The Government is enacting new legislation from Oct 31 that would bar protests, including silent prayer, within a buffer zone of 150 metres of a clinic or hospital providing abortion services.
Labour has ditched draft guidance by the last Conservative government that told police silent prayer should be allowed inside the new “safe access zones”.
It has also scrapped exemptions allowing “consensual” communication within the zones, which has been interpreted as permitting the handing out of leaflets or activists engaging people in conversation.
The changes mean that silent prayer will be banned in the zones, although it will be at the discretion of the police to determine whether it meets the threshold for prosecution.
Some 20 to 25% of abortion are in main hospitals.
This makes it illegal to pray silently within 150 metres of a main hospital.
Rilly?
I wonder if the 150 metre buffer zones will also apply to protests outside places of worship – all religions, not just one.
Silent? So how do they know or do they have a list of people they can arrest on sight just in case they’re sneakily launching an intercession on behalf of fetuses. Preventive detention! Are they scared of prayer that extreme measures are called for?
Remember to buy your prayer license. Prayer detector vans are operating in your area.
Why would strong, empowered, modern women who believe abortion is just the removal of a clump of inconvenient cells care about silent prayer, or even vocal prayer, for that matter?
No silent prayers within 150m of a hospital presumably means no silent prayers in that hospital either.
When the hospital chaplain says that he is praying for your loved ones he better make suitable noises if he doesn’t want to get arrested.
Can you pray out loud?
Position lots of people 151m away. At every angle. See what happens next.
I’m pro-choice, but if people are allowed within 150m of a restaurant serving foie gras to protest against it or feminists around a strip club, I don’t see why the same shouldn’t apply to abortions.
Telegraph headline this week: “Magistrates given power to jail criminals for longer under government plans”
People’s right to a jury trial – a vital protection against against tyranny – is being stripped away, replaced by state-appointed officials.
Without any exaggeration, and with complete historical accuracy, this is a tactic straight out of the Nazi playbook.
‘People’s right to a jury trial – a vital protection against against tyranny – is being stripped away, ‘
I must admit I don’t like that one, Wat.
Laws for Christians, but not for Muslims.
Two Tier Sir Keir.
While I of course think all this is typical leftist fascist bully boy behaviour, one has to wonder why God only accepts prayers regarding abortion from within a certain radius of the actual abortion clinics. I was under the impression that God was omnipresent, and thus prayers may be said regarding any issue from any location. After all its not much point saying prayers for the victims of a natural disaster on the other side of the world if God can only help if you’re within 150m of it is it? So why can’t the anti abortionists say silent prayers (or even quite vocal ones) in the privacy of their own houses or churches? Surely such prayers would have exactly the same effect as the ones said next door to the clinic (that is to say zero effect, but lets not get into that)? Or is it all just a public performance more for the benefit of the prayers than anyone else?
It’s a well-known fact that the effective range of a prayer as stated in the Book of Genesis or omewhere ( I have forgotten the exact reference) is 300 cubits, which is 150 metres. It just won’t work outside that radius.
However, let me suggest that while we are imposing rules on protesters we ought to ban completely any protest about something that is a political orissue in a foreign country but not in the UK.
Mister Starmer, not Sir.
Jim,
“So why can’t the anti abortionists say silent prayers (or even quite vocal ones) in the privacy of their own houses or churches? Surely such prayers would have exactly the same effect as the ones said next door to the clinic (that is to say zero effect, but lets not get into that)? Or is it all just a public performance more for the benefit of the prayers than anyone else?”
Well, yes. It’s all bollocks. But I believe in equal opportunity bollocks. It’s a peaceful protest. It might upset some people, but tough titty. Unless you want to argue that women are just dainty creatures, in which case, we have to undo decades of girlboss philosophy and get back to women in the kitchen (I don’t mind which, but you don’t get to selectively be both as strong as men and crying about being upset).
I suggest that silent prayer (but publicly visible) is a protest tactic. After all, if you want to pray, you can do so anywhere at any time.
It apparently is an effective one, since there are so many calls to ban it. Makes at least some people think again, which is precisely what the abortionists don’t want.
I wonder how this will affect prayer rooms in hospitals? Facilities largely used by Muslims.
Let’s follow up with:
No trannies, or non-trannie activists or sympathisers, to be either silent or vocal within 150 miles of any school, higher education institution, parliament, clinic or hospital.
Demons hate prayers.
My Meeting House is more than 150m from a hospital. Phew. I’m safe.
Jim – So why can’t the anti abortionists say silent prayers (or even quite vocal ones) in the privacy of their own houses or churches?
Why should I? Baby killers are the ones who should be ashamed to show their faces in public.
SALVE, Regina, mater misericordiae;
Vita, dulcedo et spes nostra salve.
Ad te clamamus, exsules filii Hevae.
Ad te suspiramus, gementes et flentes
in hac lacrimarum valle.
Ted:
“Mister Starmer, not Sir.”
That piggy-eyed psycopathic cunt, more like.
– Why would strong, empowered, modern women who believe abortion is just the removal of a clump of inconvenient cells care about silent prayer, or even vocal prayer, for that matter?
Abortion is illegal in the UK with an exception made to preserve the health of the pregnant woman. This includes their mental health. Nearly all abortions are granted on this mental health basis, so accordingly (legally) the women involved are either mentally fragile or on the edge of being so. People pretending to be poorly might be perturbed by people pretending to pray.
I see you and raise you:
Bene edamus! Bene bibamus!
Epula semper concelebramus
Quod imperat Regina
Ne faveat Doctrina
Sed choro sonoro
Dives in omnia
Sed choro sonoro
Dives in omnia
Collegium, Collegium acclamus!
Jgh – now conjugate the verb for “to go”.
PJF – What makes you think they’re pretending to pray?
PENDANT ALERT!
But 300 cubits is only 137.16 metres…
Steve – the same reason I think the pregnant persons are pretending to be poorly – cynicism.
The pregnants just want to abort the pregnancy and get rid of the fetus, but they’re not allowed to so they pretend (along with the doctors) to be actually or potentially poorly to gain the legal exception. The objectors just want to stop this process with methods varying from physical obstruction to vocal and visual protests, but they’re not allowed to so they stand there and pretend to pray.
To be fair, they may be slipping in a bit of parallel god bothering but the clear priority is to make a protest that is witnessed by the abortion side. Otherwise, as Jim notes, they could pray anywhere.
– Why should I?
Indeed it is convenient that your worldly responsibilities restrict you.
Yelling Alahu Akbar and threatening to kill Vic is fine because you have to think about the votes. But silent prayer for babies about to be killed? Die, far right bastards!
PJF – how does one “pretend to pray?” Cross your fingers or something?
Indeed it is convenient that your worldly responsibilities restrict you.
AlanPartridgeShrug.gif
Grist – Yarp. But also, nota benny that the clowns were already pre-primed to look for Abortion Ishoos, because they’re small-souled bugmen who vicariously live in America.
It’s obviously one of those laws which is attempting to address an issue but being very indirect. In this case, the issue is the fear that some women attending the clinics (or staff) woud be intimidated by the protesters. While it’s certainly bad to allow intimidation, I’m not sure the new laws are sufficiently focussed to work.
But it follows a long tradition of banning something because of some indirect potential harm. For example, we have banned carrying lots of types of knives out of fear that people carrying them might use them illegally – for threats or actual attacks.
@Steve – “how does one “pretend to pray?”
The same way as you actually pray. And both are equally effective.