TODAY: Trial begins for army vet who prayed silently near abortion facility

  • Father of two, who served in Afghanistan, faces criminal trial for praying silently in abortion “buffer zone” in Bournemouth – ADF UK supporting legal defence
  • UK Government to roll out “buffer zones” nationwide, imminently – human rights experts warn against plans to name “silent prayer” as a crime in buffer zone guidance

DORSET (17th September 2024) – Poole Magistrates’ Court will hear the case of Adam Smith-Connor, the father and army veteran criminally charged for praying silently near an abortion facility in Bournemouth, in a three day trial beginning TODAY – until 19th September.

Bournemouth, Christchurch & Poole Council filed the charges on the basis that Smith-Connor was praying within a censored “buffer zone” – an area covering several streets in the town – in which authorities have banned various expressions of pro-life or Christian belief, including through offering help to women in crisis pregnancies, or praying.

Read the full text of the Public Spaces Protection Order here. 

The defence contends that a mere thought cannot amount to a crime, and authorities must not criminalise citizens for the opinions or beliefs they hold in their minds on any given public street. 

"It is unfathomable that in an apparently free society, I am being criminally charged on the basis of my silent thoughts, in the privacy of my own mind. It’s not different than being tried for a thoughtcrime."

- Adam Smith-Connor, facing trial on Tuesday for silently praying in a "buffer zone"

On the date in question, Smith-Connor prayed silently for approximately three minutes before being approached by police officers. The legal proceedings have continued for almost two years, and the trial is scheduled to take place for three days. 

The Council has so far run up legal fees – charged to the public purse – in excess of £34k to prosecute an offence carrying a maximum fine of £1k. 

"What is the nature of your prayer?"

Smith-Connor was issued a fixed penalty notice on 13th December 2022. The notice detailed that he had been “praying for his deceased son” a month earlier on 24th November 2022 near an abortion facility on Orphir Road in Bournemouth where an abortion facility censorship zone or “buffer zone” is in place. 

You are currently viewing a placeholder content from YouTube. To access the actual content, click the button below. Please note that doing so will share data with third-party providers.

More Information
Unblock content Accept required service and unblock content

During their interaction with Smith-Connor, which was captured on video, officers asked the father of two, “what is the nature of your prayer?”

Smith-Connor, who now regrets having paid for an abortion for his ex-girlfriend in the past, was praying about his experience, about the child whom he lost, and for the men and women facing difficult decisions about abortion today. He prayed with his back to the facility to avoid any impression of approaching or engaging with women using the facility. 

A lack of clarity from police

Smith-Connor’s case has unveiled confusion amongst police officers regarding the permissibility of silent prayer in UK law.  

 In a filmed encounter with police on another occasion in which Smith-Connor had silently prayed in the same spot, officers had informed him that he was not breaking the law, remarking, “this is England and it’s a public place and you’re entitled to do that.” 

WATCH THE INTERACTION HERE.

“In various other circumstances, the police and the courts have made it clear that silent prayer is not a criminal act. And yet, BCP Council, which has already conceded that presence is not in itself an offence, has introduced a rights-restricting censorship zone, which they now argue extends to a ban on silent prayer,” said Jeremiah Igunnubole, legal counsel for ADF UK, supporting Smith-Connor’s defense.  

“In permitting the prosecution of silent prayer, we are sailing into dangerous waters regarding human rights protections in the UK. Censorship zones are inherently wrong and engender unhelpful legal confusion regarding the right to free thought. Both domestic and international law have long established freedom of thought as an absolute right that must not ever be interfered with by the state.

“The Telegraph recently reported that Ministers are considering naming “silent prayer” as a crime in their “buffer zones” guidance – to do so would not only be a legal error, it could open up the floodgates to human rights violations similar to those experienced by Adam Smith-Connor,” he continued.

A series of British "thoughtcrime" trials

Smith-Connor’s case will mark the third in a series of high-profile cases in which citizens have been tried in court for praying silently in their heads within abortion facility “buffer zones”.  

In March 2022, charitable volunteer Isabel Vaughan-Spruce and Catholic priest Father Sean Gough, were both found “not guilty” after facing criminal charges for similar actions to Smith-Connor. Read more. 

Though being found “not guilty” of breaching the censorship zone or “buffer zone” with her thoughts, Vaughan-Spruce was arrested a second time in March after she prayed silently in the same spot near the abortion facility once again. Six police officers attended the scene. In August 2024, police paid Vaughan-Spruce a settlement of £13,000 for her two unlawful arrests. 

Five councils across the UK currently have active “buffer zones” or censorship zones banning prayer and offers of charitable help to women on the public streets near abortion facilities. 

On 7th March 2023, the UK Parliament voted to roll out “buffer zones” around every abortion facility in England & Wales as part of the Public Order Act 2023. The Labour Government are expected to implement the zones imminently. Last month, the Telegraph reported that Ministers are considering naming “silent prayer” as a criminal activity within the guidance of the new law.

Ahead of the trial, Adam Smith-Connor commented:

“Nobody should be prosecuted for silent prayer. It is unfathomable that in an apparently free society, I am being criminally charged on the basis of my silent thoughts, in the privacy of my own mind. It’s not different than being tried for a thoughtcrime.

“I served for 20 years in the army reserves, including a tour in Afghanistan, to protect the fundamental freedoms that this country is built upon. I continue that spirit of service as a health care professional and church volunteer. It troubles me greatly to see our freedoms eroded to the extent that thoughtcrimes are now being prosecuted in the UK.”

Smith-Connor’s trial was originally scheduled to take place in November 2023, but was delayed by the Court. At Poole Magistrates’ Court, Smith-Connor delivered an emotional address to supporters – see below.

You are currently viewing a placeholder content from YouTube. To access the actual content, click the button below. Please note that doing so will share data with third-party providers.

More Information
Unblock content Accept required service and unblock content

Images for free use in print or online in relation to this story only

Pictured: Adam Smith-Connor; Adam Smith-Connor praying outside Poole Magistrates Court with Isabel Vaughan-Spruce; Jeremiah Igunnubole, ADF UK

SILENT PRAYER ON TRIAL AGAIN: Army Vet to be “tried for thoughtcrime”, Tuesday

  • Father of two, who served in Afghanistan, faces criminal trial for praying silently in abortion “buffer zone” in Bournemouth – ADF UK supporting legal defence
  • UK Government to roll out “buffer zones” nationwide, imminently – human rights experts warn against plans to name “silent prayer” as a crime in buffer zone guidance

DORSET (12th September 2024) – Poole Magistrates’ Court will hear the case of Adam Smith-Connor, the father and army veteran criminally charged for praying silently near an abortion facility in Bournemouth, on 17th-19th September. 

Bournemouth, Christchurch & Poole Council filed the charges on the basis that Smith-Connor was praying within a censored “buffer zone” – an area covering several streets in the town – in which authorities have banned various expressions of pro-life or Christian belief, including through offering help to women in crisis pregnancies, or praying.

Read the full text of the Public Spaces Protection Order here. 

The defence contends that a mere thought cannot amount to a crime, and authorities must not criminalise citizens for the opinions or beliefs they hold in their minds on any given public street. 

"It is unfathomable that in an apparently free society, I am being criminally charged on the basis of my silent thoughts, in the privacy of my own mind. It’s not different than being tried for a thoughtcrime."

- Adam Smith-Connor, facing trial on Tuesday for silently praying in a "buffer zone"

On the date in question, Smith-Connor prayed silently for approximately three minutes before being approached by police officers. The legal proceedings have continued for almost two years, and the trial is scheduled to take place for three days. 

The Council has so far run up legal fees – charged to the public purse – in excess of £34k to prosecute an offence carrying a maximum fine of £1k. 

"What is the nature of your prayer?"

Smith-Connor was issued a fixed penalty notice on 13th December 2022. The notice detailed that he had been “praying for his deceased son” a month earlier on 24th November 2022 near an abortion facility on Orphir Road in Bournemouth where an abortion facility censorship zone or “buffer zone” is in place. 

You are currently viewing a placeholder content from YouTube. To access the actual content, click the button below. Please note that doing so will share data with third-party providers.

More Information
Unblock content Accept required service and unblock content

During their interaction with Smith-Connor, which was captured on video, officers asked the father of two, “what is the nature of your prayer?”

Smith-Connor, who now regrets having paid for an abortion for his ex-girlfriend in the past, was praying about his experience, about the child whom he lost, and for the men and women facing difficult decisions about abortion today. He prayed with his back to the facility to avoid any impression of approaching or engaging with women using the facility. 

A lack of clarity from police

Smith-Connor’s case has unveiled confusion amongst police officers regarding the permissibility of silent prayer in UK law.  

 In a filmed encounter with police on another occasion in which Smith-Connor had silently prayed in the same spot, officers had informed him that he was not breaking the law, remarking, “this is England and it’s a public place and you’re entitled to do that.” 

WATCH THE INTERACTION HERE.

“In various other circumstances, the police and the courts have made it clear that silent prayer is not a criminal act. And yet, BCP Council, which has already conceded that presence is not in itself an offence, has introduced a rights-restricting censorship zone, which they now argue extends to a ban on silent prayer,” said Jeremiah Igunnubole, legal counsel for ADF UK, supporting Smith-Connor’s defense.  

“In permitting the prosecution of silent prayer, we are sailing into dangerous waters regarding human rights protections in the UK. Censorship zones are inherently wrong and engender unhelpful legal confusion regarding the right to free thought. Both domestic and international law have long established freedom of thought as an absolute right that must not ever be interfered with by the state.

“The Telegraph recently reported that Ministers are considering naming “silent prayer” as a crime in their “buffer zones” guidance – to do so would not only be a legal error, it could open up the floodgates to human rights violations similar to those experienced by Adam Smith-Connor,” he continued.

A series of British "thoughtcrime" trials

Smith-Connor’s case will mark the third in a series of high-profile cases in which citizens have been tried in court for praying silently in their heads within abortion facility “buffer zones”.  

In March 2022, charitable volunteer Isabel Vaughan-Spruce and Catholic priest Father Sean Gough, were both found “not guilty” after facing criminal charges for similar actions to Smith-Connor. Read more. 

Though being found “not guilty” of breaching the censorship zone or “buffer zone” with her thoughts, Vaughan-Spruce was arrested a second time in March after she prayed silently in the same spot near the abortion facility once again. Six police officers attended the scene. In August 2024, police paid Vaughan-Spruce a settlement of £13,000 for her two unlawful arrests. 

Five councils across the UK currently have active “buffer zones” or censorship zones banning prayer and offers of charitable help to women on the public streets near abortion facilities. 

On 7th March 2023, the UK Parliament voted to roll out “buffer zones” around every abortion facility in England & Wales as part of the Public Order Act 2023. The Labour Government are expected to implement the zones imminently. Last month, the Telegraph reported that Ministers are considering naming “silent prayer” as a criminal activity within the guidance of the new law.

Ahead of the trial, Adam Smith-Connor commented:

“Nobody should be prosecuted for silent prayer. It is unfathomable that in an apparently free society, I am being criminally charged on the basis of my silent thoughts, in the privacy of my own mind. It’s not different than being tried for a thoughtcrime.

“I served for 20 years in the army reserves, including a tour in Afghanistan, to protect the fundamental freedoms that this country is built upon. I continue that spirit of service as a health care professional and church volunteer. It troubles me greatly to see our freedoms eroded to the extent that thoughtcrimes are now being prosecuted in the UK.”

Images for free use in print or online in relation to this story only

Pictured: Adam Smith-Connor; Adam Smith-Connor praying outside Poole Magistrates Court with Isabel Vaughan-Spruce; Jeremiah Igunnubole, ADF UK

Liz Truss, Michael Shellenberger, join over 100 free speech champions in condemning ban on “X” in Brazil 

  • International journalists, politicians and thought-leaders sign open letter to Brazilian congress: “Freedom of expression is not negotiable” 
  • Five Attorneys General, Lord David Frost, Eva Vlaardingerbroek, David Starkey CBE, Rod Dreher, Babylon Bee’s Seth Dillon, Senior UK, US, European and Latin American politicians and professors unite to call for ban on “X” to be overturned 

(12 September 2024) – Former British Prime Minister Liz Truss, “Twitter Files” journalist Michael Shellenberger and over 100 international free speech advocates have joined an open letter condemning the suspension of “X” in Brazil in an open letter to the Brazilian congress.

Read the letter in full, which is now open to signature from members of the public, here.

The letter, signed by five US Attorneys General, three members of the UK House of Lords, Daily Wire’s Megan Basham, bestselling author Rod Dreher, podcaster Tammy Peterson, “Babylon Bee” CEO Seth Dillon, X “Spaces” host Mario Nawfal, former US Senator Sam Brownback, and leading academics including Princeton’s Dr. Robert P. George, emphasizes the importance of free speech following a severe censorial crackdown in Brazil. 

"Under the guise of promoting democracy, and despite growing backlash from home and abroad, Brazilian authorities have created the most oppressive culture of censorship in the western hemisphere."

- Michael Shellenberger, author & journalist targeted for criminal investigation for reporting on the censorship efforts of Brazilian courts

The letter describes the shutdown of “X”, purchased by Elon Musk in 2022, throughout the country as “a dangerous escalation” of the “troubling trend of global censorship of speech.” 

Addressed to the Brazilian Congress, the letter continues: 

“There is no quicker path to the demise of democracy than the erosion of free speech. 

We urge the Brazilian government to restore the free flow of information, and respect the rights of its citizens to express their views without fear of retribution.” 

A violation of human rights

The initiative was coordinated by legal advocacy group ADF International, which has also written to the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (which has jurisdiction over Brazil under the American Convention on Human Rights) to demand its urgent intervention against the violation of free speech. 

The censorship crisis in Brazil reached a peak on Friday 30th August, when Justice Alexandre de Moraes of the Brazilian Supreme Court ordered the “immediate, complete and total suspension of X’s operations” in the country after the platform refused to comply with government orders to shut down accounts that it had singled out for censorship.   

The decision threatened a daily fine of R$50,000 (£6,800 / almost $9,000) on individuals and companies that attempt to continue using X via a virtual private network (VPN).  

The same Justice also has issued an order to freeze the assets of the company Starlink, a satellite internet provider. The company is a subsidiary of SpaceX, an entirely different company with different shareholders, following X’s refusal to comply with the censorship orders.

"If Brazil is allowed to continue in this authoritarian vein, other countries across the West could likely follow in its footsteps."

- Paul Coleman, Executive Director, ADF International

Free speech is "not a privilege"

The letter, demanding the immediate restoration of free speech in Brazil, attracted signatures from sports star and advocate Riley Gaines, journalists Andy Ngo and Melissa Chen, public intellectuals Dr. Peter Boghossian and Ayaan Hirsi Ali, childrens’ rights campaigner Chris Elston (“Billboard Chris”), and historian David Starkey.  

Concluding, the letter reads: “Freedom of expression is not negotiable, nor is it a privilege – it is the cornerstone of every democratic society. We must defend it whenever it is under threat, whether in Brazil or anywhere else in the world.” 

Michael Shellenberger, the author and journalist behind “The Twitter Files,” signed the letter, having been targeted for criminal investigation for reporting on the censorship efforts of Brazilian courts. 

Paul Coleman, Executive Director of ADF International, which coordinated the open letter, said: 

“The state of censorship in Brazil is severe and worsening to an extreme degree, positioning the country among the worst for restrictions on speech in the Americas. Every Brazilian has the fundamental human right to free speech. What Brazilian authorities are doing is directly in violation of both Brazilian and international law, and the global community must hold them accountable.   

If Brazil is allowed to continue in this authoritarian vein, other countries across the West could likely follow in its footsteps, imposing draconian orders to silence speech and banning digital meeting places. It is imperative that we use our voices to speak up for free expression while we have still have the freedom to do so.”  

Commenting on the censorial clampdown, Shellenberger said: 

“I am being criminally investigated by Brazilian authorities for exposing their attempts to censor. Brazil has reached a crisis point where a lone Supreme Court judge could wield his authority to shut down X in the country.    

Under the guise of promoting democracy, and despite growing backlash from home and abroad, Brazilian authorities have created the most oppressive culture of censorship in the western hemisphere. It’s not only bad policy and bad politics, it’s a blatant violation of basic human rights for authorities to ban the speech of their own citizens. It’s inconceivable that human beings should be censored and silenced by other human beings simply because they disagree with their speech.” 

In May, Marcel van Hattem, member of the Chamber of Deputies for Brazil, also commented on the censorship taking place:

“The attempts by Judge Alexandre de Moraes to censor and silence the people of Brazil simply cannot stand. Our constitution specifically prohibits all censorship and guarantees the right to freedom of expression; these are not only constitutionally-protected rights, but basic, human rights that should be guaranteed and preserved for all Brazilians. Censorship has no place in a free society, and I implore all who are able to join me in vehemently opposing these kinds of restrictions.” 

Images for free use in print or online in relation to this story only

Pictured: Paul Coleman, Michael Shellenberger

Thousands set to ‘march for life’ in London: “abortion isn’t healthcare”

March for Life London 2024.
  • Former abortionists, current medical doctors and abortion survivors to meet in London for healthcare summit and annual “March for Life”
  • March expected to draw thousands from across the country following recent attempt of UK parliament to decriminalize abortion up to birth
March for Life London 2024.

LONDON (4 September) – Thousands are set to march through London on Saturday in support of the right to life of unborn children, and in support of better services to help women avoid abortion.

Abortion statistics released by the Department of Health and Social Care in May 2024 show the highest number of abortions ever recorded in England and Wales, with 252,122 taking place in 2022, an increase of almost 20% from 2021.

1 in 3 women in the UK will have an abortion in their lifetime.

“Something is going very wrong with our country if 1 in 3 women feel abortion is their best option.This is why young women like me are turning out to March for Life."

- Lois McLatchie Miller, Spokesperson for ADF UK, and panel chair at the pro-life summit

 

The March takes place only months after attempts to decriminalise abortion for any reason, up to birth, were ultimately thwarted in the UK parliament due to an election being called before the completion of the Conservative government’s Crime and Sentencing Bill. 

However, pro-life campaigners remain concerned about attempts to decriminalise abortion up to birth in the near future. 

Lois McLatchie Miller, spokesperson for ADF UK who will chair a panel at the summit preceding the march, said: 

“Only 1% of Brits actually support abortion for any reason, all the way up to birth. But if certain MPs had had their way during the previous parliamentary term, this would be the case in Britain today. Decriminalising abortion would have removed safeguards which prevent women from self-performing dangerous, late-term abortions on viable, sentient babies. 

“Those MPs are all the more likely to gain support for their efforts under the newly-elected government, meaning women across the country – and their babies – are at risk. Something is going very wrong with our country if 1 in 3 women feel abortion is their best option.  

“This is why young women like me are turning out to March for Life. We want support to be empowered mothers – not abandonment to abortion. And we want protection for babies in the womb. In every pregnancy, both lives matter.”

The March for Life is co-organised by Isabel Vaughan-Spruce, the crisis pregnancy volunteer who recently, with legal support from ADF UK, won a £13,000 payout from West Midlands Police after they unlawfully arrested her for praying silently, in her mind, near an abortion facility. 

Explaining the reason for the March, Vaughan-Spruce said:

“We’re marching because women, and their babies, deserve far better than abortion.

You are currently viewing a placeholder content from YouTube. To access the actual content, click the button below. Please note that doing so will share data with third-party providers.

More Information
Unblock content Accept required service and unblock content

“It’s clear that abortion is not healthcare: in fact, studies have shown that as many as 1 in 17 women using mail-ordered abortion pills end up in hospital with complications.  

“The abortion industry hides behind a charade of false compassion and misinformation. Healthcare experts will gather on Saturday to expose an important truth – that abortion has a worrying impact on women’s physical and mental wellbeing. Moreover, unborn children are not a disease to get rid of, but are humans, who should be treated with respect and equality. We need societal solutions that support both lives in every pregnancy.” 

Abortion isn’t healthcare

The march will begin at the Emmanuel Centre, Westminster, at 1.30pm, and will end at Parliament Square, where the crowd will hear from Dr. Haywood Robinson, a former abortion doctor who – after seeing the impact of the procedure on women and their babies – now campaigns to protect and support both lives in a pregnancy. 

Claire Culwell – who survived a botched abortion as a baby in the womb – will also give a keynote speech, highlighting the humanity of life before birth.  

Various experts will join together at a pro-life healthcare summit before the march, at the Emmanuel Center, under the theme “Abortion isn’t Healthcare”. More information about speakers and panels can be found here. 

Medical doctor and abortion researcher, Dr. Calum Miller, will present on abortion’s impact on mental health. 

In anticipation of Saturday’s march, Dr. Miller said: 

“We are marching for life, not only because of the millions of babies killed by abortion, but also because of the millions of women hurt by it. The evidence suggests that abortion causes an increased risk of anxiety, suicide, drug abuse and alcohol abuse, and women deserve to be protected from these outcomes triggered by the loss of their child.” 

Images for free use in print or online in relation to this story only

Pictured: Scenes from the March for Life; Dr Calum Miller; Lois McLatchie Miller; Isabel Vaughan-Spruce; Claire Culwell; Haywood Robinson

Top human rights body called on to intervene against Brazil’s “extreme” censorship of “X”

  • Social media platform “X” suspended from use in Brazil in unprecedented state clampdown on free speech  
  • ADF International calls on Inter-American Commission on Human Rights to intervene

WASHINGTON, DC (2 September 2024) – In light of the unfolding censorship crisis in Brazil, legal advocacy organization ADF International has called on the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights to urgently intervene to protect freedom of speech. 

“The state of censorship in Brazil is severe and worsening to an extreme degree, positioning the country as among the worst for restrictions on speech in the Americas."

- Tomás Henriquez, ADF International’s director of legal advocacy for Latin America

On Friday, Justice Alexandre de Moraes of the Brazilian Supreme Court ordered the “immediate, complete and total suspension of X’s operations” in the country after the platform refused to comply with government orders to shut down accounts which it had singled out for censorship.  

The decision imposes a daily fine of R$50,000 (£6,800 / almost $9,000) on individuals and companies that attempt to continue using X via a virtual private network (VPN). 

The same Justice has also issued an order to freeze the assets of the company Starlink, a satellite internet provider. The company is a subsidiary of SpaceX, an entirely different company in which Elon Musk is a minority shareholder, following X’s refusal to comply with the censorship orders.

On Monday 2 September, the Brazilian Supreme Court upheld the decision to ban “X” nationwide, further suspending the right to free speech online. 

Appealing to the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights to uphold freedom of expression, lawyers from free speech-supporting legal advocacy group ADF International petitioned the body – which has jurisdiction over Brazil under the American Convention on Human Rights– to intervene in the “dire” situation: 

“The blocking of X in the country is symptomatic of an endemic problem…it has dragged on for more than six years and has caused real damage to Brazilian democracy, producing a chilling effect on the majority of the population who, according to recent surveys, are afraid to express their opinions in public.” 

Musk thanked ADF International for its intervention. 

Read the full letter to the Commission here.  

State censorship of so-called “populist” views

The orders to censor online content are based on a pretext of combatting disinformation and fake news. Based on this pretext, the state has targeted conservative voices for censorship, including blocking pro-life messages during the 2022 election campaign, which contained a message contrary to the pro-abortion position held by then-candidate Lula da Silva.   

"Under the guise of promoting democracy, and despite growing backlash from home and abroad, Brazilian authorities have created the most oppressive culture of censorship in the western hemisphere.

- Michael Shellenberger, journalist targeted for criminal investigation for reporting on the censorship efforts of Brazilian courts

Other targeted speech included repudiations of the Nicaraguan government’s suppression of religious freedom and the concern it could happen in Brazil, and criticism of Lula’s promotion of sexually explicit content in school curricula. 

“The most oppressive culture of censorship in the West”

Various journalists and public figures including journalist, Paulo Figueiredo, and bestselling American author, Michael Shellenberger, have already been targeted with secret criminal investigations for reporting on the authoritarian drift of the Brazilian courts and their censorship efforts.   

Tomás Henriquez, ADF International’s Director of Legal Advocacy for Latin America, stated: 

“The state of censorship in Brazil is severe and worsening to an extreme degree, positioning the country as among the worst for restrictions on speech in the Americas. Intervention by the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights is key because without free speech, all human rights are jeopardized. We are particularly concerned that the Brazilian state is targeting Christian expression, including pro-life views and other faith-based speech.”

Michael Shellenberger, founder of Public, author, and professor, stated:

“I am being criminally investigated by Brazilian authorities for exposing their attempts to censor. Brazil has reached a crisis point where a lone Supreme Court judge could wield his authority to shut down X in the country.   

Under the guise of promoting democracy, and despite growing backlash from home and abroad, Brazilian authorities have created the most oppressive culture of censorship in the western hemisphere. It’s not only bad policy and bad politics, it’s a blatant violation of basic human rights for authorities to ban the speech of their own citizens. It’s inconceivable that human beings should be censored and silenced by other human beings simply because they disagree with their speech. As the situation continues to deteriorate, my hope is that the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights will intervene rapidly in defense of the right of all to speak freely in Brazil”.  

Marcel van Hattem, member of the Chamber of Deputies for Brazil, said:

“The attempts by Judge Alexandre de Moraes to censor and silence the people of Brazil simply cannot stand. Our constitution specifically prohibits all censorship and guarantees the right to freedom of expression; these are not only constitutionally-protected rights, but basic, human rights that should be guaranteed and preserved for all Brazilians. Censorship has no place in a free society, and I implore all who are able to join me in vehemently opposing these kinds of restrictions.”   

Images for free use in print or online in relation to this story only

Pictured: Michael Shellenberger; Tomás Henriquez

“Sex is not confined to being a biological concept” rules Australian Court

  • Biological male “Roxanne Tickle,” who identifies as a woman, sued “Giggle for Girls” app and founder Sall Grover over female-only membership policy
  • Federal Court of Australia holds that Tickle was unlawfully discriminated against when rejected for membership on the women’s app; ADF International supported Giggle’s defence

SYDNEY (23 August 2024) – The Federal Court of Australia has ruled in Roxanne Tickle v. Giggle for Girls (“Tickle v. Giggle”) that “Roxanne Tickle,” a biological male who identifies as a woman, experienced unlawful discrimination when prevented from joining female-only networking app “Giggle.” 

The court found that Tickle experienced “indirect discrimination,” ordering $10,000 AUD in compensation and the covering of legal costs for Tickle. 

Tickle sued on the basis that, being “legally permitted to identify as female” and having had his birth certificate amended, he should be permitted into spaces reserved for biological women. The defence maintained that women have a right to single-sex spaces, both online and offline. 

“In ruling that Tickle, a biological male, was a victim of discrimination when prevented from joining a woman’s app, the court has delivered an egregiously flawed judgment that removes protections for women."

- Robert Clarke, Director of Advocacy for ADF International, who supported Giggle's defence

The Court rejected Giggle’s defence that Tickle was not unlawfully discriminated against, but instead disqualified from joining the app due to his male sex.  

In the judgment, the court stated “…sex is not confined to being a biological concept referring to whether a person at birth had male or female physical traits, nor confined to being a binary concept, limited to the male or female sex…”

ADF International supported Giggle’s defence on the basis that Australian law must uphold the truth of biological reality and in line with the protections for women enshrined in international human rights law.

At the time of the hearing, Katherine Deves of Alexander Rashidi Lawyers, legal representatives for the Respondent, said: “The stakes are high in this case. Women’s international human rights will be lost if “woman” now includes any male who identifies as such. This decision matters not just in Australia but also to the watching world.” 

Sall Grover, CEO of Giggle and respondent in the law suit, also commented at the time of the hearing:

“For decades, women’s movements have fought for the right to have female spaces in society. Yet today, the clock is being wound back.    

“I designed my app to give women their own space to network. It is a legal fiction that Tickle is a woman. His birth certificate has been altered from male to female, but he is a biological man, and always will be. A woman’s-only app isn’t about discrimination. It’s about freedom of speech, belief and association.    

“We are taking a stand for the safety of all women’s only spaces, but also for basic reality and truth, which the law should reflect.” 

Grover has previously said that she would appeal the court’s decision and will fight the case all the way to the High Court of Australia.

Robert Clarke, Director of Advocacy for ADF International, which provided support for the case, reflected on the judgment: 

“In ruling that Tickle, a biological male, was a victim of discrimination when prevented from joining a woman’s app, the court has delivered an egregiously flawed judgment that removes protections for women. 

“Contrary to what the judge held, sex is never changeable. The judgment is a severe setback for women and girls, failing to uphold the basic truth of biological reality—that men cannot become women. Tickle did not experience unjust discrimination, but was simply disqualified from membership on the Giggle app because he is not a woman.” 

Court ignores international legal protections for women’s rights

The defence had argued that the Australian government acted unconstitutionally in amending the Sex Discrimination Act of 1984 to include “gender identity” as a protected characteristic, against the purposes for which the Act was designed, and for which there is no basis in international law.   

The Court found that Australia’s Sex Discrimination Act section 5b, which prohibits discrimination on the ground of “gender identity,” is in line with the discrimination provisions in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR). The ICCPR makes no reference to “gender identity,” and instead prohibits discrimination on the basis of sex.  

Further, the Court rejected the defence’s argument with regard to the disqualification of Giggle on the basis that Australia was obligated to protect women’s rights, including single-sex spaces, under the Convention on the Elimination of Discrimination Against Women. 

“The judge has read in a faux right to protection on the basis of ‘gender identity’ in international law where none exists. The ICCPR is clear that discrimination is to be prohibited on the basis of sex. There is no mention of ‘gender identity’ in the treaty. 

The ruling is not only anti-women and disingenuous, but also it creates a dangerous precedent for conjuring up false rights to the detriment of real rights. Here the real rights in jeopardy are those of women. By ignoring Australia’s obligations under CEDAW to protect women’s rights, the court is positioning Australia in direct violation of its basic human rights obligations toward women,” stated Clarke. 

Challenges across Australia

Tickle v. Giggle is one of a number of legal proceedings in Australia challenging protections for women. Chris Elston, “Billboard Chris”, is in a legal battle with Australian authorities alongside “X”, after his tweet challenging gender ideology was censored by the E-Safety Commissioner. ADF International are supporting his case. 

Canadian street advocate, Billboard Chris, also awaiting court proceedings in Australia, commented on the judgment: 

“The judgment in Tickle v. Giggle turns back the clock on women’s rights and exposes the deep ideological distortions that have permeated our societies and our legal systems. It is a fiction that Tickle is a woman. While his birth certificate may have been altered, no man can ever become a woman.

“Preventing a male from joining a woman’s only app has nothing to do with discrimination. It’s about staying true to biological reality and women’s rights to their own spaces, both online and in real life. I hope further legal steps can be taken to correct this grave injustice and I stand with Sall Grover and the Giggle team.” 

Billboard Chris challenges gender ideology in Australia

Images for free use in print or online in relation to this story only

Pictured: Sall Grover, Robert Clarke, Chris Elston (“Billboard Chris”), Katherine Deves

Christian Woman Arrested for Silent Prayer Receives Compensation from Police

  • West Midlands Police pay out £13,000 to Christian volunteer “unlawfully” arrested for praying silently near an abortion facility

  • UK Government reportedly set to strengthen silent prayer crackdown by expressly labelling it as “criminal” in upcoming “buffer zones” guidance

BIRMINGHAM (19 August 2024) – In a victory against UK censorship, Isabel Vaughan-Spruce – the Christian charitable volunteer who was seen being arrested twice for praying silently in viral videos – has received a payout of £13,000 from West Midlands Police in acknowledgement of her unjust treatment, and the breach of her human rights.

With support from ADF UK, Vaughan-Spruce issued a claim against West Midlands Police for two wrongful arrests and false imprisonments; assault and battery in relation to an intrusive search of her person; and for a breach of her human rights both in respect to the arrests, and to the onerous bail conditions imposed on her. 

“There is no place for Orwell’s ‘thought police’ in 21st Century Britain, and thanks to legal support I received from ADF UK, I’m delighted that the settlement that I have received today acknowledges that. Yet despite this victory, I am deeply concerned that this violation could be repeated at the hands of other police forces."

- Isabel Vaughan-Spruce, compensated by police after being unlawfully arrested for silent prayer

Further crackdown on silent prayer anticpated

The news comes days after reports that the Home Office will strengthen the crackdown on silent prayer near abortion facilities by expressly criminalising it in upcoming “buffer zones” legislation, set to come into force imminently.

Ministers are set to review the initial guidance published by the previous government which protected the human right to freedom of thought, reading: “Silent prayer, being the engagement of the mind and thought in prayer towards God, is protected as an absolute right under the Human Rights Act 1998 and should not, on its own, be considered to be an offence under any circumstances.”

You are currently viewing a placeholder content from YouTube. To access the actual content, click the button below. Please note that doing so will share data with third-party providers.

More Information
Unblock content Accept required service and unblock content

A breach of human rights

Vaughan-Spruce was first arrested in November 2022 for silently praying in a censored “buffer zone”. The zone, covering several streets in the Kings Norton area of Birmingham, was installed by local authorities via a Public Spaces Protection Order and banned all expressions of “approval or disapproval with respect to issues related to abortion services, by any means” within a large vicinity of an abortion facility.

In what is widely thought to be the first “thoughtcrime” case prosecuted in 21st Century Britain, Vaughan-Spruce was searched by police (including through her hair); arrested, criminally charged and tried – even though she had prayed imperceptibly and not expressed any opinion outside of her own mind.

In February 2023, Vaughan-Spruce, was fully acquitted of all charges at Birmingham Magistrates’ Court after the prosecution were unable to offer evidence to support the charge. ADF UK supported her legal defence.

Yet only a matter of weeks later, Vaughan-Spruce was arrested for the same activity yet again – silently thinking prayerful thoughts on a public street within the censored “buffer zone”. Six police officers attended the scene, with one confirming to her that “you’ve said you’re engaging in prayer, which is the offence”.

Vaughan-Spruce’s ordeal has sparked international outcry, including most recently from a U.S. government agency, which highlighted the case as an example of European governments “targeting individuals for their peaceful religious expression.”

Commenting on the news of the settlement and payout from West Midlands Police, Isabel Vaughan-Spruce said:

“Silent prayer is not a crime. Nobody should be arrested merely for the thoughts they have in their heads – yet this happened to me twice at the hands of the West Midlands Police, who explicitly told me that “prayer is an offence.”

“There is no place for Orwell’s ‘thought police’ in 21st Century Britain, and thanks to legal support I received from ADF UK, I’m delighted that the settlement that I have received today acknowledges that. Yet despite this victory, I am deeply concerned that this violation could be repeated at the hands of other police forces.

“Our culture is shifting towards a clamp down on viewpoint diversity, with Christian thought and prayer increasingly under threat of censorship. A ‘buffer zone’ policy is set to be rolled out by the government imminently – the language of which is inherently unclear, and will likely lead to further violations against the freedom to pray, or peacefully converse or offer help near abortion facilities.”

Nationwide “buffer zones” to be rolled out imminently

The Public Order Act, adopted in 2023, is set to be rolled out by the Labour Government, and will ban all forms of “influencing” within 150m of all abortion facilities nationwide.

The ambiguous wording of the ban has worried volunteers that engaging in consensual conversation, praying, or simply offering a leaflet about help services available will lead to a criminal conviction, in further breach of rights to freedom of speech and thought.

Already, two further members of the public have been charged and are set to face trial in relation to locally-imposed “buffer zones”.

Adam Smith-Connor, a military veteran who prayed silently about his own encounter with abortion near a facility in Bournemouth, will face trial at Poole Magistrates’ Court on the basis of his silent thoughts. Livia Tossici-Bolt, a retired scientist, will face trial in the same location for having held a sign reading “here to talk, if you want”. Both individuals are receiving legal support from ADF UK.

Commenting on the cases, Jeremiah Igunnubole, Legal Counsel for ADF UK, said:

“The fact that the government is reportedly set to name “silent prayer” as a criminal offence, brazenly contrary to their commitment to international human rights law, exposes the crisis of free speech and thought in the UK today. Law enforcers are dutybound to vigilantly protect, not prosecute, the peaceful exercise fundamental rights. 

“Yet across the country, Christians exercising their basic rights to peaceful expression have faced criminal charges for silently praying, or offering consensual conversations to, women in need. We are delighted that West Midlands Police have acknowledged wrongdoing and injustice in the treatment of Isabel Vaughan-Spruce. 

“We now await the judgment of the court in the case of Adam Smith-Connor – another individual arrested for his silent thoughts. Britain’s future depends on our ability to accommodate different beliefs and viewpoints. Censorship violates human rights.”

Deputy Leader of Reform UK Richard Tice said:

“The arrests of Ms Vaughan-Spruce for silent prayer are another clear example of two-tier policing in the UK. Nobody should be criminalised for their thoughts. It is right that she has received compensation from the police.

“This case is yet another reason why we need a Free Speech Bill that would prevent such ridiculous arrests from taking place in the first place.

“It is becoming increasingly difficult to deny that mainstream Christian beliefs are not treated fairly by our elites, while other beliefs are given privileged status. 

“This is especially worrying in light of the Home Secretary saying Labour will crack down on people ‘pushing harmful and hateful beliefs’. 

“Yvette Cooper should answer: does she include mainstream Christian beliefs in this category?”

Lord Frost, the senior Conservative peer and former cabinet minister, said: 

“It is incredible that people have been arrested for thoughtcrime in modern Britain. I am very glad Ms Vaughan-Spruce has received compensation for her unjust arrest for this so-called offence. 

“But if a recent report is correct that the Government is considering formally criminalising silent prayer outside abortion centres, then there will be further such cases, and then not just freedom of speech but freedom of thought will be under threat. It is hard to imagine a more absurd and dangerous situation.

“It would be much better to stick to the sensible approach in the previous Home Secretary’s draft guidance, which proposed a much better balance between the various competing rights and interests. If the government scraps it, then it will be clear to all that its commitment to civil liberties and fundamental freedoms is paper-thin.”

Lord Farmer, Conservative peer and former treasurer of the Conservative Party, said:

“A country like ours, which places such a high value on human rights and freedom of speech should be horrified at its citizens being arrested for their silent thoughts or prayer. 

“What happened to Isabel Vaughan-Spruce was a travesty of justice and it is right that West Midlands Police make some compensation for the hardship she has endured.

“But the wider issue remains that we are living through an undemocratic clampdown on Christian speech, expression and thought in the UK which is set to intensify when the government rolls out “buffer zones” nationwide. If pro-life thought is considered prosecutable today, what other thought crimes might face similar measures tomorrow?”

Images for free use in print or online in relation to this story only

Pictured: Isabel Vaughan-Spruce; Jeremiah Igunnubole, Legal Counsel for ADF UK