Since 2019, Brazil has been experiencing ongoing censorship and due process violations; the country now has what are likely the worst restrictions on speech in the Americas.
Continue reading
Representatives Jim Jordan and Thomas Massie pen letter to U.S. Department of State, stating “WHO Agreement may contravene the First Amendment”
Continue reading
Court upholds the right of federal congress member Gabriel Quadri to run for office following attempts from gender ideologists to bar him from June elections.
Continue reading
LONDON (28th March 2024) – MPs have called on the Home Office to protect consensual conversation and silent prayer in “buffer zones” after a woman was charged for holding a sign.
Four MPs and one peer also said the crackdown on what one MP called the “entirely benign behaviour” of Dr Livia Tossici-Bolt, 62, a Christian woman and retired medical scientist, showed a double standard in law enforcement.
Dr Tossici-Bolt, whose legal defence is being supported by ADF UK, is facing trial for holding a sign that read: “Here to talk, if you want,” in a “buffer zone” around an abortion facility in Bournemouth.
Reacting to Dr Tossici-Bolt’s case, senior Tory MP and former minister Sir Edward Leigh said:
“Freedom of thought and freedom of speech are the bedrock of a free society.
“It’s mad that a retiree is facing trial for inviting people to have a harmless chat. No one should be turned into a criminal just for peacefully offering to talk to people in a public space.
“All our warnings about the effect buffer zones would have on free speech have come true. We’ve seen a woman arrested twice for thinking and a Catholic priest charged and prosecuted. Both won in the courts but only after a long and needless legal battle that will have a chilling effect on free speech.”
"It’s mad that a retiree is facing trial for inviting people to have a harmless chat. No one should be turned into a criminal just for peacefully offering to talk to people in a public space."
Under a public spaces protection order (PSPO), a censorial buffer zone was put in place by Bournemouth, Christchurch and Poole (BCP) council around an abortion facility.
The PSPO prohibits specific named activities, such as “engaging in an act of approval/disapproval or attempted act of approval/disapproval, with respect to issues related to abortion services”, including through “prayer” and “counselling”.
A double standard on free speech
Politicians have also called out double standards in the authorities’ approach to free speech and thought.
Democratic Unionist Party MP Carla Lockhart commented:
“Our law enforcement, who already have limited resources, must focus on real crimes instead of entirely benign behaviour, as in this case.
“One cannot help but notice an alarming double standard—very objectionable views are often allowed at pro-Palestinian protests in the name of freedom of speech and expression, but the same right is not extended to this Christian woman who did not even offer an opinion, but merely invited a conversation.
“Why does one rule apply to those protestors, and another to Livia?”
Conservative peer Lord Jackson said:
“It’s astonishing that people of faith offering silent prayers on a matter of conscience are stigmatised, harassed and criminalised whilst those screaming for jihad on hate marches are allowed to spread their poison with impunity.
“An obvious example of dual policing. All under a Conservative Government. Disgraceful and embarrassing.”
Independent MP Andrew Bridgen said:
“There should not be double standards when it comes to free speech. Yet, repeatedly, we see evidence that Christian expression is harshly censored, while the right to voice more fashionable views is protected.”
PSPOs have been widely criticised by free speech campaigners, as well as politicians, for their censorious effects on free speech, thought, and religious liberty. Defenders of “buffer zones” often say they are intended to prevent harassment—but harassment is already a crime, making the existence of “buffer zones” unnecessary and malign.
“Buffer zones” are to be rolled out around abortion centres across the country as part of the Public Order Act 2023. Draft Home Office guidance clarified that silent prayer and consensual conversation would be protected in “buffer zones”, but two MPs—one Conservative and one Labour—have pushed for even these to be censored.
Home Office guidance must uphold free speech
The final Home Office guidance on “buffer zones” is expected soon, and MPs have said Dr Tossici-Bolt’s case shows the importance of the guidance protecting these basic freedoms.
Sir Edward said: “Livia’s case shows how important it is for the draft guidance on the Public Order Bill to protect consensual conversations and silent prayer in ‘buffer zones’.
“The Home Secretary must ensure these common sense protections are kept or we’ll see more people like Livia unjustly turned into criminals by bad law.”
Conservative MP Andrew Lewer said:
“Cases like Livia’s highlight the threat to free expression and belief inherent in censorial ‘buffer zones’. Christianity is not criminal. Neither offering charitable help, engaging in consensual conversation, nor praying silently, should ever be illegal in the UK.
“The Home Office guidance on buffer zones should at least protect these in order to uphold international standards on freedom of speech and of thought.
“While police crack down on these peaceful activities, they expose a double standard where protesters on different ideological issues are allowed much wider scope to express their beliefs.”
Bridgen said:
“Livia should not be criminalised for offering to talk. Her case demonstrates that final Home Office guidance on the Public Order Bill must protect consensual conversation, along with silent prayer, in buffer zones.”
"Neither offering charitable help, engaging in consensual conversation, nor praying silently, should ever be illegal in the UK. The Home Office guidance on buffer zones should at least protect these in order to uphold international standards on freedom of speech and of thought."
A free vote?
Bridgen added that the vote for “buffer zones” in the Public Order Act should have never passed in the first place, as since it was concerned with public order and free speech, it should have been whipped.
He questioned what role the Leader of the House Penny Mordaunt played in that vote not being whipped, and criticised her vote in favour of “buffer zones”.
“In fact, as a matter of public order and civil liberties, the vote on enforcing buffer zones across the country should have been whipped in favour of free speech. Why was this not the case?,” Bridgen said.
He added: “As Leader of the House, Penny Mordaunt works closely with the Chief Whip. She was in this role at the time of the buffer zone vote. She voted for censorious buffer zones and must answer the question of what role she played in that vote being a free vote.
“The public deserves to know the answer to this, especially in light of discussion about her possibly being the next Tory leader.
“No potential leader of the Conservative Party should support viewpoint censorship.”
UK has always valued free speech
Lockhart commented:
“Livia’s case underlines the urgent need for the Home Secretary’s guidance on buffer zones to safeguard consensual conversations.
“It must also safeguard silent prayer—other cases, such as that of Isabel Vaughan-Spruce who was arrested, interrogated, charged, and prosecuted before eventually being vindicated for her thoughts, show the dystopian consequences of criminalising this.
“No one should want to live in a society where the state has the power to say what you can or can’t think, or what peaceful interactions you can or can’t have with others.
She added:
“The UK has always been a country that values freedom to hold, express and discuss a wide range of opinions and deeply held beliefs. We need to ensure those freedoms are not restricted by postcode, and not policed out of the public sphere by prejudiced policing.”
A censorious trend
Dr Tossici-Bolt’s case is the latest of several, which show the censorious and dystopian effects of “buffer zones”.
Isabel Vaughan-Spruce was arrested twice for silently praying in a buffer zone, a Catholic priest, Father Sean Gough, was charged for the same act, and Adam Smith-Connor is also facing trial for silent prayer.
Vaughan-Spruce and Father Sean, whose cases were supported by ADF UK, were vindicated through the courts and all charges against them have been dropped. Smith-Connor’s case is ongoing, and his trial will be in September. His case is also supported by ADF UK.
“Under vaguely-written local “buffer zone” measures, we have seen volunteers like Livia criminalised simply for offering help to women 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’. The Home Office have sought to keep our country in line with international law by protecting freedom of thought and of consensual conversation in the draft buffer zone guidance. It is vital, for the preservation of democracy, that this stands,” commented Jeremiah Igunnubole, legal counsel for ADF UK.
.
Images for free use in print or online in relation to this story only
Pictured: Jeremiah Igunnubole (ADF UK); Livia Tossici-Bolt
EDINBURGH (12 March 2024) – Alina Dulgheriu, a mother who recieved help at her point of critical need outside an abortion facility, has asked the Scottish government to consider vulnerable women before censoring pro-life help in Scotland.
Dulgheriu credits pro-life volunteers with empowering her to make her wanted choice to continue her pregnancy despite financial and social pressures placed on her to abort.
She has since established the “Be Here For Me” campaign, collecting testimonies of other women who have been positively impacted by the presence and services offered by charitable pro-life volunteers. Dulghieriu called on the Scottish government to allow volunteers to continue the work that she views as “much needed” in order to support 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. Stopping people from offering much-needed services and resources for women in my situation is wrong. Let them help,” Alina Dulgheriu, spokesperson for Be Here For Me, commented on the implementation of censorial “buffer zones”.
"Removing the option to receive help to keep a child...is deeply patronising and assumes that women can't make a decision for ourselves, or that we might choose the wrong option."
Addressing parliamentarians on the Health, Social Care and Sport committee, Dulgheriu explained that the buffer zones bill would be “deeply patronising” to women by denying them an opportunity to hear and consider options to continue their pregnancy with charitable support.
“It is worrying that we will consider denying vulnerable woman access to potential life-changing, 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 woman 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.”
In a Q&A with Members of the Scottish Parliament, Dulgheriu went on to explain that the help she had recieved from pro-life volunteers had not been offered by the abortion provider whom she had asked about her options.
The charitable volunteer who was arrested for praying silently in a controversial “buffer zones” case in Birmingham will also testified to Holyrood about her experience of being prosecuted for a “thoughtcrime”.
Isabel Vaughan-Spruce was seen being arrested on a viral video last winter when she said she “might be praying inside [her] head”. She was charged with “engaging in an act that is intimidating to service users” within the buffer zone of an abortion clinic – despite the clinic having been closed.
She was later fully acquitted at Birmingham Magistrates Court after the prosecution could offer no evidence as to her thoughts.
Addressing the parliamentarians, Vaughan-Spruce said:
“After having to clear my name in court I was rearrested two weeks later being told ‘my prayers were an offence’. I’m concerned that this will end up happening in Scotland. Nobody should be punished for a “thoughtcrime” – yet this proposed legislation could easily allow that to happen.
The buffer zone has created a huge amount of division in our area, and many locals tell me that they are now fearful to share their beliefs with their neighbours. The community has become polarised and the buffer zone has fostered intolerance.
“I wholly recommend that the Scottish government protect freedom of thought and of speech in Scotland, and promote tolerance rather than censorship.”
"I wholly recommend that the Scottish government protect freedom of thought and of speech in Scotland, and promote tolerance rather than censorship."
The bill has recieved criticism from free speech advocates, who raise concern that the vague and ambiguous language of the text could crack down on peaceful conversation and even thought.
“Scotland’s buffer zone bill is one of the most extensive crackdowns on pro-life thought and speech we’ve seen. As drafted, it could even ban prayer and peaceful pro-life speech within homes if they are situated sufficiently near an abortion facility. The proposal would also allow the 150m distance of the buffer zone to be expanded by local authorities to an unlimited extent. It is vital that the parliament take heed of the stories of Alina and Isabel, and uphold their duty to protect freedom of thought, offers of help, and consensual conversation,” said Lois McLatchie Miller, spokesperson for ADF UK in Scotland.
Images for free use in print or online in relation to this story only
PICTURED: Isabel Vaughan-Spruce; Alina Dulgeheriu; Lois McLatchie Miller, ADF UK
Mexican congressman and former presidential candidate Gabriel Quadri convicted as a “political violator against women” for Twitter/X posts on gender.
Continue reading
All of Germany must reject this bill because whether pro-life or not, censorship zones would ensnare everyone
Paul Coleman
The German government is planning to introduce so-called censorship zones in certain locations – just like the UK. These censorship zones around abortion facilities are established to silence the pro-life view. These zones are not “pro-choice”, they’re no-choice.
And their actions deliberately ignore recent rulings by the Federal Administrative Court. Several weeks ago, the federal government approved a draft law on censorship zones to be established in certain locations in front of and around German abortion-related facilities in which certain opinions can no longer be expressed and certain peaceful activities prohibited.
Censorship zones are areas defined by the local administration or even the legislature where specific opinions, actions or gatherings are prohibited. These zones censor certain expressions of opinion, hence the name ‘censorship zone’.
A look at Great Britain shows where restrictions on peaceful prayers can lead. In recent months, several people have been arrested there due to local censorship zones. The arrests occurred because individuals were quietly praying on a public street. The zones there have led to even silent prayer and, thus, thoughts being criminalized. We must not stand for this. Here’s why:
Censorship zones are advanced under the guise of protecting women, but they are levied against peaceful individuals who in no way condone the harassment of women. After all, harassment is already prohibited under German criminal law.
What is most dangerous, however, is the fact that certain opinions are banned because they’re unpopular. Even if we disagree on abortion, we should agree that basic human rights—like free expression and free thought—are too important to throw out the window.
We all have the basic human right to think, act, and pray in accordance with our convictions.
Only recently, the Federal Administrative Court confirmed the right to freedom of assembly and freedom of opinion of a pro-life prayer group.
They gathered across the street from an abortion facility and quietly prayed. The police did not find harassment while observing the group in Pforzheim.
Similarly in the UK, A pro-life activist is being investigated for a third time for praying silently in a censorship zone.
She had nothing with her, did not prevent women from entering the abortion facility, and did not even speak to anyone. A silent prayer in her mind was enough to bring her to court – a serious violation of freedom of thought.
Censorship zones are clearly having serious consequences for fundamental freedoms in the UK and we cannot let the same thing happen in Germany.
Censorship zones do nothing to protect women. Rather, they block women from hearing about the offers of help available to them.
The sad reality is that these zones fail the women who choose abortion out of a sense of helplessness. By banning peaceful offers of help and alternative options, many women will feel even more alone.
Shouldn’t women in crisis pregnancies have access to help and alternative options to abortion?
If the state can ban freedom of expression and assembly in front of certain establishments, why not in other places?
Freedom of expression, assembly, and freedom of religion benefit all people. These fundamental rights cannot be restricted under the pretext of harassment – which is already a criminal offence.
This bill is aimed at silencing pro-life views, to get those who stand up for the lives of the unborn to self-censor and remain silent. That’s why we’re pushing back against these censorial laws – will you help us?
The bill, which was approved by the cabinet on January 24th, 2024, will now be forwarded to the Bundesrat, which can already introduce amendments. This will be followed by the legislative process in the Bundestag, which will end with a vote on the law.
As the legal impact of these zones becomes clear, we must remain committed to defending the basic human right to free expression, including preventing the proliferation of “thought crimes” where people can even be prosecuted for silent prayer.
Will you stand alongside us for the protection of freedom of expression and freedom of assembly?
We must stand up for our fundamental rights together.
Seth Dillon, Ashley St. Clair, Sara Gonzales, & Andy Ngo among others joining ADF Intl in calling on Ireland to abandon far-reaching censorship bill
Continue reading
ADF International today filed a complaint requesting the UN Working Group on Arbitrary Detention to declare Yahaya Sharif-Aminu’s prosecution contrary to international law.
Continue reading
Let’s take Finnish MP Räsänen’s words to heart: “Now it is time to speak. Because the more we are silent, the narrower the space for freedom of speech and religion grows.”
Continue reading
