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

a reply to: TheRedneck

Here physical presence without a good reason is enough to be considered a form of protest...

You never tell authority anything incriminating that can't be proven, unless you want to provoke a theater like this turned out to be.

a reply to: Terpene

Here physical presence without a good reason is enough to be considered a form of protest...

That's not legal. If someone is prohibited form being in a specific area, that requires a restraining order (or the UK equivalent) specifying she cannot be in the area.

It also doesn't make sense. Why did the cops do all the "small talk" if just her being there was cause for arrest? I think you're trying to read into this situation what you want to be true... there was nothing illegal about her being there. There would have been plenty illegal had she actually engaged in some sort of protest activity. She did not. The cops, like you are doing, chose to ignore the law and just arrest her on anything they could dream up.

You never tell authority anything incriminating that can't be proven, unless you want to provoke a theater like this turned out to be.

Are you having that much trouble with the religious aspect of it?

Jesus spoke of denial, quite plainly, through an actual event which happened with Peter the Disciple. I'll spare you the sermon, and for this I will use the New King James text, as it is easier for most to understand. This (from John 13:26-28)happened as Jesus was leaving the Passover on his way to be arrested:

Simon Peter said to Him, “Lord, where are You going?” Jesus answered him, “Where I am going you cannot follow Me now, but you shall follow Me afterward.”

Peter said to Him, “Lord, why can I not follow You now? I will lay down my life for Your sake.

Jesus answered him, “Will you lay down your life for My sake? Most assuredly, I say to you, the rooster shall not crow till you have denied Me three times."

Later, as Jesus was being arrested (from John 18:15-18 and John 18:25-27), those words came true:

And Simon Peter followed Jesus, and so did another disciple. Now that disciple was known to the high priest, and went with Jesus into the courtyard of the high priest.

But Peter stood at the door outside. Then the other disciple, who was known to the high priest, went out and spoke to her who kept the door, and brought Peter in.

Then the servant girl who kept the door said to Peter, “You are not also one of this Man’s disciples, are you?” He said, “I am not.”

Now the servants and officers who had made a fire of coals stood there, for it was cold, and they warmed themselves. And Peter stood with them and warmed himself.

Now Simon Peter stood and warmed himself. Therefore they said to him, “You are not also one of His disciples, are you?” He denied it and said, “I am not!”

One of the servants of the high priest, a relative of him whose ear Peter cut off, said, “Did I not see you in the garden with Him?”

Peter then denied again; and immediately a rooster crowed.

That's pretty plain. True believers of Jesus must not deny Him. Period.

Look, I understand you are not religious, and you likely do not have a moral center as steadfast as I do... but you need to understand something: Christianity, by Jesus' own words, says we are not to deny Him. If we do, we reject His sacrifice. There is nothing you nor anyone else on this planet can do to me, nothing whatsoever, be it torture, be it death itself, that will make me deny Jesus. Nothing. You can clam that is braggadocio, you can claim it is just words, but you should understand that is just your disbelief trying to correlate something you do not understand. If I had the choice of answering truthfully "Yes! I follow Jesus!" and lying in order to avoid certain death, I would not deny Jesus.

When you say believers should lie to the police about their religion, you destroy any freedom of religion that may have existed. And I believe, not through your personal intent but through societal intent, that may be the end goal. It ain't gonna happen.

I have something you do not, and something you cannot understand. It is beyond priceless. I will not give it up.

TheRedneck

a reply to: TheRedneck

The area had a special restriction placed on it that prevented any pro life activities from taking place.

The cop small talked her to confirm what she was doing there. Its standard procedure in the UK to do that.

She confirmed that she was conducting a pro life activity, which was praying in this case, so he arrested her.

If she'd said that she was praying for literally anything else he would probably just have moved her on.

It wasn't the fact that she was praying that us the issue here, it was the fact that she was doing something pro life in a zone where that is restricted. This is a special and limited power that some local or regional governments have in the UK.

It's designed to do things like stopping gang members hanging around rival gangs territory looking for trouble, or to intimate people.

a reply to: AaarghZombies

The area had a special restriction placed on it that prevented any pro life activities from taking place.

The cop small talked her to confirm what she was doing there. Its standard procedure in the UK to do that.

She confirmed that she was conducting a pro life activity, which was praying in this case, so he arrested her.

If she'd said that she was praying for literally anything else he would probably just have moved her on.

That is not supported by evidence. She claimed she was asked simply "Were you praying?" To which she replied "I might have been." I have seen nothing that indicates that she was asked or responded in the affirmative about praying for a specific thing. In addition, the one of the conditions of her bail was than she is not allowed to pray; it said nothing about what she might be praying for.

In any case, I am taking that as an admission that silent prayer can be made illegal in the UK with the stroke of a pen. That means the UK has absolutely no effective freedom of religion, contrary to what so many have tried to maintain, as such a freedom cannot exist without the freedom to pray to one's God. A restriction on silent prayer is antithetical to freedom of religion.

The thought police have arrived. I hope you guys know what this means.

TheRedneck

a reply to: TheRedneck

Lol some preaching, some wanna be lawyer and complete ignorance of how the cops run the streets....

Well, it's cute you realize this now, because it has been like that for a long time, and I welcome you to the club.
Is it ok? no, but that's the law...

a reply to: Terpene

I understand the concern about thought policing and if I were her I would have lied and said I was feeling unwell and was just resting there for a bit then have been on my way then do it again in the future. Also the charges against her were four counts of whatever the charge was, so it wasn't her first time doing this, am I right?

a reply to: Terpene

Well, it's cute you realize this now, because it has been like that for a long time, and I welcome you to the club.

No, that is not the way it was... and so far, only is the way it is in the UK.

We do not have thought police in the USA... yet. When we do, I hope you will remember that you support them.

(BTW, that was not a sermon, just an explanation; I have put city DAs in their place before; and I used to be a hot-rodder in my youth... you really think I don't know how cops operate?)

TheRedneck

This is a minor digression from the topic, namely the arrest referenced in the thread title.

I have seen, in the conversations, a repeated phrase that has got me thinking. The words, when used together, seem to qualify as a something, Bernasian, something of a Jedi-mind trick.

"Pro life," when contextually linked to a contention with a specific "anti-abortion" matter. At some point PR folks must have realized that you can't dramatically oppose something easily, if it specifies a virtue. Pro-life is vaguely affirming, but not representative of the objective nor intent of the opponents.

Technically, we could play these word games, is it really pro-choice, or is it pro-abortion?

Should people suddenly begin to recharacterize "pro-choice" as "pro-abortion," the alarm bells would ring and sound, and the public relations marketing tidal wave would hit us like a bomb. "Ignorance!" They would say... "This is about human rights," they would proclaim," simultaneously (and ironically) ignoring this freedom of choice leads specifically to the summary termination of human life-processes.

I know we can't choose their self-described nomenclature for them but changing the naming of your opponent should be called out when it happens. Otherwise, you may have to endure it yourself.

Just sayin.

originally posted by: Maxmars
This is a minor digression from the topic, namely the arrest referenced in the thread title.

I have seen, in the conversations, a repeated phrase that has got me thinking. The words, when used together, seem to qualify as a something, Bernasian, something of a Jedi-mind trick.

"Pro life," when contextually linked to a contention with a specific "anti-abortion" matter. At some point PR folks must have realized that you can't dramatically oppose something easily, if it specifies a virtue. Pro-life is vaguely affirming, but not representative of the objective nor intent of the opponents.

Technically, we could play these word games, is it really pro-choice, or is it pro-abortion?

Should people suddenly begin to recharacterize "pro-choice" as "pro-abortion," the alarm bells would ring and sound, and the public relations marketing tidal wave would hit us like a bomb. "Ignorance! They would say... this is about human rights," they would proclaim," ironically ignoring this freedom of choice leads specifically to the summary termination of human life-processes.

I know we can't choose their self-described nomenclature for them but changing the naming of your opponent should be called out when it happens. Otherwise, you may have to endure it yourself.

Just sayin.'

Honestly, "pro choice" makes no sense to me.
We should keep it simple.
Pro abortion/anti abortion.
Otherwise, to me atleast, we are stuck with "pro life/pro death" and that would float like a lead balloon.

originally posted by: Quadrivium

originally posted by: Maxmars
This is a minor digression from the topic, namely the arrest referenced in the thread title.

I have seen, in the conversations, a repeated phrase that has got me thinking. The words, when used together, seem to qualify as a something, Bernasian, something of a Jedi-mind trick.

"Pro life," when contextually linked to a contention with a specific "anti-abortion" matter. At some point PR folks must have realized that you can't dramatically oppose something easily, if it specifies a virtue. Pro-life is vaguely affirming, but not representative of the objective nor intent of the opponents.

Technically, we could play these word games, is it really pro-choice, or is it pro-abortion?

Should people suddenly begin to recharacterize "pro-choice" as "pro-abortion," the alarm bells would ring and sound, and the public relations marketing tidal wave would hit us like a bomb. "Ignorance! They would say... this is about human rights," they would proclaim," ironically ignoring this freedom of choice leads specifically to the summary termination of human life-processes.

I know we can't choose their self-described nomenclature for them but changing the naming of your opponent should be called out when it happens. Otherwise, you may have to endure it yourself.

Just sayin.'

Honestly, "pro choice" makes no sense to me.
We should keep it simple.
Pro abortion/anti abortion.
Otherwise, to me atleast, we are stuck with "pro life/pro death" and that would float like a lead balloon.

There are Pro-Life people who are Pro-Choice.

Just because someone is Pro-Life does not mean they get to dictate that choice/belief to someone else.

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: Quadrivium

originally posted by: Maxmars
This is a minor digression from the topic, namely the arrest referenced in the thread title.

I have seen, in the conversations, a repeated phrase that has got me thinking. The words, when used together, seem to qualify as a something, Bernasian, something of a Jedi-mind trick.

"Pro life," when contextually linked to a contention with a specific "anti-abortion" matter. At some point PR folks must have realized that you can't dramatically oppose something easily, if it specifies a virtue. Pro-life is vaguely affirming, but not representative of the objective nor intent of the opponents.

Technically, we could play these word games, is it really pro-choice, or is it pro-abortion?

Should people suddenly begin to recharacterize "pro-choice" as "pro-abortion," the alarm bells would ring and sound, and the public relations marketing tidal wave would hit us like a bomb. "Ignorance! They would say... this is about human rights," they would proclaim," ironically ignoring this freedom of choice leads specifically to the summary termination of human life-processes.

I know we can't choose their self-described nomenclature for them but changing the naming of your opponent should be called out when it happens. Otherwise, you may have to endure it yourself.

Just sayin.'

Honestly, "pro choice" makes no sense to me.
We should keep it simple.
Pro abortion/anti abortion.
Otherwise, to me atleast, we are stuck with "pro life/pro death" and that would float like a lead balloon.

There are Pro-Life people who are Pro-Choice.

Just because someone is Pro-Life does not mean they get to dictate that choice/belief to someone else.

We can take this to another thread, but I will add this in response and then I am done as it is not entirely on topic:

Being Pro-life and Pro-choice is an oxymoron unless the mothers life is in danger or in the case of rape.
If the mother's life is in danger she has the choice to save her own life.
If raped, the pregnant mother never had a choice it was violently taken from her.
The other 99% of cases it was a free and willful choice to engage in sex. The act of reproduction.

a reply to: Quadrivium

You can argue all you want. You can present many scenarios and opinions.

Fact is some Pro-Life people understand the right of Pro-Choice.

Which is why both those phrases are needed.

originally posted by: Annee
a reply to: Quadrivium

You can argue all you want. You can present many scenarios and opinions.

Fact is some Pro-Life people understand the right of Pro-Choice.

Which is why both those phrases are needed.

"Pro choice"....
What choice is being made?
The choice to have an abortion.
So....
Pro abortion/Anti abortion.
By claiming you are "pro choice" you are saying you did not have a choice in getting pregnant (men and women make a choice prior to pregnancy).
The majority of young and old adults know how we reproduce.
They know there are only two 100% effective forms of birth control.
Abstinence
And
Abortion.
So, you are either pro abortion or anti abortion, pro life or pro death. That is all.

a reply to: Maxmars

Should people suddenly begin to recharacterize "pro-choice" as "pro-abortion,"

I already do that. I started when it became evident to me that the purpose was not to provide choice, but to provide abortion on demand.

TheRedneck

originally posted by: quintessentone
a reply to: Terpene

I understand the concern about thought policing and if I were her I would have lied and said I was feeling unwell and was just resting there for a bit then have been on my way then do it again in the future. Also the charges against her were four counts of whatever the charge was, so it wasn't her first time doing this, am I right?

That's pretty much on - I would have said pilates/waiting for someone or if there wasn't such an order in place I'd have invited police to get the chief constable to witness it and declare it illegal and arrest me if he had nothing better to do (done the same organising local protests).

Correct she was arrested for breach of PSPO and charged with four counts of breaching PSPO that was put in place after the group she heads spent 10 years harrasing, intimidating and assualting locals and clinic users; including children as young as 11. She'd also been publicly advertising the fact she was continuing to break the law on social media which is never a good idea.

If she didn't have the history of 1000s of complaints, several hundred police call outs, police cataloguing over 100 criminal offences comitted by the group then the claims she was arrested for silent prayer or this is somehow indication of thought policing would have some validity.

In this case you have a repeat offender well known to police for refusing to allow others their rights granted under UK and ECHR law so has had restrictions placed on hers in accordance with article 9 (freedom of thought, counciousness, or religion) as she has such a long history of abusing her rights to deny others their rights.

She works for a US fundamentalist anti-abortion group called 40daysforlife who have been training their staff to do this in the UK then pretend to be victims or claim religious freedoms are under threat in the UK as part of their PR/Fundraising strategy. For some reason they've chosen the UK to be the next place to ban abortion after the Roe vs Wade victory.

Britain is next declare clinic protestors

They're pulling the same stunts in most UK cities and well known to authorities for anti-social behaviour with plans to introduce a ban on pro or anti abortion protests around clinics and hospitals in the UK as unlike UK campaigners the group use violence and shout/scream in peoples faces instead of show respect.

a reply to: Quadrivium

We could also play that game the other way around ant call them pro and anti choice... But that wouldn't fly either would it now?

a reply to: Terpene

We could also play that game the other way around ant call them pro and anti choice

Not really.

With both of my kids, my wife and I had already made our choice: we wanted them. Our first was actually planned, and we had been agreeing to have another when our son came along. Both times, my wife went in for prenatal care and was accosted by groups of people shoving pamphlets in her face advocating abortion while telling her all the joys of abortion.

That is NOT "pro-choice." It is pro-abortion, or pro-death if you prefer. These fools tried desperately to kill both of my children. Don't try to polish that crap-riddled argument off on me.

TheRedneck

a reply to: TheRedneck

Must have been very stressing, I find this behavior just despicable. If that happens once too many you'd appreciate a save zone for your wife and every other mom to be, wouldn't you?
Thinking about it, and assuming you're not making this up for the arguments sake, they are actually both anti choice...

originally posted by: Terpene
a reply to: Quadrivium

We could also play that game the other way around ant call them pro and anti choice... But that wouldn't fly either would it now?

Actually - "anti-choice" does work... almost better than pro-choice. Because it's about a specific choice... it was a mistake to go down this path if you are trying to influence perception about the virtue of "allowing" the choice to terminate pregnancy to be made casually, with a canned perception that "it's a human right."

I understand that it is personal, and the number of reasons that may exist to want to end it are as numerous as there are different people in the world. And I understand the illogic of expecting people to respect a code of conduct that is specific to you. I also accept that people should be able to operate without forced confrontation.

But the underlying arguments here continuously dance around that governance either a) allows you to communicate an opinion, or b) it doesn't. In this case we see how complaints about "how" that communication takes form have led us to choose option "b" over "a."

Both parties are guilty of something here... and neither want's to even acknowledge that fact.

a reply to: AaarghZombies

I don't accept that for the simple reason this was an exclusion zone set up by a council (not the actual government or a court, not even a county court that despite not being a full criminal court does at least have legal powers) and it is a legal right given to them that is actually contrary to already statute British laws that was actually only intended to be used to curb anti social behaviour and youth's congregating and causing a nuisance in areas so is also an abuse of the power used for a purpose that it was not given to be used for.

Check out pre-existent laws, the rights of freemen etc and you will see that not only do these FOUR charges against this lady not hold water but that it is an obvious over reach by the council of that area that is not even rightly a legal authority but only a civil authority and should NEVER have been given this power to use and abuse as they have in this case.

Also under the ECHR which I believe at the time of this we were and may still be under this is contrary to the right to assemble (And she was not even doing that and NEITHER was she in any act of trespass as she was not even in the grounds of the facility but well outside of it in an area that is public) and even had she been praying openly instead of silently it would have been also a contravention of the right to free speech (Which is NOT intimidation, the ECHR does not give the right to intimidate only to freely speak not threaten not that this lady or any Christian would ever do such a thing).

So in fact the police committed an unlawful arrest and detainment in breach of ECHR rules, the council imposed an illegal exclusion zone and everyone here has egg on there face, what they don't get is that some of us are not such good Christians as this lady is and we are rightly VERY ANGRY about this.

I am very serious when I say that officer needs to be dismissed or removed from frontline duty as he is an utter disgrace for how he and his colleague treated this lady.

Trying to justify this act against her is knowingly or unknowingly attempting to justify illegality and overreach by both that local authority and the police and that is actually tantamount to corruption on there part.