Should MN support a BPAS call for non-protest 'buffer zones' outside abortion clinics? Tell MNHQ what you think

[RowanMumsnet]

Hello all

We've been contacted by the British Pregnancy Advisory Service, who want to know whether Mumsnet can support a call they're going to make for buffer zones around abortion clinics - and as ever we'd like to run it past MNers to see what you think.

Here's what BPAS say:

'Over recent years there has been an escalation in anti-abortion activity outside clinics in the UK. Women attending pregnancy advice and abortion centres are now regularly exposed to groups of anti-abortion activists standing directly outside. Many of these protesters bear large banners of dismembered foetuses, distribute leaflets containing misleading information about abortion, and follow and question women as they enter or leave the centres. Often, these people carry cameras strapped to their chests or positioned on a tripod. Women report feeling intimidated and distressed by this activity as they try to access a lawful healthcare service in confidence. Pregnant staff at clinics have on occasion needed escorting from the building by the police. Recently, NHS staff on premises where a clinic is located have felt so intimidated by the presence outside they have asked for the abortion service to be withdrawn. The closure of a service as a result of anti-abortion activity would be unprecedented.'

'We believe enough is enough.'

'One in three women will have an abortion in her lifetime. We are a society which values freedom of speech, but also one where the vast majority of us support a woman’s access to abortion services. The right to protest needs to be balanced with the right of pregnant women to obtain advice and treatment in confidence and free from intimidation. For those who wish to campaign to restrict women’s reproductive choices, there are plenty of opportunities and locations in which to do so. The space immediately outside a clinic need not and should not not be one of them.'

'Women should feel confident that they can approach centres for advice and services without fear of intimidation, or anxious that their identity will be compromised by protesters filming outside. Establishing access zones free from anti-abortion activists around clinics would provide the reassurance and security women need. We urge all political parties to act to protect women as they make their own personal decision about their pregnancy. Women deserve nothing less.'

We know MNers tend to feel fairly strongly about abortion and that there are views on both sides of this debate - so do please let us know what you think.

Thanks

MNHQ

Spot on honeybadger

FrauHelgaMissMarpleandaChuckle you are wrong. Harassment is not for you to decide and thank goodness for that. If it was, I could say that I feel harassed by you repeatedly challenging me on my comments. I have a right to access the forum and post without being harassed by you, and I feel harassed/offended/upset by what you say, so what about a buffer zone where you aren't allowed to post anything bad about me in case it offends?

You see I don't want any of that. I know that no matter what beliefs you have, I promise you there is another person in the world who disagrees with it and would be offended by it. They have the right to their beliefs as much as you do yours and you both have the right to challenge each other about your beliefs. It's a good thing that we live in a society where an anti abortion protester can approach a woman about to have an abortion and challenge her about it, put their message across and ask her to change her view. And it's just as good that we live in a society that that woman can say no, or ignore the protester and carry on with her decision. It's called democracy and it means having tolerance and not having a bigoted attitude of "I don't like the nasty protesters so they have to be legislated against".

Aduaz's posts have just proved why the buffer zones are necessary.

Don't they just.

But, as in the "rape is not your fault" thread - where he repeatedly argued the contrary - here he is again, repeatedly arguing that women are not free to go about their lives freely and without harassment.

Sabrinna it's up to you if you answer this or not but I do want to know what you think. We have legislation to deal with any protest outside a clinic if it crosses over into harassment. Why not use that, why do you want another rule?

Aduaz - thankfully I know exactly what the law would say on this. Because I have proper real life experience of being harassed.

Do feel free to complain to the police about me and my comments on this website - am happy to email HQ with my name and address details and stand over what I have said.

I have nothing to fear from you.

I have a right to access the forum and post without being harassed by you, and I feel harassed/offended/upset by what you say, so what about a buffer zone where you aren't allowed to post anything bad about me in case it offends?

Not if MNHQ bans you, you aint.

Oh wow! Lightbulb moment. MNHQ banning Aduaz for his grim determination to belittle and harass women, and allow others to do so would be the perfect illustration of how the buffer zone could work. He could go away and whine about us all on a different forum, where not liking women feeding their babies, not thinking men are in any way to blame for raping women because women bring it on themselves, the vile temptresses and believing that forced birthers have any other intention than harassing and intimidating women with their 'protests' outside legally sanctioned clinics is totally acceptable.

It's a win-win. He gets to hold forth on his abhorrent views and we get to go about our business un-harassed and un-intimidated by him.

Anyway, given that he told me that my being raped at 15 was my fault, I don't think I really need to listen to him anymore. tra la

Read the statement by BPAS in the OP Aduaz. It's because of that - I don't believe women accessing clinics should be subjected to that.

Aduaz - it's an internet forum. You can only access it if you abide by the rules. You don't have a "right" to access it. It's up to HQ to decide if you can access this site or not.

Or are you going to claim harassment if they ban you?

Although I am pro-choice I do also value people's right to protest. However in this case it does sound like a good idea. My best friend works with vulnerable young women and has accompanied them to abortion clinics and it has been much more distressing for the young women when there is a loud protester outside.

Mumsnet does ban members who join up to push an anti-women agenda.

So far we've had the topics of rape, breastfeeding and now abortion all mansplained to us by this poster, all in anti-women terms imo. Although you post oh-so-politely, Aduaz, you cannot hide the anti-women agenda from your posts.

I totally support this.

why is he stil on here after saying something as vile as that puffin?

mnhq i think we tolerate misogynists for far too long on the site. someone blaming women for being raped are surely not welcome here?

PuffinsAreFictitious, the thing is though if I was the one being harassed why should it be me who changes. That is like saying that if a women feels harassed at an abortion clinic she should go to a different clinic, or just go home.

I don't know what to say to someone who was raped at 15 (or any age). I can't tell you that I understand because I don't, having never been raped. I know what I don't have many people agreeing with what I said in the rape thread but I stand by each word. If someone did something different, then something else might not have happened but that isn't victim blaming. When anything tragic happens it's just human nature to look back on the chain of events that led to it and think about what would have happened if this went differently or someone did something else instead. Do you know the one person I blame for your rape Puffin? The person who chose to rape you. Believe it or don't believe it. But please don't ever accuse me of blaming rape on the victim.

TheHoneyBadger I'd like to explain what I actually said because Puffins account is at best misleading. In a thread about rape, I said that if a woman is walking home drunk on her own at night she is in a vulnerable position and if she didn't walk home on her own at night she might avoid being raped. I then went on to add that that might not change anything, maybe the taxi driver would rape her, or maybe she would avoid being raped by some guy in an alley. I also went on to point out that this was just a thought process that happens whenever there is a tragedy. I don't know about you but when something bad happens I tend to rewind over the chain of events that led to it and think "if this happened differently how would that impact the outcome". I also said several times that no matter what the circumstances of a rape there is only ever one person to blame, and that is the rapist. You can decide for yourself whether you think that is victim blaming or not, and I won't try and sway you from whatever position you take HoneyBadger. But I felt I had to give you the opportunity to see what was actually said before making your decision and not Puffins "edited" version.

Anyone that wants to can check out the thread on relationships where Aduaz declared himself judge on whether rape victims (who bravely shared their stories) could have prevented their rape or not.

One lucky, lucky woman was told by him that she couldn't have done anything to prevent it. Others, well they were given safety precautions by this guy.

But anyway, I digress from the topic at hand.

Aduaz, I'll say it again - women have the right to live their lives freely without harassment of any kind. These abortion protesters are bullying and harassing women, and something needs to be done about it. I fully support MN and BPAS in this.

Sabrinnnnnnnna I agree women have the right to live their lives freely without being harassed. But that means the legal definition of harassment, which goes beyond having to encounter a group of peaceful protesters at an abortion clinic. Again it's up to you whether you answer or dodge this question but as we already have legislation to deal with harassment, why do you feel the need for further rules?

Sabrinnnnnnnna I agree women have the right to live their lives freely without being harassed.

It is quite clear from your many posts on this, and other subjects, that you don't believe this.

aduaz,
keep the faith. and let the closed minds think what they like.

munningcockery,
what's a 'facist'?

Aduaz - I've just advanced searched you. I'm going to say that the way I read it, you blamed rape on the victim on another thread. Perhaps you ought to have a think about your attitudes to female issues that you have no experience of, and how you come across to the women you do have real experience of those issues?

BuffytheReasonableFeminist. I do not intend to cause hurt to anyone.If I got attacked while walking home drunk, I WOULD be saying to myself over and over "if I'd got a taxi home this might not have happened" or "If I walked home a different way I'd have avoided this". That wouldn't be me blaming myself for the attack. It would be as I've said, going over the chain of events and thinking if this was different, would the outcome be different to. And as with a case of rape, the one person to blame for an attack is the attacker. I didn't intend to offend you or anyone else, but I'm not going to apologize for what I said because I stand by every word of it, so the apology would be meaningless.

You may feel that you "explained" why I was wrong but that choice of word is part of the problem. You never thought of it as a debate you came at it from an assumption that your thinking was the right way of thinking and you needed to "explain" and educate me why I was wrong. You never accepted that your way of thinking might not be the correct one, whereas I remained open minded even while taking lots of abuse from people who felt that because I disagreed with them, it was a green light to get personal.

Aduaz actually harassment legislation in the UK can be enacted based on how the recipient feels about the conduct and if it has caused them alarm or distress, even if the perpetrator hasn't intended to harass with their actions.

I'm interested, Aduaz, since you're not bringing up the other thread, about what you think is "implicit and implied" consent when it comes to rape.

I can't wait to hear your answer. Thanks so much.