Wow, UK has lost freedom of speech

[LondonJohn]

Its not the job of govt to be your emotional protector or shrink.

Yes it is. In a proportionate way, of course. And in this particular instance, it's been judged (correctly, IMV) that the rights to non-harassment/non-shaming/non-threatening of women facing an abortion - with all the fear, vulnerability and dehumanisation that may entail - trump the rights of people to demonstrate against said women as they approach the abortion facility.

 

[Hercules56]

Yes it is. In a proportionate way, of course. And in this particular instance, it's been judged (correctly, IMV) that the rights to non-harassment/non-shaming/non-threatening of women facing an abortion - with all the fear, vulnerability and dehumanisation that may entail - trump the rights of people to demonstrate against said women as they approach the abortion facility.

The need of some women to not feel intimidated or shamed does NOT trump the right of the people to peacefully and civilly express their views on public land.

You have it all wrong, bud.

You guys are gonna regret your shift towards authoritarianism. They always do.

 

[catsmate]

Yes it is. In a proportionate way, of course. And in this particular instance, it's been judged (correctly, IMV) that the rights to non-harassment/non-shaming/non-threatening of women facing an abortion - with all the fear, vulnerability and dehumanisation that may entail - trump the rights of people to demonstrate against said women as they approach the abortion facility.

Certain people care more about the theoretical than actual consequences to real people.
It's akin to the old notion of ideological purity

 

[Carrot Flower King]

The need of some women to not feel intimidated or shamed does NOT trump the right of the people to peacefully and civilly express their views on public land.

You have it all wrong, bud.

You guys are gonna regret your shift towards authoritarianism. They always do.

If folk protesting about abortion wanted to influence our laws in they way they wish, they would be better off picketing the Department of Health,, the Houses of Parliament and suchlike places where decisions are actually made.

Going to protest at women trying to enter a clinic might make someone think that there is another intention.

And thank you so much for your concern about us and our views of what might be right and proper: we will give that all the consideration it deserves.

 

[Hercules56]

If folk protesting about abortion wanted to influence our laws in they way they wish, they would be better off picketing the Department of Health,, the Houses of Parliament and suchlike places where decisions are actually made.

Going to protest at women trying to enter a clinic might make someone think that there is another intention.

And thank you so much for your concern about us and our views of what might be right and proper: we will give that all the consideration it deserves.

I think they want women to make the choice to not abort. They should have the right to do it peacefully and in a civil manner on public property.

 

[Carrot Flower King]

I think they want women to make the choice to not abort. They should have the right to do it peacefully and in a civil manner on public property.

I cannot agree that any random member of the public has the right to interfere with someone else's healthcare decisions.

Even more so when many of these "protests" are funded by foreign sources with dubious records.

And it has been pointed out that these sorts of "protesters" could not manage to be peaceful and civil, which is why "no protest" zones were established: if they can't play nice, they can't have nice things.

 

[Helen]

Whether you like it or not, the UK apparently has safe zones, and you are not allowed to protest there. He announced in advance that he was going to do so anyway, so the police came and removed him. He could have continued outside the zone (what was it, 150 meters?), but wouldn't, even though the god he prayed to would presumably have heard him outside the zone as well. Right? He got a slap on the wrist, and all the attention he wanted. Because it is quite obviously what he wanted - why else announce it to the police in advance? He could have gone there and preyed, sorry, prayed, and no one would have been the wiser. So his intent was to provoke a reaction.

He broke the law. There were consequences. There often are

 

[catsmate]

I cannot agree that any random member of the public has the right to interfere with someone else's healthcare decisions.

Even more so when many of these "protests" are funded by foreign sources with dubious records.

And it has been pointed out that these sorts of "protesters" could not manage to be peaceful and civil, which is why "no protest" zones were established: if they can't play nice, they can't have nice things.

It's much the same here because the religious scum "protesters" insisted on harassing women (and that means pretty much any woman daring to try and enter certain hospitals). So, with general support, a prohibition was enacted.

 

[jimbob]

Putting this on moderated status

Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: jimbob

 

[Hercules56]

I cannot agree that any random member of the public has the right to interfere with someone else's healthcare decisions...

Silent prayer on a public sidewalk does not interfere with a woman's ability to get to and from a healthcare facility.

If they did get in the way, they of course should be ordered to cease such activity or be arrested.

Disorderly activity that gets in the way of traffic or is excessively loud or attacks people with profanity or repeated name calling is ALREADY a crime, no need to create a new one.

 

[arthwollipot]

I object to the very existence of "no protesting" zones as a law.

Why? Your free speech is not being abrogated. You're free to protest in any way you want. Just not here. Go over there and do it.

There is no right to not feel such things.

I just demonstrated that there is a right. I quoted the right.

Silent prayer on a public sidewalk does not interfere with a woman's ability to get to and from a healthcare facility.

You vastly underestimate the deterrent effect of shame and humiliation. Of course it interferes with their ability to get to and from a healthcare facility.

 

[smartcooky]

This would be funny if it wasn't so insidious...

 

[LondonJohn]

Silent prayer on a public sidewalk does not interfere with a woman's ability to get to and from a healthcare facility.

If they did get in the way, they of course should be ordered to cease such activity or be arrested.

Disorderly activity that gets in the way of traffic or is excessively loud or attacks people with profanity or repeated name calling is ALREADY a crime, no need to create a new one.

It's really not about physically obstructing women on their way to/from an abortion clinic. It's about demonstrating against women on their way to/from an abortion clinic. As has already been explained to you several times, women considering or having an abortion are often in a vulnerable and fearful state, with deep senses of confliction and dehumanisation. And UK legislators have decided that the rights of these women to attend abortion clinics without being demonstrated against trumps the rights of people to hold demonstrations/protests in the vicinity of abortion clinics.

 

[Darat]

And it isn’t just for the those going to seek advice or treatment these healthcare centres but also for residents who live nearby, in the UK we have our article 8 rights as well.

 

[Darat]

This would be funny if it wasn't so insidious...

Now this one I think you may have got a point, and unfortunately I can’t find the details to know whether it is for simply displaying the “Starmer is a wanker” poster or they were doing something else with the vehicle. If it was just the wanker poster I think the law is being misused as I don’t think given the modern world “wanker” is such an offensive word to give rise to a civil or criminal offence.

The legislation that has been used in this case is about 25 years old and was meant to deal with the likes of boy racers racing up and down a street with loud exhausts, or cars tricked out to have nightclub levels of “music” blaring out. It enabled a warning notice to be issued so that if the vehicle was again caught doing that it could be confiscated. Prior to that legislation there was no legal way for the police to seize such vehicles unless they were deficient in some other way e.g. not street legal, no MOT, no insurance.

 

[Hercules56]

Why? Your free speech is not being abrogated. You're free to protest in any way you want. Just not here. Go over there and do it.


I just demonstrated that there is a right. I quoted the right.


You vastly underestimate the deterrent effect of shame and humiliation. Of course it interferes with their ability to get to and from a healthcare facility.

Not my fault if silent prayer causes someone terrible shame and humiliation. Maybe they need to toughen up a little.

And no, silent prayer does NOT interfere with one's ability to get to and from an abortion clinic. That is not a reasonable POV and no jury would agree with you.

 

[Hercules56]

It's really not about physically obstructing women on their way to/from an abortion clinic. It's about demonstrating against women on their way to/from an abortion clinic. As has already been explained to you several times, women considering or having an abortion are often in a vulnerable and fearful state, with deep senses of confliction and dehumanisation. And UK legislators have decided that the rights of these women to attend abortion clinics without being demonstrated against trumps the rights of people to hold demonstrations/protests in the vicinity of abortion clinics.

So why 500'?? Isn't that distance a bit absurd?

 

[Steve]

So why 500'?? Isn't that distance a bit absurd?

Why not 500? No, it is not absurd.

Actually you have been quite consistent in saying you think any distance is unacceptable, so why would this particular distance be more absurd to you than any other?

 

[Carrot Flower King]

And I'm still none the wiser as to why these characters need to "pray" in those provocative places, when god can, so I'm reliably informed, hear prayers anywhere and everywhere.

And I'm still none the wiser why foreign fundamentalist christian groups of certain political persuasions just happen to fund these characters and their legal fees.

It's almost like someone is being dishonest about their intentions...

Personally I'd be a lot happier if all religions were purely private matters between consenting adults in the peace of their own premises, as the rest of us have no need to know about their beliefs. Well, unless the performative display of ones purity and righteousness and faithfulness is the point.

But not many folk see it the same way.

 

[Hercules56]

Why not 500? No, it is not absurd.

Actually you have been quite consistent in saying you think any distance is unacceptable, so why would this particular distance be more absurd to you than any other?

15' is more acceptable.