Wow, UK has lost freedom of speech

[Hercules56]

Is it necessary for him to pray on every publicly owned and maintained pavement?

I don't think he has enough manpower to do that.

 

[Ziggurat]

Exactly. The fact that there was prayer involved is totally irrelevant to the case.

Where on earth did you get this idea from? Because it's not true.

And yet posters here keep harping on the praying as if it somehow mattered.

Because it does. The specific content of the prayer don't matter, but the fact that he was praying rather than thinking about fantasy football is in fact central to the entire case.

 

[Thermal]

No, he did not. He notified them that he would be praying at a certain time and location.

If thats all he was doing, why notify council? There is absolutely no need to do so.

He believed he was doing so legally. In fact, in an encounter with police a week before the one for which he was charged, the police told him that he was doing so legally.

And you keep calling it a "demonstration" all you want

Because that's what it was, and why he felt compelled to notify the town.

 

[Thermal]

It's on a publicly owned and maintained sidewalk.

Where it was prohibited by the same law that grants public access.

Sidebar to our UKers: does the municipality own and maintain your sidewalks? Where I live in the US, the property owner owns and maintains the sidewalk, but is required to grant permanent public easement.

Is Herc right?

Eta: googled it, and he seems to be right. Hm. Finally learned something in this thread beyond how important consequence-free bigotry is to some of our members

 

[Steve]

Where on earth did you get this idea from? Because it's not true.

Because it does. The specific content of the prayer don't matter, but the fact that he was praying rather than thinking about fantasy football is in fact central to the entire case.

No. The act is irrelevant. Central to the case is the display of dissent within a proscribed zone.

 

[Ziggurat]

It is endlessly fascinating on this forum to see posters make wide generalizations purporting to support their particular positions based on a distortion of the facts of a singular incident.

"The wrong place" in this case is defined well before hand

You say that as if it changes anything about my argument. It does not.

The "prayer" in this case knew that perfectly well.

As above, you say that as if it changes anything about my argument. It does not.

Under such specific circumstances making a public display of your opposition to abortion by any method is a violation and is liable to be prosecuted.

How much of a "public display" is silent prayer?

The praying aspect is irrelevant

No, it isn't. You declare it to be irrelevant on the basis that a bunch of other stuff gets lumped in as well in the prohibition, but that doesn't change the fact that they have made silent prayer illegal in this instance. That's not irrelevant at all. That's rather the heart of the matter. They have created an actual thought crime.

And on a purely personal level I would consider a person openly praying at me, under any circumstances, to be harassment and an affront to my atheism.

He wasn't praying at anyone.

And on a purely personal level, your atheism seems rather fragile and sensitive, if you can be harassed and affronted by someone's unspoken thoughts.

 

[Thermal]

He was demonstrating solely through the terrible offensive act of silent prayer.

Oh my!! Oh the horror!! Oh the humanity!!

Call the Black & Tans!!!!

The police didn't know what he would do. They are not fortune tellers. They did know what he announced he would be doing was illegal. That's why the cop showed up and explained it to him.

 

[Ziggurat]

No. The act is irrelevant. Central to the case is the display of dissent within a proscribed zone.

You are contradicting yourself. What was that "display of dissent"? In this case, silent prayer. Absent his silent prayer, there's no "display of dissent". The act isn't irrelevant, it's central.

 

[Thermal]

Trick question!!!

It doesn't. Therefore you should not go to prison for it.

Let alone be arrested.

He didn't go to prison, o great observant one.

 

[Darat]

But you cant say at a reasonable volume in front of a abortion clinic "dont get an abortion"?

Or even pray silently?

If there is an exclusion zone you can't do within I think it is 150m.

 

[Helen]

Kool.

Oh, I get it, this is part of US free speech, is it? Everyone gets to have a say in the medical decidions of others? Every procedure is to be on hold until the general public has had a chance to chime in? "Open heart surgery? No, I don't hold with that, that's the devil's invention." "Insulin? Ab-so-lute-ly not! Ditch all carbs, eat nothing but meat, and run a marathon every other day, you will all feel so much better!" "I feel that everyone woukd be much healthier if they micro-dosed belladonna throughout the day."

No? Only abortion? Why is it that the people concerned and their doctors should not be able to make that decision, without getting everyone else involved, just as with all other medical procedures?

Sorry, ot. I realise that even if I have free speech, this is nit the place for these particular words.

See how easy that was?

 

[Mojo]

I don't think he has enough manpower to do that.

Why was it necessary for him to pray outside an abortion clinic?

 

[Darat]

It was made obvious to the police because the police asked, and he answered. Had they not asked, it would not be obvious to them. In fact, they asked because it wasn't obvious. And what exactly does "ostentatious" even mean here? How was he ostentatious?

It seems strange to defend the prosecution of thought crimes on the grounds that if you lie about what you're thinking, you can't be convicted.

He told authorities that he was intending to violate the exclusion zone. There was no mind reading required.

 

[Darat]

Why does silent prayer on a sidewalk cause women stress?

No one has said it does,

 

[Ziggurat]

If thats all he was doing, why notify council? There is absolutely no need to do so.

What does "need" have to do with anything? The question is what he has the right to. First amendment auditors don't have to film police in public places. But they have a right to.

I suspect but cannot confirm that, like many auditors, he wanted to test the boundaries of the law here. Earlier that same year, two other people were charged with similar offenses but with different outcomes. He may have expected similar results here. But it doesn't really matter what he expected or wanted. The important question is, what can the government prohibit? And apparently, the government can prohibit certain thoughts.

 

[Ziggurat]

He told authorities that he was intending to violate the exclusion zone. There was no mind reading required.

I never said there was. The fact that he was honest about what his thoughts were doesn't change the fact that he was still prosecuted and convicted for those thoughts. And again, it's peculiar to defend this power of the government on the basis that you're safe if you simply aren't honest.

 

[Steve]

Oh look, more calls for censorship. How very English.

???

Face it, the USA is nothing special. And attempting to build it up by denigrating other countries is just as pathetic when you try it as when Trump and his cronies try.

Over a thousand posts here and you have made no case for your OP. Useless thread.

 

[Darat]

What does "need" have to do with anything? The question is what he has the right to. First amendment auditors don't have to film police in public places. But they have a right to.

I suspect but cannot confirm that, like many auditors, he wanted to test the boundaries of the law here. Earlier that same year, two other people were charged with similar offenses but with different outcomes. He may have expected similar results here. But it doesn't really matter what he expected or wanted. The important question is, what can the government prohibit? And apparently, the government can prohibit certain thoughts.

No it prohibits behaviour, there was no mind reading or thought policing in this case, he told them he was going to behave in such a way as to breach the prohibited zone. It is quite obvious why his behaviour resulted in the decision it did.

By all mean object to prohibited zones but at least do it on what they are rather than your silliness of “thought policing”.

 

[Steve]

What does "need" have to do with anything? The question is what he has the right to. First amendment auditors don't have to film police in public places. But they have a right to.

I suspect but cannot confirm that, like many auditors, he wanted to test the boundaries of the law here. Earlier that same year, two other people were charged with similar offenses but with different outcomes. He may have expected similar results here. But it doesn't really matter what he expected or wanted. The important question is, what can the government prohibit? And apparently, the government can prohibit certain thoughts.

Seems that the actual prohibition, and the reason for his arrest, was against his actions and not against what he was thinking.

 

[smartcooky]

Being drunk isn't an offence over here, being drunk and disorderly is.

Burning a Koran over here isn't an offence, but burning a Koran and being being publicly disorderly is.

The disorderly chage was a means to an end. This becasme obvious when the CPS were told what he did was not a crime, so they trumped up another change to get him. Blasphemy laws by the back door.

If you watch the video, you'll see the scummy prick who went back onto his house to get a knife came at him with that knife, threatened to kill him, spat at him, kicked him several times when he was on the ground, and threatened an bystander who tried to get him to stop. The attacker, Moussa Kadri, was given a ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ suspended sentence after pleading guilty to assault and having a bladed article in a public place. He served not a day in prison for the vicious assault (one that he carried out because he was butthurt by someone who burned his precious work of fiction) ... not a single ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ day


Now, if that had been a far right person attacking a Palestinian protester in the same way, you can't tell me that he would not have been locked up for a couple of years. Remember..

- Lucy Connolly, white woman, wife of a conservative politician, stupidly posts some admittedly inciteful words on Twitter, deletes then and apologises - pleads guilty and is sentenced to 30 months prison

Moussa Kadri, Muslim, carries out a brutal and vicious attack while carrying a knife, on a man who is legitimately protesting against th attacker's religion - plead guilt and gets a suspended sentence

Two-tier justice at its most obvious.