Anti-abortion protesters outside clinics

Signed. Tweet about to be sent.

One of the comments underneath that Guardian article says:
"It would have been a sad day for freedom of speech if these two had been convicted''

As, another commenter noted:
It is indeed a sad day when harassment and intimidation is seen as free speech.

Nojacket
Unfortunately, this was the outcome:
Guardian link

I can see here that members of this protest group were prosecuted two years ago;

Daily Telegraph article

I am with you on that. So what is missing here? Has action been requested from the authorities that has been refused?

culture and practice haven't yet caught up with law

Yes, this is often the case. But do you think that is the case here? I see religious fanatics on one side, and women going about their lawful business on the other. Do we know if there is a police presence at the scene of the protest? Has one been requested? Have any incidents been reported? If the answer is yes, and the police are turning a blind eye, then I agree with you. Bear in mind I have not seen any of these scenes. But within a democratic, free society, listening to idiots is a price we have to pay, I'm afraid. The empty vessel makes the most noise.

Weeellllll, in the UK we have a good record on legislation protecting women's rights, I would agree with that.

However there does seem to be a bit of a gap between law and practice, doesn't there? Like, the equal pay act has been enshrined in law since 1970 - my whole life! - and yet, on average, women's pay isn't equal to men's. (God that's actually quite depressing)

So it seems to me that culture and practice haven't yet caught up with law - and indeed that's the same in this situation. We have a law which protects women's rights (to a certain extent), but it's seen as fair game to try and take it away from us.

Fair point, Lonny. And I appreciate that not all countries are like the UK.

I don't agree with religious nutters protesting if they are harassing women. But I am interested in how people draw the conclusion that women's rights aren't worth protecting. Because the people who are accused of thinking this would be the people who helped to create the rights under law in the first place.

FWIW I signed the petition.

You don't have a 'right' to an abortion actually nojacket. It has to be signed off on by two doctors. A right can't be conditional on someone else's agreement. At present it's probably more accurate to say something like 'women have the right to request abortion, which is likely to be allowed providing two doctors agree'. Semantics I know, but actually quite an important distinction.

You mean that there are limits on the law, Boom? Of course there are, but the right to an abortion exists. So why would it be there is people didn't care about women's rights? I assume it was passed through Parliament by rich, white males.

Signed. These people are bullying scum hoping to harass and intimidate women. Agreed with PP- They should be making their misogynistic protest in Parliament sq or outside their MP's office if they genuinely want legal change.
Their freedom of speech is totally unaffected if they are stopped from harassing and intimidating women accessing health care. The Police should be moving them on.

The law on abortion doesn't enshrine women's rights Nojacket, it curtails them.

Yup, Roll, in this case and in other cases where crowds of ill informed bigots harass women trying to access their legal right to abortion, there does seem to be little interest in protecting women's safety and rights.

Women's rights aren't protected because we aren't considered worthy of protection.

But they were worthy of being enshrined in law in the first place. Why would that be then?

If people were harassing refugees outside support centres, Jews outside synagogues, Muslims outside mosques, gays outside gayclubs etc.... The police would be involved, they would be charged with harassment, public order offences, possibly hate crimes and quite rightly.

Women's rights aren't protected because we aren't considered worthy of protection.

I've signed. I don't struggle at all with the 'free speech' dilemma. I don't think you can compare this with other demonstrations, eg against animal cruelty outside Huntingdon Life Sciences. The difference for me is that these people are targeting individuals going about their completely legal business, as opposed to targeting corporations, etc.

How long could a group stand in the entrance to a church thrusting placards into people's faces and complaining about the activities of catholic priests without being moved on? Does anyone watch The Revolution will be Televised? Almost every time those guys set up a spoof demonstration outside a corporate headquarters the police appear in the background and support the corporation's own security guys in moving them on.

I believe the only reason anti-abortion demonstrators get away with their vile practice is because it is targeted against individual women so very few people give a fuck.

I've signed too.

Obviously feeling very cynical today Saskia because my immediate response to your hospital or funeral example is: men use those services too, so of course people wouldn't be allowed to protest there...

have signed

this is bullying

freedom of speech comes with responsibility and all our actions do

I just think protesting outside a clinic is beyond the pale. To me it's akin to protesting inside a hospital or at a funeral. It's not a protest, it's just causing unnecessary distress to vulnerable people.

The thing is, I don't think you'd get away with doing either of the latter examples, surely this should be the same?

Free speech is finite though. You aren't free to incite violence or hatred. You aren't free to incite fear. You can't lie about people or companies. Free speech isn't free, so no, I don't think telling these utter idiots to hold their protest over 500 yards away from a facility is unreasonable. They wouldn't be allowed to hold this kind of protest in the US, they have to have a buffer zone.