MP seeks to ban demonstrations outside abortion clinics

[9-10ths_Penguin]

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.

So it sounds like it would be legal in the UK to:

- photograph anti-choice protestors,
- ascertain (through legal means) their home addresses, and
- set up counter-protests in front of their homes.

Interesting.

 

[Justanatheist]

So it sounds like it would be legal in the UK to:

- photograph anti-choice protestors,
- ascertain (through legal means) their home addresses, and
- set up counter-protests in front of their homes.

Interesting.

Yes and years ago that is exactly what we used to do to members of the NF.

 

[SomeRandom]

No,yes, no

So let me get this straight. You think “free speech” is so intrinsically important that retraumatising a 12 year old child is just a consequence of protecting that? Really?
I mean I respect your honesty, but if you don’t mind my saying so, that says a lot about you.
Think of the children indeed.

 

[Altfish]

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?

No, it is about intimidation.
If you are a patient visiting a clinic and you have to pass a group of people calling you a murderer, even though you are only going for contraceptive advice, that is intimidation.

 

[Clara Tea]

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?

Speech is allowed as long as it presents no threat.

 

[Justanatheist]

So let me get this straight. You think “free speech” is so intrinsically important that retraumatising a 12 year old child is just a consequence of protecting that? Really?
I mean I respect your honesty, but if you don’t mind my saying so, that says a lot about you.
Think of the children indeed.

No and I have no idea where you got that idea from, maybe you wish to virtue signal rather than discuss the subject

No, it is about intimidation.
If you are a patient visiting a clinic and you have to pass a group of people calling you a murderer, even though you are only going for contraceptive advice, that is intimidation.

No it is not by UK law, your opinion of what is or is not intimidation is not relevant unless it is backed up by law.

 

[Altfish]

No it is not by UK law, your opinion of what is or is not intimidation is not relevant unless it is backed up by law.

Well, there's not much point in continuing this discussion.

 

[Justanatheist]

Well, there's not much point in continuing this discussion.

Well it is a fact that intimidation has a legal definition and if these people were intimidating or harassing people the police have the power to stop them therefore no new law would be required. As I have pointed out over and over in this thread I do not support them but rather feel this is a difficult question, black and white answers are not really helpful.

 

[Justanatheist]

So let me get this straight.

That would be nice since I have made my position clear all the way through the thread and either you have not read my responses or you are struggling to get it straight.

You think “free speech” is so intrinsically important that retraumatising a 12 year old child is just a consequence of protecting that? Really?

Oh dear you have not got it straight at all. Free speech "underpins western society" according to you. In your imaginary world this imaginary child is traumatised and somehow that translates to my thinking, "is just a consequence of protecting that?" Now perhaps you can point out where the article supports your imaginings? Perhaps you can point out where I write
"is just a consequence of protecting that?"

I mean I respect your honesty, but if you don’t mind my saying so, that says a lot about you.

Well I do mind you saying, because this thread is not about your coffee table book analysis of my character or your imaginings. I have said all through the thread that this is a difficult question and your hyperbolic response and imaginings make me wonder if it is too nuanced for you.

 

[Twilight Hue]

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?

Similar to what's in the states. A protest zone was created far enough away from a clinic so that those seeking abortion wouldn't be impeded from entering.

 

[SomeRandom]

That would be nice since I have made my position clear all the way through the thread and either you have not read my responses or you are struggling to get it straight.

Well I just want to be clear. Do you not wish me to know your position?

Oh dear you have not got it straight at all. Free speech "underpins western society" according to you. In your imaginary world this imaginary child is traumatised and somehow that translates to my thinking, "is just a consequence of protecting that?" Now perhaps you can point out where the article supports your imaginings? Perhaps you can point out where I write

One of our core principles in a free society in the West is the freedom of speech, correct? Now I was perhaps being a tad hyperbolic about its position, I apologise.
But I asked if you would defend a person’s right to free speech even if it resulted in the harassment of a 12 year old sexually abused child. You answered yes to my question. So what conclusion was I supposed to draw? Are you saying that in the defence of free speech that that is an unacceptable outcome? That you would not defend free speech if it resulted in that outcome?

Well I do mind you saying, because this thread is not about your coffee table book analysis of my character or your imaginings. I have said all through the thread that this is a difficult question and your hyperbolic response and imaginings make me wonder if it is too nuanced for you.

I am merely trying to get an idea of your own position. Asking difficult hypotheticals is a common strategy to gauge one’s true position. It’s even used in teaching methods it’s that common.

Try living with teachers and get back to me. Because I was dealing with you with kiddie gloves, trust me on this one mate

 

[Justanatheist]

But I asked that would you defend a person’s right to free speech even if it resulted in the harassment of a 12 year old sexually abused child. You answered yes to my question. So what conclusion was I supposed to draw? Are you saying that in the defence of free speech you are now saying that that is an unacceptable outcome? That you would not defend free speech if it resulted in that outcome?

No harassment is defined in UK law, and therefor the outcome would be that person would be arrested, not for exercising their free speech but for harassment. Your hypothetical falls apart on this point, if you are suggesting teachers create hypotheticals that make no sense then they are not good teachers.

 

[SomeRandom]

No harassment is defined in UK law, and therefor the outcome would be that person would be arrested, not for exercising their free speech but for harassment. Your hypothetical falls apart on this point, if you are suggesting teachers create hypotheticals that make no sense then they are not good teachers.

Wow, you don’t know any teachers then if you’re arguing this way. My friend I once made the mistake of sharing my opinion of Lolita with an English teacher. A month later I’m still defending that position at the dinner table
I didn’t ask about laws. Laws say all sorts of things that I may or may not agree with. I asked you what you think about the situation. So are you saying you now disagree with the aforementioned outcome of protecting free speech? Because that outcome is a real life scenario that can happen without the buffers proposed. Laws be damned.
Yes or no. It’s a simple question.

 

[Justanatheist]

I didn’t ask about laws. Laws say all sorts of things that I may or may not agree with. I asked you what you think about the situation. So are you saying you now disagree with the aforementioned outcome of protecting free speech? Because that outcome is a real life scenario that can happen without the buffers proposed.

You never needed to ask about laws, this is the problem, if the girl was being harassed then that is defined in UK law, either she is being harassed or not, subjective views on what is or is not harassment are irrelevant. If she is harassed arrest the harasser, no need for restricting free speech.

 

[SomeRandom]

You never needed to ask about laws, this is the problem, if the girl was being harassed then that is defined in UK law, either she is being harassed or not, subjective views on what is or is not harassment are irrelevant. If she is harassed arrest the harasser, no need for restricting free speech.

The girl is 12. She might not know about harassment laws. She might not have even told her mother about seeking medical help. Why would she rely on anti harassment laws she may or not be aware of to protect herself? So the laws are irrelevant.
I didn’t ask you to defend or omit laws. Stop relying on them to get you a pass. Because laws can change.
Answer the question. Do you think it’s worth protecting free speech if the result is the harassment of this hypothetical child?
I mean I’m all about free speech and I don’t think it’s worth protecting if that’s the outcome

 

[Justanatheist]

The girl is 12. She might not know about harassment laws. She might not have even told her mother about seeking medical help. Why would she rely on anti harassment laws she may or not be aware of to protect herself? So the laws are irrelevant.
I didn’t ask you to defend or omit laws. Stop relying on them to get you a pass. Because laws can change.
Answer the question. Do you think it’s worth protecting free speech if the result is the harassment of this hypothetical child?
I mean I’m all about free speech and I don’t think it’s worth protecting if that’s the outcome

I am not trying to get a pass out of anything, harassment is a legally defined term in the UK, if it is not against the law it is not harassment it is your opinion of what harassment is and nothing more. Free speech trumps your opinion of what harassment is if you you think someone can be harassing someone and not be breaking the law. Your further imaginings on what this imagined girl may or may not know and what trauma she may suffer are just that imaginings. I know of a thirteen year old girl who rather than suffer trauma would of told the protesters to go forth and multiply and indeed did to the elders who shunned her. That was thirty years ago!

 

[SomeRandom]

I am not trying to get a pass out of anything, harassment is a legally defined term in the UK, if it is not against the law it is not harassment it is your opinion of what harassment is and nothing more. Free speech trumps your opinion of what harassment is if you you think someone can be harassing someone and not be breaking the law. Your further imaginings on what this imagined girl may or may not know and what trauma she may suffer are just that imaginings. I know of a thirteen year old girl who rather than suffer trauma would of told the protesters to go forth and multiply and indeed did to the elders who shunned her. That was thirty years ago!

It’s merely a hypothetical. And harassment laws aren’t always enforced and further that they have changed drastically over the years.
I know kids who are very resilient and others who would crumble.
So what?
Answer the question. It’s a simple yes or no. Why are fighting so hard? Either free speech is worth protecting even if it results in a retraumitised child or not. It’s an easy no for me. Don’t know about you

 

[Justanatheist]

It’s merely a hypothetical. And harassment laws aren’t always enforced and further that they have changed drastically over the years.
I know kids who are very resilient and others who would crumble.
So what?
Answer the question. It’s a simple yes or no. Why are fighting so hard? Either free speech is worth protecting even if it results in a retraumitised child or not. It’s an easy no for me. Don’t know about you

Back to a traumatised child now, first an harassed child, then traumatised then more imaginings now back to traumatised. Sorry if I am not following your script but instead pointing out the rubbish you are talking. Life is like that!Now you are boring me so unless you have something pertinent to say about the topic of the thread, go away.

 

[SomeRandom]

Back to a traumatised child now, first an harassed child, then traumatised then more imaginings now back to traumatised. Sorry if I am not following your script but instead pointing out the rubbish you are talking. Life is like that!Now you are boring me so unless you have something pertinent to say about the topic of the thread, go away.

Very well. I was referring to a hypothetical child accessing an abortion clinic (who would obviously be quite traumatised to begin with) and protestors accosting her. I didn’t think it was that hard to follow.
But fine.
Do you think anti abortion rallies being held outside abortion clinics actually achieves anything?
Like they do seem rather pointless and just seem to cause harm or at least are a nuisance. It’s like those people who protest funerals. It’s like yeah protest all you want, that’s your right. But what does that accomplish other than antagonising grieving people?
Is there a better way of doing all of this, do you think?

 

[Justanatheist]

Very well. I was referring to a hypothetical child accessing an abortion clinic (who would obviously be quite traumatised to begin with) and protestors accosting her. I didn’t think it was that hard to follow.
But fine.
Do you think anti abortion rallies being held outside abortion clinics actually achieves anything?
Like they do seem rather pointless and just seem to cause harm or at least are a nuisance. It’s like those people who protest funerals. It’s like yeah protest all you want, that’s your right. But what does that accomplish other than antagonising grieving people?
Is there a better way of doing all of this, do you think?

I think it shows the cruelty of religion, I doubt the protesters believe that though. I rather think that the protesters would argue that if it stops one abortion it is worth it. They might also think that a better way would be to pass laws to stop it and I am sure that would be their intention.