Wow, UK has lost freedom of speech

[Steve]

Oh good, let's just abandon the process then.


May contain traces of irony.

Trials and courts? Who needs them. Just let the police on the spot be judge and jury! Kinda like ICE.

 

[smartcooky]

When someone is all in on the idea that a person is arrested due to a "thought crime" I think they're always going to be resistant to any viewpoint they disagree with as well.

No, it doesn't work like that.

 

[catsmate]

That's really bloody rich coming from you!

In my office upstairs I have a souvenir from my time working as a volunteer guide at a women's health clinic in USAia, escorting women past the horde of god botherering scum screaming abuse at them.

The .45 bullet taken from my SC Standard vest.

So I'm really uninterested in your opinions.

 

[smartcooky]

Oh good, let's just abandon the process then.


May contain traces of irony.

Yes. Begin by not arresting people for things that are not crimes.

 

[Emily's Cat]

Sigh. No it's not, it's prosecution of a stated intention, i.e. an attempt.

You're not wrong, technically.

But it gets a bit fuzzy when the stated intention is "I'm going to silently pray for the soul of my offspring that was killed here decades ago, and I view my silent prayer as a silent protest"

Even if you don't agree with the person's belief that it was murder, you should at least be able to recognize that a silent activity that isn't blocking anyone's ability to enter the premises is pretty damned benign.

 

[Steve]

No, they are not. The embassy itself is restricted, not the surrounding area.

Sorry, sometimes my idea of humour is rather singular

 

[Steve]

No, it doesn't work like that.

It works exactly like that.

 

[Hercules56]

No, the act of demonstrating or protesting is illegal in that location. He stated publicly his intention to demonstrate in that location. That is evidence. He then proceeded to enter that location in accordance with his stated intentions. That is evidence. We have only his word about what he was thinking during that demonstration. Praying - who knows? There is no evidence. Can you provide evidence that he was actually praying silently? What there is evidence for are his actions., and that is why he was arrested.

His act of protest, however, should have been legal based on the content of the act itself.

This isn't rocket science.

Silent prayer even one foot from a abortion clinic should not be illegal. It's absurd to think otherwise.

 

[Hercules56]

No. It's allowing women to exercise their freedom without harassment. But then you don't care about women, do you?

Silent prayer on a public sidewalk is not harassment. Unless you want to live by the rules of an authoritarian regime.

 

[Hercules56]

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

Apart, of course, from that it’s "a publicly owned and maintained sidewalk"?

It wasn't necessary. It was a choice.

And if your intention is to engage in silent protest or other forms of civil protest activity, it should be completely legal.

I understand many forms of protest against abortion are horrible and harassment and disgusting. But those should not cause civil acts of protest and polite acts to be illegal.

I have an amazing idea!!! I can't believe I just thought of this it's incredible!!

Let's make overt acts of harassment and incivility near all medical facilities illegal.. BUT allow silent prayer and other acts of civil protests legal.

Isn't that an amazing idea? That way we prevent jerks and ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ and morons from disrupting and offending people, but allow people who are willing to be civil to engage in civil and polite acts of protest.

 

[Steve]

Yes. Begin by not arresting people for things that are not crimes.

The crime was defined by law before the event. The dude knew that. He chose to commit the crime anyway, and was properly arrested by those who knew the law.. He was convicted based on an interpretation of the law by a court. And was exonerated based on a different interpretation of the law by a higher court. A decision which invalidates the original law and makes it unlikely that similar arrests will occur in the future. The courts determined that a law passed by legislators was invalid. Which is how things work in most western countries. Absent the courts and this process there would be no method to review the laws passed by legislators and many more unjust arrests would result.

 

[smartcooky]

The crime was defined by law before the event.

No, it wasn't. Burning the Qu'ran was not a crime.

The dude knew that. He chose to commit the crime anyway

And as it turns out, it wasn't a crime. Dude knew that.

...and was properly arrested by those who knew the law.

Well, they clearly didn't know the law, did they?

The first step in the process of punishment.

He was convicted based on an interpretation of the law by a court.

The next step in the process of punishment.

And was exonerated based on a different interpretation of the law by a higher court.

And rightly so

A decision which invalidates the original law and makes it unlikely that similar arrests will occur in the future.

(There aren't enough laughing dogs to truly do this statement justice)

The courts determined that a law passed by legislators was invalid. Which is how things work in most western countries. Absent the courts and this process there would be no method to review the laws passed by legislators and many more unjust arrests would result.

I have ZERO confidence in this part of the process. From my observations of what is happening right now in the UK, this sort of thing won't happen again until it inevitably does happen again.

 

[plague311]

You're not wrong, technically.

But it gets a bit fuzzy when the stated intention is "I'm going to silently pray for the soul of my offspring that was killed here decades ago, and I view my silent prayer as a silent protest"

Even if you don't agree with the person's belief that it was murder, you should at least be able to recognize that a silent activity that isn't blocking anyone's ability to enter the premises is pretty damned benign.

Ah yes, special pleading.

ETA: Where did you get the hilited from? I can't find anything saying that the fetus was killed there....only that the kid died from abortion.

 

[plague311]

Well, I decided to do a bit more digging and found out some interesting things.

First, the source. Just so we're all on the same page. Now let us look at the facts, shall we?

He attested that he had been engaging in silent prayer as a vigil for his unborn son following an abortion procedure 22 years ago.

"He" being Adam Smith-Connor. I can find no evidence that the fetus was aborted at this site. Adam certainly never makes that claim as far as I can tell and I'm on my 3rd source.

Some of the facts surrounding the law:

The order, which was due to be in place for three years, is intended to prevent “protesting… with respect to issues relating to abortion services”...“includes but is not limited to graphic, verbal or written means, prayer or counselling”. Another restricted activity is listed as “holding vigils’ [sic] where members audibly pray if they perceive a service-users [sic] is passing by”.

Really no wiggle room here. It specifically says praying and holding vigils. Quite literally the two things he said he was going there to do.

...Mr Smith-Connor affirms that he is aware of the so-called “safe zone” around the clinic while speaking to a community safety accredited officer who informed him that he was believed to be in breach of the order.

Remaining in the safe zone after being asked to leave...could result in a fine or prosecution.

He was again, politely informed of the consequences, but here's the real kicker:

The restrictions apply from 7am to 7pm on weekdays.

What's that you say? He didn't have to be there in the middle of the weekday? No kidding. It's almost like he went out of his way to break the law, then when he broke the law and got pegged for it, now he's offended it happened.

This is typical baiting and the usual members that are egging it on here have never done so in any other thread. This is peak hypocrisy.

Now I know what you'll say, 'iT dOEsn'T MatTeR, tEh LAw iZ bAd". No, it's really not. It was put into effect for a short period of time to allow women to get a procedure done while not being judged by people. He was given ample time to pray or hold a vigil that wasn't during that time. He chose to break the law, whether you like the law or not, and suffered the consequences.

/thread

 

[Steve]

No, it wasn't. Burning the Qu'ran was not a crime.

And as it turns out, it wasn't a crime. Dude knew that.


Well, they clearly didn't know the law, did they?

The first step in the process of punishment.


The next step in the process of punishment.


And rightly so



(There aren't enough laughing dogs to truly do this statement justice)


I have ZERO confidence in this part of the process. From my observations of what is happening right now in the UK, this sort of thing won't happen again until it inevitably does happen again.

So describe a different, more fair, process that does not involve the police enforcing the law as written. Should legislators be stopped from passing laws? Should courts be stopped from interpreting the written laws based on evidence presented at trial? Should trials be abolished? Should the arresting police be the sole arbiters of guilt? Should laws be abolished in favour of anarchy?

I concur that burning a Koran should not be a crime. So describe the process that would prevent an unjust interpretation of laws.

 

[Steve]

His act of protest, however, should have been legal based on the content of the act itself.

This isn't rocket science.

Silent prayer even one foot from a abortion clinic should not be illegal. It's absurd to think otherwise.

Deleted. My comment appears to have been incorrect. Thanks to plague311 for providing the correct info.

 

[Emily's Cat]

Ah yes, special pleading.

What part is special pleading? That doing something silently inside your head while not obstructing other people shouldn't be a crime, and that it doesn't matter how evil the thoughts inside their brain are?

ETA: Where did you get the hilited from? I can't find anything saying that the fetus was killed there....only that the kid died from abortion.

I assumed it, I could certainly be wrong.

 

[plague311]

What part is special pleading?

But it gets a bit fuzzy when the stated intention is "I'm going to silently pray for the soul of my offspring that was killed here decades ago, and I view my silent prayer as a silent protest"

That part. Where you say that it gets fuzzy when his specific scenario is brought up. That's special pleading. You're saying that he should be able to do what others can't because he had a special circumstance. One that, as I showed, isn't even true.

That doing something silently inside your head while not obstructing other people shouldn't be a crime, and that it doesn't matter how evil the thoughts inside their brain are?

You're getting there. You're so close. So we agree that the thoughts in his head make absolutely no difference at all, right? They just don't. That's not what he got in trouble for and, again, you're asking for him to be able to break a law that he absolutely didn't need to break. He had plenty of time to do it. In fact, he had more convenient times to do it, I would argue.

I assumed it, I could certainly be wrong.

You are. Happens to all of us.

 

[Darat]

No. It's allowing women to exercise their freedom without harassment. But then you don't care about women, do you?

It is also allowing residents near the place, workers at other businesses the ability to go about their daily life without harassment and intimidation. People in the UK have other rights than just the right of freedom of expression, as usual in a society different rights have to be balanced out with other rights.

 

[Darat]

The fact he was ULTIMATELY exonerated does not compensate or rectify the fact that he was put through a process that he should never have been put through in the first place.

And that is the plan. Even when authorities KNOW the accused will ultimately be exonerated, they still put them through the process to dissuade others and chill free speech. These things happen too often for it to be mere coincidence.

The process IS the punishment!

Your legal system works exactly the same way, cases have to go forward so that precedents get set, it happens with pretty much all legislation in countries based on the British system, such as the USA and New Zealand.

Yeah it can be really crap for the person or persons involved but what it means is that next time the prosecution services won't prosecute such cases and the police won't put possible charges to the prosecutors in the first place, and they won't arrest people for the same type of behaviour.

We will soon be seeing the same happen with the last Tory legislation crack down on protesting, some of the cases are being appealed, and I bet the courts again narrow down the meaning of the language.