Bans on prayer and help for women in crisis can be implemented in N. Ireland, rules Supreme Court

  • Women who have benefitted from crisis pregnancy help services raise concerns about censorship zones as Supreme Court allows help to be banned 
  • Westminster and Holyrood parliaments weigh up human rights concerns regarding potential censorship zone legislation 

LONDON (7th December 2022) – Mothers and free speech campaigners have spoken out as the UK Supreme Court has allowed the Northern Irish government to implement censorship zones around abortion facilities across the country.

The Court was asked to review the validity of Northern Ireland’s ban on “direct” and “indirect” pro-life “influence” within 100m of abortion facilities. The bill in question criminalises not only harassment, which is already illegal; but also quiet or silent prayer, or the offer of leaflets about charitable services available which provide alternative options to abortion, including through financial or practical support.

“We are of course disappointed to see today’s ruling from the Supreme Court, which fails to protect the basic freedoms to pray or to offer help to women who may want to know about practical support available to avoid abortion. Peaceful presence, mere conversation, quiet or silent prayer – these activities should never be criminalised in a democratic society like the UK,” said Jeremiah Igunnubole, Legal Counsel for ADF UK.

“The criminalisation of any kind of ‘influencing’ is vague, uncertain and reduces the threshold of criminality to an impermissibly low level. Northern Ireland’s broadly drafted law hands arbitrary power to police officers, with the inevitable consequence being the unjust arrest and prosecution of those expressing pro-life views, even though such views are protected under domestic and international human rights law,” he continued.

“Westminster’s attempt to ban such activities is much further reaching than Northern Ireland’s – banning “informing”, “advising”, “persuading”, or even “occupying space” or “expressing opinion”, with a penalty of up to two years in prison. This is clearly grossly disproportionate. Nobody should be censored for simply holding pro-life beliefs,” he added.

Women concerned about removal of charitable help

A 2018 government review into the work of pro-life volunteers outside of abortion facilities found that instances of harassment are rare, and police already have powers to prosecute individuals engaging in such activities. The most common activities of pro-life groups were found to be quiet or silent prayer, or offering leaflets about charitable support available to women who would like to consider alternative options to abortion.

Alina Dulgheriu, a mother who changed her mind about abortion due to an offer of help presented to her at the gates of an abortion facility, spoke out on the behalf of campaign group Be Here for Me against the criminalisation of volunteers offering practical and financial support to women in need:

“What kind of society withholds help from vulnerable women? I didn’t want an abortion but I was abandoned by my partner, my friends and society. My financial situation at the time would have made raising a child very challenging. Thanks to the help I was offered by a group outside of a clinic before my appointment, my daughter is here today. My experience is typical of hundreds of others. Refusing charitable volunteers from offering much-needed services and resources for women in my situation is wrong. Let them help.”

Censorship zones have already been imposed in five towns by local councils, and have gone as far as to ban even silent prayer. Given the internal nature of silent prayer, this measure is thought to be the introduction of the first “thoughtcrime” in UK legislation.

Last week, news broke in Bournemouth that women had been intimidated by “community-accredited safety officers” who told the women they should stop praying on a public street, even outside of the designated censorship zone. (link to PR)

Westminster weighs up censorship zones in light of human rights concerns

In Westminster, parliamentarians are considering even further-reaching legislation to introduce censorship zones in England and Wales. Clause 9 of the Public Order Bill, currently under parliamentary debate, would prohibit pro-life volunteers from “influencing”, “advising”, “persuading”, “informing”, “occupying space” or even “expressing opinion” within the vicinity of an abortion facility.

Those who breach the rules could face up to two years in prison.

The censorial provisions drew substantive criticism from members of the House of Lords, including Liberal Democrat Peer Lord Beith, who deemed the clause “the most profound restriction on free speech I have ever seen in any UK legislation.” Lord Farmer called the clause “fundamentally flawed”, and asked, “When one walks past, one sees that vigils are often small groups of harmless, mainly female, pensioners. Why should they be banned and silenced?”

The Clause has caused great controversy following a statement released from the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State shortly after MPs voted to include it, admitting that the clause “could not be said to be compliant” with Convention rights as protected in the European Court of Human Rights.

Baroness Claire Fox, who advocates for abortion, pointed out that “creating prohibitions on protest on an issue-by-issue basis is not an appropriate way to make law. It sets a precedent that will inevitably lead to attempts to prevent speech, expression, information sharing, assembly or the holding of protected beliefs around other sites or in relation to other controversial or unpopular causes.”

Holyrood consider criminalising silent prayer

The Scottish government have shown support for Green Party MSP Gillian Mackay’s bill to introduce censorship zones around abortion facilities across Scotland.

The Scottish bill bears similar wording to that of the Northern Irish bill, banning “influence” within 150m of an abortion facility. An extra 100m ban would be available to be granted upon request to expand the boundary of the buffer zone.

The Scottish government made it clear at the Supreme Court hearing in July that they would include prayer within the scope of “influencing” in their legislation – the Lord Advocate testified that silent prayer could cause “psychological damage”.

Support for the policy comes despite the First Minister’s acknowledgment that so-called “buffer zones” are hindered by human rights law.

The First Minister chaired two national “summits” on the issue this year. Only stakeholders supportive of buffer zones were invited to attend these events.

When the policy idea was criticised by ADF UK’s Lois McLatchie on BBC Scotland, SNP MP Alison Thewliss called for the Scot to be deplatformed from the broadcaster, despite the BBC’s famous requirement for balanced coverage under the conditions of the Royal Charter.

Human Rights concerns in Northern Ireland

The legislation in question today – The Abortion Services (Safe Access Zones) Northern Ireland Bill – was adopted in the Northern Irish Assembly on 24 March 2022, having been sponsored by the leader of the Green Party in Northern Ireland, Clare Bailey, who subsequently lost her seat in this year’s parliamentary elections.

Northern Ireland’s Attorney General, Dame Brenda King, referred the bill to the Supreme Court citing concerns that the legislation omits a defence of ‘reasonable excuse’ and is therefore incompatible with the European Convention on Human Rights.

“We know from a Home Office review into the situation that instances of harassment outside of abortion facilities are rare, and when they happen, police already have powers to stop it. Censorship zones go much further. They introduce a disproportionate and unjustified blanket ban on all pro-life activity, including offering meaningful charitable help and support to women where they need it most. Authorities do not hold a right to silence the public expression of a viewpoint with which they simply disagree,” said Lois McLatchie, communications officer for ADF UK.

Statement in response to UK Supreme Court Ruling

Statement

  • ADF UK Legal Counsel Jeremiah Igunnubole responds to UK Supreme Court decision to allow ban on “influence” outside Northern Irish abortion clinics:

LONDON (7th December 2022) –

“We are of course disappointed to see today’s ruling from the Supreme Court, which fails to protect the basic freedoms to pray or to offer help to women who may want to know about practical support available to avoid abortion. Peaceful presence, mere conversation, quiet or silent prayer – these activities should never be criminalised in a democratic society like the UK.

Westminster’s attempt to ban such activities is much further reaching than Northern Ireland’s – banning “informing”, “advising”, “persuading”, or even “occupying space” or “expressing opinion”, with a penalty of up to two years in prison. This is clearly grossly disproportionate. Nobody should be censored for simply holding pro-life beliefs.”

Press Release to Follow.

UK Supreme Court to rule TOMORROW on “censorship zone” human rights concerns outside abortion facilities

  • Court to determine whether law banning pro-life volunteers from “influencing” –  even through offers of help – near abortion facilities
  • Ruling arrives as Holyrood and Westminster parliaments decide whether to censor space around abortion facilities nationwide

LONDON (6th December 2022) – Can the government censor people in public spaces simply because of their pro-life views? The UK Supreme Court will deliver a decision on the validity of Northern Ireland’s ban on “direct” and “indirect” pro-life “influence” in a 100m vicinity of abortion facilities tomorrow morning. 

The bill in question could criminalise not only harassment, which is already illegal; but also quiet or silent prayer, or the offer of leaflets about charitable services available which provide alternative options to abortion, including through financial or practical support. 

The ruling will consider whether censorship zones represent a disproportionate interference into the fundamental freedoms of thought, conscience and religion; freedom of expression; and freedom of assembly.  

The decision of the Court arrives as similar legislation is currently being considered in Westminister and Holyrood. 

“The criminalisation of any kind of ‘influencing’ is vague, uncertain and reduces the threshold of criminality to an impermissibly low level. This broadly drafted law would hand arbitrary power to police officers, with the inevitable consequence being the unjust arrest and prosecution of those expressing pro-life views even through prayer or offers of charitable help, even though such views are protected under domestic and international human rights law,” said Jeremiah Igunnubole, Legal Counsel for ADF UK. 

Women concerned about removal of charitable help 

A 2018 government review into the behaviour of pro-life volunteers outside of abortion facilities found that instances of harassment are rare, and police already have powers to prosecute individuals engaging in such activities. The most common activities of pro-life groups were found to be quiet or silent prayer, or offering leaflets about charitable support available to women who would like to consider alternative options to abortion.   

Alina Dulgheriu, a mother who changed her mind about abortion due to an offer help presented to her at the gates of an abortion facility, spoke out on the behalf of campaign group Be Here for Me against the criminalisation of volunteers offering practical and financial support to women in need: 

“What kind of society withholds help from vulnerable women? I didn’t want an abortion but I was abandoned by my partner, my friends and society. My financial situation at the time would have made raising a child very challenging. Thanks to the help I was offered by a group outside of a clinic before my appointment, my daughter is here today. My experience is typical of hundreds of others. Refusing charitable volunteers from offering much-needed services and resources for women in my situation is wrong. Let them help.”   

Censorship zones have already been installed in five towns by local councils, and have gone as far as to ban even silent prayer. Given the cerebral nature of silent prayer, this measure is thought to be the introduction of the first “thoughtcrime” in UK legislation. 

Last week, news broke in Bournemouth that women had been intimidated by “community-accredited safety officers” who told the women they should stop praying on a public street, even outside of the designated censorship zone.
 

 Westminster weigh up censorship zones against human rights concerns 

In Westminster, parliamentarians are considering even further-reaching legislation to introduce similar censored zones in England and Wales. Clause 9 of the Public Order Bill, currently under parliamentary debate, would prohibit pro-life volunteers from “influencing”, “advising”, “persuading”, “informing”, “occupying space” or even “expressing opinion” within the vicinity of an abortion facility.  

Those who breach the rules could face up to two years in prison. 

The censorial provisions drew substantive criticism from members of the House of Lords, including Liberal Democrat Peer Lord Beith, who deemed the clause “the most profound restriction on free speech I have ever seen in any UK legislation.” Lord Farmer called the clause “fundamentally flawed”, and asked, “When one walks past, one sees that vigils are often small groups of harmless, mainly female, pensioners. Why should they be banned and silenced?” 

The Clause has caused great controversy following a statement released by the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State shortly after MPs voted to include it, admitting that the clause “could not be said to be compliant” with Convention rights as protected in the European Court of Human Rights.   

Baroness Claire Fox, who advocates for abortion, pointed out in the House of Lords that “creating prohibitions on protest on an issue-by-issue basis is not an appropriate way to make law. It sets a precedent that will inevitably lead to attempts to prevent speech, expression, information sharing, assembly or the holding of protected beliefs around other sites or in relation to other controversial or unpopular causes.” 

Holyrood consider criminalising silent prayer

The Scottish government have shown support for Green Party MSP Gillian Mackay’s bill to introduce censorship zones around abortion facilities across Scotland.  

The Scottish bill bears similar wording to that of the Northern Irish bill, banning “influence” within 150m of an abortion facility. An extra 100m ban would be available to be granted upon request to expand the boundary of the buffer zone.  

The Scottish government made it clear at the Supreme Court hearing in July that they would include prayer within the scope of “influencing” in their legislation – the Lord Advocate testified that silent prayer could cause “psychological damage”. 

Support for the policy comes despite the First Minister’s acknowledgment that so-called “buffer zones” are hindered by human rights law.

The First Minister chaired two national “summits” on the issue this year. Only stakeholders supportive of buffer zones were invited to attend these events. 

When the policy idea was criticised by ADF UK’s Lois McLatchie on BBC Scotland, SNP MP Alison Thewliss called for the Scot to be deplatformed from the broadcaster, despite the BBC’s famous requirement for balanced coverage under the conditions of the Royal Charter.  

 Human Rights concerns in Northern Ireland 

The legislation in question tomorrow – The Abortion Services (Safe Access Zones) Northern Ireland Bill – was adopted in the Northern Irish Assembly on 24 March 2022, having been sponsored by the leader of the Green Party in Northern Ireland, Clare Bailey, who subsequently lost her seat in this year’s parliamentary elections. 

Northern Ireland’s Attorney General, Dame Brenda King, referred the bill to the Supreme Court citing concerns that the legislation omits a defence of ‘reasonable excuse’ and is therefore incompatible with the European Convention on Human Rights. 

“We know from a Home Office review into the situation that instances of harassment outside of abortion facilities are rare, and when they happen, police already have powers to stop it. Censorship zones go much further. They introduce a disproportionate and unjustified blanket ban on all pro-life activity, including offering meaningful charitable help and support to women where they need it most. Authorities do not hold a right to silence the public expression of a viewpoint with which they simply disagree,” said Lois McLatchie, communications officer for ADF UK.

Council “community safety” officers confront women praying in Bournemouth, even outside of abortion “censorship zone”

  • Livia Tossici-Bolt was urged by officers to “move on” after praying OUTSIDE a local “censorship zone” which prohibits prayer within 150m of abortion facilities
  • Authorities clamp down on prayer ahead of legislative proposals to prohibit “influencing” and “expressing opinion” near abortion facilities nationwide; parliamentarians warn of “slippery slope” of censorship

BOURNEMOUTH (24 November 2022) – Local woman Livia Tossici-Bolt was praying quietly with a friend in a public space when she was warned by local authorities that their prayer could cause “intimidation, harassment or distress”, and was asked to move away. 

With support from ADF UK, Tossici-Bolt has subsequently filed a complaint against the authorities for breaching her freedom to pray on a public street. 

“Everyone has the freedom to pray quietly in a public place. I would never dream of doing something that causes intimidation and harassment. We complied with the new rules instituted by the council and didn’t pray within the censorship zone. Yet nevertheless, these prayer-patrol officers tried to intimidate us out of exercising our freedom of thought and of expression – in the form of prayer -which has been a foundational part of our society for generations,” commented Livia Tosici-Bolt. 

The warning came as parliamentarians raised concerns in Westminster this week that instituting censorship zones around abortion facilities across the country (in clause 9 of the Public Order Bill) could create a “slippery slope” of increasing censorship in UK legislation. 

“If we pass Clause 9, why will other institutions not demand buffer zones around their special case facilities? If we consider that in Clause 9 a buffer zone is defined very broadly as “150 metres from … any access point to any building or site that contains an abortion clinic”, does that not make protests of all sorts at hospitals potentially unlawful? What if you wanted to organise a vigil outside a hospital in which, for example, babies died due to negligence, such as in the maternity services scandal recently? What about a rally against the use of puberty blockers on teenagers? Would that be banned too?” said Baronness Claire Fox of Buckley in an address to the House of Lords on Tuesday.  

Penalties for Praying 

Tossici-Bolt was with a friend when she was approached and asked to move by two “Community Safety Accredited Officers”, employed by the local council to patrol a demarcated area of approximately 150m circumference outside of an abortion facility to detect activities including praying, crossing oneself, or offering support. 

The officers complained that the women were praying close to the edge of the so-called “censorship zone”. They said that they were concerned that their silent prayer would amount to “intimidation and harassment” to staff possibly passing by. The officer also noted concerns about the women’s proximity to a local school. “The children may ask questions,” noted the officer. Tosici-Bolt responded that there “is nothing wrong with asking questions.” 

“The principle of so-called “buffer zones” erodes the basic tenets of democracy – that is, in this country, we are allowed to hold different views and beliefs,” commented Lois McLatchie, communications officer for ADF UK. 

“We stand firmly against harassment of women. Police forces and local authorities already have a wealth of legislation to prevent and penalise harassment of women in any circumstance, let alone near an abortion facility. New ”censorship zones” go far further than is just or necessary – clamping down on civil liberties that allow volunteers to offer genuine help, or even just to pray, in a public space,” McLatchie continued. 

Five local councils that have implemented such “buffer zones” have prohibited prayer, and during legal proceedings, Ealing Council admitted that this included a ban on even silent prayer. Free speech campaigners such as Baroness Claire Fox have raised concerns that this amounts to a “thoughtcrime”. 

“In the case of Livia, we see clearly that once you prohibit the expression of a minority viewpoint in one public area, there is no logical stopping point. Livia and her friend were pressured by the authorities for praying on a public street that was not even within the so-called ‘buffer zone’. What’s now to prevent an embassy applying for a buffer zone to end the ‘distressing’ protest of dissidents, or town halls to decide to ban, for example, the rallies of gender-critical feminists in their vicinity, and go on to enforce these bans even beyond the already-vague limits of the law?”, said Jeremiah Igunnubole, Legal Counsel for ADF UK.  

Pressure builds against censorial “buffer zones” policies 

The complaint against such “prayer patrols” comes as parliament debates a national roll-out of “buffer zones” as seen in Bournemouth. Clause 9 of the Public Order Bill, currently under debate in Westminster, prohibits not only “harassment” outside of abortion facilities but “informing”, “advising”, “influencing”, “persuading” and even “expressing an opinion”. 

The censorial provisions drew substantive criticism from members of the House of Lords, including Liberal Democrat Peer Lord Beith, who deemed the clause “the most profound restriction on free speech I have ever seen in any UK legislation.” 

Lord Frost equally noted that, “I don’t think it can be right for this Parliament to make it illegal for example to ‘seek to influence’…‘persistently occupy’…or ‘inform or attempt to inform’ …And that is true whether it is in the vicinity of an abortion clinic or anywhere else”. 

Former Police Ombudsman Baroness O’Loan was also highly critical of the buffer zone clause in the Bill, saying, “A blanket ban around abortion clinics my Lords would be disproportionate, it would be a denial of the right to the freedom of expression, it is unnecessary and it could even be harmful.” 

The Clause has caused great controversy following a statement released from the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State shortly after MPs voted to include it, admitting that the clause “could not be said to be compliant” with rights protected in the European Convention on Human Rights. 

A short step from contact-tracing to mass surveillance

The NHS’s promised contact-tracing app could easily pose a threat to our freedoms

Whenever the dust settles on the corona era, and historians look back at what made it significant, there will be plenty to chew over. They will discuss the scientific models, government policies, the individual heroes, the economic fallout and the shift in the relationship between China and the West.

But, however seismic these phenomena are, historians have written about these types of things before. They have explored the Wall Street Crash of 1929, the Spanish Flu, the Cold War and the ‘Blitz spirit’.

What is potentially novel and unique about the happenings of the corona era is that Western states began to relate to their citizens through an app. This represents a social and administrative revolution between people and their governors, fuelled by the ostensibly admirable motivation to save lives and protect public health.

Yet where that revolution could lead can be glimpsed in China’s social-credit system, which ranks citizens according to such behavioural criteria as their trustworthiness.

Continue reading ‘A short step from contact-tracing to mass surveillance’ by Ryan Christopher at Sp!ked.