Christian woman convicted for offering consensual conversation in abortion facility ‘buffer zone’, ordered to pay £20,000 in prosecution costs

Livia is guilty.

  • Retired clinical scientist and Christian Dr Livia Tossici-Bolt, 64, found guilty this morning at Poole Magistrates’ Court

  • Dr Tossici-Bolt held a sign reading ‘here to talk, if you want’ and did not engage in harassment, intimidation, or obstruction. Her legal defence is supported by ADF International

  • The US State Department this week expressed concern about freedom of expression in the UK, commenting it was ‘monitoring’ her case

Livia is guilty.

BOURNEMOUTH (4 April 2025) – A Christian woman was this morning convicted for offering consensual conversation in a censorial “buffer zone”.

Dr Livia Tossici-Bolt, 64, was found guilty at Poole Magistrates’ Court. Despite finding as a fact that “the sign made no reference to pregnancy, abortion, or religious matters” and hearing evidence from one council officer that “he did not witness her intimidating or harassing any individual”, District Judge Austin ruled that council officers had a reasonable belief that she was in violation of the PSPO.

One of the council officers testified that “he formed the view that [Tossici-Bolt] was in breach of [the PSPO] on several grounds. He considered her pro-life views, his own previous interaction with her, the complaint that had been received and the sign that she was holding.”

In mitigation, counsel for Dr Tossici-Bolt stressed that “The council has not adduced any evidence that she was observed by any service user or any other form of harm…neither is there an identified victim in this case.”

Following the conviction, the Judge sentenced Dr Tossici-Bolt to a conditional discharge and ordered her to pay prosecution costs of £20,000 which must be paid in full by 31 May 2025.

Earlier this week, a US State Department bureau said it was “monitoring” Dr Tossici-Bolt’s case, which is supported by ADF International, and that it was “concerned about freedom of expression in the United Kingdom”.

Reacting to the verdict, Dr Tossici-Bolt said:

“This is a dark day for Great Britain. I was not protesting and did not harass or obstruct anyone. All I did was offer consensual conversation in a public place, as is my basic right, and yet the court found me guilty. Freedom of expression is in a state of crisis in the UK. What has happened to this country? The US State Department was right to be concerned by this case as it has serious implications for the entire Western world."

- Livia Tossici-Bolt

“I remain committed to fighting for free speech, not only for my own sake but for all my fellow citizens. If we allow this precedent of censorship to stand, nobody’s right to freely express themselves is secure. With ADF International’s support, I will now consider all legal options,” she continued.

Legal Counsel for ADF International Lorcán Price commented:

“Everyone who cares about free speech should care about ‘buffer zones’. A Christian woman has been convicted merely for offering to chat on a public street in Britain. This ruling should show all reasonable people that, beyond the shadow of a doubt, abortion facility ‘buffer zones’ are incompatible with a free society.

“We will now support Livia in considering all legal options.”

Dr Tossici-Bolt was issued a fixed penalty notice for holding a sign that said “Here to talk, if you want” in a censorial abortion facility “buffer zone” in Bournemouth.

She was then prosecuted after she declined to pay it on the grounds that she did not breach the terms of the Public Spaces Protection Order—which bans acts of approval and disapproval regarding abortion—and had the right, protected under Article 10 of the Human Rights Act, to offer consensual conversations. 

The District Judge who gave today’s verdict is the same judge who last October found Adam Smith-Connor guilty for silently praying in a “buffer zone”, in a case which US Vice President JD Vance directly highlighted in his Munich Security Conference speech

With ADF International’s support, Mr Smith-Connor will appeal his conviction in a July trial.

For more details on Dr Tossici-Bolt’s case, find her support page here.

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

Australian tribunal to rule on whether using biologically accurate pronouns online is grounds for censorship 

  • CASE CONTINUES: Musk’s “X” and Canadian campaigner “Billboard Chris” challenge Australian “eSafety Commissioner” for censoring online post criticizing gender ideology 
  • Testifying, campaigner “Billboard Chris” tells Tribunal: “It’s damaging to teach children they are born in the wrong body” 
  • Post referred to controversial WHO “expert” appointee Teddy Cook by her biologically accurate pronouns 

MELBOURNE (2 April 2025) – The Australian eSafety Commissioner has argued that a post using the biologically-accurate pronouns of a transgender activist was “likely …intended to have an effect of causing serious harm” and should therefore be subject to state-enforced censorship, before the Administrative Review Tribunal in Melbourne this week. 

The post in question, which was subject to a “removal notice” at the hands of the eSafety Commissioner in April 2024, shared a Daily Mail article headlined “Kinky secrets of UN trans expert REVEALED: Australian activist plugs bondage, bestiality, nudism, drugs, and tax-funded sex-change ops – so why is he writing health advice for the world body?” and which included pictures posted on social media by transgender activist, and WHO expert panel appointee, Teddy Cook.  

The takedown order is being legally challenged by Elon Musk’s platform “X”, and by the author of the post, Chris Elston, known as “Billboard Chris” online.  

ADF International and the Human Rights Law Alliance are supporting Elston’s legal case.  

“It’s damaging to teach children they are born in the wrong body…Children are beautiful just as they are. No drugs or scalpels needed.”

- Chris Elston ("Billboard Chris")

“I want everyone to think for themselves”

In February 2024, Canadian internet sensation and children’s safety campaigner “Billboard Chris” (Chris Elston), took to U.S. social media platform “X” to share the article, adding the comment: 

“This woman (yes, she’s female) is part of a panel of 20 ‘experts’ hired by the @WHO to draft their policy on caring for ‘trans people.” 

“People who belong in psychiatric wards are writing the guidelines for people who belong in psychiatric wards.” 

In his evidence this week, Elston told the Tribunal that while the first sentence of the tweet was a specific comment to the Daily Mail’s story on Teddy Cook, his second sentence was intended more broadly, to make a political comment about the ideological bias present amongst those in positions of power and influence when it comes to writing gender policy around the world. 

Speaking on the witness stand, Elston added: 

“It’s damaging to teach children they are born in the wrong body…children are beautiful just as they are. No drugs or scalpels needed.” 

Asked further about why he chose to post on this matter, Elston explained: “Because the World Health Organisation has global influence. We should have evidence-based care.” 

Under cross-examination, Elston responded, “My goal is not to provoke outrage. My goal is to simply try to educate people, and encourage discussion. I want everyone to think for themselves.” 

Freedom of political communication is protected as an implied right under the Australian Constitution. 

Defining “serious harm” to justify censorship

In accordance with Australia’s Online Safety Act 2021, the eSafety Commissioner seeks to prove that Chris Elston’s post constitutes “cyber abuse material directed at an Australian adult”, including that it “was likely that the material was intended to have an effect of causing serious harm”. 

Counsel for the eSafety Commissioner has suggested that Elston’s post could meet this threshold.  

Expert witness, consultant medical psychiatrist Dr. Jill Redden, testified that using biologically-accurate pronouns for somebody identifying as transgender could cause “irritation” and upset, but would not likely cross the statutory threshold to constitute “serious harm”. 

When asked how long one might expect to experience serious psychological symptoms of that severity, Dr. Redden answered “several months”. Elston’s counsel pointed out that Teddy Cook had professed on an Instagram post to be “living my best life” just nine days after the X post at the centre of this case was published. 

Media professor testifies that biologically accurate pronouns are “anti-science” 

The eSafety Commissioner called Professor Rob Cover of the Royal Melbourne Institute of Technology, a Professor of Digital Communication, as an expert witness. 

Professor Cover testified that he believes it is “harmful”, “offensive”, “untruthful”, “rude” and “anti-science” to use biologically accurate pronouns when referring to a person who identifies as transgender.  

He added that using sex-based language “adds to a kind of anti-trans rhetoric which is a common kind of misinformation…online and offline”. 

Cover considers his personal view to be “informed by science” and by “the truth of the person which wishes to be identified in that way in accordance with their reality.” 

Robert Clarke, Director of Advocacy for ADF International, which is backing Elston’s legal defence, said: 

“The decision of Australian authorities to prevent Australian citizens from hearing and evaluating information about gender ideology is a patronizing affront to the principles of democracy.  

“The confidence of the Australian eSafety commissioner to censor citizens of Canada on an American platform, shows the truly global nature of the free speech crisis. 

“Speaking up for free speech is critical at this juncture, and we’re proud to be backing Billboard Chris as he does just that.”  

Members of the public are invited to support Chris’s legal case here: https://adfinternational.org/campaign/support-billboard-chris   

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

Pictured: “Billboard Chris” (Chris Elston); Chris Elston with the ADF International team supporting his case

US State Department: ‘We are monitoring’ prosecution of UK woman in abortion facility ‘buffer zone’ case and ‘are concerned about freedom of expression’ in Britain

Livia Tossici-Bolt holding her sign in the UK
  • Verdict for Livia Tossici-Bolt, Christian woman who faced criminal trial for holding a sign offering consensual conversation in censorial abortion facility ‘buffer zone’ in Bournemouth, will be released on Friday
  • ADF International is supporting her legal defence
  • US State Department: ‘We are concerned about freedom of expression in the United Kingdom… We are monitoring [Dr Tossici-Bolt’s] case’

BOURNEMOUTH (1 April 2025) – A bureau within the US State Department said on Sunday it is “monitoring” the abortion facility “buffer zone” case of a Dorset woman, ahead of the release of her verdict on Friday.

The Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, & Labor (DRL), a bureau within the United States Department of State, issued a statement on the case of Livia Tossici-Bolt, 64, on X, saying: “We are concerned about freedom of expression in the United Kingdom… We are monitoring [Dr Tossici-Bolt’s] case.”

Dr Tossici-Bolt faced criminal trial this month for holding a sign that said, “Here to talk, if you want,” in a censorial abortion facility “buffer zone”.

Her verdict will be handed down by District Judge Orla Austin on Friday April 4. ADF International is supporting Dr Tossici-Bolt’s legal defence.

In its post, the State Department bureau said: “U.S.-UK relations share a mutual respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms. However, as Vice President Vance has said, we are concerned about freedom of expression in the United Kingdom.

“While recently in the UK, DRL Senior Advisor Sam Samson met with Livia Tossici-Bolt, who faces criminal charges for offering conversation within a legally prohibited ‘buffer zone’ at an abortion clinic. We are monitoring her case. It is important that the UK respect and protect freedom of expression.”

Dr Tossici-Bolt said: “I am grateful to the US State Department for taking note of my case. Great Britain is supposed to be a free country, yet I’ve been dragged through court merely for offering consensual conversation. I’m thankful to ADF International for supporting my legal defence.

“Peaceful expression is a fundamental right—no one should be criminalised for harmless offers to converse.”

She added: “It is tragic to see that the increase of censorship in this country has made the US feel it has to remind us of our shared values and basic civil liberties.

“I’m grateful to the US administration for prioritising the preservation and promotion of freedom of expression and for engaging in robust diplomacy to that end.

“It deeply saddens me that the UK is seen as an international embarrassment when it comes to free speech. My case, involving only a mere invitation to speak, is but one example of the extreme and undeniable state of censorship in Great Britain today.

“It is important that the government actually does respect freedom of expression, as it claims to.”

Responding to DRL’s comment, barrister and Legal Counsel for ADF International Jeremiah Igunnubole said: “The UK’s censorship crisis is the result of a longstanding failure by British politicians to vigilantly protect fundamental rights in the UK, while hypocritically claiming to champion them abroad.

“We cannot consistently claim the UK is a bastion of free speech when law-abiding citizens like Livia are prosecuted for nothing other than peacefully offering to speak to people. What freedom do we have if citizens cannot offer a consensual conversation in a public space?

“Today, authorities are targeting conversations and even silent prayers they say are related to abortion. Tomorrow, it could be any other topic that goes against the mainstream perspective, as defined and policed by those in power. The slippery slope towards tyranny is clear. This is not how free and democratic countries should function.

“True friends do not stand idly by as their friends blindly walk into a ditch. The robust protection of fundamental freedoms has historically formed the basis of the special relationship between the UK and the US—a relationship that’s now needlessly strained due, in large part, to the current censorial trajectory of Britain.

“It is right for the US State Department and JD Vance to warn the UK that censorship is antithetical to freedom, democracy, and societal flourishing.”

Mr Igunnubole added: “Good relations with the US are key for our economic and military security. Criminal prosecutions for silent prayer and offers of consensual conversation are not only illiberal, but also irresponsible.

“The government must act to ensure that what is undoubtedly our most important diplomatic relationship is not put at risk due to an ideological commitment to censorship.”

District Judge Austin, who will hand down Dr Tossici-Bolt’s verdict on Friday, is the same judge who last October found Adam Smith-Connor guilty for silently praying in a “buffer zone”, in a case which Vice President Vance directly mentioned in his Munich Security Conference Speech.

With ADF International’s support, Mr Smith-Connor will appeal his conviction in a July trial.

Rose Docherty’s “buffer zone” case in Scotland

This is not the first time DRL has commented on UK “buffer zone” censorship.

In February, DRL commented on the arrest of 73-year-old Christian grandmother Rose Docherty for holding a sign that read, “Coercion is a crime, here to talk, only if you want,” in a “buffer zone” in Glasgow.

DRL said: “Police in Scotland arrested a woman holding a sign offering to talk to people in a restricted ‘buffer zone.’ Freedom of expression needs to be protected.  We call on governments, whether in Scotland or around the world, to respect freedom of expression for all.”

ADF International is supporting Ms Docherty, who recently rejected a warning sent to her in a letter from the Procurator Fiscal, as it required her to accept her actions were unlawful.

She did not cause harassment, block access to an abortion facility or influence anyone regarding abortion—activities banned in Scotland’s “buffer zones”—but merely exercised her right to freedom of expression, which is protected in national and international law, by offering consensual conversations.

Ms Docherty explained: “I cannot pretend that what I did was unlawful—I merely offered a chat, particularly in the context of anyone experiencing coercion of any kind—an issue firmly on my heart.  

“This is why I will be rejecting the warning I was issued by Scottish authorities, with support from ADF International. It isn’t right to deprive anyone of the right to take up my offer to talk—or to restrict me unfairly from carrying out this peaceful, compassionate action.” 

Reacting to the letter sent by the Procurator Fiscal, Lorcán Price, Irish barrister and Legal Counsel for ADF International, said: “The warning issued by the Scottish authorities in effect demands Rose accept culpability for criminal behaviour. This Christian grandmother stood peacefully, alone, making herself available for a discussion with anyone who wished to speak to her. How can this possibly be outlawed in our society?” 

In his Munich Security Conference speech last month, Vice President JD Vance called out Scotland’s draconian abortion facility “buffer zones”.

The Scottish government last year sent a letter to residents whose houses were in a “buffer zone”, saying: “Activities in a private place (such as a house) within the area between the protected premises and the boundary of a Zone could be an offence if they can be seen or heard within the Zone and are done intentionally or recklessly.”

Green Party MSP Gillian Mackay, who authored the Scottish “buffer zone” law, admitted in an interview following Vice President Vance’s comments that in her view prayer in a private home within a “buffer zone” could be a crime depending “on who’s passing by the window”.

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

Foreign Censorship on U.S. Social Media Platforms – Australian Case Validates Vance’s Concerns

  • Melbourne Tribunal to hear “monumental” free speech challenge from 31st March-4th April
  • Musk’s “X” and Canadian “Billboard Chris” bringing case against Australian “eSafety Commissioner” for censoring online post criticizing gender ideology
  • VP Vance, Secretary of State Rubio have raised repeated concerns about the impact of censorial foreign governments on American-based social media platforms

MELBOURNE (27 March 2025) – The Administrative Review Tribunal in Melbourne is set to hear a “monumental” free speech case next week, commencing March 31st, as concerns mount worldwide about online censorship.

Canadian internet sensation and children’s safety campaigner “Billboard Chris” (Chris Elston), alongside Elon Musk’s U.S.-based social media platform “X”, will challenge the Australian authorities’ decision to censor an online post criticizing gender ideology across Australia.

The case demonstrates the tangible reality of global censorship concerns raised repeatedly by Vice-President J.D. Vance, both at a Munich Security Conference in February and in a press conference with UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer.

Speaking about free speech restrictions in the context of the UK, Vance said:

“We also know that there have been infringements on free speech that actually affect not just the British — of course what the British do in their own country is up to them — but also affect American technology companies and, by extension, American citizens.”

Speaking recently in Paris, Vance added that while “we want to ensure the internet is a safe place”, restrictions on online content should focus on protecting children from predatory abuse, rather than preventing “a grown man or woman from accessing an opinion that the government thinks is misinformation.”

The actions of the eSafety Commissioner demonstrate a concerning rise in censorship in the digital age – where bureaucracies can subjectively interpret which speech is deemed “offensive” or “wrong”, leading to the curtailment of free speech rights.

Robert Clarke, Director of Advocacy for ADF International, which is backing Elston’s legal defence, said:

“The decision of Australian authorities to prevent Australian citizens from hearing and evaluating information about gender ideology is a patronizing affront to the principles of democracy.

“The confidence of the Australian eSafety commissioner to censor citizens of Canada on an American platform, shows the truly global nature of the free speech crisis.

“Speaking up for free speech is critical at this juncture, and we’re proud to be backing Billboard Chris as he does just that.”

Chris Elston, a.k.a “Billboard Chris”, commented:

“My case is an example of the free speech crisis here in Australia and across the West. More and more, the public is waking up to the fact that puberty blockers are a form of child abuse. Gender ideology can only thrive under censorship – when we are deprived of shining a light on the madness.”

THE CASE: Freedom of online speech in the balance

On 28 February 2024, Elston took to “X” to share a Daily Mail article titled “Kinky secrets of UN trans expert REVEALED”.

The article, and accompanying tweet, criticised the appointment of Australian transgender activist Teddy Cook to a World Health Organization “panel of experts” set to advise on global transgender policy.

Cook complained about the post to Australia’s eSafety Commissioner, who requested that “X” remove the content. The social media platform owned by free speech advocate Elon Musk initially refused, but following a subsequent formal removal order from the Commissioner, later geo-blocked the content in Australia. X has since also filed an appeal against the order at the Administrative Review Tribunal in Melbourne.

Billboard Chris, with the support of ADF International and the Australian Human Rights Law Alliance, and alongside Elon Musk’s “X”, is appealing the violation of his right to peacefully share his convictions. 

The case will be heard in Melbourne for five days on the week beginning March 31st.

Members of the public are invited to support Chris’s legal case here. 

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

Top human rights court deems Evangelical church’s appeal inadmissible

Breccia di Roma church in Rome, Italy

  • Italian Christian community forced to pay tens of thousands in taxes or make “structural modifications” to their place of worship to satisfy the authorities’ demands that their space look more like “a conventional church”

  • Represented by ADF International, the church had filed an appeal at the European Court of Human Rights, which has rejected the case

Breccia di Roma church in Rome, Italy

Strasbourg/Rome (March 24, 2025) – In a blow to religious freedom, the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) has ruled that the case of Breccia di Roma, an Evangelical church in Rome, is inadmissible. The church, represented by ADF International, had appealed to the Court after Italian authorities classified its place of worship as a “shop” due to its non-traditional appearance, which led to a demand for around 50,000€ in taxes and fines. 

Despite the church’s argument that the modest architecture of its place of worship does not detract from its use for religious practice and that the Italian Tax Agency’s classification violated its right to worship freely, the ECtHR has decided not to intervene. The decision effectively upholds the Italian Supreme Court of Cassation’s ruling, denying the church the tax exemption granted to other religious buildings in Italy. 

“This ruling is disappointing, as it fails to recognize the right of churches to freely determine the manner of their worship. We continue to believe that the government has no right to dictate the appearance of a place of worship."

- Leonardo De Chirico, president of Breccia di Roma

Court dismissal despite strong legal case 

Even though the church went up to the highest domestic court claiming a violation of its religious freedom, the ECtHR denied hearing the case claiming “non-exhaustion of domestic remedies”. The Court provided no explanation as to why it does not consider the church to have “exhausted domestic remedies,” given that Breccia di Roma has no other domestic avenues left to pursue. The court also rejected the church’s claim of having been unjustly discriminated against, despite two lower instance courts in Italy having ruled in Breccia di Roma’s favor on this matter. The decision is final. Breccia di Roma must now pay tens of thousands in taxes or make “structural modifications” to their place of worship to satisfy the authorities’ demands.  

In recent years, “inadmissibility” has become the most common outcome of any application pending before the ECtHR. The court received 28,800 new applications in 2024, and 34,650 in 2023. At the same time, the court declared 25,990 pending applications inadmissible in 2024, and 31,329 in 2023.  

“It is highly regrettable that Breccia di Roma will not receive justice from the European Court of Human Rights.This religious group was unjustly discriminated against because its chosen place of worship does not look like a conventional church in the eyes of the authorities. The small community is now burdened with thousands of Euros in taxes from which other religious buildings in Italy are exempted."

- Dr. Lidia Rieder, Legal Officer for ADF International, which brought the church’s case before the ECHR

ADF International remains committed to advocating for the protection of religious freedom and ensuring that churches can operate without unnecessary discrimination based on their appearance or practices.

Breccia di Roma can be supported here.  

Case background 

The Evangelical Christian community, Breccia di Roma, which uses a former shop as it’s place of worship, obtained authorization to change the building’s intended commercial use – in part, so that the applicable taxation would align with the religious, i.e. non-commercial, nature of their activities.  

The Italian Tax Agency, however, claimed that the interior architecture of Breccia di Roma’s worship space was not sufficiently religious in appearance. Therefore, it required the church to pay commercial taxes. Despite winning in the lower courts, the Italian Supreme Court of Cassation sided with the authorities. With no further avenues for justice in Italy, the church turned to the European Court of Human Rights, which has now declined to decide their case.   

“We don’t make money —we bring people together closer to Christ. Granted, our building does not match the Great Synagogue, a mosque, or any of the basilicas in Rome. Also, because our resources are limited, we meet in a comparatively unspectacular building. But why would a state punish us for that? Our church is not worse or less spiritual, just because our architecture is different,” De Chirico asserted.    

Further details on the case can be found here. 

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

“Billboard Chris” fined, threatened with arrest in Brisbane days ahead of “ultimate” court challenge against government online censorship

  • Campaigner’s “X” post highlighting unsuitability of transgender activist serving on WHO “panel of experts” currently geo-blocked in Australia  
  • Musk’s “X” and Canadian “Billboard Chris” to bring case against Australian “eSafety Commissioner” over censored post, March 31st-April 4th
  • “Billboard Chris” forcibly moved while having street conversations in Brisbane days ahead of hearing

MELBOURNE (25 March 2025) – Canadian internet sensation and children’s safety campaigner “Billboard Chris” was threatened with arrest, fined 806 Australian Dollars (AUD), and forcibly moved in Brisbane today after conducting consensual conversations with members of the Australian public. 

Video footage shows Chris Elston, who has almost 500k followers on social media platform “X”, freely invite conversations with members of the public in an open area in Brisbane city center.  

The campaigner wore a sign saying “children cannot consent to puberty blockers” as a means of inviting open conversation and debate on this topic. 

Despite the video footage showing that the public could freely move around Elston and choose whether or not to engage in conversation, the Canadian dad of two was nevertheless accused of “obstructing people”, issued the fine, and forcibly removed from the area by police. 

The “litmus test” case for international free speech 

Chris Elston is currently in Australia for a legal free speech challenge which has been described as a “litmus test” for the international protection of the right to free speech against government censorship. 

On 28 February 2024, Elston took to “X” to share a Daily Mail article titled “Kinky secrets of UN trans expert REVEALED”. 

The article, and accompanying tweet, criticised the appointment of Australian transgender activist Teddy Cook to a World Health Organization “panel of experts” set to advise on global transgender policy.  

Cook complained about the post to Australia’s eSafety Commissioner, who requested that “X” remove the content. The social media platform owned by free speech advocate Elon Musk initially refused, but following a subsequent formal removal order from the Commissioner, later geo-blocked the content in Australia. X has since also filed an appeal against the order at the Administrative Review Tribunal in Melbourne.  

Billboard Chris, with the support of ADF International and the Australian Human Rights Law Alliance, and alongside Elon Musk’s “X”, is appealing the violation of his right to peacefully share his convictions.   

The case will be heard in Melbourne for five days on the week beginning March 31st.  

Members of the public are invited to support Chris’s legal case here: https://adfinternational.org/campaign/support-billboard-chris   

Chris Elston, a.k.a “Billboard Chris”, commented: 

“No child has ever been born in the wrong body. As a father, I have grave concerns about the impact of harmful gender ideology on our children’s wellbeing. This reality is being increasingly recognised around the world, with government after government ordering a review into the use of toxic puberty blockers. This is a serious issue with real world implications for families across the globe and we need to be able to discuss it.  

“Children struggling with distress regarding their sex deserve better than ‘guidelines’ written by activists who only want to push them in one direction.” 

Ahead of the court date, Robert Clarke, Director of Advocacy for ADF International, who is serving as part of Billboard Chris’s legal team, said:  

“This significant legal showdown with Australian authorities represents a litmus test for free speech in a world seeing increasing push back against global censorship.   

“We’re used to hearing about governments silencing or punishing citizens for their ‘wrong’ speech in parts of the world with strict blasphemy laws – but now, from Australia, to Mexico, to across the EU, we see Western governments increasingly take authoritarian steps to shut down views they don’t like, often by branding them as “offensive”, “hateful”, or “misinformation.”   

“In a free society, ideas should be challenged with ideas, not state censorship. For years, Chris has been speaking an important truth to which many in Australia are now waking up – children cannot consent to puberty blockers.   

We’re proud to stand with Billboard Chris in defending the right to live and speak the truth.” 

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

PICTURED: Chris Elston (x2); Robert Clarke (ADF International); Elston with the ADF International team supporting his legal defence

Pakistani Christian girl’s forced marriage annulled in win for religious freedom

  • Christian 18-year-old Shahida Bibi’s forced conversion to Islam and forced marriage to her stepfather’s brother have been annulled by a court in Pakistan.  
  • Minority women and girls, often Christian, in Pakistan face dual threat of forced conversion and marriage; ADF International supports their defence to end this human rights abuse.  

Pictured: Shahida Bibi

PAKISTAN (10 March 2025) – Shahida Bibi is now free to return home to her father and to her Christian faith after a court in Pakistan annulled her forced conversion and marriage to her stepfather’s brother. Bibi was 11 years old when her mother eloped with a Muslim man, who then “gave” Bibi to his brother. Bibi went on to give birth to two children, and the brother contracted Islamic Nikah, or a marriage union, to Bibi when she turned 18 in order to escape prosecution under the anti-child marriage law.  

In February 2025, a civil court in Bahawalpur, Pakistan issued a decree in favor of Bibi and ordered that Bibi’s forced marriage be dissolved on all identification documents. Bibi was issued new documents that correctly state her religion as Christianity. ADF International and allied attorneys supported Bibi’s legal defence. 

Globally, 100 million girls are at risk of being forced into child marriage over the next decade, according to UNICEF. The threat for girls from religious minorities, particularly in certain parts of Asia and Africa, of also being coerced into changing their religion in connection with a forced marriage is particularly acute. In Pakistan, for example, more than 1,000 girls from religious minorities are forced into conversion and marriage every year.   

“Nobody should suffer the horrors of abduction and forced marriage, further being forced to give up their faith,” said Tehmina Arora, Director of Advocacy, Asia for ADF International. “We are grateful that Shahida Bibi has received justice over her captor. Shahida is now free and able to begin the process of healing from this ordeal. These cases are a tremendous violation of these young women’s basic human rights, including their religious freedom.”  

ADF International and allied lawyers are engaged in supporting women and girls suffering from forced marriage in light of the recurring issue where women and girls, often Christian, are forced to convert to Islam for their marriage to be validated by a Sharia court.  

Girls from minority religions face acute risk globally  

Under Sharia law, which permits marriage at the age of puberty, the marriage age is lower than the official marriage age, which varies between 16 and 18 years in different Pakistani states. When girls are forced to convert, their parents often are unable to stop the violation from happening. These women and girls often are fearful for their lives and those of their families, preventing them from denouncing their captors. 

“While these forced conversion and marriage abuses happen across the globe, they are especially prevalent in Pakistan. In coordination with our allied lawyers in the country, we are taking every step possible to prevent these situations from occurring. The government has an opportunity to make a difference, and they should start by implementing a uniform age for marriage to prevent these forced kidnappings and marriages from happening in the first place. Every person under international law has the right to freely choose and live out their faith without fear of violence. Every state, including Pakistan, must ensure that their laws and policies are in line with their commitments to protect religious freedom under international law, and that the laws they do have in place to protect girls from these violations are enforced,” Arora continued.   

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

International spotlight on Pakistan 

The victory in Shahida Bibi’s case comes as human rights leaders from across the globe are turning their attention to Pakistan’s egregious human rights violations.  

In January 2025, officials from the European Union issued a warning to Pakistan regarding their human rights violations, including blasphemy laws, forced conversions, and other targeted persecution against religious minorities. If not addressed, Pakistan’s trade relations with the EU could be jeopardized. 

In 2024, Senators Chris Coons (D-DE), James Lankford (R-OK), Tim Kaine (D-VA), and Thom Tillis (R-NC) introduced a bipartisan resolution that called for the U.S. to “leverage all diplomatic and sanctions tools available to the United States Government to hold religious freedom violators accountable for their actions”. The resolution specifically points to religious freedom violations, including forced marriages and conversions, in Pakistan, among other countries. The resolution was widely supported by religious freedom advocates and organizations from across the globe.  

ADF International has highlighted the testimonies of survivors of forced marriages and conversions in a mini-documentary.  

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

Buffer zone trial: Officers admit they did not “personally witness” any “harassment” before Christian woman fined for holding “here to talk” sign

  • Livia Tossici-Bolt’s trial continues TODAY at Poole Magistrates’ Court after the 63-year-old retiree held a sign in an abortion “buffer zone” reading “here to talk, if you want”
  • Rukan Taki, BCP Council Officer who attended the scene, confirms he did not personally witness Tossici-Bolt engage in harassment or intimidation

BOURNEMOUTH (6th March 2025) – The criminal trial of Livia Tossici-Bolt, the retired medical scientist who held a “here to talk, if you want” sign in an abortion “buffer zone”, began yesterday and will continue today. 

Tossici-Bolt, 63, is accused of breaching a Public Spaces Protection Order (PSPO) which installs a “buffer zone” around a local abortion facility, prohibiting “harassment”, “intimidation”, and “engaging in an act of approval or disapproval, with respect to issues related to abortion services”.  

“There’s nothing wrong with two adults engaging in a consensual conversation on the street. I shouldn’t be treated like a criminal just for this.”

- Livia Tossici-Bolt

Tossici-Bolt took the witness stand on Wednesday afternoon, explaining her motivation to hold a sign offering conversation following a period in lockdown where social interaction had been minimal.  

She referenced trends at the time of people offering “free hugs” and other sources of interaction on the street.  

Tossici-Bolt, who is an Italian mother, told the court she had positive interactions with various groups of people while holding the sign, who engaged with her about various issues they were facing in their lives – including from students who spoke to her about their studies, and parents who spoke about their children. After one interaction, Livia recalled, she was even invited to join an individual for a cup of tea at their house. 

Speaking ahead of her trial, Tossici-Bolt said, “There’s nothing wrong with two adults engaging in a consensual conversation on the street. I shouldn’t be treated like a criminal just for this.” 

Tossici-Bolt’s legal defence is being supported by ADF International. 

Officers attending the scene did not "personally witness" any harassment

Taking the witness stand on Wednesday morning, Officer Rukan Taki, who is employed by Bournemouth, Christchurch & Poole Council and attended the incident leading to Tossici-Bolt’s fine, conceded that despite his belief that Tossici-Bolt’s behaviour constituted a breach of the PSPO, he did not actually “personally witness” her engage in harassment or intimidation. 

Taki said he “absolutely” accepted that conversations could be held within the PSPO “buffer zone” which don’t amount to harassment or intimidation – a point confirmed by two further officers who took the witness stand in the afternoon. He also confirmed that being “open to speaking to someone” also did not amount to harassment or intimidation. 

Later in the afternoon, Officer Francesca Alice Ozanne clarified that while she witnessed Livia Tossici-Bolt in the “buffer zone”, she did not actually see any people enter or leave the clinic – thus leaving doubt as to whether Tossici-Bolt could be believed to be engaging in “harassment” of any service users. 

Ozanne, Taki and further witnesses from the council further stated that they had no recollection of any reports being made from members of the public that they had been victims of harassment due to Tossici-Bolt’s presence.

Jeremiah Igunnubole, legal counsel for ADF International, supporting Livia’s defence, said: 

“Under far-reaching and vaguely-written rules, we have seen volunteers like Livia criminalised simply for offering to engage in consensual conversation; and others dragged through courts for praying, even silently, in their minds.

The principle of freedom of thought and speech must be defended both within and outside “buffer zones”. It’s unthinkable that as real crime is mounting, policing time and resources are being expended on peaceful individuals like Livia who simply, and peacefully, offer to speak. What kind of society does that?” 

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

PICTURED: Livia Tossici-Bolt; ADF UK Legal Counsel Jeremiah Igunnubole

TODAY: Dorset retiree to face trial for offering a conversation in abortion “buffer zone”

  • Livia Tossici-Bolt held a sign reading “Here to talk, if you want” near an abortion facility in Bournemouth
  • Retired medical scientist to face trial 5th -6th MARCH; ADF UK supports legal defence
  • U.S. Vice-President J.D. Vance raises repeated concerns about the UK’s “buffer zone” laws – “these ideas are going to destroy Western civilisation”

BOURNEMOUTH (5 March 2025) – A retired medical scientist from Bournemouth will face trial on 5th-6th March following charges relating to her charitable work supporting women in crisis pregnancies.  

Livia Tossici-Bolt, 63, held a sign reading “here to talk, if you want to” near an abortion facility in Bournemouth. Several individuals approached her to take up her offer of a conversation about matters going on in their lives. 

“There’s nothing wrong with two adults engaging in a consensual conversation on the street. I shouldn’t be treated like a criminal just for this.”

- Livia Tossici-Bolt

Local authorities confronted Tossici-Bolt, alleging that she had breached a local abortion “buffer zone”, which bans “expression of approval or disapproval of abortion”. They issued a Fixed Penalty Notice, which Tossici-Bolt refused to pay, on the grounds that she did not breach the terms of the PSPO, and had the right, protected under Article 10 of the Human Rights Act, to offer consensual conversations. 

Tossici-Bolt will face trial at Bournemouth Magistrates’ Court on 5th-6th March 2025. ADF UK are supporting her legal defence. 

“There’s nothing wrong with two adults engaging in a consensual conversation on the street. I shouldn’t be treated like a criminal just for this,” said Livia Tossici-Bolt, whose legal defence is being supported by ADF UK.

International concerns over Britain's censorship

Speaking to Sean Hannity on Fox, U.S. Vice-President J.D. Vance yesterday listed the UK’s notorious “buffer zone” rules as an example of an idea which could “destroy Western civilisation.“

Referencing egregious examples of authoritarian censorship across Europe last month at the Munich security conference, Vance highlighted the “most concerning” case of Adam Smith-Connor – the army veteran and father of two in Britain who was convicted in November 2024 for praying silently, for a few minutes, on a public space across the road from the Bournemouth abortion facility, where a “buffer zone” was enforced.  

Reflecting on his concerns for Europe, the Vice-President said:  

“…perhaps most concerning, I look to our very dear friends, the United Kingdom, where the backslide away from conscience rights has placed the basic liberties of religious Britons, in particular in the crosshairs.  

“A little over two years ago, the British government charged Adam Smith Connor, a 51 year old physiotherapist and an Army veteran, with the heinous crime of standing 50m from an abortion clinic and silently praying for three minutes, not obstructing anyone, not interacting with anyone, just silently praying on his own.” 

Speaking on GB News Podcast “Choppers Politics” this month, Michael Gove said: “It is wrong to say that someone cannot pray – silently – because you have a particular view on abortion…For me, free speech is as close to a fundamental principle as any. And so is freedom of worship.” 

Jeremiah Igunnubole, Legal Counsel for ADF International, supporting Livia’s defence, said: 

“Under far-reaching and vaguely-written rules, we have seen volunteers like Livia criminalised simply for offering to talk; and others dragged through courts for praying, even silently, in their minds.   

The principle of freedom of thought and speech must be defended both within and outside “buffer zones”. It’s unthinkable that as real crime is mounting, policing time and resources are being expended on peaceful individuals like Livia who simply, and peacefully, offer to engage in consensual conversation. What kind of society does that?” commented Jeremiah Igunnubole, legal counsel for ADF UK, who are supporting Tossici-Bolt’s legal defence.

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

PICTURED: Livia Tossici-Bolt; ADF UK Legal Counsel Jeremiah Igunnubole

WIN in Pakistan for Christian fraudulently “converted” by employer in attempted enslavement

Pakistani Man Masih Christian.
  • Sufyan Masih, a 24-year-old Pakistani Christian, was fraudulently designated as a Muslim on his National Identity Card by his employer to falsely “convert” and enslave him. 
  • Authorities in Pakistan systemically deny and delay changes to ID cards with significant human rights implications; Backed by ADF International, Masih’s identity card has been corrected to “Christian” after a 6–year legal ordeal. 

Pictured: Sufyan Masih

Kasur District, Pakistan (04 March 2025) Sufyan Masih, a 24-year-old brick kiln worker and Christian, has been legally allowed to register as a Christian following a 6-year-long legal ordeal in Pakistan. Masih was fraudulently “converted” and registered by his employer as a Muslim on his National Identity Card. The employer registered Masih as a Muslim in an attempt to enslave him, including withholding pay and prohibiting him from returning to his family. The employer claimed that he “adopted” Masih when he fraudulently switched his identity to a Muslim. 

Masih and all his family members are illiterate and could not understand the ID form. His case is just one of the many examples of targeted harassment through the National Identity Card system. 

In a May 2024 verdict, a civil judge in Pakistan rejected Masih’s petition to change his identity to Christian despite his testimony that he was not practicing the Islamic religion. Authorities in Pakistan deny and delay changes to ID cards once someone is registered as Muslim on the basis of the belief that everyone is born Muslim. Muslims are not allowed to change their religion on the ID cards. A change in religion on ID cards is only allowed when you are able to show that there was an error in the record or when you are converting to Islam. As stated by civil judge Mian Usman Tariq in Masih’s 2024 trial: “Islam teaches that everyone is Muslim at birth but the parents and society cause one to deviate from the straight path”.  

Desperately attempting to recover their son, Masih’s family turned to ADF International for legal support. On appeal, a civil judge in Pakistan has now upheld Masih’s right to correct his identity card to reflect his Christian faith, noting that Masih was a victim of false “conversion”. 

The end of Masih’s legal ordeal, just one of many examples of systematic religious persecution in Pakistan, comes as officials from the European Union issued a warning to Pakistan regarding its human rights violations, including blasphemy laws, forced conversions, and other targeted persecution against religious minorities. If not addressed, Pakistan’s trade relations with the EU could be jeopardized. 

“We are thankful that Sufyan Masih finally is able to freely live and identify as a Christian following so many years of extreme hardship,” said Tehmina Arora, ADF International’s Director of Advocacy for Asia.  

“This is yet another example of how laws in Pakistan are weaponized to punish and target Christians. Pakistani authorities make it extremely difficult to “stop” being a Muslim once you are designated as such. This presents a major problem for Christians like Sufyan when they are illegally converted to Islam on their identification documents, which is a pervasive problem and egregious violation of religious freedom. We are grateful for the precedent that is set by this victory, and hopeful that it will go on to protect Christians and other religious minorities in Pakistan who are unjustly persecuted because of their faith.”  

Case Background 

ADF International allied lawyers filed a petition on Masih’s behalf in September 2022 after the National Database and Registration Authority (NADRA) in Pakistan refused to accept Masih’s requests to correct his religious designation and his name on his national identity card. During the proceedings, allied lawyers submitted evidence, including Masih’s baptism certificate, and presented Masih’s Christian parents in court as evidence of his Christian identity. In addition, Masih himself told the court that he continued to practice his Christian faith and was not a Muslim. 

Following the May 2024 verdict in which  a civil judge rejected Masih’s petition to identify as Christian, ADF International’s allied lawyers challenged the civil court’s decision in the court of Ahmad Saeed, an additional district judge in Pattoki, who in November 2024 set aside the earlier verdict, holding that Masih was a victim of fraudulent “conversion” by his employers.  

Following this court decision, Masih has been able to get his National Identity Card correctly updated to reflect his Christian faith.  

Denial of Religious Freedom 

Apostasy is considered a sin punishable by death under most schools of Islamic jurisprudence. Although there is no specific law in Pakistan to deny Muslims their right to change religion, apostasy may be punished under Section 295-A of the country’s blasphemy statutes, which imposes up to two years imprisonment for “outraging the religious feelings of any class of citizens.”  

In this case, Masih faced the risk of being branded as an apostate or his family members being accused of blasphemy given the appearance that he was converting away from Islam to Christianity, although in reality he was never a Muslim. 

International law guarantees the freedom to change one’s religion, along with the right to practice it either publicly and privately. Pakistan is a state party to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, which enshrines the right of every person “to have or to adopt a religion or belief of his choice, and freedom, either individually or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in worship, observance, practice and teaching.” 

“What has happened to Masih and hundreds of others who suffer similar legal abuses in Pakistan is a clear violation of the right to religious freedom guaranteed under international human rights law. Further, Article 20 of Pakistan’s Constitution allows citizens the right to profess, practice and propagate their religion. Masih’s case shows how this fundamental right is being systematically denied, perpetuating a culture where Christians and other religious minorities suffer violations of their basic human rights,” Arora continued. 

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