STATEMENT: Chilean Senate protects children, takes a stand against dangerous gender ideology

  • Chile joins a growing group of countries taking steps to reject gender ideology as Senate passes critical law prohibiting the use of public funds for “gender transition” for minors.  
  • Law to be confirmed unless challenged by the Constitutional Court in the coming weeks. 

WASHINGTON, DC (3 December 2024) Chile has joined a growing group of countries that are taking steps to reject gender ideology. 

The following statement may be attributed to Tomás Henríquez, Director of Advocacy for Latin America:  

“The Chilean Senate has passed a critical law that prohibits the government from spending any public funds on surgical or hormonal interventions for children under the age of 18 for so-called ‘gender/sex reassignment’.  

The first of its kind in Latin America, this sets a major precedent for the protection of children not just in Chile, but also in all Latin American countries. Chile is to be commended for taking an important step in saying no to the dangers of gender ideology.  

Now, other countries must do the same. Every child is precious just as they are and has the absolute right to be safeguarded from a radical ideology that promotes dangerous drugs and surgeries with devastating consequences.” 

BACKGROUND: 

The Senate vote took place following the release of a report from a Chilean Congressional investigative committee that strongly recommended the immediate suspension of all programs related to the so-called “gender transition” of children. 

The report investigated the PAIG program, or Growing with Pride, a government policy aimed at Chileans that expressed “gender identity” confusion. 

From the report: “The PAIG is implemented in 37 hospitals in the country and the psychosocial pairs have the power to carry out family interventions, within educational spaces, referral to hormone therapies, as well as the power to take legal action against ‘resistant parents’ who oppose the gender transition of their children or seek greater prudence when advancing in the different stages of it.” 

The report revealed that a combined 4,142 children and adolescents have entered or have been treated in the PAIG program, “despite the lack of consensus in the medical-scientific community and the setback in several European countries on applying treatments.” 

The law passed in the Chilean Senate on 20 November 2024. The government had communicated it would study mounting a challenge to the amendment at the Constitutional Court, which may materialize in the coming weeks. 

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

40,000+ urge International Olympic Committee: “KEEP WOMEN’S SPORTS FOR WOMEN”

  • IOC receives petition demanding that women not be “forced to compete with men” in future Olympic games
  • Elite athletes speak out about importance of biological sex, as landmark challenge to law banning harmful drugs and surgeries hits US Supreme Court 

WASHINGTON, DC (4th December) – Over 40,000 people from around the world have signed a joint open letter to the International Olympic Committee, imploring them to protect “women’s sports, private spaces, and basic fairness” in light of increasing pressure to include biological males in women’s sporting categories. 

READ THE PETITION IN FULL HERE

The petition, which was hand-delivered to the IOC’s headquarters in Lausanne, Switzerland by ADF International, states: “Men and women are different. Their physical differences give men athletic advantages in sports. Scientific research continues to acknowledge this reality.” 

“However, governments and organizational bodies like the IOC have adopted policies that allow males who identify as female to compete in women’s sports. These policies prioritize feelings over fairness—ideology over truth.” 

“I’m one of so many young women that have lost out on medals and opportunities - simply because I wasn’t a male. What kind of message does that send?

- Riley Gaines, swimmer & campaigner for justice in women's sports

Commenting on the petition, Riley Gaines, who campaigns for justice in women’s sports having been forced to compete against males in swimming, said:

“As a college athlete, my safety and privacy in the locker room was repeatedly jeopardized because of sports bodies which put ideology before women’s rights. I’m one of so many young women that have lost out on medals and opportunities – simply because I wasn’t a male. What kind of message does that send?

“Women have raised concerns repeatedly about safety, privacy and fairness in women’s sports. The IOC is looked upon as a leader on sports policies. It must take heed of this petition, and take a stand for women around the world in protecting our sports – not only for this generation of athletes, but the little girls who one day dream of winning the gold.” 

Lost medals and opportunities

Women have lost more than 890 medals in 29 different sports to males competing in women’s sports categories, according to the report of Reem Alsalem, UN Special Rapporteur on Violence Against Women and Girls, which was highlighted at a recent panel event hosted by ADF International at the UN Headquarters in New York. 

Males have a larger heart, greater lung capacity, greater muscle mass, more red blood cells, and less body fat than females, among other physiological advantages – all of which result in a significant performance advantage in sport. 

Commenting on the petition, British Olympian swimmer and sports commentator Sharron Davies said: 

“Women’s sport should never have been sacrificed on the altar of virtue-signalling gender ideology, against all the peer reviewed science in the first place. 

“I’d very much hoped after the betrayal of women during the GDR era I wouldn’t see the IOC do it again, but here we are. Let’s hope common sense & prioritising fairness & safety for female athletes will return soon. The willful negligence of the boxing during the Paris 2024 Olympics was a particular low point and a total disgrace.” 

Davies lost out on winning Olympic gold in the 1980s due to an East German competitor who had been given an unfair advantage, having been supplied with testosterone as a teenager to improve her performance.  

“Women’s sport should never have been sacrificed on the altar of virtue-signalling gender ideology, against all the peer reviewed science in the first place."

- Sharron Davies, British Olympian and author of "Unfair Play"

Supreme Court to consider biological reality 

The petition was delivered to the IOC days prior to a landmark case being heard at the US Supreme Court regarding a law that bans puberty blockers, cross-sex hormones, and certain surgeries for children.  

The state of Tennessee is defending its law that protects children from harmful, unnecessary, and high-risk medical procedures that alter their bodies to make them look like the opposite sex.   

Systematic reviews around the world have exposed the harmful risks of puberty blockers to children’s health. Several European countries and American states have banned puberty blockers and cross-sex hormones for children. 

“Gender ideology has countless victims, including children who, incapable of consenting to the harm, take toxic puberty blockers which can cause irreversible damage to their bodies – to young girls and women who suffer the consequences of the lie that men can become women.  

“Nobody is born in the wrong body – such a message is dangerous and abusive. Men and women are different and unique. We should celebrate our complementary strengths – not diminish them at the expense of the safety, privacy, and dignity of all involved,” said Elyssa Koren, Director of Legal Communications for ADF International. 

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

Pictured:

Elyssa Koren, Director of Legal Communications for ADF International

Selina Soule, taking legal action after being forced to compete against male athletes, with support from ADF

Sharron Davies, British Olympian and author of “Unfair Play”

Felix Böllmann, legal counsel for ADF International, delivering petition to IOC HQ in Lausanne

United Nations experts call for immediate release of Yahaya Sharif-Aminu, denounce blatant human rights violations in Nigeria

Nigerian prisoner Yahaya Sharif-Aminu
  • Experts with the United Nations Working Group on Arbitrary Detention call for the immediate and unconditional release of Nigerian Yahaya Sharif-Aminu. 
  • Sharif-Aminu currently remains in prison while awaiting Supreme Court appeal following death sentence for sharing allegedly “blasphemous” song lyrics on WhatsApp; ADF International is supporting his appeal to the Supreme Court of Nigeria. 
Nigerian prisoner Yahaya Sharif-Aminu

GENEVA (3 DECEMBER 2024) The United Nations Working Group on Arbitrary Detention (WGAD) has called for the immediate release and reparations for Nigerian Yahaya Sharif-Aminu in a just-published opinion. Sharif-Aminu was sentenced to death by hanging in 2020 for sharing allegedly “blasphemous” song lyrics in a closed WhatsApp group. He is currently awaiting appeal at the Nigerian Supreme Court with the legal support of ADF International. 

In their opinion, the WGAD finds that Nigerian authorities deprived Sharif-Aminu of various fundamental human rights in international law, including freedom of religion or belief and freedom of expression, and urges Nigerian authorities to “take the steps necessary to remedy the situation” without delay. The WGAD also urges the government of Nigeria to “ensure a full and independent investigation into the circumstances surrounding the arbitrary detention of Mr. Sharif-Aminu and to take appropriate measures against those responsible for the violation of his rights.” The full opinion can be read here. 

“We are grateful to the members of the WGAD for speaking out on Yahaya’s behalf and for their denouncement of the blatant human rights violations he has been enduring,” said Sean Nelson, legal counsel for ADF International. “It is past time for Nigerian officials to heed the advice of human rights advocates across the globe, release Yahaya and abolish the blasphemy laws that have plagued religious minorities in Nigeria for far too long. No person should be punished, prosecuted, or threatened with death for their peaceful expression and their faith. We pray for Yahaya’s unconditional release and for all people worldwide to continue to raise their voices on his behalf.” 

Kola Alapinni, international human rights lawyer and lead attorney on Sharif-Aminu’s case, said: “The WGAD has reviewed the full facts of the unjust charges against Yahaya Sharif-Aminu, and have come to a clear and decisive statement that his rights have been violated grievously. I thank them for their call for his immediate release. Officials in Nigeria should listen—Yahaya’s ongoing detention is indefensible.” 

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

More Information
Unblock content Accept required service and unblock content

A video from ADF International features testimonies from Yahaya’s mother, father, and uncle, who recount the traumatic experiences endured by Yahaya and their family.

Death sentence for “blasphemy”   

In 2020, Sufi Muslim Yahaya Sharif-Aminu was sentenced to death by hanging for “blasphemy”. His alleged crime involved sending song lyrics on WhatsApp that were deemed blasphemous toward the prophet Mohammed.    

With support from human rights legal advocacy group ADF International, Sharif-Aminu has appealed his case to the Supreme Court of Nigeria and is challenging the constitutionality of Sharia-based blasphemy laws. He remains in prison awaiting the Supreme Court appeal. His case is far from an isolated incident. Together with minority Muslims, the persecution of Christians in Nigeria is especially severe. In 2022, approximately 90% of all Christians worldwide that were killed for their faith were in Nigeria.   

International pressure has been mounting to free Yahaya and end blasphemy laws. Last year, the European Parliament overwhelmingly called for the immediate release of Sharif-Aminu, and a group of 209 international and Nigerian human rights advocates wrote to then-Nigerian President Muhammadu Buhari, calling for Sharif-Aminu’s immediate release. 

In addition, in May of this year, United Nations experts called for Sharif-Aminu’s immediate and unconditional release.  

Sharif-Aminu’s potentially landmark Supreme Court appeal could end blasphemy laws in his home state of Kano and across northern Nigeria. A positive decision could lead the way toward abolishing blasphemy laws around the world.  

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

WIN: Brazilian Supreme Court unanimously rejects attempt to ban religious symbols from public buildings

  • Win for religious freedom as country’s highest court rejected attempt to ban religious symbols such as crucifixes from public spaces on the basis of “hurt emotions”  

  • ADF International submitted a “friend of the court” legal brief which was cited in the court’s reasoning

Brasília (28 November 2024) – The Brazilian Supreme Court (STF) this week unanimously voted to allow religious symbols in public spaces, in line with a legal brief filed by ADF International.

All 11 justices of the country’s highest court affirmed that displaying symbols such as crucifixes and images in public spaces does not conflict with the secular nature of the Brazilian state.

The plaintiff in the case had argued that removal of the symbols was necessary to protect religious freedom and that the symbols can cause emotional hurt.

A legal brief, known as an amicus brief, submitted by faith-based legal advocacy organisation ADF International, was considered by the court and directly cited as part of the concurring opinions.

Justice Alexandre de Moraes wrote: “It is also worth noting the lengthy statement submitted by ADF INTERNATIONAL… in which it demonstrates the real direction of the international courts’ statements on the matter, exactly along the lines proposed by the Honorable Rapporteur, that symbols in public spaces are allowed, as long as they do not go beyond the manifestation of the country’s history, culture and tradition.

“By the way, it is important to emphasize the correctness of the thesis of the judgment insofar as it associates the display of such symbols with the ‘objective of manifesting the cultural tradition of Brazilian society’.”

Tomás Henríquez, Director of Advocacy for Latin America & the Caribbean for ADF International, reacted to the decision: “This ruling is a resounding victory for religious freedom in Brazil. ‘Hurt emotions’ are no justification for banning religious symbols.

“We welcome this decision and commend the court for so clearly upholding religious freedom.”

In its expert legal brief, ADF International argued that any principle of “state neutrality” should not amount to hostility towards Christianity. Additionally, it demonstrated the relevance of the social, cultural, and historical context of Christianity in Brazil.

Finally, it reasoned that the law does not protect the “hurt emotions” the plaintiff alleged he experienced due to the presence of religious symbols in public places.

The decision has similarities to a case decided by the Grand Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights in 2011. In Lautsi v. Italy, the Grand Chamber ruled that Italy was within its rights under the Convention to allow the display of crosses in classrooms.

In that case, ADF International was given permission to provide legal expertise, submitting arguments on behalf of 33 Members of the European Parliament, representing 11 different nations.

Background

The Brazilian case stemmed from a Brazilian citizen who issued a complaint to the Federal Public Ministry (FPM), Brazil’s Public Prosecutor’s Office, alleging he suffered “hurt emotions” due to the presence of religious symbols in public buildings.

The FPM filed a civil action against the Brazilian Federal Union, requesting that all religious symbols be removed from Federal and State of São Paulo buildings.

The FPM argued it was seeking to promote and protect the religious freedom of all citizens who entered public offices across Brazil and that displaying religious symbols and images in public spaces violated the principle of non-discrimination.

The lawsuit was dismissed by both the trial and appeals court. The FPM filed an extraordinary appeal before the appellate court, which was not admitted.

The FPM then filed an extraordinary appeal before the STF, resulting in the latest ruling that upholds religious freedom. This decision binds all state and federal public entities in Brazil.

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

PICTURED: Tomás Henríquez, ADF International’s Director of Advocacy for Latin America & the Caribbean

‘Tsunami of censorship’: US congressional committee criticises UK’s abortion centre ‘buffer zones’ and online censorship

Isabel Vaughan-Spruce in 2022.
  • Influential committee makes intervention on alarming state of free speech in UK and Europe
  • Abortion centre ‘buffer zones’ and Online Safety Act in UK criticised
Isabel Vaughan-Spruce in 2022.

LONDON (22 November 2024) – An influential US congressional committee has criticised abortion centre “buffer zones” and the Online Safety Act in the UK as part of a “tsunami of censorship headed towards America”.

“This intervention from the House Judiciary Committee shows the UK is fast becoming notorious around the world for its censorious practices."

- Paul Coleman, Executive Director of ADF International

The X (Twitter) account for the Republicans on the House Judiciary Committee, who are the majority on the cross-party House of Representatives standing committee, called out this censorship in a thread on the alarming state of free speech in the UK and Europe.

The House Judiciary Committee interviewed Isabel Vaughan-Spruce, a Catholic woman who, supported by ADF International, recently won a payout of £13,000 from West Midlands Police for her two unlawful arrests for silently praying in an abortion centre “buffer zone” in Birmingham. ADF International is a faith-based legal advocacy organisation.

The committee’s X thread also critiqued the Online Safety Act for requiring “platforms to censor alleged hate speech and harmful content”.

ADF International Executive Director Paul Coleman commented: “This intervention from the House Judiciary Committee shows the UK is fast becoming notorious around the world for its censorious practices.

“The incoming administration has made its commitment to free speech clear. If British politicians do not act to protect free speech, all other considerations aside, the UK will continue to suffer severe reputational harm on the world stage.” 

Congressman Darrell Issa, a member of the House Judiciary Committee, said: “The growing attacks on free speech in the US – as well as the UK and EU – pose a direct threat to free people on both sides of the Atlantic. We know that legislation like the Online Safety Act that is said to combat ‘hate speech’ empowers regulators to censor free speech.

“Congressional Republicans understand that these threats to free speech are part of a broader global push by the Censorship Industrial Complex, which includes not only the EU, UK, and other nations but also malign actors here at home. We are committed to confronting this growing threat alongside the incoming Trump Administration to fight against these assaults on free speech within our borders and around the world.”

Reform UK Leader, Nigel Farage MP said: “The crackdown on free expression within the UK is becoming very sinister.

“Our police and government now withhold vital public information and we get censored simply for demanding the truth.

“I will continue to fight this.”

Critique of “buffer zones”

In its post, the House Judiciary GOP said: “What could posting a Bible verse or praying in front of an abortion clinic get you in Europe? A visit from the police—or worse…

“Isabel Vaughan-Spruce was arrested and prosecuted for silently praying. She won her case. Yet still, she receives tickets and other forms of intimidation by police.”

The intervention came shortly after “buffer zones” were introduced around all abortion centres in England and Wales at the end of last month as part of the Public Order Act.

These ban “influencing” someone regarding abortion within 150 metres of an abortion facility. Thankfully, the Crown Prosecution Service has issued guidance saying silent prayer is “not necessarily” a crime and that there must be evidence of overt activity.

However, army veteran Adam Smith-Connor last month became the first person to be convicted for silent prayer in a “buffer zone”. With the support of ADF International, he is appealing his conviction.

Medical scientist Dr Livia Tossici-Bolt also faces trial for holding a sign in a “buffer zone” that said “Here to talk if you want”. 

Critique of Online Safety Act and Digital Services Act

The House Judiciary GOP post critiqued UK online speech legislation and the Digital Services Act, an EU regulation: “Two major pieces of online speech legislation were passed in Europe over the last two years: The EU’s Digital Services Act (DSA) & the UK’s Online Safety Act (OSA).

“Generally speaking, they require platforms to censor alleged hate speech and harmful content… The UK’s laws mirror or go beyond the EU’s laws & include Orwellian practices to investigate speech.”

The committee’s post explained that because of the population and economic size of the UK and EU, regulations that censor speech in those areas can affect the US. For example, companies change their global policies to match anti-speech EU regulations.

Financial penalties also play a role: “What do platforms risk if they don’t comply? Penalties are as high as 6% of GLOBAL revenue from the EU’s DSA and 10% of GLOBAL revenue from the UK’s OSA. Billions of dollars for most major platforms.

“The Digital Services Act and Online Safety Act enable bureaucrats in the EU and the UK to put platforms out of business. So now, social media companies and their employees are strongly incentivized to overregulate speech on their platforms to preserve their business.

“The fight for free expression online is a global fight. The Biden-Harris Administration has stood by silently as foreign countries try to render the First Amendment obsolete.”

Dr Päivi Räsänen

The thread from the congressional committee also highlighted the case of Dr Päivi Räsänen, a Finnish parliamentarian on trial for a tweet expressing her Christian views on sexuality.

With the support of ADF International, Dr Räsänen faces trial at Finland’s Supreme Court for alleged “hate speech”, despite being unanimously acquitted of the charges on two previous occasions.

The House Judiciary GOP added: “If she [Dr Räsänen] loses her case, it could serve as a precedent for other European countries.

“Meaning posting a Bible verse could be soon considered ‘hate speech’ across the EU.”

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

International body to rule on case of Canadian man who spent time in prison for holding sign outside abortion facility almost 30 years ago

  • Jim Demers was criminally convicted and spent almost two months in prison in 1996-97 for holding a sign quoting the American Convention on Human Rights: “Every person has the right to have his life respected” 
  • With no recourse left in Canada, Demers filed for redress with the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights in 2004 and has waited twenty years for justice.  
  • ADF International now representing Demers after 20-year wait: “As we grapple with the spread of censorship across the globe, this case presents an opportunity for a key human rights watchdog to reassert the very rights they were established to defend” 

WASHINGTON, DC (21 November 2024) Jim Demers, a lifelong resident of British Columbia, Canada, was criminally convicted and spent almost two months in prison in 1996-97 for standing silently on a public sidewalk outside of an abortion facility. He held a sign quoting Article Four of the American Convention on Human Rights: “Every person has the right to have his life respected. This right shall be protected by law and, in general, from the moment of conception.”  

Demers was standing in a censorship zone around the facility, which bans expression critical of abortion. 

Demers was criminally convicted for his peaceful expression, for which he was given a suspended sentence of two years, subject to the condition of not returning to the public area surrounding the abortion facility. 

After failing to obtain redress from the Canadian Supreme Court, Demers took his case to the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights in 2004. The Commission admitted his case in 2006, but almost 20 years later, has yet to rule.  In the face of this egregious failure to deliver timely justice, ADF International assumed representation of Demers.  

“I hope I’m never silent when bad things are happening, and I hope nobody else is silent either when bad things are happening. I have dedicated my life to speaking out in defense of the unborn, and because of this, I was criminally convicted and even spent time in jail,” said Demers.  

“I have waited for almost 20 years for the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights to rule on my unjust conviction over the exercise of my freedom, and that of all people, to stand up, speak truth, and defend those that cannot defend themselves. I am grateful to ADF International for its efforts to bring this ordeal to an end. I will continue to advocate for the right to life of every person and look forward to the day when I can speak up without fear of criminal prosecution and punishment in Canada.”  

“All human rights are in peril when the fundamental right to free speech is ignored,” stated Tomás Henríquez, lead lawyer on this case for ADF International. “For peacefully expressing his pro-life views on a sidewalk outside of an abortion facility, Jim Demers was convicted as a criminal and forced to spend time behind bars with serious felons. Even if you disagree with Jim’s beliefs, everyone should defend his right to voice them without fear of criminal prosecution and imprisonment. Now is the time for the Inter-American Commission to exercise its authority to deliver justice for Jim.” 

“All human rights are in peril when the fundamental right to free speech is ignored.” 

Demers stood outside of an abortion facility in Vancouver, British Columbia before Christmas of 1996, holding a sign quoting Article Four of the American Convention on Human Rights. The Access to Abortion Services Act of British Columbia, in force to this day, establishes so-called “bubble zones” around abortion facilities, creating a censorship zone that bans free expression. Notably, the law imposes viewpoint discrimination, as it only penalizes expressions that are critical of abortion, but not others.  

Demers stood silently on the sidewalk outside of the main entrance, never engaging verbally or otherwise with any member of the public or of the abortion facility, or impeding entrance to the facility in any way.  

For this peaceful expression, Demers was arrested, placed in jail pending trial for seven weeks, alongside violent criminals, and was ultimately convicted on criminal charges. 

Demers filed a petition against Canada in 2004 with the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights. The Commission agreed to rule on the merits of his case in 2006 as to whether it was lawful to use criminal sanctions against Demers for his peaceful expression. Almost twenty years later, the Commission has yet to decide his case, in what is perhaps the most egregious case of alleged backlog at any international human rights body.   

“ADF International is proud to stand with Jim as he seeks justice in his case at the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights. The Commission has slept on Jim’s case for almost 20 years. We call on the Commission to rule decisively that these actions by Canadian authorities violated Jim’s fundamental right to freedom of speech,” Henríquez continued.  

“Both international law and the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantee the fundamental right to freedom of expression. As we grapple with the spread of censorship across the globe, this case presents an opportunity for our human rights watchdogs to reassert the very rights they were established to defend.”

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

Barbados debates criminal law carrying 7-year prison sentence for online content causing “annoyance” or “emotional distress”

  • “The government aims to intimidate us into forced silence,” concerned citizens appeal to the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights.

  • Cybercrime Bill before Barbados Senate would impose $70,000 BBD (approximately $35,000 US or £27,000) in fines and 7 years in prison for citizens that “publish, broadcast, or transmit data that is offensive” for the purpose of causing “annoyance, inconvenience,” “embarrassment, anxiety” or “substantial emotional distress.” 

ADF International legal counsel Julio Pohl alongside Barbados citizens and presenters at the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights hearing, including Donald Leacock, Shaquani Hunte, Timon Howard, and Ferdinand Nicholls 

WASHINGTON, DC (14 November 2024): A cybercrime bill currently being debated in the Barbados Senate threatens to significantly undermine freedom of speech in the country, so testified concerned citizens during a hearing before the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights in Washington, D.C. on Monday, 11 November.  

The proposed law would make it a crime to “publish, broadcast, or transmit data that is offensive” or disseminate images or words that are “likely to cause or subject a person to ridicule, contempt, or embarrassment.” The bill lists “causing annoyance, inconvenience, danger, obstruction, embarrassment, insult, injury, humiliation, intimidation, hatred, anxiety or causes substantial emotional distress to that person” as criteria to be found guilty of an offence. 

Citizens convicted of these crimes could be subject to $70,000 BBD (approximately $35,000 US or £27,000) in fines and a 7-year prison sentence.  

Its adoption by the House of Assembly generated national criticism, prompting the bill to be sent to a Joint Select Committee for further review. Rather than improve the bill, the Committee recommended the penalty be increased up to 10 years and $100,000 BBD (approximately $50,000 USD). 

The bill introduces the ambiguous crimes of “malicious communications” and “cyberbullying,” weaponizing the state security apparatus to criminalize peaceful expression in the name of “cybersecurity”. 

At the hearing on the problematic elements in the legislation, Donald Leacock, a citizen of Barbados and social media influencer, stated: “Freedom of expression is blatantly being stripped from us in this draconian cybercrime bill that the government of Barbados is forcing onto the citizens. This is evidenced by the fact that section 20 of the bill seeks to criminalise internet use that is considered to have caused anxiety or emotional distress with potential fines of up to $50,000, prison terms of up to 10 years, or both. Should our citizens be thrown in jail for a decade simply for posting something online that the political elite can claim makes them ‘anxious’ or ’emotionally distressed’?”  

Leacock continued, stating: “The law’s deliberately vague language leaves it open interpretation, and therefore, abuse… the government aims to intimidate us into forced silence. The objections to this bill are evident and widespread.” 

Julio Pohl, legal counsel for ADF International, stated: “Any law that seeks to criminalize online content that is subjectively deemed annoying, embarrassing, or anxiety-inducing is absurd in a free society. Core to the free interchange of ideas is the ability to voice views in the digital marketplace that may offend someone. The sweeping criminalization of online expression will engender large-scale free speech violations for Barbados.” 

“While the Barbados government should protect its citizens from real issues online such as hacking and incitement to violence, it should not be wielding the state’s authority to police security online to restrict free speech in order to spare people from ‘annoyance’. Article 19 and 20 of the Cybercrime Bill violate the basic human right to freedom of speech, enshrined in international law and the Constitution of Barbados,” added Pohl. 

ADF International is conducting international advocacy, including at the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights to oppose the adoption of the censorial bill.  

The bill has passed through the House of Assembly and is under consideration in the Senate. It defines criminal conduct in vague, broad, and indeterminate terms, making it a crime to “publish, broadcast, or transmit data” that is subjectively deemed offensive. Such an ambiguous definition of criminal conduct violates international human rights protections for free speech, including the American Convention on Human Rights. 

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

Army veteran confirms APPEAL as Crown Prosecution Service concede silent prayer “not necessarily” an offence 

  • With legal support from ADF UK, Adam Smith-Connor will pursue an appeal against his conviction for praying silently in a “buffer zone” 
  • CPS guidance on prosecuting “buffer zone” breaches requires evidence of “overt” activity  
  • “Buffer zones” enacted TODAY around every abortion facility in England & Wales 

LONDON (31 October 2024) – As the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) unveils guidance clarifying that silent prayer is “not necessarily” a crime in an abortion “buffer zone”, the army veteran found “guilty” for praying silently near an abortion facility has announced today that he will pursue an appeal against his conviction, with support from ADF UK. 

The guidance comes on the same day as the national rollout of a new “buffer zones” law – making it a crime to “influence a person’s decision to access…abortion services” within 150m of an abortion facility in England and Wales. 

On 16th October, Bournemouth Magistrates’ Court convicted and sentenced Smith-Connor to a conditional discharge and ordered him to pay prosecution costs of £9,000.  

In its decision, the court emphasised Adam’s known beliefs on abortion. The judge also noted that people may have perceived that Adam was praying because at one point his head may have been slightly bowed and his hands were clasped at his waist in an “at ease” posture. 

The defence contend that Smith-Connor was not “overt” in his actions, as required by CPS guidance on prosecuting buffer zone breaches. His eyes were open and he stood in a “normal” standing position, in a public green across the road from the clinic, with his back to the entrance.

WATCH BELOW: Officers interrogate Adam as to the “nature of his prayers”:

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

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

The government simply cannot be allowed to determine the content of thoughts and prayers.

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

The ruling, issued on 16th October 2024, marked the first time in modern British history that a citizen has been criminalised on the basis of his thoughts. 

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

“Surely a silent thought cannot be a crime. With support from ADF UK, I’m pursuing an appeal against my conviction. The government simply cannot be allowed to determine the content of thoughts and prayers. 

“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.” 

Public funding spent on prosecuting prayers

Controversially, Bournemouth, Christchurch & Poole Council 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 instructing a King’s Counsel – comes despite the Council being on the brink of bankruptcy for the past year. 

Commenting on the trial and the use of public funds ahead of the verdict, politician Miriam Cates said:  

“This isn’t 1984, but 2024 – nobody should be on trial for the mere thoughts they hold in their mind. It’s outrageous that the local council are pouring taxpayer funding into prosecuting a thoughtcrime, at a time where resources are stretched thin. Buffer zone regulation are disproportionately wide, leaving innocent people vulnerable to prosecution merely for offering help, or simply holding their own beliefs.”  

Buffer zones installed nationwide 

Today, the UK government have enforced “buffer zones” around every abortion facility in England and Wales – banning “influencing” someone’s decision to access abortion services within 150m of the building. 

ADF UK has warned that the vague wording of the legislation could lead to more prosecutions over thoughts, or consensual conversations between adults. 

In March 2023, Parliament voted down an amendment to explicitly protect silent prayer, leaving the wording of the law vague as to which activities might be construed as “influencing”. Today’s guidance from CPS confirms former Home Secretary Suella Braverman’s views that “silent prayer, within itself, is not unlawful.” 

Speaking about the new law and accompanying CPS Guidance, enforced under the Public Order Act 2023, ADF UK Legal Counsel Jeremiah Igunnubole said: 

“We are glad that the CPS has confirmed that silent prayer is not necessarily a criminal offence and that there must be evidence of overt activity. This is commonsense and consistent with the absolute right to freedom of thought protected under domestic and international law. Previous Home Secretaries and the magistrates’ court have repeatedly concluded that silent prayer, within itself, cannot constitute a criminal offence. Now that CPS guidance has recognized the same, it is incumbent on police officers and local authorities to refrain from ideological and discriminatory interpretations which seek to criminalise prayer itself rather than overt conduct amounting to harassment and intimidation.  

“It’s for this reason that we are glad to support Adam as he pursues an appeal of his conviction for praying silently without engaging anyone or being obtrusive in any way. This is a watershed moment for British freedoms, and one the public must not take lightly. A failure to protect thought and peaceful conduct anywhere creates a threat to these rights everywhere. Buffer zones or otherwise, we should uncompromisingly safeguard the rights on which our democracy is based.” 

 

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

Pictured: Jeremiah Igunnubole, legal counsel for ADF UK; Adam Smith-Connor

“Influencing” to be criminalised near abortion facilities from THURSDAY as government set to roll out “buffer zones” nationwide 

  • Move comes weeks after first UK man convicted for silent prayer “thoughtcrime” in shock Bournemouth “buffer zone” ruling
  • Almost 60,000 people sign open letter asking Keir Starmer to protect freedom of thought 
  • ADF UK, supporting the legal defence of four individuals prosecuted for praying or offering help in a “buffer zone”, raise concerns about freedom of speech and thought 

LONDON (29 October 2024) – UK authorities will enforce “buffer zones” around every abortion facility in England & Wales from Thursday 31st October.  

Under the national law, “influencing” someone’s decision to “access” abortion services will become a crime within 150m of any abortion facility.

"The law is written so vaguely that peaceful, consensual conversations, or even silent thoughts, could be made illegal on certain streets of England."

- Jeremiah Igunnubole, Legal Counsel for ADF UK

The vague wording of the law has drawn criticism from free speech advocates who fear it will be used to crack down on innocent, consensual conversation between adults – or even silent prayers. 

Almost 60,000 people have signed a letter of concern to Keir Starmer, highlighting worrying prosecutions on account of silent prayers in local “buffer zones”, and asking that the government act to protect freedom of thought. 

In anticipation of the new law, Jeremiah Igunnubole, legal counsel for ADF UK, said: 

“We all stand against harassment and intimidation. But the Public Order Act goes much further by banning “influencing”. Could this apply to the advice given by a parent? A concerned word from a friend? Information made available through a crisis pregnancy volunteer? The law is written so vaguely that peaceful, consensual conversations or even silent thoughts could be made illegal on certain streets of England. We have already seen the prosecution of individuals like Adam Smith-Connor, who only stopped to pray in his mind for a few minutes, under these censorial and far-reaching “buffer zone” rules. 

“The right to hold a consensual conversation, or engage in silent prayer, constitute the most basic of human rights. They are protected robustly by international legal provisions relating to freedom of thought and speech. The entire premise of censorial buffer zone legislation is that women should be able to choose to access abortion without hindrance. The legal elephant in the room should be obvious to see. If the law states that a woman can choose to abort their unborn child without hindrance, even the “hindrance” of lawful alternatives to abortion, how can the law criminalise women when they choose to engage in lawful, harmless and consensual conversations?  

“This is 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.” 

Policing Thought

Last year, charitable volunteer Isabel Vaughan-Spruce was arrested twice for the silent prayers she held in her mind.  After being found innocent at trial, Vaughan-Spruce later received a police payout on account of her wrongful arrests.  

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

Reflecting on the new laws being enforced on October 31st, Vaughan-Spruce said: 

“Having been arrested, tried, and dragged through the legal system for months on account of my silent prayer – only to be found innocent and receive a payout for my unlawful arrest – it’s deeply concerning to see vaguely-worded legislation come in which could punish people like me who are just there to help, to talk peacefully, or to pray. The government should urgently clarify that consensual conversations between adults – and silent thoughts and prayers – are protected in domestic and international law. This isn’t 1984 – we mustn’t police thought on the streets of Britain.”   

Criminalising Help

Women who have benefited from the presence of pro-life volunteers standing near abortion facilities have formed a campaign group, “Be Here For Me”, asking for crisis pregnancy support groups to be protected from criminalisation in “buffer zones”.

"Removing the option to receive help to keep a child in case we feel offended is deeply patronising."

- Alina Dulgheriu, who benefited from the help of pro-life volunteers near an abortion facility

Alina Dulgheriu, who received help to continue her pregnancy after recieving a leaflet from a pro-life volunteer on the public street near an abortion facility, said:

“It is worrying that we will consider denying vulnerable woman access to potential life-changing information – especially when facing one of the most challenging decision of their lives that could have lasting ramification on their mental and physical health.  

“Removing the option to receive help to keep a child in case we feel offended is deeply patronising and assumes that women can’t make a decision for ourselves or that we might choose the wrong option.

My case is not a one-off. There are many hundreds of women just like me who have benefitted from this support. Yet we are all too often ignored.”

Convicted for a Prayer

The rollout of the new law, which was passed under the Conservative Government’s watch as part of the Public Order Act 2023, comes just weeks after the first man was convicted for a “thoughtcrime” inside a local buffer zone in modern British history. 

Bournemouth, Christchurch & Poole Council charged Adam Smith-Connor, a military veteran and father of two, 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 Court sentenced Smith-Connor to a conditional discharge and ordered him to pay prosecution costs of £9,000.  

Despite battling bankruptcy warnings and being forced to cut “all non-essential spending”, Bournemouth, Christchurch & Poole Council spent more than £100,000 on legal fees to prosecute the offence, which carries a maximum penalty of £1,000. 

Responding to the ruling, Smith-Connor stated:  

“Today, the court has decided that certain thoughts – silent thoughts – can be illegal in the United Kingdom. That cannot be right. All I did was pray to God, in the privacy of my own mind – and yet I stand convicted as a criminal?  

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

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

Pictured: Jeremiah Igunnubole; Isabel Vaughan-Spruce; Adam Smith-Connor; Alina Dulgheriu with her daughter

Almost 60,000 signatories ask Keir Starmer to protect freedom of thought, as army veteran prosecuted for silent prayer 

  • Public letter to PM pleads: “act urgently to ensure that thought is never buffered, censored or criminalised.”
  • Army veteran convicted for silently praying near abortion facility last week
  • Government set to roll out censorial “buffer zones” around every abortion facility from 31st October 

LONDON (25th October 2024) – 57,900 members of the public have signed an open letter to Keir Starmer in light of an army veteran being prosecuted for his silent prayers. 

The letter, addressed to the UK Prime Minister, reads: “Freedom of thought is our most basic and precious of rights – and has long been recognised in British law and every major human rights document from the Universal Declaration of Human Rights onwards.” 

The letter highlights the plight of Isabel Vaughan-Spruce, who received a £13,000 payout from West Midlands Police after being unlawfully arrested twice for imperceptibly praying in her head in a Birmingham “buffer zone”. 

"A failure to protect thought and peaceful speech anywhere, creates a threat to these rights everywhere."

- Jeremiah Igunnubole, legal counsel for ADF UK

Also noted is the case of Livia Tossici-Bolt, who will face trial in March 2025 for inviting consensual conversation in the buffer zone by holding a sign reading “Here to talk, if you want”.

Father Sean Gough is also highlighted, having been fully acquitted of all charges after facing trial for praying while holding a sign near a Birmingham abortion facility reading “praying for freedom of speech”, and having a small pro-life sticker on his parked car inside the buffer zone.

The letter further references army veteran Adam-Smith Connor, who was found guilty last week for praying silently in his head near an abortion facility in the first “thoughtcrime” conviction of modern British history. Bournemouth, Christchurch & Poole Council spent over £100,000 of public funds prosecuting the father of two, hiring a Kings Council, despite being on the brink of bankruptcy. 

A slippery slope of censorship

Christian legal charity ADF UK supported the defence of all four individuals prosecuted on the basis of their silent prayers in abortion “buffer zone” areas.

ADF UK legal counsel Jeremiah Igunnubole explained that the different outcomes in each case represent a “profound and troubling lack of clarity in the law, and an undue subjectivity allowing individual officers and local authorities to determine whether silent prayer can be considered a crime on any given day.”

 

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

Alluding to recent fears regarding “two-tier policing” in the UK, where those with conservative viewpoints are disproportionately censored and punished for voicing their opinions, the letter continues: 

“The slippery slope is clear; if the criminal law requires us to refrain from ‘offensive’ thoughts anywhere, there is simply no logical endpoint. Today, it’s pro-life views that offend progressive social orthodoxies; tomorrow, it could be gender-critical views and gender-critical buffer zones. A genuinely democratic society must champion diversity of thought and the free and frank exchange of views.”

Silent prayer under threat of criminalisation

Vaughan-Spruce, Smith-Connor, Gough and Tossici-Bolt were all charged for allegedly breaching a “buffer zone”, implemented by five local council authorities via a “Public Spaces Protection Order”, which bans acts of “approval or disapproval” of abortion – but have been interpreted by officers to even include thoughts inside someone’s mind.  

The UK government are set to roll out “buffer zone” legislation across the country from 31st October, making it a crime to “influence” anybody’s “decision to access…abortion services” within 150m of an abortion facility. 

Free speech campaigners have raised concerns about the loose wording of this legislation, which could potentially be applied to criminalise friends and family who offer advice, or engage in consensual conversations about abortion, near the facility. 

Commenting on the upcoming enforcement of national buffer zones, Jeremiah Igunnubole said:  

“We all influence each other’s decisions all the time – be it through the advice of a parent, the concern of a friend, or the information made available through a charitable volunteer. The ability to peacefully exchange views is the lifeblood of democratic society.   

“Yet the Public Order Act is written so vaguely that these everyday, peaceful, caring conversations could be made illegal on certain streets of England when it comes to discussing abortion. The lack of clarity in the law could result in many more citizens like Adam being interrogated or even charged for simply directing silent thoughts towards God.   

“The right to hold a consensual conversation, or engage in silent prayer, constitute the most basic of human rights. They are protected robustly by international legal provisions relating to freedom of thought and speech.   

“This is 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.” 

To read the public letter in full, click here.

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

Pictured: ADF UK Legal Counsel Jeremiah Igunnubole with individuals prosecuted for their silent prayers: Adam Smith-Connor; Isabel Vaughan-Spruce, Livia Tossici-Bolt, Fr. Sean Gough