MNHQ here: Back Off campaign: tell Sajid Javid your views

[RowanMumsnet]

Hello

As some of you will know, Mumsnet is backing the Back Off campaign to prevent anti-abortion protestors from harrassing women using termination services.

The new Home Secretary, Sajid Javid, is going to be in charge of seeing the review process through, and Back Off would like him to hear from members of the public letting him know that the issue is still important to them.

Back off have an email template you can use here.

Thanks

MNHQ

Done

Another one signed - such an important campaign.

Signed too. So needed.

I saw Peter Tatchell objecting to this in the newspapers on the grounds that it’s censorship despite it being actually not censorship

I was never too sure of his stance on matters as they affect women and that confirmed my view.

Signed and thanks for publicizing the petition.

Done.

Ugh Peter Tatchell is so fighting on the wrong side here.
www.christian.org.uk/news/abortion-buffer-zones-breach-freedom-speech/

The reason this has grown in urgency is that There are numerous documented examples of anti choice behaviour that is way more extreme than ‘expressing their point of view’.

But also from a freedom of speech POV it is really not just about women (or pro choice people) objecting to hearing or seeing anti choice views that they happen not to agree with. As if that offends our delicate ears so much we are complaining that it must be stopped. Such a patronising and dismissive characterisation. This also part of the ‘women need to be told’ basis in which that kind of ‘protest’ operates.

The reality is that anti choice, anti women’s autonomy views are all over society and everyone, including women who are considering having an abortion, is well used to hearing them. Women know the arguments already. We already know there is judgement and shaming about women’s sex lives. We know that there are gendered expectations imposed what pregnant women should feel like and and what they should do. It’s old news.

But Buffer zones respond to an up step in aggression in protest tactics. They are a supportive measure for women objecting to being lobbied, harrassed and filmed and objecting to their privacy and dignity coming under attack merely because they are attending legal, safe, health and emotional support services which do care about women’s autonomy. Which will support the woman in her decision whether they end up carrying on the pregnancy or ending it safely. It’s really not about women just intolerantly objecting to freedom of speech.

I am pro choice and think freedom of speech is very precious. there will inevitability be clashes of opinion in a free society and I accept that and think it’s healthy. But there should also be limits on my right to hector other people about what my views are, because all situations are not equal. Having some circumstantial limits to freedom of speech expression does not undermine the general principle.
‘freedom of speech’ cant be used as a cover for being an intimidating, privacy-breaching harassing a-hole. Whatever the strength of mine or anyone’s personal convictions about a particular issue.

Done.

Done