• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Wow, UK has lost freedom of speech

lionking said:
I’m utterly astounded that many people posting in this thread cannot see that a man standing and praying outside an abortion clinic can be harassment and intimidation to at least some women attending. Nobody is denying this fanatic the right to pray to his heart’s content outside the exclusion zone. There are very good reasons for such exclusion zones.
Click to expand...
I get the idea of an exclusion zone - I don't object to that for the most part as long as the zone is reasonably defined. Unless they make it a ten mile zone, or the zone extends to someone else's private property, I think it's a fairly good idea for ANY protest.

What I'm struggling with is the idea that a person standing out of the way and thinking thoughts inside their own head can be reasonably seen as harassment or intimidation. If they're not blocking or impeding people's ability to enter, and they're not interacting with those people, and they're not displaying language or imagery that suggests or supports violence... I just don't see how that can be considered harassment or intimidation without stretching those words all out of shape.
 
Carrot Flower King said:
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.
Click to expand...
Presumably the same reason why catholics feel the need to place memorials and hold prayer vigils at the site of a person's death. It makes no sense to me, personally... but then again there's a lot about religion in general that doesn't make sense.
 
Helen said:
And sometimes 15 feet away. But not 492, because somwhere in between those distances, freedom of speech is lost. So who decides exactly what "civil" means? I have understood that you (as in you personally, possibly, as well as you as in the US) are the arbiter of distances, do you also get to define civil?
Click to expand...
Ultimately a jury decides.
 
catsmate said:
Yeah, that struck me as a weird choice of phrase.

And I agree completely with your sentiment; some of the girls and women I met were seriously ◊◊◊◊◊◊-up by their experiences and situation. Having abuse, the likes of "baby murdering whore" being about the mildest, screamed at them didn't help. We provided earplugs.
Probably @Hercules56 would claim that that was depriving the "protesters" of their right to scream abuse speak freely.
Click to expand...
No, earplugs are fine.
 
Hercules56 said:
If silent prayer intimidates you, grow some thicker skin. See a shrink.

No jury would accept that silent prayer is soo intimidating that it must be seen as a crime. Such a POV is unreasonable.
Click to expand...
I posted this earlier but it bears repeating here, and yes, it is not uncommon for people suffering the effects of verbal abuse to require professional help:

Serious psychological problems can stem from words alone. "Letting them" hurt you has nothing more to do with it than "letting" someone physically assault you. Such problems can be more harmful and long lasting than physical injuries. Words alone can also be extremely dangerous. Most people who convert to various forms of extremism - Nazis etc. - are converted by words alone. The world would be a much better and safer place if people sheltered from that reality understood this.
 
Steve said:
Serious psychological problems can stem from words alone. "Letting them" hurt you has nothing more to do with it than "letting" someone physically assault you. Such problems can be more harmful and long lasting than physical injuries. Words alone can also be extremely dangerous. Most people who convert to various forms of extremism - Nazis etc. - are converted by words alone. The world would be a much better and safer place if people sheltered from that reality understood this.
Click to expand...
The only people who believe people cannot be harmed by words are those who use words to harm others.
 
Emily's Cat said:
What I'm struggling with is the idea that a person standing out of the way and thinking thoughts inside their own head can be reasonably seen as harassment or intimidation. If they're not blocking or impeding people's ability to enter, and they're not interacting with those people, and they're not displaying language or imagery that suggests or supports violence... I just don't see how that can be considered harassment or intimidation without stretching those words all out of shape.
Click to expand...

Ok, what if it's not just 1 person? Sure, it was 1 person this time, but now that he's allowed to be in this zone other religious people want to pray there too! After all, why shouldn't they? Then another...and another...

The fact is this guy could have prayed there 12 hours out of the day, 5 days a week and 24 hours a day for the other two. You might not see it as harassment, and that's fine, but you aren't walking into a clinic to have a traumatic process done, right? It's not unreasonable to ask for a zone that allows them to get their procedure done in peace.

The man was given multiple chances to just go and he didn't. Why not?
 
plague311 said:
Ok, what if it's not just 1 person? Sure, it was 1 person this time, but now that he's allowed to be in this zone other religious people want to pray there too! After all, why shouldn't they? Then another...and another...

The fact is this guy could have prayed there 12 hours out of the day, 5 days a week and 24 hours a day for the other two. You might not see it as harassment, and that's fine, but you aren't walking into a clinic to have a traumatic process done, right? It's not unreasonable to ask for a zone that allows them to get their procedure done in peace...
Click to expand...

Which is why anti-abortion protestors are rightly NOT allowed in abortion clinics, their parking lots, their lobbies, etc.
 
jimbob said:
It also has to not be intimidation. Which is the problem here. And yes, silent "prayer" as a protest cam be intimidation.

Part of the reason for the 150m distance is presumably so women can use the medical service without fear of being identified and photographed.
Click to expand...
If that is the stated reason, then whoever came up with it has clearly never heard of camera drones.
 
Hercules56 said:
Which is why anti-abortion protestors are rightly NOT allowed in abortion clinics, their parking lots, their lobbies, etc.
Click to expand...
Exactly. You're all for curtailing protestors' free speech in these zones. But not right outside their front door.

smartcooky said:
If that is the stated reason, then whoever came up with it has clearly never heard of camera drones.
Click to expand...
Well, since the first exclusion zones were set up in the 90s, before cheap camera drones became readily available down at your local JB HiFi store, yeah...

But it's already illegal to use drones to spy on people, or in certain areas around airports or government facilities, so presumably you're fine with that kind of free speech to be curtailed as well.
 
Steve said:
I posted this earlier but it bears repeating here, and yes, it is not uncommon for people suffering the effects of verbal abuse to require professional help:

Serious psychological problems can stem from words alone. "Letting them" hurt you has nothing more to do with it than "letting" someone physically assault you. Such problems can be more harmful and long lasting than physical injuries. Words alone can also be extremely dangerous. Most people who convert to various forms of extremism - Nazis etc. - are converted by words alone. The world would be a much better and safer place if people sheltered from that reality understood this.
Click to expand...
I suspect the "words can never hurt me" bollocks is part of the endemic rightist "Real Men Don't Cry" meme that is a significant part of their toxic masculinity.
 
zooterkin said:
Yes. Of course, ordinary cameras aren't banned.
Click to expand...
No. Though photography ("photographing a person accessing services" within a Safe Access Zone) is prohibited in Ireland as the nutters tried to use such tactics to intimidate. I believe it may be in the UK.
 
A Falkirk councillor, who was born in Falkirk, and grew up in Falkirk, was criticized and reported to Police for saying she was "born and bred"... in Falkirk


Seriously? Saying you were born and bred somewhere is offensive now?

You know, the scariest thing about this ISN'T the fact she was criticized for it, or even that some pathetic ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ snowflake reported her to the Police - its that she called herself out for it, and apologized! :jaw-dropp

Yes folks, people in the UK are becoming so bloody brainwashed by this crap it defies belief.
 
Last edited:
smartcooky said:
A Falkirk councillor, who was born in Falkirk, and grew up in Falkirk, was criticized and reported to Police for saying she was "born and bred"... in Falkirk


Seriously? Saying you were born and bred somewhere is offensive now?
Click to expand...
Everything is offensive in Britain now.

:(
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom