Pro-life activist arrested for praying silently near an abortion facility

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: bastion

You said yourself: clear and overwhelming evidence.

If the police had to ask, it couldn't have been that clear.

Also, you are describing the buffer zone, not a restraining order which is something in the US you can file against a specific person.

Because in the UK it's a form of restraining order local residents took out called a Public Space Protection Order to prevent Anti-Social Behaviour - as PSPO/ASBO/CRASBO were causing confusion for US posters it was easier to explain that indeed a restraining order had been taken out and she is head of the group residents had complained about.

The 'clear and overwhelming evidence' sentence is intended to refer to behaviour/evidence submitted to the council and police in order to include it as prohibited activity in the PSPO scope not her violation of the order. Appologies for any confusion.

a reply to: bastion

So I roll back to the original. They cannot target her for being her. They can only target actions.

If she was just being there, then she can just be there. If the police had to ask if she was taking actionable offenses, then there probably were not any overt actionable offenses taking place.

How is this hard to understand?

In the US, you can take out an order that constrains an individual from being near specific places/people called a Restraining Order. It would do what these people clearly want which is to keep her away entirely and prohibit her from simply being near.

But this order they took out is against action, not person. Her person can be there so long as she is not taking those actions. They can be as offended by her person as they want, but until and unless they get an order to constrain her person, not just her actions, she can be there.

So by asking her if she was engaging in action, it is telling. She does not appear to have been engaging in the objectionable actions required to activate this particular order, and this is why this action by all involved is concerning.

a reply to: Terpene

Yeah we don't exactly know what's written on the arrest papers, but I can guarantee you it's not praying.

On page 1, I would have agreed with that. Now we're on page 12 and I'm not so sure. I hope you're right.

Did they ask her the question sure

And that is my problem with all this. My only problem.

"maybe" isn't the wisest of answer to give to a police officer in her situation

True enough. I can't argue with that. However, if someone asked me that question out of the blue, I would probably be too shocked at it to answer "properly."

try and play games with the cops and they let you know very quickly, that that wasn't a good idea...

Agreed, that never seems to work out well. However, the cops do not have carte blanche either... they should have to answer in court as to why they are restricting silent prayer.

Look I'd agree that concept of a buffer zone is disturbing to me too.

I see why they're necessary at times, but I am of the same mind in that they are a slippery slope. I don't like restricting anyone's freedom.

On the other hand, the recent propaganda about protesting seems to be a large part of the problem. Protesting was once a way to advertise one's position to people in hopes of getting people to agree. Now it seems to have turned into a right to beat up the other side and act like fools with legal impunity.

I suspect, once the rhetoric has passed, that we actually agree more on this issue than we think. My only concern is that the police seemed far too invasive in their interrogation tactic, as though they were itching for a reason, any reason, to arrest her and simply made one up. But prayer should never be illegal... that is one hell of a slippery slope as well. Prayer can be a thought process, and when one restricts silent prayer, one is restricting thought. Verbal prayer? I don't like it, but OK since this is such a divisive issue. Group prayer? Well, that's obviously an intimidation tactic in this situation, so no problem. But all prayer? Nope, can't go along with thought police.

TheRedneck

a reply to: TheRedneck

She has been known to authorities, i bet they didn't think twice when she showed up and didn't leave right away.

You go into these buffer zone and give away thumbs up I hope you'll get the same treatment.

a reply to: ketsuko

big issue is the bail conditions that the lady is banned from visibly praying or seeming like she is praying anywhere..

if she is believed to be praying anywhere at all she'll be arrested..

its started to reverberate further that the Police think they can arrest women for having the wrong thoughts in their heads and arrest them even if they have no idea what those thoughts actually are, all it takes is someone else to think they have the wrong thoughts..

its not even thought crime its more the police becoming the enforcement arm for activists.. this takes the uk further towards a deeply cultural conflict.. especially in terms of women.. but then it was the same with the Roman Empire and the Vatican. the UKs is terf island now for strong historic reasons..

something not spoken of in terms of Brexit is that virtually all groups bar 1 were split more in favour of remain than leave, the outlier that got Brexit over the line was the Anglican vote notably the Anglican women voting leave.

As much as people claim the UK is non religious state there is still a strong religious stream tipping electoral outcomes.. women have played the strongest roles in shaping religion the men less so as they just like drinking/fighting/sex..

a reply to: TheRedneck

given the police bail conditions include not being seen to visibly pray outside PSPO area to prevent the lady reoffending.. its pretty clear the arrest was for praying..

a reply to: nickyw

not the only case either and they tend to be overturned like the multiple times the police arrested female vicar at speakers corner..

Police admit detention of grandmother for praying was wrong

When approached by a police officer during the lockdown in February 2021, Lalor had been questioned as to why she was outdoors. She answered that she was “walking and praying”. The officer responded that Lalor wasn’t praying in a place of worship, and that she did not have a “reasonable excuse” to be outdoors at that time. The officer claimed that Lalor was there to “protest”. The grandmother was arrested, detained, and issued a fine.

Merseyside Police have now conceded that such detention was wrong, and that Lalor was acting within her rights, indeed having a “reasonable excuse” to be outdoors praying.

a reply to: ketsuko

Because this happened in the UK so trying to apply US law doesn't work, same as trying to apply UK law in the US wouldn't make sense. Local residents took out the equivalent of a restraining order prohibiting the action in the area due to a decade long campaign of harrasment and intimidation - it just has a slightly different name over here but the residents, police and council had an order in place clearly prohibiting this because the harm her group was causing outweighed other articles of human rights law.

We also have classic individual restraining orders but In this case a restraining order against her wouldn't have solved the problem as it's the group she was head of that have been the cause of the anti-social behaviour in the area and these vigils can attract counter-protesters hence a generalised order was put in place stopping either group from being dicks.

Police didn't have to ask, they already had evidence from the press and public of her breaking multiple conditions of the order over the past few weeks not just praying, they got their first call about her violating the order on 28th September - it's more of a leading question to see if she had any reasonable grounds and avoiding paperwork back at the station - i.e just being there, passing through, offering to move along -

She didn't take the hint and instead tried to act smart which is never a wise idea when breaking the law in any country and is lying to US press and public about her actions in the decade preceeding the order and falsely claiming she was arrested for thought crime and silently praying.

Different countries, different laws, different police protocol is all. I think there's multiple Birminghams in the US so people may be getting confused where this occured.

a reply to: bastion

Again, I get the difference and reasons for it, but it doesn't change my assessment. What they have is a zone based on action, not person. Is she wasn't engaging in action to the degree that the cops had to ask, then there was no clear evidence.

If she had broken this zone previously, that evidence should exist. No question necessary. Yes?

We don't know how they found her. Maybe she was on her knees in a praying stance, and she noticed them approaching so got up and met them, and they greeted her with that rhetorical question. Our cops have body cams too so maybe the footage will be released.

All forms of protest within the buffer zone are not allowed, I guess including silent protest of any kind.

a reply to: Terpene

She has been known to authorities

That has nothing to do with the "are you praying" question.

TheRedneck

a reply to: nickyw

given the police bail conditions include not being seen to visibly pray outside PSPO area to prevent the lady reoffending.. its pretty clear the arrest was for praying..

That is exactly what it sounds like to me.

Worse, we have people defending this prohibition against silent prayer. I wonder if they'll be as supportive when they "wrong-think" in the future. It's easy to support atrocities against others... rare when someone supports atrocities against themselves.

TheRedneck

a reply to: TheRedneck

It's also beyond me, why they would ask that in a place where prayers are not tolerated.
Completely out of the blue... That question, just how? I mean absolutely inexplicable.... this officer....
he probably has some disconnection with reality?
Should he not be alowed to ask the question is that what you are saying?

a reply to: Maxmars

She doesn't look like she's causing any trouble in this video: www.foxnews.com...

originally posted by: TzarChasm


Arrested for going out of her way to make that officer's day more interesting. She could have picked literally any street but she just couldn't resist being an example.

Recently there was a topic about a gay journalist being arrested and dying in jail in Qatar. The general response on this forum was basically "play stupid games, win stupid prizes."

Now we know what that shoe looks like on the other foot.

And here you go, defending the indefensible... So what, one person or two in ATS gave a response you didn't like, or you misinterpreted, about another topic and that's your excuse for no condemning a tyrannical law and unjust arrest?...

BTW, in the U.S. the lovely dictatorship of democrats/RINOs have also been arresting and pressing unjust charges to people praying at abortion clinics meanwhile they mostly don't press charges, or give a slap in the wrist, to left-wing terrorists bombing and/or destroying buildings of anti-abortion groups, or even when anti-abortionists are attacked in mostly left-wing hell holes.

4 Christians Arrested for Praying Outside Abortion Clinic During Stay-at-Home Order

Two Christians arrested while praying in front of abortion clinic in the US

Since the OP is about this incident in the UK, here is another fact.

Praying outside an abortion clinic could land you in jail for two years

I am not sure if that bill passed.

And then we have people in ATS claiming the left is not attacking and trying to abolish Christianity in the U.S. or in many western countries in general.

The same people who have been denying this is happening, and has been happening are now defending or keeping quiet about this type of injustice.

You would think this only happens in countries like China. But now you know why so many leftists LOVE the Chinese dictatorship and dictatorships like that of Cuba.

a reply to: carewemust

I resisted reposting in this thread because I felt my thoughts were evoking too many negative responses.

I imagined it would be sometime before the angst against "Christian activists" dissipated to allow the conversation to return to the point that I felt was more relevant. The point I was trying to reach had to do with policing and the codification of laws that applied to public behavior. But being American put me at a disadvantage to make it so. There are too many social and cultural variables to expect people not to embrace popularized judgement based upon past editorialized journalism and mean-spirited activist bad behavior.

There are numerous ways to deconstruct this series of events. Most of them negate the knee-jerk reactionary approach to the subject. Hence the resistance present in the dialogue. There were quite a few 'bad players' in this scenario... from the activists who made a reputation of overtly (and overly) disruptive behaviors for public effect, intransigent bias against 'religious' stereotypes, fanboy adherence to meme constructs of one side or the other, zealous opposition to the presence of personal faith in public discourse, and even a lesser form of malicious glee.

All around, I was disappointed that it became about things other people did in the past. I learned that many members feel this is a 'comeuppance' event. Something is so deeply rooted in the event itself, that the feelings expressed convey a deep long-standing, and thus inescapable feature, frustration.

Some Atheists are angry all the time in regard to people who freely express their faith, or the nature of their faith. Unlike what I think is more relaxed in the US, Atheism in European society predominates the 'en vogue' 'en time' sentiment. This is a continuum of culture that one must be willing to step away from order to discuss it without vitriol and "Karen-ese" (I think I just made up that word.)

I suppose that standing in front of an abandoned abortion clinic is a dangerous place to be in the UK.

I'll not kid myself and naively assume that the person arrested was protesting something like freedom of religion, or freedom of speech. Nor will I relent that regardless of the past, nothing reported in this event had any element of protest in it. The arrest was no-less than targeted.

In this thread, people proposed she was obstructing, harassing, disrupting the peace, kneeling (or otherwise projecting her "praying activities" to the public,) that she was a rabid zealot conspiring to 'evoke' a police response, behaving badly towards people who chose abortion, and boldly "representing" her activist organization.

Others assume she is a saint, simply because, like them, she rejects abortion practices based upon her beliefs. This makes her a repository for virtuous intent; but it doesn't necessarily follow that this wasn't her intent all along.

In the court of ATS it appears as if:

You might think what was done was just because:
activist suck, Christian activists suck more,
she is religious, therefore illogical,
she is guilty by association,
she "must" have done something wrong, or she wouldn't have been arrested, or
she played a "game" and now must "pay" the price.

You might think this is unjust because:
'protest' is a proper venue to express political and social objections via free speech,
no aspect of her outward behavior (at the time) represented a violation of the law,
a persons' faith has no bearing on an articulable cause for arrest,
her actions were religiously motivated, therefor somehow "protected" by civil society,
the clinic (the scene of the crime) was abandoned (as in no longer active) therefor there was nothing to protect,
the police entrapped her by engendering an admission about prayer which created a 'cause' to detain under suspicion.

I would have loved to discuss these more at length, but the anger apparently provoked by even broaching the subject is not constructive of the discourse, and is consistently applied to "end" the conversation. Apparently, Christians - especially those who speak of being Christian or Christian motivations to protest - are met with popular (and popularized) disdain. I admit, it has a certain entertainment value.

The video you post really doesn't surprise me. And I have to wonder if certain elements of this story aren't being exploited for clicks, here in the US. But then, that's conspiracy theory, right?

a reply to: Terpene

It's also beyond me, why they would ask that in a place where prayers are not tolerated.

It is beyond me why there could ever be an area where silent prayers are not tolerated. That is thought crime! A person is being prosecuted, not for what they did, but for what they thought.

And I repeat, since it doesn't seem to be getting through, if she was harassing people, even via a "group prayer," that is an overt action. It is actionable. It can be avoided by the one doing it. It can be proven in a court of law. A thought is not like that. Have you never just had a thought pop into your mind? One cannot avoid that... and it cannot be proven in a court of law. The only way one can be convicted is if they admit to it, or if, heaven forbid, circumstantial evidence is suddenly made admissible in a criminal case.

When you first posted, your first thought was "She probably deserved it." That was what you posted. Now how would you feel if she wins her case and you were suddenly charged with perjury for thinking that? Not for posting; for thinking it.

That is what is happening here. A woman is being legally charged for thinking something that is forbidden by law. She didn't need to do anything... all she had to do was think about it! I keep hearing how she's the leader of a pro-life movement that has been intimidating people... OK, can the UK not prosecute her for that? Why does the UK need to prosecute her for her thoughts?

My argument has nothing to do with abortion, intimidation, or even this particular woman. I agree that if she intimidated others (as it seems she has), she should be punished. But not for silent praying! Never for silent praying! Never, ever, under no circumstances whatsoever, no matter how heinous or atrocious the thought, should anyone ever be prosecuted for their thoughts! That goes for any country anywhere at any time.

TheRedneck

a reply to: TheRedneck

Her mere prensence in that zone is a legal offense. Playing smarty pants with the cops is what got her in troubles, and rightly so.
She was standing there doing nothing in place like that, it's consideted a form of protest, whats so hard to understand. Physical presence is what got her in trouble not thoughts. She can pray anywhere else with total impunity she can even cross that zone while praying but being there long enough for authority to show up... There there let it be a lesson for how to deal with authority when playing against the establishment.
Praying should never ever be a reason not to get in trouble, when my actions go against the law, my praying sure as hell will not save me. I hope you are not expecting some special treatment because she was praying. That would be stupid, or maybe it's the agenda ?

I'm almost getting the impression that fanatic group she is part off, is playing stupid now that ATS pretty much just deconstructed the argument they wanted to promote.

Yeah... no... as I said, more soros workshops, for how to effectively influence public perception,because that one really backfired...

And then there is that thing we love to do around here, to lump everyone of them together, like when one BLM member makes a scene of being apprehended, it's the whole movement that gets thrown under, should we apply this now, can I now judge every Christian on this board, even in the world, by the action of that individual.

Offensive, rude, yes illegal even, protestors, and not the smart ones. Is that what makes up Christians... It's a rethorical question...

Christians are law breaking, publicly rude, and stupid.

hows that for a broad brush, cool?

just another example of Western hypocrisy, claiming to believe in human rights, justice, democracy, etc while engaging in tyrannical and undemocratic actions constantly, making up all kinds of excuses to justify their actions then turning around and lecturing other nations about doing the exact same things, as if they have a moral high ground to lecture anybody about democracy or human rights.