April 2, 2025 - 7:00am
Does anyone have the right to feel harassed by a sign that says “here to talk if you want to”? When 40 Days for Life campaigner Livia Tossici-Bolt held up her sign while standing opposite an abortion clinic two years ago, she certainly wished to make a point. But it’s unlikely that she realised just how far things would go.
Tossici-Bolt now faces prosecution for breaching the required protection zones around abortion clinics, which were brought in to prevent the harassment of women on their way to procedures. More than that, her case has now been picked up by the US State Department, which has issued a statement of concern “about freedom of expression in the United Kingdom”, even suggesting there should “be no free trade without free speech”. Tossici-Bolt, welcoming the US support, has declared her case to be “but one example of the extreme and undeniable state of censorship in Great Britain today”. Is it really, though?
As someone who has, in recent years, expressed such controversial views as “sex is immutable” and “we shouldn’t sterilise autistic children”, I am tempted to be on Tossici-Bolt’s side. I’ve always been pro-choice, but one of the consequences of being accused of hateful bigotry is that it makes you less judgemental of those you might have wished to silence previously. In response to the harsh policing of their own speech, many feminists have made common cause with free speech advocates who might once have been opponents. This is broadly a good thing, but it has its problems.
In the absence of deeper political principles, one can quickly see the right to speak merge with the right to silence others. The progressive Left has been particularly expert at achieving this, recasting its own demand for dominance as granting the marginalised a voice. Following a recent ruling against Sussex University, which was fined half a million pounds after the hounding of feminist philosopher Kathleen Stock, Sussex Vice Chancellor Sasha Roseneil complained that universities were falling victim to a “sort of libertarian, free speech absolutism”. Yet what is more “absolutist”: defending a woman making such benign claims as “lesbians are same-sex attracted females”, or defending a masked mob yelling “no terfs here”? Whatever Roseneil and others claim, it seems they are the ones who wanted unfettered free speech — just not for anyone outside their charmed circle.
Where, then, should feminists stand with regard to Tossici-Bolt’s “here to talk if you want to”? It is not an openly aggressive sign. Nonetheless, just like trans activist stickers and placards at Sussex, it is a protest that wishes to limit the freedom of others. I am in favour of buffer zones around abortion clinics for the same reason I am in favour of women-only spaces and the right to describe others using sex-based pronouns. I care about freedom of speech — including that of people who disagree with me — but I also care about protecting women’s boundaries, particularly when they are at their most vulnerable.
The sign is not referring to a nice, friendly chat. A woman or girl seeking an abortion could very easily be traumatised by the presence of a 40 Days of Life activist opposite the clinic, even one who calls her placards “solidarity signs” and insists she speaks “in a loving way”. Tossici-Bolt wants to stop women and girls from having abortions (“I rejoice when a life is saved”). She wants to put them on the spot (“it would have been lovely,” she claims, “if the officer had gone to the person [who complained] and asked me why I was harassing them”). She has a right to debate the issue, but not in that space, with women at such an emotional time, about whose lives she knows nothing at all.
Tossici-Bolt is not a free speech martyr. The Trump administration may wish to make her one, but that is pure opportunism, a way to score points in a free trade battle while stirring up anti-choice sentiment. She had multiple opportunities to take her protest outside of the buffer zone but refused. There is a clear reason why that expression, in that space, at that time, was wrong.
Women and girls in the act of seeking abortions are not the ones who campaign to defend abortion laws. Tossici-Bolt could have presented her case to the latter. The irony is, she may find that feminists have never been more willing to allow her the space to talk.
Join the discussion
Join like minded readers that support our journalism by becoming a paid subscriber
To join the discussion in the comments, become a paid subscriber.
Join like minded readers that support our journalism, read unlimited articles and enjoy other subscriber-only benefits.
SubscribeIf Tossici-Bo;t’s crime is carrying that particular sign, then yes, she is a free speech martyr and the Tumpers are dead right to tie her case to trade with the UK. If she had harassed clinic patients in more serious ways, then that would be a different matter.
She is welcome to carry the sign a few hundred metres further down the road.
So people can have free speech but not where it might offend people?
Freedom of speech has to mean freedom of speech for those I disagree with. It especially has to mean freedom of speech for those the establishment disagrees with, or who disagree with established positions. Freedom of speech only for those who hold the upper hand isn’t freedom of speech at all.
And then there’s that particularly British version – freedom of speech so long as it has no influence. Panic as soon as it does. In other words free speech as harmless hobby.
Very nice summary.
Once again, almost entirely men commenting. Regardless of one’s position on abortion, I share Victoria’s point that your right to free speech should not include transgression of other people’s boundaries. As an example, I don’t think it would be okay to protest at someone’s funeral.
i find the very idea of Islamism offensive, where are the police, the courts arresting people for those odious ideas
This is why the First Amendment of the US Constitution is about free speech. So that it’s not a case of individuals picking and choosing. Ultimately I guess the Supreme Court has to interpret that, but it would appear to be much more robust.
Unless you criticise Israel, in which case it can seemingly be abandoned and the culprit deported?
It didn’t really help all the Japanese locked in internment camps during the war either
From Gov.uk:
The question is whether or not the sign was ‘enough’ to influence someone’s decision.
The wording ‘intentionally or recklessly influences someone’s decision to use abortion services’ shows the absurdity of this law. Anyone advocating a particular point of view – a natural expression of free speech – will do so intentionally, and will hope to influence the decisions of others. And I can’t see how Mrs Tossici-Bolt’s actions can be seen as ‘reckless’ or harassing.
“[D]istress” can cover a multitude. That’s the fallback, I suppose.
Also, I think, if all it takes is for a sign to change a woman’s mind, she must had grave doubts about what she was doing anyway
Maybe the sign (and its holder) could have moved slightly further down the road, and thus have been 160 metres from the abortion provider.
I don’t know whether she is a Free-Speech Matryr in the British context or not. British people have a funny idea about what the History of Free Speech actually is in this land. Anti-Christian Blasphemy in our Common Law was only repealed in 2008. The Lord Chamberlain was only stood down in 1968 and the Riot Act “for Preventing Tumults and Riotous Assemblies” repealed only in 1973. Our Libel Laws are still the fiercest in the Western World.
It strikes me that our political tradition has always insulated the ‘official consensus’ (whatever it has been) from offence.
Britain and America are very different in that respect.
That said I paused when I read the line – “it is a protest that wishes to limit the freedom of others.”
I read on patiently to find evidence to support this assertion but found none.
I did hear rather more of the ‘Speech is Violence’ trope that has led Britain to this sorry position. Behold a fine example of the late flowering of the genre –
“A woman or girl seeking an abortion could very easily be traumatised by the presence of a 40 Days of Life activist”.
The writer simply considers her opponents to be bad-faith actors and that-is-that.
“Tossici-Bolt is not a free speech martyr. The Trump administration may wish to make her one, but that is pure opportunism”
‘All my opponents are either lying ignorant or wicked’ This is juvenile stuff.
To liken Mrs Tossici-Bolt’s actions (sign inviting but not initiating a conversation) with the behaviour of the Sudent Radicals at Sussex (multiple death threats) is to forfeit jounalistic credibility and the readers confidence all at once.
I don’t see the problem. Societally-speaking abortion is largely accepted and legally protected.
If a person is swayed by a silent sign, maybe that means the woman in question has some doubts. The idea that such a sign puts undue pressure is not very credible imo. Either you are sure, and it won’t matter. Or you are not sure, and then it is better to think twice before proceeding.
Women, human beings, are not machines. We make choices all the time, and sometimes we choose to alter a previously reached decision. There is nothing wrong with that.
Having a religious extremist “in your face” is always going to amount to “pressure”.
How is offering a choice, another opportunity, “limiting the freedom of others”? If I am on my way to buy a pizza, is my freedom being limited by McDonald’s adverts along the way? Or even by ads for gyms, wagging their fingers at me for becoming so portly? If a choice can be that easily threatened, it’s not based on solid information.
“Trauma” and “feeling unsafe” used to be related to storming beaches under gunfire or witnessing bloody crimes. Now they’re the daily risks of meeting other people.
Ι think the point the writer is making, which is probably misunderstood or missed by most of the critical views here is that for women in an extremely fragile state heading to an abortion centre, even the presence of one with a placcard with such an innocuous message, their aim is to still excersise pressure on these women.
I think it makes sense to me.
Ultimately, the issue is the exclusion zone. If this activity takes place within the boundaries then however innocuous the message, it is still undue pressure and violates the boundaries.
I do not know if that is the case but if it is, then no matter what the message is, the intent is to violate these spaces and therefore breaking the law.
Absolutely correct.
If you add up the abortions in UK, it is about the same as the immigration numbers.
See – you want to keep the population level, well you have to abort millions. Makes sense.
”Lock Her Up!” She is trying to hold back progress.
recasting its own demand for dominance as granting the marginalised a voice. – And there it is, all it took was 15 years for someone to so succinctly summarize why Left ideology is risible … Well said!
how is silent praying traumatising
In central London we have Islamists calling for the death of Jews, Sharia Law, and god knows what else
The police with their Pride badges, say well it’s Free speech, then arrest parents who complain about a school
These people are doing no harm
“How is silent praying traumatising“? It isn’t, provided it isn’t done right outside an abortion clinic. Isn’t the Christian God supposed to be all seeing and all knowing? Surely he can still hear your prayer if you are in your living room?
Ultimately the restrictions around protesting directly outside abortion clinics have come about because of the harassment and intimidation suffered by those women using them. This lady is still free to protest, just not in the exact spot she chose to do so (as she was well aware).
Free speech is important, however I don’t believe this is a free speech issue as nobody is questioning her right to disagree with abortion or even protest against it, it’s simply a few spots where the protest can’t take place.
There’s also something quite amusing about being lectured by the Americans on free speech when they’re busy deporting people for criticising Israeli policy in Gaza. The lack of self awareness is truly staggering
Question: Who called the cops?
It’s hard to understand how the author could not see how wrong it is to prosecute Ms. Tossici-Bolt. The lack of aggression is the important point; her distance from the clinic entrance, her silence. Does the author really think that one persons “sense of being harassed” is a good reason to drag her off to jail?
I’m well aware hat some people just can’t abide my dog; they’re disgusted, they feel harassed or threatened. Is that a reason to have me arrested? Or are their feelings none of my concern, other than simple civility? As long as my dog is leashed (where required) and not behaving aggressively it’s not the police’s concern, either.
Isn’t that why we have a concept of personal rights at the very center of our jurisprudence?
If you took your dog into a proscribed area then quite possibly. If I repeatedly took my highly trained, extremely friendly and gentle, springer into an area where dogs are proscribed along with a placard which said “Come and meet her, she’s gentle and friendly,” regardless of my intentions then I would expect to be prosecuted.
If I did so just outside the proscribed area with the same placard and intention then stopping me doung so would be an infringement of my right to free speech.
That’s the difference and that’s rhe reason that these people get prosecuted.
Would you consider that I have a right to enact my “right to freedom of speech” in your back garden regardless of the law of trespass?
So those who downvoted believe that I do have rhe right to bring my dog and the associated message into both a proscribed area (regardless of the potential issues amd harm) and, in addition, woyld be happy for me to do the same in their garden or possibly even their drawing room.
Yet these are the same people who would clamp down on JSO, XR, Pro Hamas, etc (something I am totally in accord with doing so) protests on the basis that free speech has its limits.
Victoria Smith is trying hard not to be influenced by whether or not she agrees with the protestor, but I fear she is.
It’s a question of balance, between the freedom of speech of the protestors, and the freedom of the public to go about their lawful business unimpeded. Absolutist positions in either extreme are unhelpful.
You may agree or disagree with Tossici-Bolt, but a lone woman standing silently is a long, long way from an aggressive picket line at a clinic’s front door. In this particular case, the law is an ass.
If Ms Tossici-Bolt stood a little further from the clinic’s front door, she wouldn’t be in breach of the law, would she?
It’s not the Trump administration making her a free speech martyr. It’s the laws in the UK that are making her a martyr. She’s holding up a sign that says ‘Here to talk if you want’. She’s not blockading anyone, preventing them entering the clinic, she’s not buttonholing them, or shouting at them. She is literally there to talk, if you want. Many of those who ignore her may in later years feel they should have talked. Many not, of course.
And how do you know it’s not referring to a nice, friendly chat? It’s not impossible that someone you disagree with can still be nice and friendly about it.
I’m not opposed to protection zones around abortion clinics. Some of the activists opposed to abortion are aggressive and what they do is literally threatening and intimidating. Holding that sign and standing quietly really is not.
Exactly that, well said.
I think you either have to accept that the rights to free speech and peaceful protest are absolute, subject to constraints to maintain the public peace, or they are worthless.
Making a special case in this way undermines the argument and is dangerously close to hypocrisy.
After all, the campaigns against the freedoms of Kathleen Stock et al were based on the potential emotional impact of their ideas on individuals regarded as vulnerable.
I think you mean by people who declared themselves as vulnerable as a means of perpetrating violence on others
What is Unherd doing publishing rubbish like this?
No I don’t.
People have an absolute right to consider or declare themselves vulnerable.
They have no right to perpetrated violence against others.
They may have that ‘right’, but I suppose then I have the right to say that their declaration of vulnerability is threatening to me – ‘absolute right’ means absolute. So where does all this rights nonsense get us? We all actually know that there is no such ‘right’ – you can claim that somebody’s actions or intentions make you feel vulnerable, but that doesn’t make you vulnerable by definition.
People most certainly do not have an absolute right to consider or declare themselves vulnerable.
The people who persecuted Kathleen Stock were in no way vulnerable and they only declare themselves as vulnerable to give them a platform to cancel her, which is violence.
Mr Boyd, I declare myself vulnerable which you say I have a right to do. Further, your comment will have a detrimental emotional impact in me. I therefore demand you are banned from Unherd.
See what I did there.
Your declaration of vulnerability is an expression of an absolute right but has no legal or constitutional significance.
You have an absolute right to declare yourself to be anything you want but nobody is obliged to treat you differently as a result.
I can declare that I am a Ford Mondeo but it doesn’t mean I acquire the right to run along the fast lane of the M1.
This will not be popular on here but I wouldn’t be averse to a comprehensive reappraisal of speech and protest laws, to be honest.
Drill, Pornography, the representation of violence, Nihilism and drug taking should all be put back under the Lord Chamberlain’s ban. I would also like to see the endless round of ritualised disorder and extra-parliamentary muscle flexing that we see in Westminster almost weekly – dignified by the name of ‘protest’ – to be brought under rule.
But in no event could a case be made for criminalising this sort of witness of conscience.
I don’t agree with you but think, in any case, your proposal impractical
“All things excellent are as difficult as they are rare”
Nihilism? What on earth is wrong with nihilism? Are you proposing to force people to pretend to believe in something “at the point of a sword”?
Yes, precisely.
We do as much every day when we insist on what remains of ‘public decency’.
Our laws presume that morality exists and for our commonwealth to function the promotion of public de-moralisation should be circumscribed. We already criminalise the promotion and incitement to self-slaughter. That is a base line. We should go much further.
I would that none may participate in the commonwealth but those who will conform themselves to it.
In other words, they can believe what they like privately but they must publicly conform to the norms and decencies of a well ordered society.
“Self-slaughter”? What are you talking about?
Suicide.
Oh, I see. “Slaughter” is a rather emotive term, don’t you think?
Indeed a very emotive and, I had hoped, a redolent one. It’s from Hamlet
“O that this too too solid flesh would melt, Thaw, and resolve itself into a dew! Or that the Everlasting had not fix’d. His canon ‘gainst self-slaughter!”
We think it is that which we permit that gives form to chaos. But it is rather our prohibitions that give life its solidity and distinct-ness.
Liberty is the fruit, not the seed, of order.
“There is no distinction withou negation” as Hegel said.
Very interesting. The view might have even been relevant in Shakespeare’s time, but we have (mercifully) moved on.
Moved on from Shakspeare?Sadly I fear you are right.
IDK. I found this essay very offensive – maybe because the author is a free speech poser. She supports free speech when it’s convenient. Standing in front of an abortion clinic with a sign is nothing like a trans man inserting himself into female spaces. If the anti-abortion protestor was standing inside the clinic, or preventing people from entering the clinic, the author might have an argument. The analogy is deeply flawed IMO. And I too support a woman’s right to choose.
Ah yes, destroying a human you deem not to be worthy of dignity/respect. Who is more vulnerable; The person going to the clinic or the one who has no advocate?
I used to think exactly the same as the author but once you can view the “aborted foetus” as just as human as anyone else was at one time the arguments made here are simply repulsive. The author doesn’t even attempt to grapple with the rights of the unborn baby (it doesn’t go away just because you ignore it).
The lady in the article is not trying to curtail anyone’s freedom directly, just trying to bring the opposing argument to a one-way pipeline of abortionists’ pockets being filled.
On an anecdotal level, when anti-abortionist protesters tried to set up a stand at St Albans (again, peacefully handing out literature and offering to speak to/pray for people) they had many more police than their group had members around them in 15 minutes and they had to move on. This supression of speech doesn’t end at abortion limitation zones.
It would seem that you think that a “foetus” is a “human being”. I suggest that is very much a minority view (in Western nations at least).
Well, it is a being. And if not a human one, which species?
It’s a collection of cells. That’s it.
So are you and I
No, we are sentient, self sustaining beings.
What is it then, some kind of unknown category of thing?
Yes, it’s useful – if you want to kill – first of all to dehumanize, ‘unperson’
To “dehumanise” someone as an “unperson”, they have to be a person in the first place. I didn’t “dehumanise” my fingernails when I last trimmed them.
I find the callousness of your responses extraordinary. Most commentators here are trying to wrestle with the competing rights of mother and unborn child but you don’t give a toss about the latter
It seems to me he has simply come to a conclusion you don’t like, rather than not having considered the question.
No. He’s come to a conclusion that leads him to compare an unborn child with fingernails.
Point of order: I compared a fetus with fingernails. Something doesn’t become an “unborn child” until it is viable outside the womb.
I don’t regard a fetus as an “unborn child”. You might have difficulty with that view, but it is my view, and it is sincerely held.
Thats because in my opinion until it reaches the point that it can survive being seperate from the mother then it’s merely an extension of her, rather than being a person in its own right
I’m struggling to follow the rationale here. Essentially, what Victoria is saying is that, if politicians decide to pass a law that limits freedom of expression, then that is fine and anyone who breaches that law should not complain about the curtailment of their right to freedom of expression. By that logic, Victoria would (perhaps unhappily) abide by any law limiting freedom of expression regarding trans issues and, if she were prosecuted for having broken any such law, would not complain about an infringement on her right to freedom of expression? My guess is that would not be the case. It seems Victoria is falling into the trap of only defending freedom of expression when it suits a cause she cares about.
Entirely agree. What is a picket line but an attempt to intimidate? What is an environmental or anti-nuclear protest? Ban the lot?
Maybe I’m missing something, but who is “Joan” ?
DB is conflating Joan Smith (who writes on similar subjects) with Victoria Smith, the author of this article.
I find myself agreeing with the writer, although she might be stretching a point about free speech which nevertheless can never be “absolute”.
Ah, that explains it, many thanks.
Oops. I confused Joan Smith with Victoria Smith. Sorry Joan!
Irrational article!
Feminists do tend to tie themselves in knots trying to be rational about the irrational.
Beyond belief. How can the lady with the sign be denying anyone anything and be doing something criminal?
I think the idea is that people should be able to access health care without being harassed by religious extremists on their way to doing so.
I find advertising to be intimidating. Can I have advertisers jailed?
Yes. I think this is the first piece by Victoria that I have read where I find myself in disagreement with her. The important point to focus on here is not abortion rights (I’m opposed to abortion on demand but I don’t campaign on the subject) but on the right to free speech and peaceful protest.
Do you believe Muslims should be able to line the route to a Synagogue shouting abuse at Jews due to the Israel/Palestinian conflict?
If not why do you believe anti abortion activists should be able to do the same to to women going into the clinic?
Excellent point. I’m sure the Christians would be very upset if I spent my Sundays outside churches yelling “All priests are paedos” at the parishioners.
True but you probably wouldn’t be arrested if you stood silently thinking that or even holding a sign saying “perhaps you should reconsider your belief in the supernatural”
I can assure you that I “silently think that” all the time, but I have no issue whatsoever with people who practice any religion, provided they don’t try to force me or anyone else to do likewise. It is not a difficult concept: if you think abortion is wrong (for religious or other reasons), don’t have an abortion. I for my part would never attempt to pressure you into having one.
And if you think that slavery is immoral, don’t buy a slave. But let those that want to do so.
Slaves are human beings. Fetuses aren’t.
It is quite simple really. If the protest, message, whatever, innocuous as it may be but still anti-abortion, was taking place within a legally defined exclusion zone around abortion clinics then it is violating the law and the arrest was on point.
If the protester was outside the exclusion zone then her arrest is indeed very problematic.
I do not know the details so was she in the zone or outside?
She was inside the zone, was asked politely to move to an area outside the zone by the police (more than once) and refused to do so and was subsequently arrested and fined
If you believe that, as they say, you’ll believe anything. A case of free speech for me, but not for thee.
Good article. There are plenty of places where Ms Tossici-Bolt could legitimately make her point, but outside an abortion clinic is not one of them. Women have the right to access health care without being harassed, something that the law in the UK (and a lot of other places) recognises.
I bet David Steele didn’t think he was introducing a measure that would see the end of our Island culture in due course.
I have the right to enter my place of work or travel freely without being harassed
Would you say that to trade union pickets with few signs asking for more pay?
Once upon a time, trade union protest were a disgrace; violent and abusive. That’s pretty rare but they can certainly intimidate those who choose to work.
Are there plenty of places? Holding up a sign saying “Here to talk” outside, say, a football stadium wouldn’t make her point, would it?
It would if she made it clear what she wanted to talk about on her sign
That’s the point. She is where she is specifically to harass, not to “make a point”. She could stand outside a football stadium with a sign that says “Abortion is Wrong”, and “make her point”.
‘Harassment’, it seems, needs to be properly defined. It cannot simply mean being opposed to something, or feeling that you are harassed. It’s a strong word, and not equivalent to agreed verbal engagement, or gentle persuasion. By not defining it clearly, those opposing ‘harassment’ by setting up ‘buffer zones’ are being duplicitous, and promoting persecution at their own convenience.
But the laws have been created because of the harassment and intimidatory tactics of previous protests.
While this lady herself wasn’t harassing anybody plenty of others have in the past, hence the restrictions
Well, in the past the wild raiders of Cefn Cribbwr would come down Kenfig Hill and attack to good people of North Cornelly, should we put up a fence to stop people from Cefn coming down the hill?
A rather stupid reply I must say
really if they seem so fragile , that maybe they not in the right state of mind and should take some time, reconsider
Should’nt these women be 100% in their convictions, who cares what others think. Seems they might be pressured into this course of action
Next they will be making the very notion of being anti abortion illegal, i mean they are exposed to far worse than a praying lady on the internet
It’s a conversation they Left don’t want, so they make it illegal to even think about it, i’m not coming down on either side , but the notion this should be policed is disturbing.
If these women don’t like criticism, opposing views, they should move, it’s not their right to silence people who don’t agree with them
so what about Jews who have to walk by a group of Muslims men chanting for the death of Jews, don’t seem the police 2 bothered by that
Angry Muslim bigots, we good with that, a little old lady praying silently , get the riot police
This one goes with something else: the right to peaceful protest. Do you believe in that? It does not get much more peaceful than gently – very gently – reminding people that what they are doing is seen by many as abominable. If you think people need to be protected from that knowledge, you are into censorship, like it or not.
Of course the Trumpers’ insistence on their ‘free speech’ has nothing to do with principle. It is just part of their bid for dominance over their vassals – otherwise they would have had more to say about freedom of speech for Russians. Chinese, Turks – or even US citizens who disagree with them. It is almost enough to reject what they say out of hand, just because they are saying it. But not quite.
From the standpoint of the USA, the UK is not exactly to analogous to China or Russia or Turkey.
Sure, the way western govts carp on about human rights etc whilst at the same time happily doing trade with the world’s worst offenders has always been a stinking hypocrisy.
But UK is a US ally, in as much as we are fellow Anglos, share the similar culture and expect certain standards from each WRT rights.
It is a shame US has lasered in on the abortion debate. There are many freedom of speech abuses in the UK esp after Southport last year.
Would be preferable to reference one of those.
As for advocates of pro choice.
The last word, as always, has to go to Ronald Reagan..
‘I notice everyone who is for abortion has already been born’
Regretfully, as of the start of the second Trump presidency I no longer agree that this is the case. The US is not treating the UK as an ally, but as a prey to exploit – a vassal at best. And I see no reason to expect any kind of standards from either a Trump presidency, or from the electorate that understood exactly what kind of man he was and voted him in anyway. As seen from Europe, the US under Trump is simply a hostile, foreign, autocratic power.
That does not mean that Trump, Musk et al. are wrong every time – nobody is perfect
There are a number of problems with free speech in for instance the UK, including this one. But any American concern for freedom of expression in Europe is neither more nor less relevant that Putin’s concern for the state of democracy.
No the UK is still an ally of the US. Only Denmark has been permanently removed from the list by virtue of being a perpetual freeloader nation.
Isn’t the Republic of Ireland the ultimate freeloader nation?
Perhaps the reason she stands there quietly with her sign is that she wants to save lives. That actually is what motivates people who do this. They are not against ‘choice’ – a euphemism. They are trying to save the lives of babies who are about to be killed. This is not a ‘healthcare procedure.’ In that context, offering a conversation seems humane – a lot more human than the law at present.
You are correct in one sense, but it seems that her view of what constitutes a “life” is different from that of a lot of other people.
They are free speech martyrs. There is no reason in the world why people cannot peacefully hold a vigil outside an abortion clinic (such vigils are also banned here). Such protests are not remotely comparable to women-only spaces, which impact on women in intimate ways.
Pro or anti abortion is the most incendiary Feminist issue. No surprise that the historically Leftist pro side typically try to shut down and cancel their opposition.
I’m generally pro abortion, with lots of limits and guidelines, but fully understand the rights and opinions of those who disagree, and might wish to protest.
The desire to shut down the conversation is due to it being such a contentious and emotive issue, with no definitive right answer, only pros and cons (faetal death being a massive con).
I have no problem with the “conversation” continuing. However, the “harassment of women accessing healthcare” is what must stop.
however people try to justify this, this is about policing what people think, believe. There is no world where that isn’t just Fascism
Russia/China do not put people in Prison for ‘thinking’
Sry i don’t care about these ‘women’s rights , they live in apparently a free society, people have a right to disagree with them, and make that noted.
It’s why we fought a world war
Your thoughts are who you are, it’s defines you, no goverment, no police ever has a right to restrict that.
I think it’s true there are really 2 types of people, NPC’s with no inner monologue, who are fine with this , and then actual people, people with actual thinking, critical minds who see the problem in this
Nobody is saying this woman shouldn’t be allowed to protest against abortion. However the past instances of harassment and intimidation from pro life activists directly outside clinics has led to a majority deciding to restrict where these protests can now take place (in this case they have be at least 150m from the clinic).
Those protesters are free to campaign to get the law overturned if they can convince a majority that it is in societies best interests to do so, but personally I think they’ll struggle.
To me the ability to continue to protests against abortion while limiting the ability of those protesters to harass people directly entering the clinic seems a perfectly acceptable middle ground, the type of compromise that Britain excels at
Victoria Smith has made a false comparison between the hounding of Kathleen Stock and the anti abortion protests.
Firstly, the protests against Stock were far more aggressive and, secondly, the trans rights activists are trying to force someone from their job because they don’t believe a fantasy. The anti-arbortion protectors believe that abortion is an act of murder and are hoping to dissuade someone for committing murder.
Now, I don’t know what is right or wrong and I am ever so grateful to have been spared being personally involved in this decision; I do not condemn. And yet, I can see no other way of determining when a life begins than at conception.
Still, I can see that there maybe a place for this. I’d like it to be limited to 15 week but that’s a pretty arbitrary thing. What deeply worries me is the pro-abortionists. They don’t persuade on the grounds of the lesser of two evils but on “the woman’s right to choose”. Moreover, the distance they show for opposition disgusts me.
There’s so much philosophically wrong with this argument that it’s not even worth trying to explain it to this woman.
“it is a protest that wishes to limit the freedom of others”
“A woman or girl seeking an abortion could very easily be traumatised by the presence of a 40 Days of Life activist”
sure…keep telling yourself those things, Ms. Smith.
Meanwhile the killing of innocent children continues.
Long may it continue. I don’t need lectures from a bunch of God botherers
The lectures are not directed at you.
Quite right. They are directed at vulnerable women seeking only to access healthcare (thus illustrating the bullying nature of the God Botherers).
The terminating of children in the womb is not ‘healthcare.’
Sorry, but a majority of people in most Western countries (including Britain) disagree with you.
A majority of people in the southern American states thought that black people should not be allowed to mix with white people. That a policy has majority support doesn’t mean it’s a good one.
Well, in a democracy, it is the will of the majority is what prevails. In any event, those who are pro-abortion never seek to force those who are anti-abortion to have an abortion, but the converse is certainly not the case.
Absolutely but you are arguing that the case for abortion is correct because people agree with it.
Moreover, anti-abortion campaigners are perfectly entitled to seek to change the law. That’s just as much a part of democracy.
Those who think we should not have left the EU are perfectly entitled to campaign to have us rejoin. If a referendum went their way, I’d accept it. I’d be very disappointed but that’s life.
“Moreover, anti-abortion campaigners are perfectly entitled to seek to change the law. That’s just as much a part of democracy“. That is true. They are not however entitled to harass individual women, which is what we are talking about.
An interesting example of the way in which labels become set in stone while the original concept has disappeared. Those in favour of allowing abortion picked on ‘pro-choice’ as a label rather than ‘pro-abortion’ because it sounded much more compassionate. Victoria Smith, however, couldn’t care less about ‘choice’: the prospect of a woman choosing at the last minute not to abort unsettles her. She would probably argue that the woman’s decision shouldn’t be influenced by external factors; but of course, many women are persuaded by parents, boyfriends, or their situation to abort when otherwise they’d choose to keep the baby.
I am happy to accept the label “pro-abortion” as it is applied to me.
I don’t take the label “pro-abortion”. Not because it sounds uncompassionate but because it’s incorrect. I’m not “pro abortion”. I’d be happy if there were zero abortions. As long as that’s by choice of pregnant women, not enforced by the state or other powerful groups.
Thus, “pro-choice”.
I don’t think “zero abortions” is realistic. There were always abortions, and there always will be. The question is whether or not they are legal.
Sophisticated line of reasoning; equally calling an abortion, a ‘procedure’.
My fear is our sophistication will betray us and our children, born or unborn.
The weasel words of the abortion apologists betray their awareness that what they are supporting is morally suspect. So they talk of ‘pro-choice’, and call the ending of the lives of unborn babies a ‘service’, ‘health care’ or, as Mr Mentz says, ‘a procedure’.
I am pro-abortion, and I see no different between removing a fetus and throwing it in a kidney tray, and removing an appendix and throwing it in a kidney tray.
If you really can’t see the difference between a diseased appendix and an unborn child, I feel very sorry for you, Martin. Your attitude is symptomatic of the dehumanised, materialistic society we have become.
Times change. Modern societies are moving forward, and leaving Christianity in the rear-view mirror.
“it is a protest that wishes to limit the freedom of others”
In their current form, the silent prayers and sign-holding etc, no credible claim can be made that these kinds of protests are an effort to limit the freedom of others. These protestors are inviting women to change their minds — to choose renunciation of their freedom to abort.
Now down the road, if the “woke right” pendulum goes too far? Maybe it will develop into a kind of intimidation. Until then, in current form, it’s peaceful and should be protected.
“Women and girls in the act of seeking abortions are not the ones who campaign to defend abortion laws.”
No, they’re only the ones making the most all-encompassing decision it is possible for one human to make about another – life or death.
The surest buffer zone a woman can surround herself with out of a right to choose is one called celibacy.
What a boring life though
Oh, seriously? Even supposedly celibate priests mostly don’t practice celibacy!
The choir boys can attest to that
This is why TERFs will never be conservative. They are irredeemably wedded to the Left – they just want their old Left back, the old school transhumanism to manage fertility.
In particular the progressive left’s abuse of metaphor which made an attempt to equate speech with violence.
That was as close to a creedal statement or Shibboleth of the Cancel Culture movement as one can attain
Words are not violence. Conversation is not opression. Dissent is not traumatic.