Woman arrested for silently praying near abortion clinic

[vixen1700]

Totally support women's right to their own body autonomy and to be free to visit abortion clinics without fear of anti-abortion activists.

But it's a slippery slope arresting anybody for just standing there silently, praying or not.

[CheesecakeRunner]

Genuinely don’t care. Going for an abortion is a horrendous thing to have to do at the best of times and I suspect those moaning about ‘thought crimes’ have never had to go through it.

I have a low opinion of religion most of the time, but people who try to prevent abortion and remove a woman’s control over her own body are scum, however they protest.

[bitchstewie]

Rufus Stone said:

Are there signs on the pavement stating the exclusion zone?

Rufus please read the link.

There are literally signs on lamp posts in the area with street maps on them that show the exclusion zone.

This really doesn't appear to be about a poor harmless lady arrested by the thought Police simply for having a quick prayer.

[Evanivitch]

Kes Arevo said:

Could not care less.

If she had signs, was talking to people, was blocking them, and so on, have at it.

She wasn't. She was literally just stood there, on a public street, doing nothing but thinking, and you want her arrested?

Yes?

She wasn't doing nothing but thinking, she was protesting. That's her entire reason for being there.

If we're going to consider all passive protests as "just thinking" then let's be consistent at least. Are you okay with people sat on pedestrian crossings as long as they're just thinking whilst doing it?

[TwigtheWonderkid]

I'm 100 pro choice atheist but even I'm uncomfortable with this. The issue is law in the UK is set by precedent. So if an anti abortionist can't protest near a clinic, could a vivisection lab use the same argument to have animal rights protesters arrested. My concern is where does it end? People should be free to have abortions within the law and other people should be free to protest about it, within the law. Not breaking any of the current laws re breach of the peace etc.

When they start arresting people for protesting about causes that we don't believe in, it's only a matter of time before they arresting people for protesting about causes that we do believe in.

[InitialDave]

Rufus Stone said:

Are there signs on the pavement stating the exclusion zone?

There's a picture of the sign on the street in that article.

[Kes Arevo]

Evanivitch said:

She wasn't doing nothing but thinking, she was protesting. That's her entire reason for being there.

If we're going to consider all passive protests as "just thinking" then let's be consistent at least. Are you okay with people sat on pedestrian crossings as long as they're just thinking whilst doing it?

You really don't understand the difference between standing and doing nothing but thinking, and blocking traffic?

Huh.

[gregs656]

Rufus Stone said:

Are there signs on the pavement stating the exclusion zone?

No surprise you didn’t read the article.

[ZedLeg]

TwigtheWonderkid said:

I'm 100 pro choice atheist but even I'm uncomfortable with this. The issue is law in the UK is set by precedent. So if an anti abortionist can't protest near a clinic, could a vivisection lab use the same argument to have animal rights protesters arrested. My concern is where does it end? People should be free to have abortions within the law and other people should be free to protest about it, within the law. Not breaking any of the current laws re breach of the peace etc.

When they start arresting people for protesting about causes that we don't believe in, it's only a matter of time before they arresting people for protesting about causes that we do believe in.

They have exclusion zones around abortion centres because the women don't need to be harrassed by protestors, this woman may have been quietly praying but that's not all the groups do.

I'd be surprised if an animal research lab could convince a court that having to walk past protestors is mentally harmful when your job is torturing animals.

[superlightr]

TwigtheWonderkid said:

I'm 100 pro choice atheist but even I'm uncomfortable with this. The issue is law in the UK is set by precedent. So if an anti abortionist can't protest near a clinic, could a vivisection lab use the same argument to have animal rights protesters arrested. My concern is where does it end? People should be free to have abortions within the law and other people should be free to protest about it, within the law. Not breaking any of the current laws re breach of the peace etc.

When they start arresting people for protesting about causes that we don't believe in, it's only a matter of time before they arresting people for protesting about causes that we do believe in.

yep good points Twig.

[bitchstewie]

TwigtheWonderkid said:

I'm 100 pro choice atheist but even I'm uncomfortable with this. The issue is law in the UK is set by precedent. So if an anti abortionist can't protest near a clinic, could a vivisection lab use the same argument to have animal rights protesters arrested. My concern is where does it end? People should be free to have abortions within the law and other people should be free to protest about it, within the law. Not breaking any of the current laws re breach of the peace etc.

When they start arresting people for protesting about causes that we don't believe in, it's only a matter of time before they arresting people for protesting about causes that we do believe in.

I can see that point of view but using that example I think there's a line between protesting against what the lab does v intimidating and harassing the staff who work there.

I'd imagine that when PSPOs are consulted on that they try to ensure the right to protest is balanced against the right to feel safe going to and from your place of work or to use the service.

Think about women's refuges or places that counsel victims of domestic violence or rape or any number of similar services and ask yourself whether you'd be comfortable with people standing outside making the staff and users of the service feel scared and intimidated.

Similar here I expect.

[ATG]

Kes Arevo said:

Evanivitch said:

So why was she at that specific location then?

Could not care less.

If she had signs, was talking to people, was blocking them, and so on, have at it.

She wasn't. She was literally just stood there, on a public street, doing nothing but thinking, and you want her arrested?

Yes?

By saying you couldn't care less where she was you are deliberately ignoring the key distinction between this genuinely just being a thought crime and this potentially being a case of this woman BY HER PRESENCE intimidating people. Regardless of whether one thinks she should or shouldn't have been moved on, arrested or whatever, the way you're arguing it makes absolutely no sense.

[Rufus Stone]

gregs656 said:

No surprise you didn’t read the article.

You're correct I didn't.

But I would have expected a yellow hatched area on the pavement or something, no a sign 6ft up a lamppost with small writing.

[Kes Arevo]

ATG said:

By saying you couldn't care less where she was you are deliberately ignoring the key distinction between this genuinely just being a thought crime and this potentially being a case of this woman BY HER PRESENCE intimidating people. Regardless of whether one thinks she should or shouldn't have been moved on, arrested or whatever, the way you're arguing it makes absolutely no sense.

You know this is crazy, right?

I have no issue with moving her along/arresting if she had a sign, was visibly praying at people, shouting, talking at them, all that stuff.

But just standing there, not blocking anyone, seemingly not doing anything except thinking, is not something that should be an arrestable offense? That is absurd.

[bitchstewie]

I guess it depends what you think constitutes intimidation.

I can think of plenty of things that would scare the st out of the people on the receiving end whilst probably provoking an "arrested for doing what?!" reaction from yourself and other people.

[oyster]

Kes Arevo said:

Evanivitch said:

So why was she at that specific location then?

Could not care less.

If she had signs, was talking to people, was blocking them, and so on, have at it.

She wasn't. She was literally just stood there, on a public street, doing nothing but thinking, and you want her arrested?

Yes?

It's quite obvious she didn't choose that particular street by coincidence, which means she wasn't just there thinking.

Or do you believe women shouldn't have the right to access abortion clinics without fear of intimidation or protest?

[Kes Arevo]

oyster said:

It's quite obvious she didn't choose that particular street by coincidence, which means she wasn't just there thinking.

Or do you believe women shouldn't have the right to access abortion clinics without fear of intimidation or protest?

Are we in Cathy Newman territory already?

I am pro-abortion.
I am an atheist.
I am not a fan of arresting lone people for standing by a hedge thinking.

I guess that makes me immoral or something.

[TonyToniTone]

Kes Arevo said:

ATG said:

By saying you couldn't care less where she was you are deliberately ignoring the key distinction between this genuinely just being a thought crime and this potentially being a case of this woman BY HER PRESENCE intimidating people. Regardless of whether one thinks she should or shouldn't have been moved on, arrested or whatever, the way you're arguing it makes absolutely no sense.

You know this is crazy, right?

I have no issue with moving her along/arresting if she had a sign, was visibly praying at people, shouting, talking at them, all that stuff.

But just standing there, not blocking anyone, seemingly not doing anything except thinking, is not something that should be an arrestable offense? That is absurd.

She was probably trying to get herself arrested to draw attention to her cause, causing frothers on social media/forums to get hot around the collar .

[bitchstewie]

Do you really think she travelled from Malvern to Birmingham to "stand by a hedge" thinking?

Seriously?

You're missing a pretty important chunk of detail out and being very disingenuous with that interpretation.

[RogerDodgerSuperTodger]

oyster said:

It's quite obvious she didn't choose that particular street by coincidence, which means she wasn't just there thinking.

Yup. She’s trying to be clever and some are falling for it.