Friday, September 07, 2007

Vote Life, Canada! Video Of News Surrounding Arrest Of Eric Alcock

The shocking details of the "set-up" to arrest Eric Alcock by leaders of the Religious Social Action Coalition in St. John's, NL.


Labels: , , , ,

12 Comments:

At 12:56 PM, Blogger SUZANNE said...

Who's in charge of this Religious Coalition? They should know that a lot of religious people are not happy with the treatment that you got.

 
At 1:55 PM, Blogger Balbulican said...

I really liked the little note you put on at the end (after all the scary, creepy synth music) about the information that omitted in the news coverage. I guess that's because they decided not to support your attempt to use disrupt the meeting in an effort to piggyback your message onto their media coverage.

But the question of omission is interesting, isn't it? Here, for instance, is SUZANNE'S article about your attempt to hijack the meeting.

"The Religious Social Action Coalition is a social justice group from Newfoundland that held a press conference. Eric Alcock of Vote Life, Canada! went to this conference to bring up concerns about the most vulnerable of our population: the unborn child.
But before he had a chance to speak, he was 'detained'.

I find it ridiculous that a Catholic could not bring up human rights issues at a conference held by a religious coalition, whose members include at least two Catholics. It would be nice to find out whether Sister Mary Tee of the Mercy Ecology and Justice Committee, and Pat Kennedy of Development and Peace are also concerned about the poverty of the unborn and whether they approve of the Coalition's course of action towards Mr. Alcock."

Interestingly, what SUZANNE omits from her article is that the meeting had nothing to do with the unborn. It was announcing a specific initiative to end poverty.

You'd think that little detail might be relevant, wouldn't you?

Heh. Carry on. You're great fun.

 
At 6:16 PM, Blogger ELA said...

balbulican,

It's obvious that you don't see the connection between abortion and child poverty, i.e. between promoting the rights of children to proper food, clothing, housing, etc. but turning a blind eye to rights of children to even live.

Is it that difficult to see the hypocrisy in those who speak loudly to end "politically correct" poverty but who would never consider joining a coalition whose aim was to end child-killing?

My former postings and press release went deeper into the subject but I am planning another posting to specifically address it on a deeper level.

Thanks for your interest.

 
At 7:03 PM, Blogger ELA said...

suzanne,

I don't know who the actual spokesperson is for this coalition and it remains to be seen whether they are prepared to discuss the treatment which I received, or if they are prepared to look at the wider perspective on poverty which I was seeking to raise.

 
At 7:10 PM, Blogger Balbulican said...

Well, here's what I see.

A group of people announced their intention of holding an event to announce a new anti poverty initiative.

You're an activist and a propagandist (both perfectly fine things to be, but let's be clear on that.) You decided that this event might provide you with some free media coverage.

You issued a release which made a couple of things clear:
- you intended to attend the meeting and promote your own issue
- you intended to be disruptive.

That's a little old fashioned, but it still works, sometimes.

Now, had they allowed you to make an off topic statement at the meeting, you would have garnered a moment's embarassed silence. However, your actual intent was to get hustled out of the building, on camera. Which you did. It worked, sort of.

(I say "sort of" because you blew the one actual line you had time to say to the camera. Did you notice that you reversed the sentence? Heh.)

However, you've been grimly trying to promote this non event as some kind of free-speech martyrdom. Now, I suspect the limited readership of your blog may actually buy that, which is fine. If this little play was staged for the already converted, well, that's cool.

But really (and I'm doing you a favour here, from one old activist to another)...you won't really convince anyone with this kind of transparent, mock-60s political theatre. Even with folks like SUZANNE grimly trying to take it seriously, it's a bit too transparent.

 
At 8:19 PM, Blogger ELA said...

balbulican,

Vote Life, Canada! is committed to communicating the truth regarding abortion, which, for those who don’t readily connect with the meaning of the word, always results in the violent death of a fellow human being, and a most defenseless one at that.

Furthermore, Vote Life, Canada! works primarily in the area of educating and informing Christian leaders about the injustice of child killing and assisting them in getting their congregations mobilized to vote in accordance with principles which will ensure truly pro-life candidates get elected to office. The interests of the Unborn are best served by having politicians in power who truly respect the rights of unborn, as well as born, children.

These facts are well stated on the Vote Life, Canada! website at www.votelifecanada.ca and I urge you to look a little deeper into our goals and rationale.

Bearing those things in mind, I hope you can see that when the top religious leaders in a province or state launch a unique initiative aimed at addressing a justice issue pertaining to children, which poverty is, it is close to the heart of Vote Life, Canada’s concerns. This coalition was promoted as being the very first of its kind in bringing such a diverse group of leaders together to address what they considered to be a serious and intolerable situation.

Now consider that in our province, as far as I am able to ascertain, no group of religious leaders has ever undertaken such a huge and ecumenical effort to address the issue of child killing which is the most serious violation of justice toward children currently taking place in our province and in Canada. In fact, none of these leaders, some of whom are known personally by me, have gone on public record to say they recognize or oppose the injustice of abortion. They remain silent as far as I know and as far as the public knows, lending support to the thought that they may actually be “pro-choice” clergy.

Any person or group convinced of our viewpoint would be negligent and irresponsible not to bring it to the attention of these leaders and caution them, as well as the public, of the possible charges of double standard [hypocrisy] which could be applied in their current initiative. Remember that these are the leaders appointed to set (and sustain) the stage for the moral and spiritual thinking of an entire province.

Obviously you disagree with the approach taken in this instance and claim that I did what I did because I’m “an activist and a propagandist” and that I “decided that this event might provide you with some free media coverage.” Fair enough, but I am not convinced that you want to seriously debate the principle at stake, which is that unborn children have the first and fundamental right to life, after which other issues of justice pertaining to them, such as “poverty,” may be rightly considered.

So I ask you: How do you suggest the situation should have been handled?

 
At 11:50 PM, Blogger Balbulican said...

Which "situation", ELA?

 
At 6:56 PM, Blogger Balbulican said...

Perhaps you thought that was a flippant dismissal. It was not. I am asking: what specific situation are you asking for feedback on?

- your strategy for gaining airtime for your message?
- the situation of the meeting organizers, seeking to get their own message out and confronted with a disruptor?

I'll gladly provide you with feedback (and will do so on your subsequent postings on this event), but I need your clarification as to which "situation" you are requesting feedback on.

 
At 9:39 PM, Blogger ELA said...

balbulican,

I cut and paste the following from my last comment in order to clarify the question:

"Bearing those things in mind, I hope you can see that when the top religious leaders in a province or state launch a unique initiative aimed at addressing a justice issue pertaining to children, which poverty is, it is close to the heart of Vote Life, Canada’s concerns. This coalition was promoted as being the very first of its kind in bringing such a diverse group of leaders together to address what they considered to be a serious and intolerable situation.

"Now consider that in our province, as far as I am able to ascertain, no group of religious leaders has ever undertaken such a huge and ecumenical effort to address the issue of child killing which is the most serious violation of justice toward children currently taking place in our province and in Canada. In fact, none of these leaders, some of whom are known personally by me, have gone on public record to say they recognize or oppose the injustice of abortion. They remain silent as far as I know and as far as the public knows, lending support to the thought that they may actually be “pro-choice” clergy."

My question, balbulican, is this: In light of the above "situation" and the mission statement of Vote Life, Canada! what do you believe would constitute an effective (and acceptable to you) response?

 
At 11:34 PM, Blogger Balbulican said...

Ah.

Well, there's two levels of response possible here. One is engage in a discussion about the sustantive issue from your perspective. But that's not what I was talking about.

You're soapboxing to me because we're speaking here in a public forum, and this is the medium through which you propagandize. So you've chosen simply to repeat a long chunk of mission statement back at me.

That's okay. But it points out the fatal weakness in your strategy. You're not actually engaging in a real discussion. You believe that your cause is best served by simply repeating your mission in every possible medium.

Now, that's great for the folks who already agree with you. And since there is virtually no discussion anywhere else on your blog, I suspect that constitutes pretty much your entire readership. So if your goal is simply cheerleading...i.e, preaching to the already converted...then carry on.

But if you hope to convince those who DON'T already agree with you...and since you're engaging in public advocacy, I assume you are...then I have to tell you that folks like are simply offended by your behaviour.

I understand you are acting according to what you feel are divine imperatives, and that's certainly cool. But if your goal is to convince, then the spectacle of you disrupting a meeting of good folks trying to do a good thing is simply offensive. It's a turnoff. It's a Very Bad Strategy. It doesn't work. It's enjoyable theatre for the already convinced, and no doubt terrific validation for you...in your circle, you have no doubt enhanced your stature with this spectacle. But if you're trying to persuade...it's a bad approach.

Just a tip from a pro.

 
At 11:37 AM, Blogger ELA said...

balbulican,

We all have our agendas. You being a pro surely know this. I make no secret whatever of my agenda. It fills the pages of this blog and the Vote Life, Canada! website, all carefully put together to create one message:

I, and those who support me, aim to put an end to the legalized killing of children in Canada through lawful and peaceful means. Furthermore, as Christians, it is our God given duty and mission to do so.

I take no issue with being called a propagandist or of grandstanding if necessary to highlight the crimes against the Unborn. But only in the positive sense of these words. I don’t mind in the least offending Canadians who are not troubled by the killing of innocent human beings that goes on in their backyards. In fact I hope to aggravate them, if necessary, into action—again only through legal and peaceful means.

If you have a problem with my agenda, fair enough. But don’t cry about it here on this blog. Start promoting your own agenda on your own blog.

 
At 12:51 PM, Blogger Balbulican said...

"I take no issue with being called a propagandist."

Nor was it intended as an insult. It's an honourable thing to do, especially when undertaken on behalf of a heartfelt cause.

"If you have a problem with my agenda, fair enough. But don’t cry about it here on this blog. "

Cry? Not at all, my friend. This dialogue is being conducted at high level of civility.

However, you have chosen to portray last week's events in a certain light that I feel is unfair to some good hearted people who dont' share your sense of priorities, but who, nonetheless, were trying to make the world a better and more Christian place. I am simply pointing that out for the benefit of your readership.

 

Post a Comment

<< Home

/body>