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

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: quintessentone

How was her presence a hindrance if she was just standing and might or might not have been praying and no one could say if she was doing anything?

I revert to original perception of this incident. Thank you for helping me understand I was right.

If you want to be right then you can believe what you want. I, on the other hand, try to find the truth.

Her presence in the buffer zone was not explained properly by her, so by her own words she could not explain what she was doing in the buffer zone. What do you expect the police to make from that?

a reply to: quintessentone

I apply the Fred Phelps test. What was he allowed to do? He was universally loathed but allowed a lot under right to protest.

Phelps would be allowed to simply stand there no matter how much we all hated him. In fact, he would have been given a great deal more latitude than that.

Since you cannot defend the right of a person,no matter how much you may loathecwhat they represent to stand in a space as you would any other citizen says rather more about you than anyone else.

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: quintessentone

I apply the Fred Phelps test. What was he allowed to do? He was universally loathed but allowed a lot under right to protest.

Phelps would be allowed to simply stand there no matter how much we all hated him. In fact, he would have been given a great deal more latitude than that.

Since you cannot defend the right of a person,no matter how much you may loathecwhat they represent to stand in a space as you would any other citizen says rather more about you than anyone else.

She can stand outside the buffer zone and not only pray silently or loudly, but also condemn everyone to hell's fire.

originally posted by: mtnshredder

originally posted by: TzarChasm

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: Maxmars

Arrested for being Christian.

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.

We don't live in Qatar, we live in America, ya know....home of the free (supposedly), yada yada. She can pray on any street she wants to (supposedly). Nonsensical and ridiculous comparison on your part.

This happened in Birmingham, UK. Entirely different continent.

originally posted by: quintessentone

originally posted by: Antisocialist
If they can create a small censorship zone in front of an abortion clinic, they can also create a censorship zone encompassing the entire nation.

It's not a censorship zone, it's a safety zone to protect women. People are free to protest outside the zone.

So that makes it a censorship zone, right?

originally posted by: Antisocialist

originally posted by: quintessentone

originally posted by: Antisocialist
If they can create a small censorship zone in front of an abortion clinic, they can also create a censorship zone encompassing the entire nation.

It's not a censorship zone, it's a safety zone to protect women. People are free to protest outside the zone.

So that makes it a censorship zone, right?

How so, when their voices can carry right through the zone to the ears of everyone in, around and past the zone?

originally posted by: quintessentone

originally posted by: Antisocialist

originally posted by: quintessentone

originally posted by: Antisocialist
If they can create a small censorship zone in front of an abortion clinic, they can also create a censorship zone encompassing the entire nation.

It's not a censorship zone, it's a safety zone to protect women. People are free to protest outside the zone.

So that makes it a censorship zone, right?

How so, when their voices can carry right through the zone to the ears of everyone in, around and past the zone?

So what's the difference whether she was in or outside the censorship zone? None, other than authorities decide how far out the censorship zone should reach. Under your premise, they will just extend the censorship zone to the far end of the block, or maybe all the way out to the city limits, or maybe even all the way out to the coast and beyond.

Even in front of the clinic is public space and free speech can not be regulated in the public spaces, regardless of where it is. At least, theoretically, in the US.

originally posted by: Ohanka
a reply to: nickyw

No martyrs will be created for her cause. Nobody supports abortion bans save an extreme fringe of religious nuts. Mostly traditional catholics and radical Muslims.

This isn’t a free speech issue. It’s a “don’t be a persistent nuisance for almost a decade and regularly harass & restrict the rights of individuals” issue.

She orchestrated this event precisely to spin this false narrative in a pathetic and transparent attempt to garner sympathy for her cause.

So can you arrest atheists outside of a church thinking about stuff? Man I get you are pro abortion and anti religious but you got loons on both sides and all I see in Europe is authority boot licking if they are on your team.

Arrest errybody and get some salt and pepper on them boots

Dp

originally posted by: Antisocialist

originally posted by: quintessentone

originally posted by: Antisocialist

originally posted by: quintessentone

originally posted by: Antisocialist
If they can create a small censorship zone in front of an abortion clinic, they can also create a censorship zone encompassing the entire nation.

It's not a censorship zone, it's a safety zone to protect women. People are free to protest outside the zone.

So that makes it a censorship zone, right?

How so, when their voices can carry right through the zone to the ears of everyone in, around and past the zone?

So what's the difference whether she was in or outside the censorship zone? None, other than authorities decide how far out the censorship zone should reach. Under your premise, they will just extend the censorship zone to the far end of the block, or maybe all the way out to the city limits, or maybe even all the way out to the coast and beyond.

Even in front of the clinic is public space and free speech can not be regulated in the public spaces, regardless of where it is. At least, theoretically, in the US.

You are skirting the truth here, it is a safety zone because of past harassment in the UK, but what comes next, violence like in the U.S. and Canada?

en.wikipedia.org...

Whether or not to ban protesting in front of clinics is in the hands of the Supreme Court there - and what brought them to this point?

"People are going in for counselling after having miscarriages and still births," she says. "If you're going in there to access any treatment, and this is a multi-use site, it's intimidating and harassing."

Efforts to address activity outside abortion services differ across the UK. Concerns over welfare led to the UK's first so-called buffer zone being set up outside an abortion clinic in the London borough of Ealing in 2018. Pro-choice campaigners had hoped these would become the norm, but only two more have been created since then.

"People are going in for counselling after having miscarriages and still births," she says. "If you're going in there to access any treatment, and this is a multi-use site, it's intimidating and harassing."

Efforts to address activity outside abortion services differ across the UK. Concerns over welfare led to the UK's first so-called buffer zone being set up outside an abortion clinic in the London borough of Ealing in 2018. Pro-choice campaigners had hoped these would become the norm, but only two more have been created since then.

www.bbc.com...

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: quintessentone

I apply the Fred Phelps test. What was he allowed to do? He was universally loathed but allowed a lot under right to protest.

Phelps would be allowed to simply stand there no matter how much we all hated him. In fact, he would have been given a great deal more latitude than that.

Since you cannot defend the right of a person,no matter how much you may loathecwhat they represent to stand in a space as you would any other citizen says rather more about you than anyone else.

History tells us if you protest and you don't get arrested or at least threatened, it's because you're bad at it.

So this woman did her civic duty and went to jail to prove a point.

Feather in her cap.

a reply to: Maxmars

These police officers very much need to be dismissed from there respective police force IMMEDIATLY.

This is obvious suppression of a persons right's and religious responsibility's when in fact the same officers would likely have not done anything about a bunch of Islamic extremist jihadi's praying in a street, blocking traffic and calling for war against the west other than cordon off the street and direct the traffic and public around them.

This is way beyond clown world this is a declaration of WAR upon Christianity by these scumbag's whom are NOT FIT to be called police officers and bring there whole force into disrepute.

I hope a group of Christians and a civil right's organization take this case us as this woman not only deserves compensation but also the police force responsible need's to be reprimanded forthwith.

To say I am disgusted is an understatement, there are men who have lain down there lives for our nation that not only would not recognize it today and think we had been invaded and conquered or something but who would have hit these bloody overpaid little tyrant penguins very hard indeed.

We need our police but we do not need this calibre of individuals as police or indeed this type of bias against our own still national religion being orchestrated against our own people even if our nations is becoming ever more Godless and atheist with dire consequence for the future.


And I for one believe this woman was doing what was right, she has the right and the police do NOT have the right to stop her from exercising her right's, indeed there are still laws on our statutes that the police do NOT enforce that say that institution of murder is a criminal facility.

NOW abortion to save a mothers life or some other dire situation and it's still a tragedy and even more so in a nation that does NOT HAVE ENOUGH YOUNG PEOPLE for the future fine but for lifestyle choices?.

God I feel like reprimanding those officers myself and it is not often that I feel that way against people whom for the most part are trying to protect people and society, but then again that is NOT what these idiots were doing in my opinion.

Even if there were standing orders this woman was praying SILENTLY and so this was an over reach of there police power if there was not some form of abatement order issued by a COURT not the police to prevent her being there, as for Asbos they are neither use nor ornament and are usually issued by the police and a box ticking JP (justice of the peace a kind of low ranking judge though what a corrupt bunch those JP's really are) if they needed some higher approval.

I am to say the least disgusted and IF this had been brought to greater public attention in the UK so would a very great many other people be.

And west midlands police, need we say more but one of the forces under whose VIGILANT policing Asian grooming gang's were raping and pimping school girls for decades and still are though with my longer memory I also remember them clashing with miners in the 1980's and while not as bad as the corrupt metropolitan police let's just say they are not the greatest or the least corrupt police force in the nation.

originally posted by: TzarChasm

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: quintessentone

I apply the Fred Phelps test. What was he allowed to do? He was universally loathed but allowed a lot under right to protest.

Phelps would be allowed to simply stand there no matter how much we all hated him. In fact, he would have been given a great deal more latitude than that.

Since you cannot defend the right of a person,no matter how much you may loathecwhat they represent to stand in a space as you would any other citizen says rather more about you than anyone else.

History tells us if you protest and you don't get arrested or at least threatened, it's because you're bad at it.

So this woman did her civic duty and went to jail to prove a point.

Feather in her cap.

She didn't go to jail, she made bail and will get a slap on the wrist this time.

originally posted by: TzarChasm

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: quintessentone

I apply the Fred Phelps test. What was he allowed to do? He was universally loathed but allowed a lot under right to protest.

Phelps would be allowed to simply stand there no matter how much we all hated him. In fact, he would have been given a great deal more latitude than that.

Since you cannot defend the right of a person,no matter how much you may loathecwhat they represent to stand in a space as you would any other citizen says rather more about you than anyone else.

History tells us if you protest and you don't get arrested or at least threatened, it's because you're bad at it.

So this woman did her civic duty and went to jail to prove a point.

Feather in her cap.

Yes; though I vehemently disagree with her opinions; I can admire her for sticking up for her convictions to a point most of us would not dare too and for defending what she believes to be the voiceless victims in the situation at her own expense.

But her sacrifice does not excuse a society willing to persecute her for exercising her freedoms, simply because those in authority do not agree with her opinions or worse do not want to deal with an angry mob who disagree with her opinion.

Well, all I know now from this conversation is that

• Silently praying is harassment, even when one has to ask you if you're praying.
  
• Being outside an abortion clinic is illegal (how do women seeking abortions get in?).
  
• Burning buildings and cars is an inalienable right as long as one does not pray while doing so.
  
• In the UK, it is illegal to exist anywhere there has been a protest. Not sure how long they go back in time.
  
• Anyone who wants to pray should stay home and never walk around in the streets.
  
• One will be arrested in the UK if they do not deny their religion.

OK, guys, that's fine. Not my country; not my business. However, I am apparently already illegal in the UK without ever having visited there, which means I will never visit there.

Did I miss anything?

TheRedneck

originally posted by: dandandat2
"Censorship zones" and laws "which make it illegal for an individual to engage in any act or attempted act of approval or disapproval".

#MakeOrwelFictionAgain

If I were she, I would argue that any woman who enters the BUILDING and is receiving abortive services is showing a firm stance on her approval of the procedure of abortion and so if she is to be charged for silently thinking a thought directed towards God, that is a much more subtle message of disapproval than the patient’s statement of approval so either charge both or charge neither.

a reply to: quintessentone

But she *wasn't doing any of that*, was she? If she had been the police would not have needed to ask her what she was doing. It would have been self-evident.

So instead, it begins to look like they arrested her for her mere presence. So the question becomes- is one protesting simply by being?

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: quintessentone

But she *wasn't doing any of that*, was she? If she had been the police would not have needed to ask her what she was doing. It would have been self-evident.

So instead, it begins to look like they arrested her for her mere presence. So the question becomes- is one protesting simply by being?

I didn't say she was doing that, I said she could do that OUTSIDE the buffer zone.

So the question becomes - when one is breaking the law by being in the buffer zone and one tells the police she 'might' have been praying, which shows she really doesn't know what she was doing, should the police's alarm bells ring?

a reply to: quintessentone

So this is what I am getting:

This women was known to be a protestor, but in this case, she was simply there inside the so-called buffer zone. Was she protesting? Apparently no because the police had to ask her if she had engaged in any activity they could arrest her for. She was simply reported for others for merely being there.

This is why I ask you what defines a person as a protestor as differentiated from a private citizen? What if I protest my local politician and also walk by his office every day. Am I always considered a protestor after I engage in the protest even though I walk by that office every day and continue to do so after that protest? Is my having been a protestor enough to make my walking by on my own business just protesting because I was there protesting?

My contention is that the reason the buffer zone is there is to stop protesting - an action - not the people who may have been known to engage in that action if they aren't currently engaged in it.

So if she wasn't engaged in protesting but was just standing there acting as a private citizen, the buffer zone is not intended to do a thing to her, and the police were outside their authority.

This seems to be a consistent failing of leftist thought. People are their actions, inseparable. They aren't. An action is something I may or may not engage in as I choose, and it does not define who or what I am.

a reply to: texas thinker

This is prophecy.
Believers in Christ will be persecuted.

Not really, but nice victim complex.

But hey, they all wanna persecute folks for not believing what they believe...Dish it out but can't take it, eh?

(Except this person wasn't arrested or "persecuted" for "being Christian").