gives too much power to the parties, so we should go with STV (single transferable vote), which it was in B.C. But in B.C. they said STV takes away too much power from the party.

This: There are a lot of acronyms. How does STV work?

Judy Rebick: Basically, voters rank candidates in their order of preference by numbering the candidates on the ballot. The candidates with the highest preferences are elected. The idea is to eliminate any wasted votes. It’s used in Australia, for example.

This: But it was defeated in B.C.

Judy Rebick: Barely. It received 57 percent of the vote but the government said it had to get 60 percent. It was insane to ask for 60 percent. Who does that? That was stupid and undemocratic.

This: What do you support?

Judy Rebick: I like MMP. I think our culture and traditions are such that we need to have an MP that we have elected. But what I really think should happen is that we have a referendum on PR and then work out the details after.

This: How do you assess the media’s coverage of this issue?

Judy Rebick: The media is notoriously against having any discussion of democracy. It’s really quite extraordinary. That I don’t understand. It does very little explaining of the different systems and what’s involved in each.

This: Do you think there will be electoral reform in the U.K.?

Judy Rebick: I hope so, but I wouldn’t hold my breath because it’s so hard to make these changes.

This: Will what’s happening in the U.K. help the electoral reform movement in Canada?

Judy Rebick: It’s been discouraging. The proponents of PR in Canada, with the exception of in B.C., have not done a good job of explaining it to the public. I first started supporting PR in 1992 and was one of the first people on a public level to argue for it. Certainly there’s a lot more awareness and support of it now. But it’s just not turned into a grassroots movement. I hope it will soon but I’m just not sure.

Finally, we suggest subscribing to our RSS feed to ensure you never miss a new article going online, and following us on Twitter or becoming a fan on Facebook for updates, new articles and tasty links.

On the cover of July-August 2010 is Katie Addleman‘s feature on the decade-long push for electoral reform by Fair Vote Canada. Though proportional representation seems to have slipped off the radar for the media and many voters, Addleman argues that voting reform—far from being an arcane concept that’s only batted around by parliamentary-procedure–wonks—is a universal issue of civil rights and equality that could put more female legislators in office and restore our badly skewed political landscape.

Also in this issue, Jessica Johnston reports from Abu Dhabi on the Masdar project, a city-sized experiment in sustainable development happening in the desert of the United Arab Emirates. Like Canada, the emirate’s economy is currently dependent on oil; but unlike Canada, she finds, the sheikhs are looking to clean technology to power their economy of the future, while we’ve doubled down on the tar sands. With an estimated 20 million jobs hinging on renewable energy in the next decade, is Canada going to be left behind? and Ashley Walters profiles Joel Theriault, a forestry activist who for years has waged a lonely battle against pesticide spraying in Ontario’s northern forests. His tactics have made him enemies in the logging business, the Ministry of Natural Resources, and even among some fellow environmentalists.

Plenty more where that came from: Bruce Hicks writes about the Harper government’s plans to increase the number of seats in parliament, and why that move may fix some problems, and cause new ones; Raina Delisle exposes the cozy relationship between Shell Oil and Canada’s largest newspaper chain; Andrea Warner suggests that human rights tribunals need to draw the line before dragging in bad comedians; Jennifer Osborne writes us a postcard from the Bangu prison complex in Rio De Janeiro; Navneet Alang says that Google’s spat with the Chinese government is just the latest chapter in a centuries long story of the West’s colonial paternalism towards China; and Paul McLaughlin interviews Judy Rebick about the fight for democratic reform.

Plus: Wendy Glauser on Canada’s very own “Black Panther”; Andrew Livingstone on the Petitcodiac River; Michelle Ervin on natural health products; Lindsay Kneteman on how to improve global maternal health; Sarah Snowdon on next-generation birth control pills; Julia Prinselaar on Canada’s own genetically modified pig; Graham F. Scott on copyright reform; Emily Landau profiles playwright and television producer George F. Walker; Shaun Pett on Canada’s interconnected web of musicians; and Jenn Hardy on food-activist/musician Vanessa Rodrigues.

This issue we’ve overhauled our books section to add more reviews of the best of Canada’s independent and small-press publishers. Eve Tobolka reviews Andrew Potter’s The Authenticity Hoax; Kim Hart Macneill on Clem and Olivier Martini’s Bitter Medicine; Sarah Barmak on Shaughnessy Bishop-Stall’s Ghosted; and Chantal Braganza (our new reviews editor!) on Shane Nelson’s new book of poems, Complete Physical. And we bring you three new poems by Andrew Faulkner, plus a new short story by Eva Moran.

You can also read the liveblog that I was furiously pecking out on an iPhone at the back of the room; of course, it was a little difficult to keep up with the pace of discussion on a three-inch keyboard.

Thanks to everyone who came out last night, to our partners at Rabble, the magazine’s board of directors and interns who did much of the organizing, and of course to the speakers: Robert Fox, Josephine Grey, Judy Rebick, and Antonia Zerbisias. The videos are below.

Judy Rebick:

Antonia Zerbisias

This Magazine

We’ll have more details, including a full confirmed lineup of panelists, in a few days, but we wanted to let you know about this now, since there are so many G20-related events happening in the city over the next month. We think this will be a lively and provocative discussion, so for our Toronto-area readers, please come and participate! What we know right now (and we’re super-excited about this lineup) is that Judy Rebick will moderate, and the panel will include Josephine Grey of Low-Income Families Together, and Toronto Star reporter and commentator Antonia Zerbisias. (I’ll update with panellist #3 when we’ve absolutely confirmed). In the meantime, mark your calendars and see you there!

Where and when:

This Magazine & Rabble.ca present: Speak the F*** Up!

Wednesday, June 16, 2010

Doors 7:30 PM

Clinton’s Tavern (693 Bloor Street West)

RSVP via Facebook!