• 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

Hercules56 said:
In the UK you guys consider it to be bigotry to protest against abortion???

Wow.
Click to expand...

There has certainly been a bigoted, harassing, intimidatory, just short of outright violence, element to these protests over the years.

Which is why various steps have been taken.

Have your say; just do it somewhere else.
 
Thermal said:
You. Are. Lying.

He was convicted of "breaching a safe zone after refusing requests to move on'. He was not convicted of 'silently praying'.
Click to expand...
What did the "breaching" consist of?

Silently praying.

I'm not lying, you're in denial.
 
I mean, it is well enough known that certain groups in our society (especially those funded by Merkinanian fundamentalists - see this is a relevant use of things Merkinanian) are opposed to abortion.

Most of us, particularly someone seeking assistance at a relevant clinic, do not need to be reminded of this. Don't these characters have anything better or more constructive to do with their time?
 
zooterkin said:
What you cannot do is protest within 150m of an abortion clinic. Since we don't yet have psychic police, someone could quite happily pray silently and no-one else would be any the wiser. That clearly isn't what happened, the prayer wasn't simply silent, it was made obvious and ostentatious
Click to expand...
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.
 
So we're back where we started? You can say exactly what you want, but not exactly where you want to say it, and somehow that is not free speech?

I have to ask why the people who think it isn't, why they think they have a monopoly on defining it - there are always restrictions, so why is a slight geographical adjustment anathema to you?
 
Last edited:
Thermal said:
You. Are. Lying.

He was convicted of "breaching a safe zone after refusing requests to move on'. He was not convicted of 'silently praying'.
Click to expand...
No, you don't understand the argument. He was praying during the activity for which he was arrested, therefore the UK has a law against praying.

He was also breathing. Do you not see how draconian the UK's laws are?
 
Helen said:
So we're back where we started? You can say exactly what you want, but not exactly where you want to say it, and somehow that is not free speech?

I have to ask why the people who think it isn't, why they think they have a monopoly on defining it - there are always restrictions, so why is a slight geographical adjustment anathema to you?
Click to expand...
Especially when the geographical adjustment is based solely on protecting a group of women from being caused undue distress.

Interestingly, a couple of these same posters claim to be staunch defenders of women on another thread. I guess they want to defend women, but also humiliate them when the mood strikes?
 
Mojo said:
No, you don't understand the argument. He was praying during the activity for which he was arrested, therefore the UK has a law against praying.

He was also breathing. Do you not see how draconian the UK's laws are?
Click to expand...
Well, of course. We have the same thing over here: ICE is not kidnapping people off the streets, they are charging them with silently praying in public, which I'm supremely confident most are doing when they see the masked thugs surrounding them.
 
Thermal said:
Especially when the geographical adjustment is based solely on protecting a group of women from being caused undue distress.

Interestingly, a couple of these same posters claim to be staunch defenders of women on another thread. I guess they want to defend women, but also humiliate them when the mood strikes?
Click to expand...

Indeed, Carrot Flower Queen regularly asks what exactly a woman's reproductive rights, a woman's body and a woman's decisions concerning these have to do with any old random man.

Needless to say, she has little time for these sort of "protests".

Oh dear, I married an awful person who doesn't respect freedom of speech...
 
Hang on a mo!

I've been told by a load (and read and heard) of (especially fundy-type) christians that the location of prayer is irrelevant, that it does not have to be audible'n'that, 'cos yer man god always knows.

So why do they have to stand outside a clinic in order to pray? Shirley it would work anywhere? Or is that not the point?
 
Mojo said:
No, you don't understand the argument. He was praying during the activity for which he was arrested
Click to expand...
You don't seem to understand the facts of the case, starting with the fact that he wasn't arrested. He was charged and convicted, but not arrested.

And the activity that he was charged for was the praying. It wasn't some other action that he was charged for, and the praying was incidental. There would have been nothing to charge him with absent the prayer.
 
Carrot Flower King said:
Indeed, Carrot Flower Queen regularly asks what exactly a woman's reproductive rights, a woman's body and a woman's decisions concerning these have to do with any old random man.

Needless to say, she has little time for these sort of "protests".

Oh dear, I married an awful person who doesn't respect freedom of speech...
Click to expand...
I have to admit that I do think a father has some say in that argument, even though he is not the one carrying the child. And by extension, the public should have some say in the limits of each party's rights. I mean, I'm a dad. The kids aren't an abstraction to me.

But yeah, the judgmental bull ◊◊◊◊ from people with no interest but their own self-righteousness has no place in the discussion.
 
Ziggurat said:
You don't seem to understand the facts of the case, starting with the fact that he wasn't arrested. He was charged and convicted, but not arrested.

And the activity that he was charged for was the praying. It wasn't some other action that he was charged for, and the praying was incidental. There would have been nothing to charge him with absent the prayer.
Click to expand...
You do agree that he was also breathing?
 
Mojo said:
You do agree that he was also breathing?
Click to expand...
I presume he was, but the question never came up at trial, which is the easy way to tell that it wasn't legally relevant.

He wasn't charged because he was breathing. He was charged and convicted because he was praying. That was very much part of the trial. It was essential to the prosecution that they establish that, and they did. Why you would think breathing and praying are somehow equivalent or worth comparing escapes me.
 
Carrot Flower King said:
Hang on a mo!

I've been told by a load (and read and heard) of (especially fundy-type) christians that the location of prayer is irrelevant, that it does not have to be audible'n'that, 'cos yer man god always knows.

So why do they have to stand outside a clinic in order to pray? Shirley it would work anywhere?
Click to expand...
No, the Christian God is a very limited and weak creature, who can only hear prayers said outside abortion clinics. He's not some omnipresent and omniscient being who sees you when you're sleeping, knows when you're awake, and knows if you've been bad or good.

That's an entirely different imaginary being.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom