Praying is now illegal

[stevevw]

No, I don't think so. I don't like PSPOs. They are, I think, an infringement on people's right to protest. I think that 'pro-life' protesters should be allowed their right to oppose abortion. But PSPOs are intended to prevent certain actions in very limited and local circumstances, not to police thoughts - or prayers. To maintain that 'prayer has been made illegal' is disingenuous.

The rather dirty tactic of harassing clients and staff at a medical centre is repugnant. The people who live nearby must also be affected by the constant harrying.

The problem I see is that there is no clear line between what is a legitimate protest and what is antagonizing and oppressive behavior. One person may think its legitimate but often the receiver thinks is discrimination and denying their rights. That's why I say its a battle of mindsets. the same view is found in gender ideology and how some governments have legislated language laws such as gender pronouns or outlawed what is perceived to be hate speech.

Its assumed that a person quietly praying is doing so to offend when they have no access to the persons thoughts. They could be counting street lights or reciting a poem to themselves. But its the unspoken assumption that the person is trying to oppress others rights that is being used to shut down certain views without any real evidence.

We use to know the line to be crossed with protests and it was based on physically crossing that line and being violent towards others. Now its an ambiguous line based on perceived states of mind of those who hold opposing views not because they have something legitimate to say but because its assumed they have evil intentions and only want to deny and oppress others.

We use to accept counter views in the market place, this was how we gained new insights and understanding. But now it seems certain views are being shut down because they conflict with the ideology of those being pretested against.

 

[Larniavc]

It's assumed that a person quietly praying is doing so to offend

This is incorrect. It's to intimidate.

 

[stevevw]

This is incorrect. It's to intimidate.

Yes intimidate and offend. But its the assumption that the person wants to intimidate when they don't know that. But that is where modern society is at. We have divided society up into identity groups and and are making all these laws and regulations about how we should behave, speak and now think towards each other. Its very divisive.

 

[Whyayeman]

I don't think you've actually read the PSPO in question because it does SPECIFICALLY outlaw prayer. It's therefore not disingenuous at all to suggest that this forms at least part of the infringement.

That is not a correct reading. The Order is more nuanced than that. Here is the wording of the Order as it relates to prayer: This includes but is not limited to graphic, verbal or written means, prayer or counselling. I understand that to mean something visible to the eye; gestures or handouts. We have no evidence of either.

There is nothing to indicate that the woman was actually praying. She said 'I may have been praying.' We haven't even got her word for it. That is why I believe that there is something disingenuous about the whole thing, along with the unacknowledged supporter(s) who took the film to put on Facebook.
'

 

[Darren Court]

That is not a correct reading. The Order is more nuanced than that. Here is the wording of the Order as it relates to prayer: This includes but is not limited to graphic, verbal or written means, prayer or counselling. I understand that to mean something visible to the eye; gestures or handouts. We have no evidence of either.

There is nothing to indicate that the woman was actually praying. She said 'I may have been praying.' We haven't even got her word for it. That is why I believe that there is something disingenuous about the whole thing, along with the unacknowledged supporter(s) who took the film to put on Facebook.
'

What part of my response would be not correct!
.
This includes but is not limited to graphic, verbal or written means, prayer or counselling. In other words, "because it does SPECIFICALLY outlaw prayer." is absolutely 100% correct, because it does! It's true it only outlaws in relation to "this includes..." ie. actions that indicate approval or disapproval but my point was and is that prayer is specifically prohibited!

 

[Whyayeman]

my point was and is that prayer is specifically prohibited!

It is that comma which throws your assertion out. But have it your own way - for now. Let us see what the court makes of it next week.

Now, to address the assertion that she was praying. The video recording does not show that and the woman does not say she was praying. She said she may have been. Clearly, she was asked to leave and declined. She was then taken into custody and formally arrested for that refusal. Then released. Or do people think she is still behind bars?

If I can I will give as full a report of the trial as I can so that the forum does not have to rely on the tendentious reporting of the case so far.

 

[Darren Court]

It is that comma which throws your assertion out. But have it your own way - for now. Let us see what the court makes of it next week.

Now, to address the assertion that she was praying. The video recording does not show that and the woman does not say she was praying. She said she may have been. Clearly, she was asked to leave and declined. She was then taken into custody and formally arrested for that refusal. Then released. Or do people think she is still behind bars?

If I can I will give as full a report of the trial as I can so that the forum does not have to rely on the tendentious reporting of the case so far.

Your points here have strained to be pedantic and accurate, yet failed.
.
The PSPO specifically prohibits an aspect of prayer and you tried to say that my claim on this was wrong. I wasn't, but you were. The comma issue is just a way of avoiding that reality.
.
Furthermore, you are inaccurate in saying "Clearly, she was asked to leave and declined. " She was not asked to leave. She was asked to voluntarily accompany the police to the station to answer questions. She said if she had a choice then she declined, after which she was arrested.
.
If you are going to give a full report please ensure your report doesn't contain the inaccuracies shown in this thread!
.
Shalom aleichem

 

[Whyayeman]

Your points here have strained to be pedantic and accurate, yet failed.
.
The PSPO specifically prohibits an aspect of prayer and you tried to say that my claim on this was wrong. I wasn't, but you were. The comma issue is just a way of avoiding that reality.
.
Furthermore, you are inaccurate in saying "Clearly, she was asked to leave and declined. " She was not asked to leave. She was asked to voluntarily accompany the police to the station to answer questions. She said if she had a choice then she declined, after which she was arrested.
.
If you are going to give a full report please ensure your report doesn't contain the inaccuracies shown in this thread!
.
Shalom aleichem

The business of the commas in the citation above is a case of very bad writing. There are actually three commas and they are obfuscating. The sentence is open to my interpretation. I wasn't trying to be pedantic, honest. I know that the pressure group dedicated to preventing legal abortions in the UK will have their interpretation. I insist on mine. There is no law against prayer here. I have already indicated that the bad law which has allowed this mess should be repealed. It is, I think, a direct descendent of ASBOs; they made it possible for the police to act in the same way to people who were misbehaving but not breaking specific laws when the police were present - always reacting to local complaints, as here.

As for the point about be asked to go voluntarily with the police - I concede. It is a side issue in my opinion. Whether she was breaking the PSPO will be tried next week. I am relying on local reports. It is likely to be reported on BBC Midland News 6.30pm (local time). The Birmingham Post will almost certainly carry it on 3rd February.

Abortion is well accepted in this country now. There is of course religious objection, mainly from Catholics. My view is that religious objections are fine. So are demonstrations. Intimidation of clients and staff of abortion clinics is not.

 

[Darren Court]

The business of the commas in the citation above is a case of very bad writing. There are actually three commas and they are obfuscating. The sentence is open to my interpretation. I wasn't trying to be pedantic, honest. I know that the pressure group dedicated to preventing legal abortions in the UK will have their interpretation. I insist on mine. There is no law against prayer here. I have already indicated that the bad law which has allowed this mess should be repealed. It is, I think, a direct descendent of ASBOs; they made it possible for the police to act in the same way to people who were misbehaving but not breaking specific laws when the police were present - always reacting to local complaints, as here.

As for the point about be asked to go voluntarily with the police - I concede. It is a side issue in my opinion. Whether she was breaking the PSPO will be tried next week. I am relying on local reports. It is likely to be reported on BBC Midland News 6.30pm (local time). The Birmingham Post will almost certainly carry it on 3rd February.

Abortion is well accepted in this country now. There is of course religious objection, mainly from Catholics. My view is that religious objections are fine. So are demonstrations. Intimidation of clients and staff of abortion clinics is not.

Thank you for feeling the need to share your opinion about my "bad writing" and the use of commas. If it weren't for your poor use of commas and other grammatical errors, it might have more value, but either way the commas I used are grammatically correct even if you don't like them. Commas and grammar itself weren't the point and although you won't concede it, my point was and is still correct. Prayer is specifically prohibited in the PSPO, no matter how hard you divert or disagree.

 

[Whyayeman]

Thank you for feeling the need to share your opinion about my "bad writing" and the use of commas.

Not yours, but the wording of the explanation of the PSPO by Birmingham City Council! Sorry not to have been clearer.

Here is the extract from the document. I was referring to this:

THE ACTIVITIES
The Activities prohibited by the Order are:
i Protesting, namely engaging in any act of approval or disapproval or attempted act of
approval or disapproval, with respect to issues related to abortion services, by any means.
This includes but is not limited to graphic, verbal or written means, prayer or counselling

Commas are generally considered bad practice in English legal documents. I don't think the intention of the italicised part is clear - and it is the part about prayer. This is what divides us - interpretation of that sentence.

There is absolutely nothing wrong with your writing. I am not in any doubt about your meaning.

 

[Whyayeman]

Calls to end years of anti-abortion protests outside Birmingham Robert Clinic​

That is the clinic. This has been going on for years and the locals have got fed up. They have a right to live unmolested.

Neighbours say years of protests in their street have left residents feeling "miserable and helpless" and service users in tears. Complaints have been made about "pro-life" campaigners handing out graphic leaflets, chanting and blocking access to women using the Robert Clinic.

The protests have led to verbal and, on occasion, physical confrontations, with West Midlands Police recording an increase in anti-social behaviour in the area. Neighbours have also complained about upsetting leaflets being pushed through doors, including one promoting abortion reversal procedures, which is widely considered to be an unproven and potentially dangerous form of treatment by UK health officials.

Calls to end years of anti-abortion protests outside city clinic

Complaints have been made about "pro-life" campaigners handing out graphic leaflets, chanting and blocking access to women using the facility

www.birminghammail.co.uk

 

[Darren Court]

Calls to end years of anti-abortion protests outside Birmingham Robert Clinic​

View attachment 327175

That is the clinic. This has been going on for years and the locals have got fed up. They have a right to live unmolested.

Neighbours say years of protests in their street have left residents feeling "miserable and helpless" and service users in tears. Complaints have been made about "pro-life" campaigners handing out graphic leaflets, chanting and blocking access to women using the Robert Clinic.

The protests have led to verbal and, on occasion, physical confrontations, with West Midlands Police recording an increase in anti-social behaviour in the area. Neighbours have also complained about upsetting leaflets being pushed through doors, including one promoting abortion reversal procedures, which is widely considered to be an unproven and potentially dangerous form of treatment by UK health officials.

Calls to end years of anti-abortion protests outside city clinic

Complaints have been made about "pro-life" campaigners handing out graphic leaflets, chanting and blocking access to women using the facility

www.birminghammail.co.uk

Absolutely and frankly astonishing.
.
I am fully in support of pro-life and anti-abortion but protests have to be smart, considerate and wise. The over enthusiasm of some protestors (not just here but in many places around the world) forced authorities to take action to protect those going to the clinics and those in the local area. You could say the protestors abused their right of free speech to invade the rights of those who don't want to listen.
.
The consequence had to be loss of rights to protest and free speech but the problem is that the authorities have been pretty stupid in how they did it. In trying to appease their local communities they made a legal mess, and that's where we are.
.

 

[Whyayeman]

Absolutely and frankly astonishing.
.
I am fully in support of pro-life and anti-abortion but protests have to be smart, considerate and wise. The over enthusiasm of some protestors (not just here but in many places around the world) forced authorities to take action to protect those going to the clinics and those in the local area. You could say the protestors abused their right of free speech to invade the rights of those who don't want to listen.
.
The consequence had to be loss of rights to protest and free speech but the problem is that the authorities have been pretty stupid in how they did it. In trying to appease their local communities they made a legal mess, and that's where we are.
.

Yes, the law supporting PSPOs erodes the freedom to protest - a basic liberty in a democracy - without actually being very effective. We are on opposite sides over abortion; happily we are in agreement over this.

I will give the truest account of the court case I can next week. (I have family living not far from Station Road. I must have driven past the place many times when we lived in another suburb of Birmingham.)

 

[Ligurian]

Sadly, in the UK the police believe that praying silently in your head constitutes a breach to PSPO laws to protest or indicate approval or disapproval.

It's either the biggest mistake West Midlands Police have made in years else a sign of prosecution to come.

The question is whether the Christian community is going to do anything about it? Will you?

WATCH: NEW footage of police arresting woman for silently praying

Birmingham charity volunteer arrested and searched – including through her hair – after silently praying in a censorship zone

adf.uk

CrimeThink, George Orwell, 1984...

The Thought Police wouldn't have known about it, if she hadn't admitted it... or would they?

Was she guilty of FaceCrime, as well?

 

[Whyayeman]

The Thought Police wouldn't have known about it, if she hadn't admitted it... or would they?

1. What do you think she was accused of?

2. What did she admit?

 

[Ligurian]

1. What do you think she was accused of?

2. What did she admit?

From the OP link:

"She said she “might” be praying inside her own mind. She was searched, interrogated at a police station, arrested, and charged with breaking the PSPO by silently praying inside her mind."

 

[Whyayeman]

From the OP link:

"She said she “might” be praying inside her own mind. She was searched, interrogated at a police station, arrested, and charged with breaking the PSPO by silently praying inside her mind."

She said: 'I may have been praying.'

She was asked to go to the police station and refused. She was arrested for the refusal. Nobody has accused her of praying because that is not against the law. She has been accused of a breech of the PSPO requiring her not to loiter outside the Robert Clinic. She has been through this process several times over a long period. She is in fact a serial breaker of the PSPO and well known to the police.

There has been a concerted effort to distort this case, to bend it to the agenda of the group who have spent years harassing staff and clients of the Robert Clinic, the people who live on Station Road and pedestrians including schoolgirls leaving the school just round the corner. This last has not been widely reported; I heard about the children only yesterday - from one of them, as it happens.

 

[Aryeh Jay]

The Christians own book says they will be hated and persecuted, Matthew 24:9, Mark 13:13, Luke 21:17.

Don't complain if you are "fulfilling prophecy". No one is forcing her to be a Christian.

 

[Darren Court]

CrimeThink, George Orwell, 1984...

The Thought Police wouldn't have known about it, if she hadn't admitted it... or would they?

Was she guilty of FaceCrime, as well?

On the basis she was stood opposite an abortion clinic and is the leader of an anti-abortion clinic organisation, I think they would conclude she must have been thinking of abortion.... not least because she doesn't live locally and has no other reason to be there!

 

[Ligurian]

She said: 'I may have been praying.'

She was asked to go to the police station and refused. She was arrested for the refusal. Nobody has accused her of praying because that is not against the law. She has been accused of a breech of the PSPO requiring her not to loiter outside the Robert Clinic. She has been through this process several times over a long period. She is in fact a serial breaker of the PSPO and well known to the police.

There has been a concerted effort to distort this case, to bend it to the agenda of the group who have spent years harassing staff and clients of the Robert Clinic, the people who live on Station Road and pedestrians including schoolgirls leaving the school just round the corner. This last has not been widely reported; I heard about the children only yesterday - from one of them, as it happens.

...gotta admit I didn't watch the video... the cliff notes were enough for me.

What I always want to ask is... Why does a christian care if non-christians don't raise-up a batch of non-christian children?
Isn't that whole thing sorta like a christian persecution of non-christians?