Woman arrested for silently praying near abortion clinic
Discussion
TonyToniTone said:
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 .
And lo the first mention of 'frother'.Is discussion not allowed anymore with out trying to portray those you disagree with in negative terms?
I presume not.
No-one has been frothing unless you are so adamant that everyone must agree with you.
As such I'm out. This will go the same way as other threads.
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?
Does one person standing on the street with no visible banners or anything constitute intimidation or a protest to you?Or do you believe women shouldn't have the right to access abortion clinics without fear of intimidation or protest?
This case is nothing to do with banning prayer or other such hyperbole. It's about a person contravening a public order, one that restricts access to a sensitive area. I'm fine with that, assuming that the legislation has been carefully used in the first place.
And that, of course, is the interesting bit. How does society balance the right to protest against the rights of others? I do not think that protesters should be able to block roads without permission, but I think the UK Supreme Court disagrees with me. Should an ex-husband who is subject to an order banning him from being within 400 metres of his ex-wife's address be allowed to stand outside her house? And so on....
I agree that where the balance is struck (between protesters and their targets) is a tricky one, but in this specific case I'm comfortable with what's been done.
And that, of course, is the interesting bit. How does society balance the right to protest against the rights of others? I do not think that protesters should be able to block roads without permission, but I think the UK Supreme Court disagrees with me. Should an ex-husband who is subject to an order banning him from being within 400 metres of his ex-wife's address be allowed to stand outside her house? And so on....
I agree that where the balance is struck (between protesters and their targets) is a tricky one, but in this specific case I'm comfortable with what's been done.
RogerDodgerSuperTodger said:
Yup. She’s trying to be clever and some are falling for it.
100%It's like people have never had to deal with it when they were at school where some other kid pulls the "I'm not doing anything, I'm just standing here near you" routine whenever the teacher was around.
This was intended to get "woman arrested for doing nothing" headlines in the papers and opinions from people not thinking it through, and sadly it appears to be successful.
oyster said:
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?
Or do you believe women shouldn't have the right to access abortion clinics without fear of intimidation or protest?
Now, I happen to think that PSPOs/piss-pots are a nasty bit of badly-drafted, authoritarian, under-regulated, rights-reducing overreach, on a par with the laws that make it illegal to possess a bus timetable on the basis that it is "information of use to terrorists". But that's what she was arrested for, not for the very act of silently praying on a pavement. If you're allowed to breach an area you've been excluded from just because you're standing still and silently, that opens the door for a lot of unpleasant reviews of restraining orders, for instance.
It surprises me that some people are falling for what's little different to what kids do in a playground - seven-year olds are very good at pestering other kids without actually doing anything 'wrong'.
It also reminds me very much of another (car-related) forum I was on the early 2000s where an active poster was of the evangelical/anti-abortion/anti-gay religious sort. The forum rules clearly prohibited discriminatory/phobic/etc. language, but instead they responded to any discussion that went into those topics with a long stream of happy-clappy "praying that they find peace and happiness, God loves everyone who seeks him out [long line of smiley faces]" stuff, and then began directing similar replies at individual posters who were known to be gay. Nothing actually negative and, on the surface, only wanting good things for them. But the implication and passive-aggression was clear, as well as it being deeply tedious to read. But all attempts at moderation failed because it wasn't against the rules. In the end the forum Ts&Cs were updated to have an "admin can probate or ban anyone deemed to be negatively impacting the wider community" clause and they were banned.
Kes Arevo said:
And lo the first mention of 'frother'.
Is discussion not allowed anymore with out trying to portray those you disagree with in negative terms?
I presume not.
No-one has been frothing unless you are so adamant that everyone must agree with you.
As such I'm out. This will go the same way as other threads.
It's clear to everyone you are being disingenuous.Is discussion not allowed anymore with out trying to portray those you disagree with in negative terms?
I presume not.
No-one has been frothing unless you are so adamant that everyone must agree with you.
As such I'm out. This will go the same way as other threads.
Here’s a link to the actual order she breached by admission. Hmmm.
who loves some actual facts
Eta: she (or anyone, even people posting here…) could just challenge the validity of the order.
who loves some actual facts
Eta: she (or anyone, even people posting here…) could just challenge the validity of the order.
I suspect the police knew very well why she was there inside the zone, and so did she, so her half-arsed confirmation about prayer just cemented it. Chancing her arm and got found out.
Of course 1984 Orwell thought police wibble wibble.
Canada also set up these exclusion zones for abortion clinics, after all what's better for your already fragile mental state as a woman who's decided to get an abortion than having to run the gauntlet of silent judgment past a line of these weirdos she was there on behalf of - who, by the way, don't just 'pray silently' but also try to push anti-abortion leaflets into the hands of women going into the clinics.
Of course 1984 Orwell thought police wibble wibble.
Canada also set up these exclusion zones for abortion clinics, after all what's better for your already fragile mental state as a woman who's decided to get an abortion than having to run the gauntlet of silent judgment past a line of these weirdos she was there on behalf of - who, by the way, don't just 'pray silently' but also try to push anti-abortion leaflets into the hands of women going into the clinics.
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.
Not in this case.TwigtheWonderkid said:
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.
Animal rights protestors are protesting against the abuse of vulnerable animals. The humans employed at those establishments are not considered vulnerable by default, but women travelling for a medical procedure are. TwigtheWonderkid said:
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.
The only restrictions on protesting against abortion is that you can't do it outside an abortion facility.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.
Just like 70 years ago you were welcome to protest against nuclear weapons, but not inside a nuclear facility.
Appropriate time and place.
RogerDodgerSuperTodger said:
Here’s a link to the actual order she breached by admission. Hmmm.
who loves some actual facts
Eta: she (or anyone, even people posting here…) could just challenge the validity of the order.
Surprisingly concise and simple to understand (or you'd have thought so).who loves some actual facts
Eta: she (or anyone, even people posting here…) could just challenge the validity of the order.
pork911 said:
aren't these the same type of orders used a lot for anti social behaviour, groups congregating getting drunk / high etc?
Yes, PSPOs (Public Spaces Protection Orders). In sunny Reading the paperwork is in place 'for when necessary' to create both a designated protest zone and a protest exclusion zone outside one of the abortion clinics.
b
hstewie said:
hstewie said: Always good when people are so confident in their position that they publicly flounce
Says he in a Pot Noodle stained fleece who leaves the PC to urinate, eat and occasionally wash.Do you ever leave the house?
The OP is right. The Woman is basically harmless and perhaps disturbed - and therefore an easy arrest. Throw the witch in jail I say!
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff