There’s been quite a lot of press coverage in the UK recently about a young man who was arrested for praying, very publicly, outside an abortion clinic- the case against him was discontinued for largely technical reasons.
I’m really shocked by the tone of the press coverage- this man’s arrest is uncritically portrayed as being an example of ‘intolerance’, the suppression of certain ideas, and of debate.
There is no absolutely recognition in the press coverage of the crucial distinction between political campaigning and harassment of individuals.
In our society, people are free to disagree strongly with the legal availability of abortion, and to campaign against it.
Campaigning means doing what WPUK have done in the context of self ID, what all genuine campaign groups do: lobbying MPs, writing articles, seeking to influence political parties to change (or keep) the law, arguing on Twitter, holding meetings to discuss the issues, etc. These activities all focus on seeking to achieve a change in the law through influence, argument, consciousness raising and persuasion. They are utterly different from harassing individuals seeking to exercise a legal right.
I may disapprove of private schools, say. If I want to campaign about this, I should be joining a political party, seeking to influence its policies on private schools, writing to my MP, writing to the charity commission, trying to persuade my friends of the merit of my ideas, etc. I really shouldn’t be sitting outside my local private school abusing individual pupils and parents if they turn up. If I did that, it would be harassment, not political campaigning, and I should be arrested for it- because deliberately frightening and upsetting individuals, in an attempt to make them afraid to exercise their legal rights, is harassment and a legitimate exception to free speech.
Why is this difference between campaigning and harassment so little recognised in the media? Is it because the people being harassed in this case are .....women?