• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

MP seeks to ban demonstrations outside abortion clinics

Jayhawker Soule

-- untitled --
Premium Member
From the linked article ...

The British Pregnancy Advisory Service says following the easing of coronavirus lockdown measures, five clinics across the country have been targeted by protests.

Speaking in the House of Commons, Dr Huq said lockdown "had provided some respite" from protesters but "now they are at it again."

She told MPs that staff at her local clinic reported "being hounded themselves" while women missed appointments or turned up in tears.

She said women did not need "to be met by lifelike medically inaccurate foetus dolls and graphic images, to be handed misleading literature, be called "Mum" and told they'd go to hell".​

Putting 100 meters between these vulnerable women and a handful of scum intent on intimidation and coercion does not bother me a bit.
 

9-10ths_Penguin

1/10 Subway Stalinist
Premium Member
I am nervous on any restrictions on peaceful protest.
Right now, under British (and Canadian) law, there are restrictions on protests and disturbances at churches. These restrictions would likely make it illegal for a pro-choice group to protest in front of these anti-choicers' churches the way the anti-choicers are protesting in front of abortion clinics.
 

Secret Chief

nirvana is samsara
With the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill, the police will be able to break up, arrest and charge anyone doing much more than writing a brief and polite letter to their local MP.
 

Altfish

Veteran Member
Er, yes. And we can do that without a new law, it seems to me. The issue is the policing.
Not sure if the police have the power to say, "Please move back 100-yards" or more to the point, the public/doctors/nurses/patients have the right to complain when they are (say) only 10 yards away.
 

exchemist

Veteran Member
Not sure if the police have the power to say, "Please move back 100-yards" or more to the point, the public/doctors/nurses/patients have the right to complain when they are (say) only 10 yards away.
Well, if the police say they are powerless to stop this harassment without a new law, then I'd be in favour of it. But we have a terrible habit of clogging up the stature book with laws to "send a signal" or to make some MP look good, when the real issue is not providing the resources to enforce laws we've already got.
 

Martin

Spam, wonderful spam (bloody vikings!)
I don't see why we need yet another law to do this. Surely the police have powers already to move the protesters on, don't they?

In general, I feel we spend far too much time adding yet more laws to the statute book and far too little time enforcing properly the ones we already have. Passing laws makes MPs feel virtuous, but actually what makes a difference is enforcement.

Yes, making laws which end up being unenforceable is pointless. And of course police numbers were substantially cut during 10 years of austerity.
 

exchemist

Veteran Member
Yes, making laws which end up being unenforceable is pointless. And of course police numbers were substantially cut during 10 years of austerity.
Exactly.

I think the route should be to demand the Justice Sec instructs the cops to take a hard line with these people and only pass a law if they say their hands are tied. But indeed, it makes no difference how many laws you pass if there isn't the manpower to enforce them.

Often, the problem is that passing laws costs nothing and looks good, while actual policing is expensive - and doesn't get headlines.
 

blü 2

Veteran Member
Premium Member
A bill seeking to ban demonstrations outside abortion clinics has been proposed by Labour MP Rupa Huq.

Last year, pro-life protesters lost a legal challenge against the UK's first buffer zone implemented around a clinic in Dr Huq's constituency.

Ealing Council said a 100-metre exclusion zone at the Marie Stopes centre had been put in place after women complained of being intimidated.

The protesters said they were providing help to those visiting the clinic.

The British Pregnancy Advisory Service says following the easing of coronavirus lockdown measures, five clinics across the country have been targeted by protests.

MP seeks to ban demonstrations outside abortion clinics

This is a difficult one for free speech supporters, normally a counter protest would do the job but that is likely to draw more unwanted attention. Thoughts?
Free speech is the same as walking up to someone and harassing them knowing it's a difficult time for them?

Not in my book. Let them speak freely to each other. Let not the anti-vaxxers clutter hospital waiting rooms to bug the people waiting.

Free speech can be oversold. It's against the law to incite people to crimes like invading the Capitol, for instance. Treason is not protected by free speech rights. And you have to pay for your defamations.
 

Justanatheist

Well-Known Member
People are entitled to seek, and to provide, legally permitted medical treatment in privacy and without being harassed
I am unaware of any law in the UK which permits you to visit a doctor or hospital with privacy. If you enter either establishment from public ground that can be recorded by anyone who witnesses it.
Surely the police have powers already to move the protesters on, don't they?

The protests will not be banned, it is about distance and intimidation

So the next time I go out and protest the cuts made by government to the NHS should the police have the power to move myself and the NHS staff protesting 100 yards from any NHS building?
 

Justanatheist

Well-Known Member
Not really. Free speech “extremists” excuse horrible harassment under the guise of the obviously important protection of “free speech.”
Telling people to move down the road a bit is not in any way shape or form a violation of free speech. Apparently asking people to respect other’s privacy and demonstrate a tiny bit of polite decorum does. Go figure. Pfft. Snowflakes
I have horribly harassed Neo Nazis like the NF, BNP or England First in my time, I do not want might right to horribly harass them removed.
 

SomeRandom

Still learning to be wise
Staff member
Premium Member
I have horribly harassed Neo Nazis like the NF, BNP or England First in my time, I do not want might right to horribly harass them removed.
As much as my emotions tend to agree that harassing neo Nazis and the like are justified. What does that actually accomplish?
And how is that comparable to harassing a woman or even a child who might be experiencing PTSD from a sexual assault, and is merely trying to get medical assistance?
Seems like the protestors are the jerks in this scenario to me and their flimsy excuse of “buh my free speech” is nothing but a disgustingly shallow interpretation of actual free speech issues. Like the cry bully bigots who hide behind “free speech” whenever someone calls them on their BS and awful and unacceptable behaviour.
Free speech is important. That much I agree with. It’s not a shield though and we restrict free speech on a daily basis, all the time. It’s called being polite. And if you think it’s important, what reason is there to cry about societal consequences regarding your speech?
You chose to exercise your right. An adult thing to do would be accepting the consequences of ones own actions, would it not?
 
Last edited:

Justanatheist

Well-Known Member
As much as my emotions tend to agree that harassing neo Nazis and the like are justified. What does that actually accomplish?
I would argue that it has kept any seriously right wing political party from gaining power in the UK from Mosely and the battle of Cable Street to stopping England First using the poppy as an emblem.
And how is that comparable to harassing a woman who might be experiencing PTSD from a sexual assault, and is merely trying to get medical assistance?
Do you think those people who are protesting Abortion Clinics think they are any less justified. It is subjective what ideas we support and when I take away another's free speech I endanger my own and yours.

Seems like the protestors are the jerks in this scenario to me and their flimsy excuse of “buh my free speech” is nothing but a disgustingly shallow interpretation of actual free speech issues

Totally agree, but then I do not believe as they do, are you going to be the arbiter of who is using the free speech laws and what is a "disgustingly shallow interpretation of actual free speech issues" that is a slippery slope.
 

SomeRandom

Still learning to be wise
Staff member
Premium Member
I would argue that it has kept any seriously right wing political party from gaining power in the UK from Mosely and the battle of Cable Street to stopping England First using the poppy as an emblem.

Well I’m Australian so I can’t speak to that. I will however agree that the UK response to neo Nazis is actually far more impressive than the so called “home of the brave.”
(Sorry, not sorry.)

Do you think those people who are protesting Abortion Clinics think they are any less justified. It is subjective what ideas we support and when I take away another's free speech I endanger my own and yours.

The road to hell is paved with good intentions. So do you think it right to fight for an adult’s right to harass a young girl, who is maybe 12 or 13, who has been raped by her step father multiple times, simply because the person harassing a child of sexual abuse deemed it “morally correct?”
Is that really your stance? Do you find that morally or ethically acceptable?
I’m insanely curious

Totally agree, but then I do not believe as they do, are you going to be the arbiter of who is using the free speech laws and what is a "disgustingly shallow interpretation of actual free speech issues" that is a slippery slope.

Of course not. Everyone has a right to say whatever they want. That is the underpinning of our western society after all. But if someone shouts “fire” in a crowded theatre and then whine about the legal consequences, well then I think that person is a shallow immature brat who is hiding behind free speech like a little baby. Do you disagree?
 

Justanatheist

Well-Known Member
The road to hell is paved with good intentions. So do you think it right to fight for an adult’s right to harass a young girl, who is maybe 12 or 13, who has been raped by her step father multiple times, simply because the person harassing a child of sexual abuse deemed it “morally correct?”
Is that really your stance? Do you find that morally or ethically acceptable?
I’m insanely curios
No I find it repugnant that a leading Tory politician holds exactly those views above and people have voted for him over and over again, that is what I am trying to get across, people hold these views and it is legal to do so, would you deny their right to express them, because if you do then tell me who decides what views are correct and which are not correct?

Of course not. Everyone has a right to say whatever they want. That is the underpinning of our western society after all. But if someone shouts “fire” in a crowded theatre and then whine about the legal consequences, well then I think that person is a shallow immature brat who is hiding behind free speech like a little baby. Do you disagree?

Not if there is a fire in the crowded theatre, and clearly these anti abortionists believe there is, I am asking you to understand how they feel about the subject, then you will understand that t is an issue of free speech no matter how awful we consider their views. It is why it is such a difficult question.
 

SomeRandom

Still learning to be wise
Staff member
Premium Member
No I find it repugnant that a leading Tory politician holds exactly those views above and people have voted for him over and over again, that is what I am trying to get across, people hold these views and it is legal to do so, would you deny their right to express them, because if you do then tell me who decides what views are correct and which are not correct?

Again not English so I’m not fully aware of what you’re talking about.
So you’ll have to tell me the results because I legitimate don’t know.

Not if there is a fire in the crowded theatre, and clearly these anti abortionists believe there is, I am asking you to understand how they feel about the subject, then you will understand that t is an issue of free speech no matter how awful we consider their views. It is why it is such a difficult question.
Answer my question first.
Do you think it morally or ethically sound to harass a 12 year old child who has experienced sexual abuse when she is seeking legitimate medical treatment to be a morally or ethically sound position?
Is that something that you would support people doing in the name of free speech!
Is that a position that you yourself support?
Answer me, please.
 

exchemist

Veteran Member
I am unaware of any law in the UK which permits you to visit a doctor or hospital with privacy. If you enter either establishment from public ground that can be recorded by anyone who witnesses it.




So the next time I go out and protest the cuts made by government to the NHS should the police have the power to move myself and the NHS staff protesting 100 yards from any NHS building?

I think the police already have that discretion, on various grounds: causing obstruction, behaviour likely to lead to a breach of the peace, harassment and so forth. As for your privacy point, I suppose you are right, though I don't think you are allowed to photograph individual people without their consent, are you?
 

Justanatheist

Well-Known Member
Again not English so I’m not fully aware of what you’re talking about.
So you’ll have to tell me the results because I legitimate don’t know.


Answer my question first.
Do you think it morally or ethically sound to harass a 12 year old child who has experienced sexual abuse when she is seeking legitimate medical treatment to be a morally or ethically sound position?
Is that something that you would support people doing in the name of free speech!
Is that a position that you yourself support?
Answer me, please.
No,yes, no
 

Justanatheist

Well-Known Member
I think the police already have that discretion, on various grounds: causing obstruction, behaviour likely to lead to a breach of the peace, harassment and so forth. As for your privacy point, I suppose you are right, though I don't think you are allowed to photograph individual people without their consent, are you?
As an avid photographer and sometime street photographer the law in the UK gives you no protection against having your picture took. Even in your own home people can take photos of you if done from a public place.
 
Top