Police target charitable volunteer AGAIN for standing silently in public area

Isabel Vaughan-Spruce who was arrested for silent prayer in the UK.
  • NEW FOOTAGE shows West Midlands Police officer ask Isabel Vaughan-Spruce to leave public area, citing concerns that her “mere presence” would cause “distress”
  • Confrontation comes despite police force having paid out £13,000 for two prior wrongful arrests over her silent prayers

BIRMINGHAM (10 February 2025) – New footage obtained by ADF UK shows a West Midlands Police officer demand charitable volunteer Isabel Vaughan-Spruce to leave a public area because of what she is known to believe – despite her simply standing alone, praying silently, without undertaking any actions.

The footage shows the police officer explain that he believes Isabel’s “mere presence” may constitute “harassment, alarm and distress”, given that she is known to have pro-life beliefs and belong to a pro-life organisation. He thus concluded that she was breaching the rules of the “buffer zone” – an area within 150m of an abortion facility. 

However, the buffer zone legislation does not single out individuals to ban from the area for their beliefs, but rather prohibits behaviours amounting to “intimidation”, “harassment”, or “influencing a person’s decision to access” an abortion facility.

With support from ADF UK, Vaughan-Spruce has written to police to ask for clarification that a person’s mere presence does not amount to a criminal offence.

The incident took place despite West Midlands Police previously issuing an apology and a payout of £13,000 for breaching Vaughan-Spruce’s human rights on two prior occasions where they arrested her for praying silently in the same “buffer zone”.

"[The officer] believes that just because I hold pro-life beliefs, I am automatically a criminal in certain public areas.This isn’t right.”

- Isabel Vaughan-Spruce

Vaughan-Spruce, who has been a crisis pregnancy volunteer for two decades and has prayed nearby the abortion facility on a weekly basis throughout that time, was tried for breaching a buffer zone by praying silently in her mind at Birmingham Magistrates Court in February 2023, and was found innocent.

CPS Guidance from October 2024 stipulates that silent prayer is “not necessarily” a crime in an abortion “buffer zone”. The guidance further states that any actions must be “overt” to meet the threshold of criminality.

Commenting on the exchange, Isabel Vaughan-Spruce said:

“It has been made clear time and time again through the verdict of Birmingham Magistrates’ Court, through the concession and payout from the police, through the words of the former Home Secretary and through CPS Guidance –  you cannot break the law by simply existing in a buffer zone, holding thoughts and beliefs in your mind.

“Every person has a right to stand in a public space and think what they want. The police officer told me that my “mere presence” was offensive – that’s nothing short of viewpoint discrimination. He believes that just because I hold pro-life beliefs, I am automatically a criminal in certain public areas. This isn’t right.”

ADF UK legal counsel Jeremiah Igunnubole said:

“Nobody should be criminalised for publicly holding lawful views or associating with any lawful cause. The idea that the state can interrogate citizens and instruct them to leave certain public areas based on their pro-life beliefs and associations is profoundly chilling and concrete evidence, if ever we needed more, of viewpoint-based two-tier policing. 

“If Isabel can be treated this way then what does this mean for all Christians holding to biblical truths? This isn’t 1984; it’s 2025 – police must respect the fundamental rights of freedom of speech, thought and association.”

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

Pictured: Vaughan-Spruce’s first arrest; Vaughan-Spruce’s second arrest; headshots, Isabel Vaughan=Spruce; Vaughan-Spruce with ADF UK Legal Counsel, Jeremiah Igunnubole

Dorset retiree faces trial for offering a conversation, amidst fears over “two-tier policing” 

  • Livia Tossici-Bolt held a sign reading “Here to talk, if you want to” near an abortion facility in Bournemouth
  • Retired medical scientist to face trial 5th -6th MARCH; ADF UK supports legal defence
  • Christians raise concerns about “two-tier policing”

BOURNEMOUTH (6 February 2025) – A retired medical scientist from Bournemouth will face trial on 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 6th March 2025. ADF UK are supporting her legal defence.  

“There’s nothing wrong with offering help. 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. 

Right to conversation, and silent thought, on trial

In 2023, the UK government passed legislation in the Public Order Act to enforce censorial buffer zones around all abortion facilities, banning any form of “influence of a person’s decision to access, provide or facilitate the provision of abortion services.” 

Adam Smith-Connor, convicted for praying silently in a "buffer zone"

CPS Guidance released alongside the national legislation, which came into force in October 2024, explains that silent prayer is “not necessarily” a crime; rather, that criminal actions must be “overt” to meet the threshold. 

 Yet, in November 2024, Christian army veteran Adam Smith-Connor was convicted for praying silently in his mind for a few minutes on public space across the road from the abortion facility in Bournemouth, where a local “buffer zone” had been enacted via a “Public Spaces Protection Order”. With support from ADF UK, he is appealing his conviction in July. 

Concerns over "two-tier policing"

As a result of the arrests over silent prayer, Christians have raised concern about “two-tier policing” taking place in the UK – something which the Home Office have dismissed in a leaked memo as a “right-wing extremist narrative”.

This month, it was reported that shoplifting crimes have increased by 25% in the past year. Last year, it emerged that knife crime in the UK has increased by 80% in the past decade. Volunteers have questioned the focus of resources on clamping down on silent prayer, rather than tangible crimes.

Isabel Vaughan-Spruce, who was seen being arrested for her silent prayers in a viral video in 2022, said:

“The Home Office’s abrasive and outright dismissal of widespread concerns about “two-tier policing” runs contrary to the experience of countless everyday British people.

I have been arrested multiple times, faced an intrusive police investigation, and dragged into court – simply for standing silently on a public street nearby an abortion clinic, praying, imperceptibly, in the privacy of my mind. Meanwhile, how many true criminals roam the streets, unchecked? How many of the perpetrators of the grooming gangs were left unaccountable for their violent and despicable actions towards children?”

Jeremiah Igunnubole, Legal Counsel for ADF UK, said:

“Under far-reaching and vaguely-written rules, we have seen volunteers like Livia criminalised simply for offering conversations to those in need; 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 offered conversations. No genuinely free and democratic society criminalises it citizens for exercising their right to freedom of speech, especially when such speech is nothing more than a harmless and consensual conversation,” 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: Liviai Tossici-Bolt; ADF UK Legal Counsel Jeremiah Igunnubole

Christian Convert From Islam Freed After Imprisonment Over Facebook Posts

  • Contributor to Facebook group for Christian converts from Islam has been freed after over three years in detention 
  • Abdulbaqi Saeed Abdo, father of 5, withstood severe conditions – and period of hunger strike – before being released from prison this month, with support from ADF International

CAIRO (2 February 2025) – The father of 5 imprisoned for participating in a private Facebook group about converting to Christianity from Islam has been freed from detention after 3 years – but his case remains open.

Abdulbaqi Saeed Abdo, originally from Yemen, was part of a Christian Facebook group that discussed Islamic theology and apologetics. In 2021, Abdo was arrested while he was living as a UNHCR-registered asylum seeker in Egypt. He had originally fled to Egypt because he faced death threats in Yemen after converting to Christianity.  

"It isn’t right that a government should tear me away from my family, keep me in these awful conditions, only because of the faith in which I peacefully choose to believe."

- Abdulbaqi Saeed Abdo

He was moved between several detention centers throughout his three years of imprisonment, even undergoing a hunger strike within his final six months in an act of desperation. The husband and father of five suffered from poor health in relation to his heart, liver, and kidneys. 

“I endured many hardships in prison. It isn’t right that a government should tear me away from my family, keep me in these awful conditions, only because of the faith in which I peacefully choose to believe. 

“I thank everyone who prayed for me while I was in prison, cared about and followed up on my case, and shared the joy of my release from prison,” commented Abdo upon his release. 

Abdo’s son, Husam Baqi, added: 

“It is hideous that individuals are not allowed to believe and express their beliefs freely and are imprisoned or killed for their faith.”

"This case shows the extremity of unchecked government censorship in the online age."

- Abdulbaqi Saeed Abdo

Abdo continues to fight his open legal battle with support from ADF International, who helped secure his release by submitting his case to the UN Working Group on Arbitrary Detention. 

A Global Trend of Online Censorship

Commenting on the case, Kelsey Zorzi, Director of Advocacy for Religious Freedom for ADF International, said: 

“The arbitrary detention of this husband and father without a criminal trial, and the lack of an opportunity for him to defend himself against alleged offenses, constitutes a severe violation of human rights. 

“The peaceful expression of one’s religious convictions cannot be a crime – not in Egypt, nor anywhere else in the world. This case shows the extremity of unchecked government censorship in the online age. The world must take note.” 

Support from around the World

While Abdo sufered in prison, Ayaan Hirsi Ali, research fellow at Stanford University’s Hoover Institution, described his unfair treatment as “grotesque”. 

“The imprisonment of Yemeni refugee Abdulbaqi Saeed Abdo at the hands of Egyptian authorities is a surreal example of censorial blasphemy policies in action,” she said.  

Previously a prominent atheist, Ali announced in November that she was converting to Christianity. Because of her outspoken rhetoric against the Muslim Brotherhood, she faces constant death threats.  

“This is the logical conclusion to a trend that empowers authorities to brutalize innocent people for free expression on social media. From China to Pakistan, from Russia to Syria, from the UK to Egypt—free speech must urgently be defended from our age’s resurgent Stalinism,” she added.

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

PICTURED: Abdulbaqi Saeed Abdo; Kelsey Zorzi, ADF International

European Politicians Call for Social Media Censorship and Attack X and Meta’s Free Speech Policies as ‘Threat to Democracy’

  • X-owner Elon Musk accused of being in ‘conspiracy’ with ‘populists and the far right’ during debate at the Council of Europe

  • UK Labour MP called out by MEP for criticising Mr Musk and Meta’s free speech policy and for voicing ‘support for Britain’s notoriously heavy-handed prosecutions for social media posts during last summer’s riots’

  • ADF International executive director Paul Coleman: ‘We are living in a new bipolar order of speech’ between Europe and USA

STRASBOURG (1 February 2025) – European politicians on Thursday called for social media censorship to “protect democracy” and criticised X and Meta’s free speech policies during a debate at the Council of Europe.

Politicians at the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe (PACE) called for censorship, in the form of tackling so-called “misinformation”, “disinformation” and “hate speech” online, and voted in favour of a report on social media content regulation.

This follows the European Union last week doubling down on online censorship through the Digital Services Act (DSA), with the same justification of “protecting democracy”.

During Thursday night’s debate, Elon Musk and Mark Zuckerberg were singled out as threatening democracy with their free speech policies.

Belgian politician Christophe Lacroix said: “Why is Elon Musk in the US government?… There is a conspiracy, in any case a conjunction of interests between populists and the far right and the billionaire owners of social networks to effectively interfere in the electoral process.”

UK Labour MP Cat Eccles said Mr Musk’s “rise of influence” was “something we should all be worried about” and criticised Meta for its new free speech policy, which she characterised as “abandoning fact checking”.

She also indicated support for the notoriously heavy-handed prosecutions for social media posts during Britain’s riots last summer, saying: “While we must value freedom of expression, we must remember that it does not protect individuals from the consequences of their actions. In the UK we saw this play out recently with the horrendous Southport murders last summer and subsequent riots, with people arrested and charged for inciting hatred and violence on all sides.”

French politician Sandra Regol said free speech online posed a threat to “our democracy” and “diversity”.

She said: “We’ve heard a lot about freedom of expression. It’s supposed to be the guarantor of this diversity, it’s supposed to be the guarantor of our democracies and, in a crazy, absolute reversal of values, it’s now the tool that’s destroying this diversity.”

Three amendments were proposed in Thursday’s debate to preserve freedom of expression and they were all rejected.

But an amendment to the report calling for collaborating “with journalists and fact-checking organisations to effectively combat disinformation” was adopted by two-thirds majority.

This puts Europe further at odds with the US regarding free speech, after President Trump last week signed an executive order to end federal government censorship. 

Luxembourg MEP Fernand Kartheiser said:

“Free speech is under serious threat in Europe. It was deeply concerning to see politicians at the Council of Europe calling for online censorship in the name of ‘protecting democracy’.

“Democracy is impossible without free speech, but for some reason, too many politicians, including from the UK, can’t seem to grasp this.

“Labour MP Cat Eccles voiced support for Britain’s notoriously heavy-handed prosecutions for social media posts during last summer’s riots in the country.

“European politicians should consider how their support for censorship and their attacks on the free speech policies of American citizens Elon Musk and Mark Zuckerberg’s platforms will affect our relationship with our vital ally the United States.

“The US has made its commitment to free speech clear and US Vice President JD Vance already threatened last year to withdraw US support for NATO if the EU censors X.

“For the sake of truly preserving European democracy and also good relations with America, all attempts to impose censorship in Europe, including through the Digital Services Act, must end.”

Paul Coleman, executive director of ADF International, a global organisation dedicated to protecting fundamental freedoms, including at the European institutions, stated:

“We are living in a new bipolar order of speech. On the one hand, Europe is doubling down on censorship, while the US is recommitting to its free speech heritage.

“This will usher in an unprecedented era of tension within the West itself over this most basic of human rights, and it is the responsibility of all who value freedom to side with the protection of free speech.”

EU doubled down on social media censorship with DSA last week

Last week, the European Commissioner in charge of enforcing the DSA, Henna Virkkunen, announced a number of measures to further crack down on speech, including doubling the number of staff working on enforcement from 100 to 200 by the end of 2025.

The Digital Services Act (DSA), which came into full force in February 2024, is an EU regulation that aims to tackle “misinformation”, “disinformation”, and “hate speech” online.

By requiring the removal of so-called “illegal content” on social media platforms, it censors free speech both within and outside the EU and could even affect the speech of US citizens online.

On the DSA, Mr Coleman commented:

“Last week, the European Commission made clear that it will be increasing its efforts to suppress speech, arguing that the Digital Services Act is needed to ‘protect democracy’ from so-called ‘misinformation’, ‘disinformation’ and ‘hate speech’ online.

“As we saw clearly from Thierry Breton’s letter to Elon Musk this summer, warning him not to breach the DSA ahead of his interview with Donald Trump, the DSA will be used to censor views disfavoured by those in power.

“The DSA poses a grave threat to the fundamental right to freedom of expression, guaranteed to every person under international law. It is not the place of any authority to impose a narrow view of acceptable speech on the rest of society.

“The effects of the DSA will not be confined to Europe. There are legitimate worries that the DSA could censor the speech of citizens across the world, as social media companies could regulate their content globally to comply with European standards.”

Other measures announced by Commissioner Virkkunen included making a previously voluntary code of conduct on “illegal hate speech online” legally binding and advancing a framework called the European Democracy Shield (EDS).

The EDS uses fact checkers and NGOs to combat so-called “foreign information manipulation, interference, and disinformation”.

Under the DSA, social media platforms can face massive fines of up to 6% of global annual turnover for failing to remove so-called “misinformation”, “disinformation” and “hate speech”.

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

Appeal date set for Army Veteran convicted for silent prayer in “buffer zone” 

  • Bournemouth Crown Court to hear silent prayer appeal, July 28th 2025
  • Recent CPS guidance clarifies that silent prayer is “not necessarily” a crime in national abortion “buffer zones” 

Bournemouth (29 January 2025) – The appeal date for the army veteran and father of two found “guilty” for praying silently near an abortion facility has been set for 28th July, 2025 – two and a half years following the three minutes of prayer which sparked legal action.

Bournemouth, Christchurch & Poole Council charged and prosecuted Adam Smith-Connor for breaking local “buffer zone” rules, following an interrogation by officers on “the nature of his prayers” when he stopped to pray for a few minutes near an abortion facility in November 2022.   

“The government simply cannot be allowed to determine the content of thoughts and prayers, depending on where you’re standing."

- Adam Smith-Connor, convicted for praying silently in a "buffer zone"

The “guilty” verdict, issued on 16th October 2024, marked the first time in modern British history where a citizen has been criminalised on the basis of his thoughts. 

Silent prayer “not necessarily” a crime, says CPS

Since Adam’s conviction, nationwide “buffer zones” legislation has been rolled out across the country, preventing anyone from “influencing” a person’s “decision to access” an abortion facility – but new CPS guidance clarifies that such a ban does “not necessarily” extend to silent prayer. 

The CPS further noted that the activities of the accused must be “overt” to meet the threshold of criminality. 

At the time of the alleged “offence”, Smith-Connor stood imperceptibly praying in his head for a few minutes, across the road from the abortion facility, with his back to the entrance in order to avoid the impression he was attempting to engage with anyone.

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

Video footage shows Smith-Connor being questioned as to the “nature of his prayer” by officers, before being issued a fine.

Speaking about his decision to appeal, Adam Smith-Connor said: 

“Surely a silent thought cannot be a crime. With support from ADF UK, I’m appealing my conviction. The government simply cannot be allowed to determine the content of thoughts and prayers, depending on where you’re standing.  

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

Controversially, Bournemouth, Christchurch & Poole Council has already spent over £100,000 of public funds prosecuting Smith-Connor for his silent thoughts, for a charge with a maximum penalty of £1,000. This expense – including a high spend on a King’s Counsel– comes despite the Council being on the brink of bankruptcy for the past year. 

The Court sentenced Smith-Connor to a conditional discharge and ordered him to pay prosecution costs of £9,000.  

Jeremiah Igunnubole, legal counsel for ADF UK, who supported Adam’s case, said: 

“The right to engage in silent prayer constitutes the most basic of human rights. It is protected robustly by international legal provisions relating to freedom of thought. 

“Adam’s conviction was a watershed moment for British freedoms, and one the public must not take lightly. A failure to protect thought and peaceful speech anywhere creates a threat to these rights everywhere. Buffer zones or otherwise, we should uncompromisingly safeguard the rights on which our democracy is based. That’s why this appeal is incredibly important.” 

 

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

Pictured: Adam Smith-Connor, Jeremiah Igunnubole (Legal Counsel for ADF UK)

Woman arrested for silent prayer responds to Home Office dismissal of “two-tier policing”

  • Home Office’s comments “run contrary to the lived experience of countless everyday British people”, says Isabel Vaughan-Spruce
  • A Dorset retiree will similarly face trial in March for holding a sign reading “here to talk, if you want” in abortion “buffer zone”

LONDON (28th January 2025) – A leaked Home Office counter-extremism dossier says that “claims of ‘two-tier’ policing, where two groups are allegedly treated differently after similar behaviour” are a “right-wing extremist narrative”, according to The Telegraph today.

The dismissal of “two-tier policing” comes after mounting concern amongst Christians that police have cracked down to heavily on peaceful thought and expression, rather than focusing on violent crime.

On 6th March, a Dorset retiree will become the fourth individual to face trial under “buffer zones” regulations, for holding a sign near an abortion facility reading “here to talk, if you want.” Read more.

“The priorities of the Home Office seem to have been turned on their head."

- Isabel Vaughan-Spruce, arrested and tried for praying silently in her head

Isabel Vaughan-Spruce’s case caught the world’s attention when she was seen on a viral video being arrested for praying in her head near an abortion facility in Birmingham.

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

Vaughan-Spruce was arrested on two separate occasions for praying peacefully in her mind, leading to one court trial at Birmingham Magistrates’ Court (at which she was fully acquitted), and one lengthy police investigation. With support from ADF UK, Isabel recieved an apology and a settlement from West Midlands Police following her ordeal.

"The Home Office's dismissal...runs contrary to the lived experience of countless British people"

Responding to the comments found within the leaked Home Office dossier, Vaughan-Spruce stated: 

“The Home Office’s abrasive and outright dismissal of widespread concerns about “two-tier policing” runs contrary to the experience of countless everyday British people.

I have been arrested multiple times, faced an intrusive police investigation, and dragged into court – simply for standing silently on a public street nearby an abortion clinic, praying, imperceptibly, in the privacy of my mind. Meanwhile, how many true criminals roam the streets, unchecked? How many of the perpetrators of the grooming gangs were left unaccountable for their violent and despicable actions towards children?

The priorities of the Home Office seem to have been turned on their head. They must acknowledge their misstep here before entirely losing the confidence of the public.”

"The Home Office must direct resources to where they're needed most"

Jeremiah Igunnubole, legal counsel for ADF UK, who supported the defense of Isabel Vaughan-Spruce and others prosecuted for their thoughts and peaceful speech, said:

“Over the last 3 years, we’ve supported several individuals in court who have been prosecuted simply for praying, or offering help, near abortion facilities.

In the wider public square, we’ve also given our support to innocent people like Dia Moodley, a preacher from Bristol, who was arrested and put in cells simply for comparing Islam to Christianity in response to a question.

While the Home Office has committed significant time and resources to cracking down on the expression – or even contemplation of – Christian beliefs, the crime rate statistics prove that they have not directed police resources to where it’s needed most.”

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

PICTURED: Isabel Vaughan-Spruce; Jeremiah Igunnubole (ADF UK); Livia Tossici-Bolt

U.S. Reaffirms There Is No ‘Human Right’ to Abortion; Rejoins the Geneva Consensus Declaration

The US rejoins the Geneva Consensus Declaration under President Donald Trump.
  • US rejoins coalition of 40 countries standing against the creation of a “faux” international human right to abortion
  • Declaration affirms that “every human being has the inherent right to life”
The US rejoins the Geneva Consensus Declaration under President Donald Trump.

New York (27 January 2025) – A communication from the United States Mission to the United Nations has announced that the U.S. will rejoin the Geneva Consensus Declaration, a coalition of governments united around a pro-life policy stance. 

Adopted in October 2020, the coalition is comprised of now 40 signatory countries that uphold the right to life of the unborn and affirm national sovereignty with regard to pro-life laws and policies.

“Returning the U.S. to the coalition carries significant legal weight in that it prevents the emergence of a false ‘human right’ to abortion by customary international law."

- Elyssa Koren, International Human Rights Lawyer, ADF International

The U.S. was a founding member of the Geneva Consensus Declaration. The Biden Administration exited the coalition by Executive Order on 28 January 2021.

The Declaration affirms that, “every human being has the inherent right to life” and declares that there is no international obligation to promote or fund abortion. It further emphasizes holistic strategies for advancing women’s health and well-being, including maternal care, education, and economic development.

In addition, the Trump administration reinstated by Executive Order an expanded version of the Mexico City Policy, a mainstay of every Republican administration since 1984, which prohibits international non-governmental organizations that perform or promote abortion from receiving federal funding.

“By rejoining the Geneva Consensus Declaration and reinstating the expanded Mexico City Policy, the United States is committing to advancing a pro-life stance on the world stage, making clear that there is no so-called international ‘human right’ to abortion. This is a massive shift away from the virulent abortion promotion that characterized the Biden administration’s international engagement, particularly in the developing world,” commented Elyssa Koren, an international human rights lawyer for ADF International.

“The United States is saying no to the imposition of abortion pressure on sovereign nations. Rejoining the Geneva Consensus Declaration is sure to have a profound effect on governments that are trying to uphold their pro-life laws in the midst of extreme pressure from the pro-abortion lobby. Further, returning the U.S. to the coalition carries significant legal weight in that it prevents the emergence of a false ‘human right’ to abortion by customary international law.

“Life is a human right, and how American taxpayer dollars are deployed should reflect that truth. The expanded Mexico City Policy does just that,” Koren further stated.

Valerie Huber, the architect of the Geneva Consensus Declaration from the Institute for Women’s Health, stated:

“I commend President Donald J. Trump for fulfilling his promise to rejoin the Geneva Consensus Declaration (GCD), a first-of-its-kind global coalition of nations dedicated to improving women’s health, strengthening families, affirming that abortion is not an international human right, and upholding the sovereign right of nations to govern free from ideological colonialism.”

Huber’s statement in full can be found here.

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

PICTURED: Elyssa Koren, International Human Rights Lawyer, ADF International

EU doubles down on social media censorship that ‘will not be confined to Europe’ following concerns about Musk’s free speech policy on X

  • Members of the European Parliament debated controversial Digital Services Act on Tuesday, which censors free speech both within and outside the EU, and could affect America
  • EU’s censorship stance in marked contrast with US, where President Trump this week signed Executive Order to end government censorship

STRASBOURG (24 January) – The European Union this week doubled down on social media censorship to “protect democracy” from “foreign interference”, following concerns about Elon Musk’s free speech policy on X.

The Digital Services Act (DSA), which came into full force in February 2024, is an EU regulation that aims to tackle “misinformation”, “disinformation”, and “hate speech” online.

By requiring the removal of so-called “illegal content” on social media platforms, it censors free speech both within and outside the EU and could even affect the speech of US citizens online.

Members of the European Parliament (MEPs) debated enforcement of the controversial act on Tuesday. 

MEP Iratxe García, leader of the Progressive Alliance of Socialists and Democrats, commented:

“In recent months, we have seen how Elon Musk and his social network X have become the main promoter for the far right by supporting Donald Trump and Alice Weidel’s AfD party through fake news and hate messages.

“We have also witnessed Mark Zuckerberg’s decision to remove fact-checking programs on Meta as an act of complicity with lies and manipulation… We must ensure the effective application of our rules and we must sanction those who break the rules.”

The European Commissioner in charge of enforcing the DSA, Henna Virkkunen, announced a number of measures to further crack down on speech, including doubling the number of staff working on enforcement from 100 to 200 by the end of 2025. 

“We are living in a new bipolar order of speech. On the one hand, Europe is doubling down on censorship, while the US is recommitting to its free speech heritage."

- Paul Coleman, executive director of ADF International

This puts the EU’s online free speech stance in stark opposition to that of the US, following President Trump this week signing an Executive Order to end government censorship.

Although Virkkunen claimed the DSA “does not censor content”, MEPs from across the political spectrum voiced well-founded concerns that, in fact, it does.

Hungarian MEP Schaller-Baross Ernő said:

“Let’s call a spade a spade! In its current form, the DSA can also serve as a tool for political censorship…

“I’m afraid that in Europe the left… is not learning again. But this DSA must be abolished in this form. We don’t need more officials in Europe who censor…

“Freedom of expression and equal conditions must be ensured. This is the foundation of our democracy. Let’s say no to political censorship!”

Polish MEP Ewa Zajączkowska-Hernik said:

“For you, democracy is when people think, write and speak directly and say what you tell them to with your leftist way of thinking.

“Right-wing and conservative views are ‘thought crime’ and today’s debate should be called ‘The need to strengthen censorship to protect the trough of those who govern the European Union’.”

In addition to institutionalising censorship, the DSA also lays the ground for shadow banning, which was highlighted in this week’s debate.

Paul Coleman, executive director of ADF International, a global organisation dedicated to the protection of fundamental freedoms, including at the EU institutions, stated:

“On Monday, President Trump signed an executive order to end the weaponisation of the US government to promote censorship.

“On Tuesday, the European Commission made clear that it will be increasing its efforts to suppress speech, arguing that the Digital Services Act is needed to ‘protect democracy’ from so-called ‘misinformation’, ‘disinformation’ and ‘hate speech’ online.

“We are living in a new bipolar order of speech. On the one hand, Europe is doubling down on censorship, while the US is recommitting to its free speech heritage.

“This will usher in an unprecedented era of tension within the West itself over this most basic of human rights, and it is the responsibility of all who value freedom to side with the protection of free speech.

“As we saw clearly from Thierry Breton’s letter to Elon Musk this summer, warning him not to breach the DSA ahead of his interview with Trump, the DSA will be used to censor views disfavoured by those in power.

“The DSA poses a grave threat to the fundamental right to freedom of expression, guaranteed to every person under international law. It is not the place of any authority to impose a narrow view of acceptable speech on the rest of society.

“The effects of the DSA will not be confined to Europe. There are legitimate worries that the DSA could censor the speech of citizens across the world, as social media companies could regulate their content globally to comply with European standards.”

US Response to DSA

In response to former Commissioner Thierry Breton’s letter to Musk this summer, Congressman Jim Jordan, chairman of the US House Judiciary Committee, wrote a strongly worded letter to Mr Breton.

In it, he said:

“We write to reiterate our position that the EU’s burdensome regulation of online speech must not infringe on protected American speech…

“Your threats against free speech do not occur in a vacuum, and the consequences are not limited to Europe. The harms caused by EU-imposed censorship spill across international borders, as many platforms generally maintain one set of content moderation policies that they apply globally.

“Thus, the EU’s regulatory censorship regime may limit what content Americans can view in the United States. American companies also have an enormous incentive to comply with the DSA and public threats from EU commissioners like you.”

Increasing Censorship Efforts

Other measures announced by Virkkunen this week include making a previously voluntary code of conduct on “illegal hate speech online” legally binding and advancing a framework called the European Democracy Shield (EDS).

The EDS uses fact checkers and NGOs to combat so-called “foreign information manipulation, interference, and disinformation”.

Anyone, be it an individual or an entity, can flag content they believe to be illegal.

Under the DSA, social media platforms can face massive fines of up to 6% of global annual turnover for failing to remove so-called “misinformation”, “disinformation” and “hate speech”.

The concept of “hate speech” has no basis in international human rights law.

Because of their loose and vague nature, prohibitions on “hate speech” rely on the subjective perception of offended parties rather than objective harm.

Further, the definition of “hate speech” is not harmonised at the EU level, meaning that what is deemed illegal in one country may not be in another.

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

Brazilian legislators challenge unlawful state censorship at international body

Brazilian lawmakers and freedom of speech advocates
  • Senator Eduardo Girao & Members of the Chamber of Deputies Marcel Van Hattem, Adriana Ventura, Gilson Marques & Ricardo Salles claim violations of their free speech rights following persistent state censorship in Brazil, including 39-day ban on X (Twitter) ahead of elections. 
  • ADF International, representing legislators before the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, petitions international body to condemn Brazilian censorship and uphold free speech.  
Freedom of speec

Left to right: Senator Eduardo Girao, Members of the Chamber of Deputies Marcel Van Hattem, Adriana Ventura, Ricardo Salles and Gilson Marques.

WASHINGTON, DC (20 December 2024) In light of the ongoing state-driven censorship crisis in Brazil, five Brazilian legislators, including Senator Eduardo Girao and members of the Chamber of Deputies Marcel Van Hattem, Adriana Ventura, Gilson Marques, and Ricardo Salles, are challenging the violations of their free speech rights before the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, represented by ADF International.  

The Commission has jurisdiction over Brazil as a State Party to the American Convention on Human Rights. The American Convention robustly protects freedom of speech, including prohibitions on prior restraint (censoring expression before it has occurred) and special protections for political speech. Article 13 protects the “right to freedom of thought and expression” which includes “the freedom to seek, receive, and impart information and ideas of all kinds… through any other medium of one’s choice… The exercise of the right…shall not be subject to prior censorship… [and] may not be restricted by indirect methods or means, such as the abuse of government or private controls … or by any other means tending to impede the communication and circulation of ideas and opinions.” 

The legislators claim violations of their rights under the Convention, including their freedom of expression and the equal protection of the law, as a result of escalating state censorship, dating back to 2019, which recently reached a head with the X (formerly known as “Twitter”) ban.  

In their legal challenge now filed with the Commission, the legislators note that state-sponsored censorship, including the 39-day ban of X, is “disproportionate and of dubious legal basis” and “has affected the conventional rights of the Victims in a direct, particular, and serious way.” 

The petition goes on to say that the country’s X blockade “violated the rights of more than twenty million people in Brazil who are users of the platform, having prevented them from accessing the dissemination and reception of information during that time.” 

Julio Pohl, ADF International’s lead legal counsel on the case, stated: “The world watched as Brazilian authorities blatantly clamped down on the free speech rights of over 20 million Brazilians by shutting down X ahead of the national elections. While the ban was eventually lifted, the fact remains that millions of Brazilians, including the five legislators now taking their case to the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, were subjected to unlawful censorship during a critical time in their country. Censorship has no place in a free society, and it’s time for the Commission to intervene and condemn the vast and ongoing violations of free speech being perpetrated by Brazilian authorities.” 

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

Julio Pohl & Marcel van Hattem

Marcel van Hattem, member of the Chamber of Deputies for Brazil and one of the legislators who filed the petition, commented:  

“What we have seen time and again in Brazil is an egregious silencing of political voices, citizens, journalists, or anyone else who might share different viewpoints from Judge Alexandre de Moraes or others in control. This is a major violation of all Brazilians’ free speech and expression rights. We can’t afford to lose Brazil to authoritarianism, which is why I am taking my case to the international level with the help of ADF International. These attempts to silence and censor cannot be allowed to stand.”  

Eduardo Girao, Senator for Brazil and party to the petition, stated:  

“Brazil is facing a very serious censorship problem. While our constitution protects our rights to speak and express ourselves freely as citizens of Brazil, Brazilians throughout the country are afraid to share their beliefs for fear of persecution and punishment. We must push back against censorship in our country, and it is my hope that the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights will fulfill its obligation to condemn the human rights violations that are taking place in our country.”  

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

Julio Pohl & Eduardo Girao

State-sponsored censorship 

Censorship in Brazil has been a persistent and escalating problem in Brazil since 2019. The state has targeted conservative voices, including blocking pro-life messages during the 2022 election campaign, which contained views contrary to the pro-abortion position held by then-candidate Lula da Silva.   

On 30 August 2024, Justice Alexandre de Moraes of the Brazilian Supreme Court ordered the “immediate, complete and total suspension of X’s operations” in the country after the platform refused to comply with government orders to shut down accounts which it had singled out for censorship.  The ban was in effect for 39 days. 

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

Elon Musk thanked ADF International for its intervention.  

In September, over 100 global free speech advocates – including former UK Prime Minister Liz Truss, journalist Michael Shellenberger, five US Attorneys General and Senior UK, US, European and Latin American politicians and professors united in an open letter to call for free speech to be restored in Brazil. 

Even with the lifting of the X ban, the state of censorship in Brazil remains severe. 

Left to right: ADF International legal counsel Julio Pohl, Chamber of Deputies member Marcel van Hattem, Senator Eduardo Girao, & ADF International Director of Advocacy for Latin America, Tomás Henríquez

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

WIN for religious freedom in Nigeria: Christian mother of 5, Rhoda Jatau, fully acquitted of charges for “blasphemy”

Sean Nelson talks with Rhoda Jatau who faces persecution as a Christian in Nigeria.
  • Following a two-and-a-half-year legal ordeal, judge in Bauchi State, Nigeria acquits Rhoda Jatau of “blasphemy” charges; Rhoda faced up to 5 years in prison if convicted.  
  • Jatau spent 19 months in prison before being released on bail for allegedly sharing a blasphemous video that condemned the lynching of Christian college student Deborah Emmanuel Yakubu.  
  • Jatau is now safe in an undisclosed location; ADF International supported Jatau’s legal defence, leading advocacy efforts for religious freedom and free expression rights in Nigeria.

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

BAUCHI STATE, NIGERIA (19 December 2024) Rhoda Jatau, a Christian and mother of 5 in Nigeria, has been fully acquitted of any wrongdoing following a two-and-a-half-year legal ordeal on charges of alleged blasphemy. Jatau was imprisoned in May 2022 on blasphemy charges for allegedly sharing a video on WhatsApp condemning the lynching of Deborah Emmanuel Yakubu, a Nigerian university student who was murdered and set on fire by a mob of her classmates in May 2022 for sharing her Christian faith. 

Jatau was granted bail in December 2023 and remained safely in an undisclosed location while her trial continued. A judge in Bauchi State, Nigeria, announced Jatau’s full acquittal last week.  

“We are thankful to God for Rhoda’s full acquittal and an end to the ordeal she has endured for far too long,” said Sean Nelson, legal counsel for ADF International. “No person should be punished for peaceful expression, and we are grateful that Rhoda Jatau has been fully acquitted. But Rhoda should never have been arrested in the first place. We will continue to seek justice for Christians and other religious minorities in Nigeria who are unjustly imprisoned and plagued by the draconian blasphemy laws.”   

The Nigerian ADF International allied lawyer, serving as lead counsel on Jatau’s case, responded: “After a two-and-a-half-year ordeal, including 19 long months in prison, we are happy that Rhoda finally has been acquitted of any wrongdoing. We thank all who have been praying for Rhoda, and we ask for your continued prayers as Nigerians continue to push back against persecution.”   

Sean Nelson talks with Rhoda Jatau, ADF International client and persecuted Christian,

Pictured: ADF International legal counsel Sean Nelson and Rhoda Jatau

Alleged “blasphemy” 

Jatau, a Christian and mother of five, was imprisoned from May 2022 through December 2023 for allegedly sharing a video on WhatsApp condemning the lynching of Deborah Emmanuel Yakubu, a Nigerian university student who was murdered and set on fire by a mob of her classmates in May 2022 for sharing her Christian faith.  

Jatau was charged under sections 114 (public disturbance) and 210 (religious insult) of the Bauchi State Penal Code, and if convicted, faced 5 years in prison.  

Prior to being granted bail and during her 19-month imprisonment, Jatau was repeatedly denied bail and detained incommunicado, only having intermittent access to legal counsel and family members during court appearances.  

Before granting bail, a judge in Bauchi State, Nigeria, refused to dismiss prosecutors’ case in their trial against Jatau. The decision to continue with the prosecution followed a “no case submission” filed by Jatau’s lawyers after the prosecution had rested based on serious evidentiary issues. Jatau’s lawyers raised significant legal failures in the prosecution’s case, and argued that they had not established the basic elements of their case against Jatau.  

The grant of bail and final acquittal followed international outcry over Jatau’s imprisonment. Highlighting both Jatau and Yakubu’s cases, and in response to appeals from ADF International and other religious freedom advocacy organizations, United Nations experts sent a joint allegation letter to the Nigerian government in October of 2023. The letter emphasized the danger of blasphemy laws as a violation of international human rights and called attention to Jatau’s unjust imprisonment.    

Nigeria’s Persecution of Christians   

The cases of Rhoda Jatau and Deborah Emmanuel Yakubu are but two examples of the widespread violence against religious minorities, including Christians in Northern Nigeria, prevalent in Nigeria today.     

Together with other religious minorities in Nigeria, the persecution of Christians in Nigeria is especially severe. Worldwide, over 5,500 Christians were killed for their faith in 2022. Of those, 90% were Nigerian.      

The criminalisation of blasphemy in Nigeria carries with it dangerous implications for the country as a whole. In a country of more than 200 million, split nearly evenly between Christians and Muslims, blasphemy laws are a significant driver of societal tensions. These laws punish the innocent for expressing their beliefs, silence people from sharing their faith, and perpetuate societal violence. Blasphemy laws throughout Nigeria encourage brutal mob violence and inflict severe harm on minority Muslims, Christian converts, and others.    

ADF International also is supporting the legal defence of Nigerian musician Yahaya Sharif-Aminu, a Sufi Muslim who was sentenced to death by hanging for sharing song lyrics that were deemed “blasphemous” on WhatsApp. With the support of ADF International, Yahaya is appealing his case to the Supreme Court of Nigeria in the hopes of overturning the death penalty blasphemy laws in Nigeria. Yahaya remains in prison awaiting his appeal. Yahaya has been imprisoned for over four and a half years.  

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