Abortion clinic safe zones welcomed but opponents brand them ‘Orwellian’
Protected zones coming into force outside abortion clinics represent a balance between religious freedom and a woman’s right to privacy, an MP has said, as an opposition group branded them “chilling and Orwellian”.
Safe access zones will come into effect from Thursday, covering a 150-metre radius where it is expected any act that obstructs or harasses clinic users or staff will be deemed an offence.
The so-called buffer zones in England and Wales were part of legislation passed 18 months ago but there was a delay in implementation while arguments persisted around whether silent prayer should be included.
“Gross intrusion”
A group opposing the zones said the inclusion of silent prayer “constitutes a gross intrusion in the right of freedom of religion, free speech” and suggested the measure must be “properly tested in the courts”.
But Labour MP Stella Creasy branded the delay in the zones coming into force “a massive democratic outrage”, because a specific amendment to allow silent prayer in the zones was voted down in Parliament last year when the Public Order Bill was debated.
She told the PA news agency the enactment of the zones this week is “long overdue” and rejected claims from anti-abortion campaigners that the inclusion of silent prayer encroached on their right to religious freedom.
She said: “They (anti-abortion campaigners) have had a democratic moment. Parliament has debated, discussed, and ultimately voted on the very principles that they claim are being denied.
“There could not be a more democratic embodiment of what has happened, which is people have disagreed with them that they have a right to pray wherever they want, and said, ‘well actually, women have a right to privacy, and that privacy means that if you’re going to pray for women having abortions, you need to do it 150 metres away’.
“Nobody’s banning silent prayer, they’re just saying it’s not appropriate here.”
“Chilling”
The Society for the Protection of Unborn Children (Spuc) said a ban on silent prayer in the zones is a “chilling and Orwellian measure” to “shut down legitimate peaceful vigils and control religious activity including silent prayer”.
Michael Robinson, Spuc’s executive director, indicated the group could seek legal action as he accused the state of “trying to police silent prayer and thought”.
He said: “We are therefore actively consulting legal experts and believe that the inclusion of silent prayer constitutes a gross intrusion in the right of freedom of religion, free speech and accordingly needs to be properly tested in the courts.”
The Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) is expected to publish guidance for prosecutors while the College of Policing will publish what it described as a brief for officers on section 9 of the Public Order Act which deals with safe access zones.
The Home Office has previously said these will “ensure there is clarity and consistency with the enforcement of the new offence”.
On the wording, Ms Creasy said: “I am very mindful we all need to see the detail. But we do need to be explicitly clear.
“The question of silent prayer was considered in a democratic fashion, and the way to balance the rights of people to pray with the people who want to access an abortion has been found through safe access zones. So I’m expecting the legislation to be very, very clear that the will of Parliament is to be upheld.”
Last month, when announcing the date for the zones to come into force, safeguarding minister Jess Phillips said the Government “will not sit back and tolerate harassment, abuse and intimidation as people exercise their legal right to healthcare, which is why we have fast-tracked this measure to get it up and running without further delay”.
Support our Nation today
For the price of a cup of coffee a month you can help us create an independent, not-for-profit, national news service for the people of Wales, by the people of Wales.
Is this Stella Creasy supporting the Tory Public Order Act passed while Suella Braverman was Home Secretary?
I don’t see what they’re complaining about. Surely their god can hear their prayers wherever they are, right? Unless, of course, their motivation is less about praying and more about intimidating people, in which case the law is shown to be entirely justified.
Nobody is saying, “You can’t pray.” They’re just saying, “For the sake of patients’ privacy and freedom from harassment, you can’t pray *here*.”
It’s interesting to hear the followers of Gilead calling tha other side Orwellian…
Lot of policy and money come to the UK from the far right in the US (fortunately a lot of Conservative MP’s influenced by this lost their seats especially Mogg). You only have to look at what they are doing in the US to women’s rights to see the direction they would take us here (Roe vs Wade, many states now guns have more rights). The exclusion zones are needed.
Roe versus Wade is irrelevant for the UK. I believe in the rule of law. When the Supreme Court of a country makes a ruling I accept it especially as Roe Versus Wade was somehow based on the American right to privacy based on the fact that UK imposed soldiers on private citizen homes during the war of independence. In other words Roe versus Wade had nothing to do with abortion. Frankly it’s up to the various USA state parliaments to pass sensible laws to allow abortion. The USA Supreme Court ruled that a bad decison should be overturned –… Read more »
Really swallowing that bull eh? Heavy duty blinkers you have on there bub.
There have been times when the Democrats have had control of Congress and could have if they wanted to pass a law that meant they weren’t relying on a Supreme Court decision. However I suspect it has been more politically advantageous to the Dems to keep it an open issue.
No one expected the Spanish inquisition.
The point is though the money and idea’s from that group of religious fundamentalists is finding its way here.
‘Roe Versus Wade was somehow based on the American right to privacy’
It doesn’t get much more private than a woman’s decision about what’s to happen in her uterus.
It is no different to legislation which stops stalkers, abusers, and violent criminals from harassing their victims, their sole purpose is to abuse and intimidate, this has absolutely nothing to do with ‘free speech’…
It does actually. It’s self-evidently banning free speech. You may agree or disagree with the idea but it is banning free speech.
The speech is not banned it is the inappropriate location of it. What may be suitable in one location may not be in another.
Nobody’s freedom of speech is being affected. It’s about actions, not speech. It’s about protecting people from intimidation by religious zealots; it does not prevent those same zealots voicing their opinions elsewhere.
Freedom of speech is not absolute. For example, if someone who had been a disgusting human being had just died, it might be appropriate to tell your friend down the pub, “Bob was the worst kind of scum, and the world is better off without him.” It would, however, be entirely wrong to say the same thing to his grieving widow at his funeral! Context matters.
I see both sides. people going for aborion information should not be harassed but equally the government should not be limiting freedom of speech and thought.
Nobody’s freedom of speech or thought is being affected here, just the location of where they are doing it with the express intention of intimidating the freedom of action of other people seeking healthcare.
All my comments deleted, nothing insulting or threatening posted. Good to see that nation.cymru respect that not all of their readers shares the same views on contentious issues 👍
We haven’t deleted anything.
Where have the comments I made on this article gone then?
Voted down by other readers
So comments can be voted off?