A speaker from Harvard, whose name I have long forgotten, recited to us the only poem he ever penned. The last two lines of his sole poetic effort linger in my memory: “It’s just the reverse of what Darwin said/We are going back to the quadruped.” The lines are comical, but they remind us that man is a precarious being who is capable of behaving in a rather beastly manner.

According to Aristotle, “At his best, man is the noblest of all animals; separated from law and justice he is the worst.” Thus justice needs to be maintained in order for man to remain human. Justice and humanity rise and fall together. Justice should never be an option. And yet, this must be repeated again and again.

On July 28, 2025, a Quebec Superior Court denied the Quebec Life Coalition the right to freedom of speech and the right to assemble within 50 meters of an abortion clinic. Despite recognizing that the ruling violated the defendants’ legal rights, the Court nonetheless stated that it was “necessary.” Apparently, the alleged “right” to abortion supersedes rights spelled out in the nation’s constitution.

Representatives for the Coalition argue that many people are ignorant of both the nature of abortion and its consequences. Therefore, they maintain, the ruling violates their right to counsel women who are seeking to terminate a pregnancy. In this regard, and in this instance, playing the role of the Good Samaritan (as the Coalition sees itself playing), must be outlawed. Brian Jenkins, speaking for the Coalition, told CBC Quebec anti-abortion group fails to reverse decision banning protests in front of clinics | CBC News that the ruling is also “a blow for women’s rights,” specifically, the right “to be informed.”

Pearl Eliadis, an associate professor at the Max Bell School of Public Policy who teaches civil liberties at McGill University’s Faculty of Law, believes the court ruling was “quite right.” “People can say what they want to say,” Eliadis told CBC, “but that next step . . . when it comes to actually impeding access to health-care services, that takes it to a whole other level.” And, she continued, “when somebody bars that access, it’s a problem. And that’s how the courts weigh the two sets of rights.”

There are two problems of immense significance here. The first is that abortion is deemed a form of “health-care.” Given the extensive documentation of significant adverse effects of induced abortion, it is simply not true that abortion is a health-giving act. To claim such is an egregious misrepresentation—it is most assuredly not healthy for the human feus to be destroyed.

The second problem is more insidious. There is no evidence that Coalition members have blocked access to abortion clinics. That they might do so in the future is pure conjecture. The so-called “next step” has not been taken, therefore, pace Eliadis, it cannot be the basis for a judgment. It is the most grievous form of injustice to indict a person or a group for what might possibly transpire later.

This brings to mind comments that Alexander Solzhenitsyn made in The Gulag Archipelago concerning the Soviet court after the Revolution: “People are not people . . . but ‘carriers of ideas.’. . . It must also be kept in mind that it was not what he had done that constituted the defendant’s burden, but what he might do if he were not shot now.” (My emphasis.)

Pro-life people have been indicted for carrying what others consider a pernicious idea. They must be stopped before their idea is brought into practice. In this case, the Coalition experiences two levels of injustice. It is denied its constitutional rights and then judged for what it has not done. Injustice is added to injustice in a pyramid of injustices.

We might ask, What is this pernicious idea? To defend human life against willful destruction? That could not be considered pernicious if courts remain places where justice is served. Yet, as Aristotle and others have explained, without the law of justice, man descends into barbarism. Abortion, its defense and the castigation of its opponents, is barbarous.

Prolifers, in the spirit of the Good Samaritan, come to the aid of those unborn human creatures who stand to be executed for no other reason than that they exist. It has always been unimaginable that the Good Samaritan would ever be held in disrepute. Until now!

The Good Samaritan enhances justice in the exercise of mercy. The Quebec Court diminishes justice in the exercise of barbarity. Defenders of life are working against formidable opponents, including Superior Court justices. Bertold Brecht once observed that people who have not found truth are fools, but those who have found truth and present it as a lie are criminals. The simple truth is that prolifers are acting in the esteemed manner of the Good Samaritan. They are not criminals.

We do not expect courts to act as Good Samaritans, but we do expect them to honor justice. When they do not, the entire country is in peril. Those who are courageous enough to defend life are at the same time defending their country. They should be honored, not vilified.