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

a reply to: TheRedneck

If you genuinely believe there is no difference between holding a belief and engaging in political activism for it then I don't know what to tell you.

Doing your job or getting an abortion does not constitute a form of political activity. Showing up to scream at the people who showed up to yell at the clinic does, however.

Regardless you don't tend to get many pro-abortion groups since none of the major political parties in the UK intend to institute abortion bans (with the possible exception of Northern Ireland). In fact abortion isn't even an issue. The pro-abortion groups exist solely to disrupt the anti-abortion groups. Much to the consternation of everyone else.

a reply to: TheRedneck

I agree, but this applies to a pro choice activist equally, if he was a known figure to authority there, he would have stated any other intention than passing trough, like i just want to silently show support, or I'm praying he would have been arrested...

You'll see the same happen with the LGBTQ, the more you fight it openly the more privileges you'll lose. Every disagreement on such trivial things that do not affect you at all, but get politically blown up to the extremes will create these clashes between the radicalised masses...

But hey let's fuel that fire...

a reply to: Maxmars

What I am seeing (and I admit my view is somewhat biased on this issue, but I speak more generally here) is an attitude that I have seen develop in my lifetime. Law is supposed to be a written, accessible set of rules that describe certain actions that are prohibited and the penalties imposed for violating them. When one goes to court, they do not ask if you were irritating or if you intended to be a pain in the butt or anything like that... no, the judge declares the specific ordinance that you are accused of violating. The jury them hears evidence related to whether or not you violated the ordinance, and decides if you did or did not violate it. Then, if found guilty, the judge hands down a sentence which is in accordance with the written law.

It's all very straightforward and sterile. The only question is: did you commit a violation of a written statute? Nothing else matters in determining innocence or guilt.

But the movement I have witnessed, and which is quite evident to me in this thread, is that many now consider the police as a sort of "bully for hire" service provided by the government. Those who have adopted this attitude don't care about what is written in the law, what evidence is allowed and proper, or what extenuating circumstances might exist. They look upon the accused, usually someone they vehemently disagree on policy with, as a "bad person" and that alone justifies whatever they can convince a judge to dole out as punishment. The police are frequently used to try and enforce things that are not even a crime, because they are morally objectionable to the complainant. The written law is simply seen as this complex set of internal rules that judges and officers and lawyers use to make things complicated... and thus meaningless.

And that's not how it's supposed to work.

That attitude prevailed throughout much of human history. Before the Magna Carta, the King was above the law and the law for others was whatever he said it was at the time. Rule was by decree, not consent. A religious ruler could declare that only a certain religion was allowed to exist, and anyone who did not immediately convert could be (and often was) jailed or executed. A ruler who hated religion could outlaw it by simply stating it was outlawed, and churches could be burned legally.

There is a hyperbolic example of this in the holiday classic "Santa Claus is Coming to Town," where the ruler, Burgermeister Meisterburger, trips over a toy and breaks his funny bone... as soon as he awakens from the fall, he declares all toys illegal. Yeah, we watch that and think "how silly" but the concept is far from silly... it used to be the way things were done.

The "Great Experiment" that the USA was, was primarily because we rejected that concept of royal decree and decided that laws would be passed only by a legislature, written down precisely, and applied equally to all. We also included safeguards to prevent even the legislature from passing certain laws, called the Bill of Rights. It was never perfect, of course, but over time we have tried to make it more perfect. That is, we tried to make it more perfect until recently, when we started reverting to rule by decree instead of rule by law.

That is what really bothers me. The posters who are against this woman cannot specify which part of the law she broke (except that terpene above did finally admit she was arrested for silent prayer), instead consistently bringing up her past. Some have gone so far as to brag about how religiously free the UK is, while stating that arresting someone for silent prayer is a good thing and perfectly normal. I actually agree, based on what I know so far about the overall situation, with the issuance of the PSPO. Should she, or anyone else, violate the PSPO, they should be held accountable. But so far I have seen nowhere that she violated the PSPO! She was walking through the area... legal. She stopped for a moment... legal. She prayed silently in her mind, and was arrested for it as soon as she admitted she might have been praying. When she was released on bond, the magistrate set as a condition for bail that she could not pray. Obviously no sound was produced at the clinic, or the police would not have needed to ask her if she was praying.

I personally believe this is a case of two police and one magistrate who hate Christians and are happy to trample their rights because they are "bad people." But if they exist, how many more do as well? Surely no one is going to claim that in all of the UK, she happened to come across the only three bad apples all at the same time.

I find that literally abominable. It is nothing short of thought police. Had she opened her mouth and spoke a prayer out loud, that I might still disagree with, but I could not argue that she was being arrested for her thoughts. Had she been with others reciting a prayer or a chant, that I would have no issue at all with it being illegal. It is a form of protest.

It seems to me that the major complaint with her is that she had been protesting and was becoming a nuisance. OK, I can see that. If I lived there, I would get a bit upset over hearing continuous prayers and chants 24/7 for extended periods. I'll put aside for the moment your assertion (which I agree with) that there can be no effective protest without annoyance, simply for the sake of discussion.

If this is true, and the UK now allows for the arrest for silent prayer, this opens up a whole new bag of worms. If one can be arrested for praying, one can also be arrested for not praying. If one can be arrested for silently praying, one can be arrested for any thought that does not conform to the wishes of whoever issues a PSPO. Right now, the political climate is not very religious in nature, but the one thing consistent in society is its inconsistency; things have this habit of changing. By allowing this arrest precedent to be set, it assures that sooner or later someone will use that precedent in a way that today's supporters of it do not like.

Perhaps the country will decide that only a specific religion is true, and will require that everyone show fealty to whatever deity is in vogue. If someone does not, if they do not attend worship services sanctioned by the State, if they do not follow religious rules, if they do not observe religious customs, they can be arrested. It worked on this lady; it can work on everyone else as well. The UK has adopted a similar system of governance as the USA, so basic principles apply.

Worse, many of the posters who want this woman tarred and feathered for daring to silently pray are not in the UK. Some are, but not all. That means there is a substantial segment of the US public who believe that silent prayer can be an arrest-worthy offense. I live in the USA, and I will pray when I want, how I want, to whom I want, where I want... silently usually, but I will pray. No jail, no prison, no admonition, no incentives, no torture can stop that... only my death.

I would really like to die of old age.

TheRedneck

a reply to: Ohanka

If you genuinely believe there is no difference between holding a belief and engaging in political activism for it then I don't know what to tell you.

That is not my position. It never has been my position. Please speak to your own position if you refuse to acknowledge mine for what it truly is.

Doing your job or getting an abortion does not constitute a form of political activity. Showing up to scream at the people who showed up to yell at the clinic does, however.

At what point during or just before the arrest was she "screaming at the people who showed up to yell at the clinic"? Show me one report, one video, one piece of solid evidence that she did so on the day of the arrest, and I will agree with you.

She was standing there silently. That is not a protest either.

TheRedneck

a reply to: Terpene

I agree, but this applies to a pro choice activist equally, if he was a known figure to authority there, he would have stated any other intention than passing trough, like i just want to silently show support, or I'm praying he would have been arrested...

So you agree that this was an arrest for thought. And you're OK with that?

TheRedneck

a reply to: TheRedneck

Scream at people referred to the anti-abortion activists who are also prohibited from the area. Not her.

a reply to: Ohanka

Scream at people referred to the anti-abortion activists who are also prohibited from the area. Not her.

I wasn't aware they were arrested?

TheRedneck

a reply to: TheRedneck

I never meant to imply that your argument was unsound (I personally would find it easier to argue for it than against it - but that's just me.)

I'm trying to 'center' the points of contention which feature predominantly in the argument.

People are pissed off and fed up with being accosted by "other people's faith" when they want to avoid it. Protesters are bad enough. But Christians often double down by not only offering themselves up to protest the 'acceptance' of abortion, but also by imposing a morality that is specific only to them as justification. This ordinance is a 'reaction' not a 'cause.'

Except the ardent refuser of the religious 'privilege' are relying on the ordinance itself as 'justification.'

As we have seen, despite the matters of fact... she is objectified as an 'overall example' of all the past grievances lurking behind the rationale of the ordinance. I find it ironic that she is being victimized - but then demeaned for adopting a victim's place in the scenario. All in all, those decrying this 'foreigners' perspective support only the act of law, and not the law itself. And to be fair, while I have not seen evidence that she is "using" the event for self-serving purposes; I cannot deny that it is a distinct possibility.

I think the argument in essence is an "apples to oranges" kind of thing.

While I accept that people cannot be civilly persecuted for personal (silent) prayer... the ordinance wording makes a 'judgement call' inevitable. The environment in that region is different, and I have to respect that difference. The principle of enforcing public conduct ordinances is being extended to whatever someone "feels" and alleges about it. I feel that to be troubling to say the least.

I can't yet reconcile myself to accept this is a 'spontaneous' development, and I know that generally speaking, our friends in the UK celebrate the rejection of religious activity specifically associated with protest.

I feel the to protest abortion credibly, we should never associate it with faith. Dogma separates people from one another.
You don't need faith to protest abortion. There are many secular arguments which are valid in and of themselves.

But the mistake is thinking that people who want the protests banned or stopped, don't associate the reason for the protest with the offense. They don't care what it's about, they just want it to stop.

The alleged protest which took place while she was standing there silently (with the clinic closed for operations) was just that... an allegation (by an unnamed complainant.) She did flirt with the association "I might have been.". Which is why I entertain the possibility that she might have been 'daring' the officer to act on it. But that is supposition, and unlike our friends - I am not willing to say that she is guilty of anything until a proper judicial authority applies the law to what she actually did. Arrests are just accusations; 'sentencing' is where the rubber meets the road.

I do agree with you. I don't think this would stand up in an American court of law... but then who knows how our own local authorities might codify ordinances in the future? We are no strangers to the inconstant and illogical considerations of what is and isn't "protest." And how political, social, and even judicial 'virtue signaling' might manifest itself in our future. I suppose we'll see.

a reply to: TheRedneck

Probably because they didn't violate the order in place?

You keep asking obscurantist questions which have less and less to do with the matter at hand, and continue pushing the narrative she was arrested for prayer and not breaking the order. Fact is she was done for breaking the order. She could've been dressed as a clown making balloon animals and the result would've been the same.

I don't even like the stupid protection orders but the false narrative she was arrested for prayer is even more objectionable.

a reply to: Ohanka

Probably because they didn't violate the order in place?

Probably correct. So why are they relevant, except to ascertain the reason the PSPO was put into place?

Fact is she was done for breaking the order. She could've been dressed as a clown making balloon animals and the result would've been the same.

Here's the order, again:

The Activities prohibited by the Order are:

i Protesting, namely engaging in any act of approval or disapproval or attempted act of approval or disapproval, with respect to issues related to abortion services, by any means. This includes but is not limited to graphic, verbal or written means, prayer or counselling,

ii Interfering, or attempting to interfere, whether verbally or physically, with a Robert Clinic service user, visitor or member of staff,

iii Intimidating or harassing, or attempting to intimidate or harass, a Robert Clinic service user, visitor or a member of staff,

iv Recording or photographing a Robert Clinic service user, visitor or member of staff or

v Displaying any text or images relating directly or indirectly to the termination of pregnancy.

Exactly which of those prohibited activities did she violate? I don't see anything about dressing up as a clown and making balloon animals. If you do, please point it out.

TheRedneck

a reply to: TheRedneck

The Activities prohibited by the Order are:

i Protesting, namely engaging in any act of approval or disapproval or attempted act of approval or disapproval, with respect to issues related to abortion services, by any means. This includes but is not limited to graphic, verbal or written means, prayer or counselling,

The way I read (i) is that it refers only to the protesting part, it does not mention the clinic having to be open, or clinic workers/patients having to be there.

..but is not limited to...

That, IMO, is why the protester told police 'she might be praying' because she knows very well what this order entailed.

a reply to: TheRedneck

In a way political thought and their expression thereof was practiced in such annoying way to everyone else a zone like that had to be implemented.

But it is really their own doing, crying about it after the fact of escalating a conflict to the degree such a buffer with such dangerous rules became necessary, spin it however you want, I don't care either.

As long as that indignation get to the boiling point, that's all that's needed...

a reply to: Maxmars

People are pissed off and fed up with being accosted by "other people's faith" when they want to avoid it. Protesters are bad enough.

It may surprise many, but I TOTALLY agree with this.
You see, 'other people's faith" is CONSTANTLY forced on us. More and more with every passing day.
Faith is simply belief without evidence.

We can see faith in almost every single delusion put forth as fact, in today's society.
From claiming abortion is not killing a human being to claiming gender is fluid and changes as often as the wind.
There is very little objective truth being pushed on people, only subjective true, aka: FAITH.

But Christians often double down by not only offering themselves up to protest the 'acceptance' of abortion, but also by imposing a morality that is specific only to them as justification. This ordinance is a 'reaction' not a 'cause.'

This part, I don't agree with as much. It is not only "Christians". It is generally EVERYONE, regardless if you are religious or not.
People like to claim it is only the religious that participate in faith, it is not.

As for abortion?
Abortion is the violent, premeditated killing of another human being for convenience, in 99% of cases.
That is not a faith based comment, it is the simple objective truth, it can be backed up with science and statistics.
Quad

a reply to: Maxmars

I'm trying to 'center' the points of contention which feature predominantly in the argument.

Yes, we are approaching the subject from different perspectives. Both applicable IMO.

People are pissed off and fed up with being accosted by "other people's faith" when they want to avoid it. Protesters are bad enough. But Christians often double down by not only offering themselves up to protest the 'acceptance' of abortion, but also by imposing a morality that is specific only to them as justification. This ordinance is a 'reaction' not a 'cause.'

I agree, and I see this as spurred on by a continual push over the past half century at least to completely separate government from faith. That's actually incorrect. While it is possible to prevent government from interfering with religion, it is not possible to prevent faith from having an influence on government. All people have some sort of belief in the afterlife (or lack thereof) and some sort of morality. All governments are operated by people. Ergo, those people who run a government will conduct themselves in their official roles according to their own morality.

In short, separation of church and state is not possible. Separation of church from state is, and should be accomplished simply to place a rein on governmental over-reach.

The push to try and perform this impossible task has led to a belief that one may be isolated from any religious influence whatsoever. That is simply, again, not possible without restricting religion... itself a quite difficult task that has never lasted when tried. So whenever someone professes Christianity, the immediate reaction is that they are somehow invading one's personal liberties. Of course, this interpretation is incorrect, but as long as people believe it, it becomes their goal.

My injection of religion into my posts was a necessity due to the simple fact that so many people apparently do not understand prayer. Yes, it can be used verbally between believers, usually in a worshipful setting; it can be used as a "tactic" designed to annoy non-believers (in which case, it is really not "prayer" in the religious sense); but more often it is done silently, continuously, no matter where one is or what one is doing. That last type of prayer is an integral part of the religion itself; it is not a custom or ritual, but the very purpose of the religion.

However, I am not basing my position on religion as much as I am legality. The woman in question has not violated any part of the order, with one notable possible exception: she could have been praying silently. Since she was arrested after admitting that she might have been praying, it follows that the police considered her in violation of the PSPO. Therefore, she had to have been arrested for silent prayer. Her bail conditions bear that out.

But if, as has been claimed, the UK has a prohibition against the government interfering with religious freedom on par with our First Amendment, then the order itself is illegal. it could ban obnoxious prayer in the area, but it cannot ban all prayer to include silent prayer... that is a direct restriction on her religious freedom. So, by allowing this order to exist, either the UK has abandoned its own claimed adherence to freedom of religion, or it never had that adherence in the first place.

I don't think most of those arguing for the persecution of this woman have enough knowledge of how Christianity operates to understand the implications... and obviously are not going to listen to anyone who does not agree with their personal bias. Therefore, they can easily disconnect the right to pray silently from the right to religion. In truth, this is simply not possible.

So to their mind, illegally extending this order to include silent prayer allows them to rid themselves of someone controversial and against their agenda and does no harm. That is false, but one can argue if one refuses to accept the falsehood of their position.

TheRedneck

a reply to: Terpene

In a way political thought and their expression thereof was practiced in such annoying way to everyone else a zone like that had to be implemented.

But it is really their own doing, crying about it after the fact of escalating a conflict to the degree such a buffer with such dangerous rules became necessary, spin it however you want, I don't care either.

I do not disagree with that. I actually see the wisdom in implementing the order. But thinking is not protesting. If it were, everyone would be protesting all the time. Protesting must include some sort of overt action. Silent prayer is not overt and includes no action whatsoever.

The staff of the clinic are not excluded from the order, and I feel fairly certain every one of them is thinking something when they are at work. Therefore, they can be prosecuted as well. The customers as well, are thinking something when they are getting an abortion. Therefore they can be prosecuted as well. If thinking is protesting, everyone is protesting.

TheRedneck

a reply to: TheRedneck

I genuinely agree with your reasoning. My aim was to get to the crossroad of the argument., Thank you for the help.

And I understand the element of spiritual inclination you included in our argument, it was well said.

Ultimately, local ordinances are the responsibility of the community to engender and support. This ordinance was one of many possible solutions to the unfortunate, but direct, application of protesting.

Using the religious aspect of it within the ordinance itself was a failure, because it was just an excuse. Judge people by their actions, not their words.

Protesters (who think) know that 'crossing the line' has diminishing returns. It is the publicist, the showman, the vainglorious signaler who usually screws things up... and they usually do.

Sadly, this exercise has demonstrated just how subtly bias can become 'master' in a situation. And how for some the signaling of virtue can become more about the signal, than the virtue.

A most sincere thank you.

MM

There is no getting away from the fact that this power meant for anti social behaviour and given to councils has been ABUSED here and that they are affectively trying to be THOUGHT POLICE, this woman was doing nothing harmful or harassing anyone in any way, all she was doing was praying in her head and if this had been a Muslim that same corrupt police officer would not have DARED to stop her for fear of being investigated for racial and religious discrimination but because she was a Christian she was an easy target for him.

He need's to be removed from front line duty so too does the macho man woman thing that escorted the poor innocent lady to the car.

Old police would have been disgusted by this and some of them were even more corrupt than modern bobby's, they would still though have regarded this as wrong arresting an English Christian lady for being an English Christian lady is what it amount's to, thought police the dystopian anti democratic nightmare of George Orwell made into a reality.

There is no amount of Symantec's that can get around the fact this was incorrect and wrong and I dare say Criminally wrong, indeed dig out some of the old law book's and look up laws that are STILL STATUTE within the UK and she was probably not only within her right's which is pretty obvious really but the order around that area AND the abortion clinic itself are probably breaking several of these OLD BUT STILL BINDING laws as well as breaching the ECHR's rules on human right's the right to free assembly and the right to free speech which in fact she was not even performing as she was not an assembly and she was not speaking BUT she did have the right to be there unlike what this would be Gestapo officer seems to think.

I am of a very strong mind to think HE would be arrested.

This woman was NOT harassing anyone, was NOT stopping anyone, was NOT protesting or causing a nuisance and what is more the clinic was not even open at this time all she was doing was praying for the baby's that had been murdered there which regardless of your thoughts on abortion is her right and what is more as a Christian her Duty.

Was this police officer and his two cronies doing THEIR Duty, I think not, very strongly I think not.

a reply to: Ohanka

By pro abortion, you mean pro choice, right?

a reply to: LABTECH767

Legally speaking, she was.

She was in an exclusion zone where no pro life activity can take place. Here mere presence is the problem. Had she been there to film a nature documentary about sidewalk moss she'd have been well within her rights to be there. The same ismf she we're a BLM or neo nazi campaigning about immigration, but she was pro life in a zone set up to exclude pro life activities.

Look at it this way, if a couple of guys drag put up a pole outside your kid's school and were just having a dance, how would you feel, they're just dancing, right, just a couple of guys in spandex and a pole. Nothing wrong with that?

Well, that's how abortion providers feel about pro lifers hanging around out front of their places.

a reply to: AaarghZombies

She was in an exclusion zone where no pro life activity can take place. Here mere presence is the problem.

Not according to the PSPO. It did not state that persons were forbidden in the zone. Care to point out where it says she cannot simply be there? Do I need to post the actual restrictions again?

Had she been there to film a nature documentary about sidewalk moss she'd have been well within her rights to be there.

So now her honesty is the problem? If she had lied to the police she would have been well within her rights, but because she told the truth she must be arrested for thought crimes?

What a screwed up world you live in.

TheRedneck