UN Expert Report Calls on Governments to Prohibit “Gender Transition” for Children  

UN undermines parents' rights by pushing gender ideology.
  • UN Special Rapporteur on violence against women and girls calls on states to ensure the terms “women” and “girls” refer exclusively to biological females, and to enshrine this definition in law.
  • Report further calls for a prohibition on the social, legal, and medical “transition” of children who claim to experience gender dysphoria, among other safeguards
UN undermines parents' rights by pushing gender ideology.

GENEVA (25 June 2025) – A new report presented today by Reem Alsalem, UN Special Rapporteur on violence against women and girls, warns that states are failing to address both persistent and newly emerging forms of sex-based violence, including in relation to gender ideology.

The report, entitled “Sex-based violence against women and girls: new frontiers and emerging issues,” urges governments to reaffirm legal protections for women and girls based on their female biological sex, in accordance with their international human rights obligations. 

In response to an “international push to delink the definition of men and women from their biological sex,” the report outlines concerns around the removal of sex-specific language and its negative impact on the legal recognition and protection of women’s rights. Bringing together submissions from 180 stakeholders, including ADF International, the report holds that these developments result in violations of women and girls’ human rights. 

The report calls for states to “ensure that the terms ‘women’ and ‘girls’ are only used to describe biological females and that such a meaning is recognized in law.” Further, it urges the prohibition of the prohibition of legal and social transitioning of children who claim to experience gender dysphoria, “as well as their subjugation to experimental, irreversible medical interventions related to gender reassignment.”  

“This report delivers a timely and urgent message as international awareness solidifies around the dangerous human rights implications of gender ideology, especially its impact on the well-being and healthy development of children. The report underscores how the erosion of legal clarity around sex, an objective and immutable biological reality, has had devastating implications for the dignity, safety and rights of women and girls."

- Giorgio Mazzoli, Director of UN Advocacy at ADF International

 

“This report delivers a timely and urgent message as international awareness solidifies around the dangerous human rights implications of gender ideology, especially its impact on the well-being and healthy development of children,” responded Giorgio Mazzoli, Director of UN Advocacy at ADF International. “The report underscores how the erosion of legal clarity around sex, an objective and immutable biological reality, has had devastating implications for the dignity, safety and rights of women and girls. As the Special Rapporteur told governments at the UN Human Rights Council today, ‘you cannot protect what you cannot define’. We urge all States to act without delay to implement the report’s recommendations”. 

Risks of puberty blockers to children highlighted by UN Expert

The report states: “The long-lasting and harmful consequences of social and medical transitioning of children, including girls, are being increasingly documented. They include: persistence or intensification of psychological distress; persistence of body dissatisfaction; infertility, early onset of the menopause and an increase in the risk of osteoporosis; sexual dysfunction; and loss of the ability to breastfeed in cases of breast mastectomy (to mention a few).” 

It further notes: “That has rightly led several countries, such as Brazil, the Kingdom of the Netherlands and the United Kingdom to change course and restrict children’s access to puberty blockers, cross-sex hormones and surgery on sexual and reproductive organs. Allowing children access to such procedures not only violates their right to safety, security and freedom from violence, but also disregards their human right to the highest standards of health and goes against their best interests.”  

The Special Rapporteur also explicitly calls for the protection of single-sex spaces for the protection of women, including in prisons and healthcare settings. 

Submitted under Human Rights Council resolution 50/7, the report draws from state submissions, recent case law, and existing human rights frameworks, including the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW).  

A global push against harmful gender ideology

This publication follows a recent decision by the US Supreme Court in United States of America v. Skrmetti to uphold a Tennessee law protecting children from gender-ideology experiments, demonstrating a global shift toward dismantling gender ideology. 

In the United Kingdom, the closure of London’s Tavistock Clinic and the publication of the Cass Review signaled a clear rejection of gender ideology experimentation on young people. 

As highlighted in a recent amicus brief to the U.S. Supreme Court from 17 international parental rights organisations, Sweden, Finland, Denmark, Norway, Italy, Hungary, and Slovakia are among the list of European countries that have taken legislative, judicial, or administrative steps to protect minors from gender ideology.

In Latin America, Chile moved to ban gender “transition” for children in May, following bans in Argentina and Brazil.

“Governments have an obligation under international law to eliminate all forms of violence and discrimination against women and girls. This requires urgent and concerted action to reverse the harms caused by the ongoing erasure of their sex-based rights under the pervasive influence of gender ideology. Practices of so-called ‘gender transition’ for minors must be prohibited under the law, and every effort made to uphold the dignity, integrity, and future for every woman and child,” Mazzoli added.

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

Brazilian Mother’s Right to Homeschool to Be Argued Before State Court

  • Brazilian local authorities prosecuted Regiane Cichelero for homeschooling her son and threatened to remove him from her custody if she continued.  
  • Oral arguments for her case will be heard at the highest court in the state of Santa Catarina; ADF International coordinating defense, highlighting international human rights protections for homeschooling. 

Santa Catarina, BRAZIL (30 June 2025) —  On July 1 the highest court in the state of Santa Catarina will hear oral arguments for the case of Regiane Cichelero, a Christian mother in Brazil who was prosecuted for homeschooling her son. ADF International is supporting her legal defense, which challenges the state’s attempt to penalize parents for exercising their right to direct their children’s education, a right firmly protected under international human rights law. 

Cichelero began homeschooling her son in 2020 after public schools closed during the COVID-19 pandemic. When schools reopened, she continued teaching him at home, believing it to be the best choice for providing quality education in accordance with her family’s religious values.  

Following her decision to homeschool, local authorities fined her over $20,000 USD, and a judge threatened to remove her son from her custody if she did not enroll him in a public school.  

No parent should fear state punishment for choosing to homeschool their child.egiane made a lawful and conscientious decision to teach her son at home. We are hopeful that the court will affirm her rights and take an important step toward protecting parental rights in Brazil."

- Julio Pohl, Legal Counsel for Latin America at ADF International

“No parent should fear state punishment for choosing to homeschool their child,” said Julio Pohl, ADF International’s Legal Counsel for Latin America, which is supporting Cichelero’s legal defense. “Regiane made a lawful and conscientious decision to teach her son at home. We are hopeful that the court will affirm her rights and take an important step toward protecting parental rights in Brazil.” 

Background

Over 70,000 children are currently homeschooled in Brazil. International human rights law protects the rights of parents to make choices concerning the type of education that their children receive.  

Article 26.3 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights states that, “parents have a prior right to choose the kind of education that shall be given to their children”. In addition, Article 13 of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights holds that states must respect the right of parents “to choose for their children schools, other than those established by the public authorities, which conform to such minimum educational standards as may be laid down or approved by the State and to ensure the religious and moral education of their children in conformity with their own convictions”.    

Leading up to her court date, Cichelero stated, “It is my role as a mother to provide the best education I can for my son. The state’s decision to penalize me has made it difficult to fulfill that duty. But I look forward to this hearing, and I am hopeful for a decision that affirms the right of parents to direct their children’s education. No parent in Brazil should fear the risk of fines or even of losing custody of their child simply for making the best choice for their family.”  

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

STATEMENT: UK MPs vote to legalise assisted suicide

LONDON – (20 June 2025) UK MPs today voted by a majority of 23 to legalise assisted suicide.

Reacting to this news, Robert Clarke, Director of Advocacy for ADF International, said:

“Today’s vote to approve the Leadbeater Bill on assisted suicide—314 to 291—is a grave and chilling development for the United Kingdom. Parliament has signaled its willingness to cross a dangerous moral line: allowing the intentional ending of life as a form of healthcare. When the state begins to endorse death as a solution to suffering, the most vulnerable—those who are elderly, disabled, depressed, or alone—will soon find themselves wondering if their lives are still worth living, or worse, if they’re expected to die.

“The consequences of this decision will echo far beyond the chamber walls. It opens the door to coercion, and to lives cut short out of fear, despair, or pressure. No safeguard can undo the message this bill sends: that some lives are no longer worth protecting. At every stage, support for the bill has dropped and this narrow vote underscores the growing concern with this deeply flawed bill.

“Parliament has fundamentally failed to protect the country from a descent into a culture of death. As the bill moves forward, we urge the House of Lords to listen to the voices of doctors, disability advocates, and families who know that real compassion means care, not killing. A society that values life must have the courage to say no to assisted suicide.”

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

Pictured: Robert Clarke

US Supreme Court Upholds State Law Protecting Children from Gender-Ideology Experiments  

  • High Court sides with Tennessee law that regulates harmful drugs, surgeries attempting to “transition” children
     
  • Ruling in United States v. Skrmetti will help protect 26 similar state laws

WASHINGTON (18 June 2025) – In a landmark victory for children’s health and science-based medicine, the U.S. Supreme Court Wednesday upheld Tennessee’s law protecting minors from harmful and life-altering drugs and surgeries. The ruling in United States v. Skrmetti will help protect 26 similar state laws and return common sense to America’s medical system. 

The Court held that Tennessee’s Senate Bill 1, a bipartisan law passed in 2023, is constitutional. The law prohibits health care providers from providing puberty blockers or cross-sex hormones or potentially irreversible surgeries to encourage children to live as the opposite sex.  

"States are free to protect children from the greatest medical scandal in generations—and that’s exactly what states like Tennessee have done."

- Kristen Waggoner, CEO and President, Alliance Defending Freedom

The ruling signals that American states have broad constitutional authority to ban dangerous so-called “gender transition” procedures and interventions for minors, and it aligns the U.S. with a growing international movement to protect youth from gender ideology.  

“No one has the right to harm a child,” said Alliance Defending Freedom CEO and President Kristen Waggoner. “The Biden administration and ACLU asked the court to create a ‘constitutional right’ to give children harmful, experimental drugs and surgeries that turn them into patients for life. This would have forced states to base their laws on ideology, not evidence—to the immense harm of countless children. The court’s rejection of that request is a monumental victory for children, science, and common sense. States are free to protect children from the greatest medical scandal in generations—and that’s exactly what states like Tennessee have done.”  

Tennessee’s law is “plainly rationally related” to the state’s findings that administering puberty blockers and cross-sex hormones to minors with gender dysphoria “can lead to the minor becoming irreversibly sterile, having increased risk of disease and illness, or suffering from adverse and sometimes fatal psychological consequences,” the court wrote in its opinion. The law is also rationally related to “the State’s objective of protecting minors’ health and welfare.” 

Background

Currently, 26 states, in addition to Tennessee, have enacted comparable laws in the U.S to protect children from gender-ideology experiments. The High Court decided to review the case United States v. Skrmetti after the Biden administration appealed a decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit that upheld Tennessee’s law. ADF filed a friend-of-the-court brief with the Supreme Court in October 2024, urging it to let state legislatures protect children from these experimental medical procedures.    

The Court’s decision follows a global shift toward dismantling gender ideology. In the United Kingdom, the closure of London’s Tavistock Clinic and the publication of the Cass Review signaled a clear rejection of gender ideology experimentation on young people. As highlighted in an amicus brief to the Court from 17 international parental rights organisations, Sweden, Finland, Denmark, Norway, Italy, Hungary, and Slovakia are among the list of European countries that have taken legislative, judicial, or administrative steps to protect minors from gender ideology. In Latin America, Chile moved to ban gender “transition” for children in May, following bans in Argentina and Brazil. 

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

‘Surveillance and control’: Experts convene at European Parliament to warn about EU online censorship law, following US State Department expressing concern

  • First-of-its-kind, cross-party event, co-hosted by politicians and ADF International, examined threats to free speech posed by Digital Services Act (DSA)
  • Journalist and best-selling author Rod Dreher, a friend of US Vice President JD Vance, said the VP loves Europe but opposes the continent’s censorial ruling class
  • Pressure on DSA builds, following US State Department expressing concern over censorial impact of the law

Brussels (21 May 2025) – Experts this morning warned about the threats of an EU online censorship law, in a first-of-its-kind, cross-party convening at the European Parliament.

The well-attended conference, which was co-hosted by ADF International, and Members of the European Parliament (MEPs) Stephen Bartulica and Virginie Joron, was entitled “The Digital Services Act and Threats to Freedom of Expression”.

The event followed the Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, & Labour, a bureau within the US State Department, expressing concern about the censorial impact of the Digital Services Act (DSA).

At the event, which was attended by MEPs and staffers from across the political spectrum, think-tankers, journalists and others, Ms Joron warned that although the DSA was meant to create a “safe online environment”, it has “morphed into a tool that risks undermining our fundamental freedoms”.

She added: “What was sold as the Digital Services Act is increasingly functioning as a Digital Surveillance Act. The European Commission, alongside some parliamentarians, has seized upon the DSA as a political tool to control speech, particularly targeting platforms like X, Facebook, and Telegram.

“The DSA was meant to protect our digital space, not to control it… The DSA, once a shield for our rights, risks becoming a Trojan horse for surveillance and control.”

Mr Coleman, an international human rights lawyer specialising in free speech and Executive Director of ADF International, a Christian legal organisation that defends freedom of expression, told the conference: “Free speech is again under threat on this continent in a way it hasn’t been since the nightmare of Europe’s authoritarian regimes just a few decades ago.

“The internet is the frontline of this assault on free speech in Europe—particularly through the Digital Services Act.”

He added that “serious questions can and should be raised” about whether the DSA is compatible with “binding obligations to protect freedom of expression”.

He commented from his position of legal expertise that it was his “strong view” that “it is not”. 

In his speech, Mr Bartulica warned that “hate speech”, which politicians want to use the DSA to “address”, is “impossible to define” as a legal concept.

He said quoting Christian Scripture could even be considered “hate speech” by those in power.

Mr Coleman mentioned the case of Finnish parliamentarian Päivi Räsänen, which is supported by ADF International, in his speech, as a “harrowing example of what censorship under the DSA could look like in practice”. 

He said: “Six years ago, Päivi posted a picture of a Bible verse and expressed her Christian views on sexuality on X. She was criminally prosecuted for alleged ‘hate speech’ and has been unanimously acquitted in two trials. 

“But the state prosecutor has appealed the case again. And shockingly, her case—in which she faces trial for posting online—is now pending before Finland’s Supreme Court.

“Now, under the DSA, deeply problematic national laws restricting speech—like the “hate speech” legislation used to prosecute Päivi —could be broadly applied across the EU by this simple principle: If it’s considered illegal in one place, it could be in every place.”

Mr Bartulica also said that in the EU “we have regulated or controlled speech and not free speech”.

He added: “We don’t have to reinvent the wheel—we’ve seen where mass censorship leads. Under communism and other totalitarian regimes, it’s not a pretty picture.

“There’s a totalitarian impulse in many of these people in Brussels, who are just waiting to censor speech they don’t like.”

JD Vance opposes Europe’s censorial ruling class

Also speaking at the event was American journalist and bestselling author Rod Dreher.

Mr Dreher, who is a friend of US Vice President JD Vance, said that following the Vice President’s speech in Munich, that people had asked him if VP Vance hates Europe.

He said: “Of course” the VP does not hate Europe—he loves it enough to speak the truth about its censorship crisis.

But Mr Dreher did say the VP opposes Europe’s censorial ruling class.

Mr Dreher observed that “elites would prefer to suppress discussion of discontent and its sources”—smearing such discussion as “hate speech”—rather than acknowledge the serious problems plaguing their societies.

Drawing on the wisdom of Soviet dissidents, he recommended that in the face of “soft totalitarianism” in the West today that people “refuse to participate in any event where one cannot speak the truth… Prepare to suffer for the truth”.

How to oppose the DSA

In his speech, Mr Coleman also gave concrete ways in which the DSA can be opposed.

He said: “It is thankfully the case that freedom of expression is guaranteed in Article 11 of the EU Charter, Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights and Article 19 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.

“According to these and the jurisprudence of the ECHR, any limitations to free speech must be proportionate and necessary in a democratic society.

“And so, serious questions can and should be raised about whether the DSA is compatible with these binding obligations to protect freedom of expression. 

“It is my strong view, as you may have guessed from this speech, that it is not. So, what can be done about this?

“Member states could initiate an action for annulment before the Court of Justice of the European Union. Through this, the whole or parts of the DSA could be declared inapplicable, if they are deemed to infringe on the EU Charter or Treaties.

“The same question, of considering whether the DSA is compatible with binding obligations to protect free speech, is key for the upcoming DSA review, in which the Commission must evaluate the act in view of other legal commitments. 

“It is imperative that every opportunity is taken in the review, which must occur by mid-November this year, to raise concerns about the censorial impact of the DSA. 

“This could be accomplished through written or oral questions to the European Commission and even by inviting Commissioner Henna Virkkunen to discuss the legislation in the European Parliament. After all, if the Commissioner is as in favour of freedom of expression as she claims to be, why would she refuse?

“It is vital to include representatives of civil society, tech companies and digital rights groups in such conversations, as they can share their invaluable expertise on this important issue.

“As elected representatives of your people, you are also in an excellent position to bring the public’s attention to the grave risks to free speech posed by the DSA. 

“The truth is that every single European’s rights are jeopardised by this legislation. The more the public is aware of and speaks out about this, the more pressure the Commission will feel. And the more likely we are to defeat this law.”

Background

Today’s conference was the first of its kind in the European Parliament to focus on the threats to free speech posed by the DSA, to offer concrete answers on how to oppose them, and to discuss the fundamental importance of freedom of expression for societal flourishing, in that context.

The gathering of free speech experts adds to steadily building pressure on the DSA, following a letter reportedly sent to the European Commission last week by the US House Judiciary Committee, expressing concern over the legislation.

Henna Virkkunen, the Commission’s Executive Vice-President for Tech Sovereignty, Security and Democracy, also met with Congressman Jim Jordan, Chair of the House Judiciary Committee, in Washington DC last week.

In a post on X, she said: “Candid exchange with @Jim_Jordan [Chairman Jordan].”

She went on to claim in the post: “Freedom of speech is a fundamental right in the EU and is strongly protected by our digital rules. Happy to continue our good discussion.”

Earlier this month, the US Department of State Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor expressed concern over the censorial impact of the DSA.

The State Department bureau posted on X: “The Department of State is deeply concerned about efforts by governments to coerce American tech companies into targeting individuals for censorship. Freedom of expression must be protected – online and offline.

“Examples of this conduct are troublingly numerous. EU Commissioner Thierry Breton threatened X for hosting political speech.”

The post continued: “Türkiye fined Meta for refusing to restrict content about protests; and Australia required X to remove a post criticizing an individual for promoting gender ideology.

“Even when content may be objectionable, censorship undermines democracy, suppresses political opponents, and degrades public safety. The United States opposes efforts to undermine freedom of expression. As @SecRubio [Marco Rubio] said, our diplomacy will continue to place an emphasis on promoting fundamental freedoms.”

The Digital Services Act

EU politicians have stated their desire for the DSA to “address’ so-called “mis” and “disinformation” online—vague and subjective terms, which experts have warned can be used to justify censorship.

The regulation would provide an incentive to put pressure on tech companies, including American ones, to censor speech, rather than risk massive financial penalties for non-compliance.

There are additional concerns in the US about the DSA potentially having an extraterritorial impact and being used to censor speech inside America.

An attempt at using the regulation to censor speech in the US was seen last summer, when former Commissioner Thierry Breton warned Elon Musk to not breach the DSA ahead of his X interview with then-Presidential candidate Donald Trump.

Find more information on the DSA here.

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

Experts to convene at European Parliament to warn about EU online censorship law, following US State Department expressing concern

  • First-of-its-kind, cross-party event, co-hosted by politicians and ADF International, to examine threats to free speech posed by Digital Services Act (DSA)
  • Event, also featuring journalist and best-selling author Rod Dreher, to take place on morning of Wednesday, May 21
  • Pressure on DSA builds, following US State Department expressing concern over censorial impact of the law

BRUSSELS (19 May 2025) – Experts will convene at the European Parliament this Wednesday morning to warn about the threats of an EU online censorship law, in a first-of-its-kind, cross-party event.

The event, which is co-hosted by ADF International, is entitled “The Digital Services Act and Threats to Freedom of Expression”.

It follows the Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, & Labour, a bureau within the US State Department, expressing concern about the censorial impact of the Digital Services Act (DSA).

The DSA is an EU regulation that requires online platforms, including US tech companies such as X and Meta, to remove “illegal content”, or risk facing massive financial penalties.

There are concerns it could introduce a “lowest common denominator” of censorship, as the most egregious anti-speech laws in any individual EU country could be applied across the region under the act.

Croatian Member of the European Parliament (MEP) Stephen Bartulica, who will speak at the event, said: “Pressure against the Digital Services Act is quickly building both inside and outside the European Parliament.

“Concern from the United States, including from their State Department and Congress, over the censorial impact of the DSA should not be ignored by the Commission—the US is a vital ally of Europe.

“This event will be a crucial part of continuing to build pressure on the DSA. Online censorship in Europe must be rejected. I believe in free speech, not regulated speech.”

Paul Coleman, Executive Director of ADF International, and an international human rights lawyer specialising in free speech, who will also speak at the event, said: “The DSA is one of the most serious threats to online free speech in the digital age.

“The move towards censorship in Europe through this framework is deeply concerning and must be challenged.

“We cannot accept a transatlantic divide on free speech, where the US recommits to the protection of this fundamental freedom, while Europe tramples on it. Freedom of expression must be protected and upheld across the globe.”

Another speaker at the event, French MEP Virginie Joron, said: “The DSA has become a tool that elites want to use to control the internet, in a desperate attempt to censor narratives that go against their narrative.

“This truth is becoming increasingly clear to the world. The new DSA regulation must not become a political tool.

“This event comes at an important moment and is a crucial step in the fight against the misapplication of this regulation.”

This week’s conference is being hosted by European Conservatives and Reformists (ECR) MEP Mr Bartulica, PfE MEP Ms Joron and ADF International, a Christian legal organisation, with expertise in international law, that defends free speech.

Pressure builds against Digital Services Act

The gathering of free speech experts will add to steadily building pressure on the DSA, following a letter reportedly sent to the European Commission last week by the US House Judiciary Committee, expressing concern over the legislation.

Henna Virkkunen, the Commission’s Executive Vice-President for Tech Sovereignty, Security and Democracy, also met with Congressman Jim Jordan, Chair of the House Judiciary Committee, in Washington DC last week.

In a post on X, she said: “Candid exchange with @Jim_Jordan [Chairman Jordan].”

She went on to claim in the post: “Freedom of speech is a fundamental right in the EU and is strongly protected by our digital rules. Happy to continue our good discussion.”

Earlier this month, the US Department of State Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor expressed concern over the censorial impact of the DSA.

The State Department bureau posted on X: “The Department of State is deeply concerned about efforts by governments to coerce American tech companies into targeting individuals for censorship. Freedom of expression must be protected – online and offline.

“Examples of this conduct are troublingly numerous. EU Commissioner Thierry Breton threatened X for hosting political speech.”

The post continued: “Türkiye fined Meta for refusing to restrict content about protests; and Australia required X to remove a post criticizing an individual for promoting gender ideology.

“Even when content may be objectionable, censorship undermines democracy, suppresses political opponents, and degrades public safety. The United States opposes efforts to undermine freedom of expression. As @SecRubio [Marco Rubio] said, our diplomacy will continue to place an emphasis on promoting fundamental freedoms.”

This Wednesday’s conference is the first of its kind in the European Parliament to focus on the threats to free speech posed by the DSA, offer concrete answers on how to oppose them, and discuss the fundamental importance of freedom of expression for societal flourishing, in that context.

Rod Dreher, an American journalist and bestselling author, will also speak at the event. His books include ‘The Benedict Option’, ‘Live Not By Lies’ and, most recently, ‘Living in Wonder’. He is also a Visiting Fellow at the Danube Institute think tank.

Email [email protected] to secure your place at this groundbreaking event.

The Digital Services Act

EU politicians have stated their desire for the DSA to “address’ so-called “mis” and “disinformation” online—vague and subjective terms, which experts have warned can be used to justify censorship.

The regulation would provide an incentive to and put pressure on tech companies, including American ones, to censor speech, rather than risk massive financial penalties for non-compliance.

There are additional concerns in the US about the DSA potentially having an extraterritorial impact and being used to censor speech inside America.

An attempt at using the regulation to censor speech in the US was seen last summer, when former Commissioner Thierry Breton warned Elon Musk to not breach the DSA ahead of his X interview with then-Presidential candidate Donald Trump.

Find more information on the DSA here.

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

STATEMENT: The Leadbeater Bill will harm far more than it helps

Growing euthanasia practice in Canada spells a deep crisis of meaning
  • UK Parliament debates amendments on the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill , including on conscientious objection
  • Bill faces serious backlash, including from Royal College of Psychiatrists, who announced this week it “cannot support” the Bill, citing “many, many factors” that need addressing
Growing euthanasia practice in Canada spells a deep crisis of meaning

The following statement may be attributed to Robert Clarke, Director of Advocacy for ADF International:

“A truly compassionate society protects the vulnerable to live – it doesn’t steer them to death. The assisted suicide bill now advancing through Westminster is a dangerous proposal that threatens to devalue, endanger, and ultimately extinguish the lives of those who deserve better.

Today’s debate in parliament exposed just how unworkable this Bill is. There was lengthy discussion on a new clause to ensure a right as basic as conscientious objection.

Among those speaking, Anneliese Dodds MP and Tim Farron MP pointed to the official data from Oregon: over half of those who took state-prescribed lethal drugs did so because they saw themselves as a “burden”. No safeguards are strong enough to prevent implicit – or even explicit – pressure leading to the same result here.

Rebecca Paul MP, a supporter ‘in principle’ of assisted suicide warned that this bill will ‘harm far more people than it will help’ and that ‘those people who will be harmed will be the most vulnerable in our communities’.  The Commons should listen. If even one person is killed on the NHS because they feel pressured to do so, this law will mark one of the gravest human rights failures of our time.”

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

Pictured: Robert Clarke

Grandmother arrested in Scottish abortion “buffer zone” reacts as parliamentarians push for extension of censored public space 

  • Parliamentarian Gillian Mackay tells BBC she wants the government to consider extending Scottish “buffer zones”, despite already being the largest in the world
  • Glasgow grandmother became first to be arrested under the new laws after holding a sign reading “coercion is a crime, here to talk, only if you want” – says she is “prepared to go to prison” 
  • U.S. Vice President J.D. Vance criticised Scottish law, raising concerns that residents in “buffer zone” areas could be punished for even praying within their homes 

GLASGOW (16 May 2025) – The grandmother arrested for holding a sign reading “coercion is a crime, here to talk, only if you want” nearby a Glasgow hospital in March has spoken out following political manoeuvers to expand Scotland’s censored “buffer zones” – despite the zones already being the largest of their kind in the world. 

Rose Docherty, 74, was handcuffed, arrested, and driven away in a police car for standing peacefully with a sign inviting conversation with anyone who wanted to approach her in February 2024. A video of her arrest went viral internationally. 

“Of course, there should be laws against harassment, and we all condemn such behaviour. But merely offering conversations near a hospital is not a crime."

- Rose Docherty, arrested for offering consensual conversation in a "buffer zone"

Docherty was standing within 200m of the Queen Elizabeth University Hospital in Glasgow, where a censorial “buffer zone” is enforced. The buffer zone prevents harassment, intimidation, and “influence” of a person’s decision to access abortion services. Docherty denies engaging in any of the prohibited activities. 

Speaking to BBC Scotland’s “Scotcast” this week, Rose Docherty said that the experience had been “alarming”.  

In an exclusive broadcast with the BBC, Docherty explained that she had studied the Scottish “buffer zones” law, which came into force in 2024, and had carefully chosen a sign that did not break any prohibitions. On the day in question, she stood quietly and peacefully near the hospital, not approaching anyone, in order to ensure that any conversations that took place were consensual.  

“I gave consideration to what I was doing…I looked at the law and saw what it said I couldn’t do, and thought, ok, well this is what I can do…I can offer to listen, and if anyone wants to come and speak to me, they can do so, only if they want to come and speak with me ,” she told the podcast. 

Speaking later to ADF International, she reflected: “there was nothing in my conduct or sign that could reasonably be considered harassing, alarming and distressing”. 

The offence of engaging in “influence” within the buffer zone (section 4 Abortion Services (Safe Access Zones) (Scotland) Act 2024) carries a maximum sentence of an unlimited fine. Docherty also told the BBC that she would even be “willing to go to prison” over what had happened. 

Commenting later on her words, Docherty added: 

“I informed BBC that I would be willing to go to prison on the issue because I am unshakeably convinced that nobody should be criminalised for a peaceful offer to speak on any public land in Britain.

“This is a free and democratic society, and no threat of imprisonment will change my mind that what I did was right, completely harmless and in accordance with the purpose and intention of international human rights laws.” 

Parliamentarians begin efforts to expand censorial zone

Video: Rose Docherty was arrested in February 2025 

Gillian Mackay MSP, the parliamentarian responsible for introducing “buffer zones” legislation in 2024, has now suggested that the Scottish government consider expanding the area of prohibition on “influence” outside hospitals. 

Claiming that members of the public have said they still feel intimidated by the presence of pro-life individuals 200m from a hospital, the Green Party parliamentarian said: “I think it’s appropriate that we take those concerns seriously and the government take a look at whether an extension is appropriate or not.“ 

Responding to recent efforts to expand the buffer zone, Docherty said “I believe it wouldn’t matter where we stood…it wouldn’t matter how far they pushed the ‘buffer zone.’” 

Speaking to ADF International, she added, “It wouldn’t matter where we stood –201 meters, or 500 meters away – it seems the authorities would still try to crack down harshly and unfairly on individuals because the government simply disagree with their point of view. This is unjust – of course, there should be laws against harassment, and we all condemn such behaviour. But merely offering conversations near a hospital is not a crime.” 

A Scottish government spokeswoman told the BBC the act allows ministers to extend the size of a buffer zone if it is decided that the existing zone is not adequate. 

She added: “However, before taking such a step, it is essential that ministers are satisfied such an extension is appropriate. 

“We have engaged with the relevant health board to understand any impacts the anti-abortion activity outside of the safe access zone may be having on patients and staff.” 

Buffer zone law could ban prayer within homes – “depending on who’s passing by the window”

In February, Gillian Mackay MSP admitted that prayer by a window in one’s own home could be an offence within a buffer zone – depending on who is passing by. 

Again speaking to BBC’s “Scotcast” Podcast, the Green Party Politician repeatedly denied that prayer was being criminalised under the law. But when asked if “performative prayer” with “clasped hands”, visible from a window, could be prosecuted, she responded: “well, that depends on who’s passing by the window…” 

The admission came despite previously accusing US President JD Vance of spreading “shameless misinformation” when he highlighted concerns that “even private prayer within [people’s] own homes may amount to breaking the law” in his Munich Security Conference Speech earlier this year. 

Lois McLatchie Miller, Scottish spokesperson for ADF International, said:  

“The ‘buffer zones’ law is fundamentally flawed when it comes to undermining basic freedoms of speech, thought, and religion. We all stand firmly against harassment, which is already illegal  – but the law goes far beyond that in preventing people from praying or holding consensual conversations in large public areas of Scotland.  

“We were concerned when such legislation was proposed that we’d witness a slippery slope of censorship. Less than a year after the bill passing, already, politicians are considering expanding the ‘buffer zone’ area, which would restrict free speech in an even larger public area. Who are the authorities to determine which conversations members of the public do or don’t want to have?” 

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

PICTURED: Rose Docherty; Lois McLatchie Miller, ADF International