Thought Police in The UK??

Buckeye said:
And I guess I didn't type slow enough. :p Tell me what I did not understand about your position about the arrest of the man who was offering up a silent prayer for his son. I think it's pretty clear, and you posted it, and now you own it.

Again, your "arse", which is apparently talking for you
Click to expand...
Weren't you the one that asked that my post be deleted, which was completely inoffensive, saying "Are we kindergartners?" because you found it offensive? It was meant to be funny and add some humor to the argument. To refresh your memory, this was after some crass person no longer in the forum was arguing with other posters and calling names.

I find your snarky responses to other posters in this forum equally offensive. Should I ask that they be deleted? Time for some introspection. Don't take yourself so seriously.

And as for input, I agree that there was good reason for the arrest and @Magna-Carta was on the correct side of the argument. BTW, don't think I will bother answering whatever response you come up with, so try to find something to report me for again. :ROFLMAO:
 

Last edited:
Well, now that that's settled, I'm not surprised at the number of folks who gladly give away a right to practice their religion in a most private manner so that someone is not distressed. I've checked our Constitution here (still waiting on our canadian experts on our Constitution to weigh in) and nowhere are we given the right to not be distressed at what someone else believes. We are given the right to free speech, lawful assembly, and protest, along with others. And I don't want to give up a single one of them, even if it makes you distressed or uncomfortable. Currently, there's a little town in Indiana dealing with this:

Here's a link to the article the following was extracted from:
Carbondale IN

One of the cases the Supreme Court is being asked to consider originates out of Carbondale, a college town in southern Illinois that has become a critical access point for abortion care for residents in the South and the Midwest. At least a dozen states across those regions have greatly restricted or banned the procedure.

Since the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade, three abortion clinics have opened in Carbondale.

Those arrivals also drew abortion opponents. Even if protesters aren’t aggressive, their presence can be stigmatizing or uncomfortable for patients, said Jennifer Pepper, president and CEO of Choices Center for Reproductive Health.

In this case, it isn't about silent prayer, it is the right to demonstrate. SCOTUS will have to decide which is more important - our 1st amendment rights or the right to not be uncomfortable. But so far SCOTUS has tried to stay out of it.

As an aside, here in the US, abortions are a huge $$$ business, so it isn't surprising that the CEO of "Choices Center for Reporductive Health" would not want anything to interfere with her business operations..
 
Last edited:
Packerjohn said:
In Canada, they are working hard trying to make a law where it is a crime to say anything good about residential school for First Nations Children. Many people here will be "beat" into silence. Too bad because difference of opinion does matter in a democracy.
Click to expand...
Bill C143 is to criminalize the wilful promotion of hate against First Nations people via denying or condoning the (atrocity of ) residential schools that stole children from their parents and many times ending in the hidden deaths of the children they stole, not to mention the horrible abuses those children suffered in those schools. I find it difficult to understand why anyone would have a problem with laws preventing hate speech that has the intention or potential to promote violence against specific groups. It's being added to the same law as Holocaust denialism.

Push to criminalize residential school denialism in Canada: ‘Difference between free speech and inciting hate’ | Watch News Videos Online

I doubt anyone is going to 'beat' you into silence, but there will be repercussions for any who engage in that kind of hate speech.
 

seadoug said:
Weren't you the one that asked that my post be deleted, which was completely inoffensive, saying "Are we kindergartners?" because you found that offensive. It was meant to be funny. This was after some crass person no longer in the forum was arguing with other posters and calling names.

I find your snarky responses to other posters in this forum equally offensive. Should I ask that they be deleted? Time for some introspection.
Click to expand...
Sorry dude, but I have no idea what you're talking about. Please refresh my memory. Did you have a post get deleted? In this thread or some other thread? When?

And I do play hardball. If you find that "snarky", I can live with that.

eta - it looks like you've made no contributions/posts to this thread other than the one quoted, which is a personal attack on me. But I can live with that, too.
 
Last edited:
Buckeye said:
My link in the OP has a link to a video of the arrest. No mention of a barricade, or others in prayer. How does a silent Prayer "seek to force their beliefs on others"?

I send up silent prayers all the time. When I drive by a broken down car on the highway, I thank God for keeping me on my way, and ask God to help those folks in need. When I see a homeless person shuffle along the street, I thank God for keeping a roof over my head and to help that person in need. I never pray out loud. So, if I'm in the UK, within the magic 150 meter zone, and I wish to thank God for the sunshine, and my own health and good fortune, I can be arrested and fined an unlimited amount, and that's okay?

I don't think our US courts, today, would allow this, but who knows.
Click to expand...
But your prayers aren't located in an area chosen to specifically influence a person who is engaging in a legally protected action, to not proceed with their own decision. You aren't praying and preventing a homeless person from accessing his tent so that you can force him to go out and find a job.....and your praying as you go by an accident scene isn't an effort to prevent that victim from doing anything he chooses.

Whereas the guy praying in front of a woman's clinic is there for one specific reason, to make that already hurting or frightened woman decide not to go ahead with what she and her doctor have decided is necessary in her life circumstance. He was trying to embarrass or frighten her into not following through on her decision about her body.
 
Debrah N. said:
But your prayers aren't located in an area chosen to specifically influence a person who is engaging in a legally protected action, to not proceed with their own decision. You aren't praying and preventing a homeless person from accessing his tent so that you can force him to go out and find a job.....and your praying as you go by an accident scene isn't an effort to prevent that victim from doing anything he chooses.

Whereas the guy praying in front of a woman's clinic is there for one specific reason, to make that already hurting or frightened woman decide not to go ahead with what she and her doctor have decided is necessary in her life circumstance. He was trying to embarrass or frighten her into not following through on her decision about her body.
Click to expand...
You are making a lot of assumptions that seem iffy to me. The person who was arrested made it clear, when asked, why he was praying, he told them. He was NOT trying to embarrass or frighten anyone. Seems to me he was setting up a test case to dispute the law in courts, or at least that's what we would call it here.
 
Debrah N. said:
But your prayers aren't located in an area chosen to specifically influence a person who is engaging in a legally protected action, to not proceed with their own decision. You aren't praying and preventing a homeless person from accessing his tent so that you can force him to go out and find a job.....and your praying as you go by an accident scene isn't an effort to prevent that victim from doing anything he chooses.

Whereas the guy praying in front of a woman's clinic is there for one specific reason, to make that already hurting or frightened woman decide not to go ahead with what she and her doctor have decided is necessary in her life circumstance. He was trying to embarrass or frighten her into not following through on her decision about her body.
Click to expand...

What kept crossing my mind, is why would someone repeatedly travel from one city to another, during the month when the Public Space Protection Order (PSPO) was put in place at the BPAS clinic in Bournemouth, to pray for his aborted child. Was it truly about his aborted child of 20 years ago. Or in reality a silent protest regarding the nature of the clinic. Or I wonder if it could have been his way of challenging the concept of the PSPO.

What someone says of a situation vs his actual reason isn't always the same. I think only the man in question knows what he was really trying to do, or to provoke.
 
Magna-Carta said:
What kept crossing my mind, is why would someone repeatedly travel from one city to another, during the month when the Public Space Protection Order (PSPO) was put in place at the BPAS clinic in Bournemouth, to pray for his aborted child. Was it truly about his aborted child of 20 years ago. Or in reality a silent protest regarding the nature of the clinic. Or I wonder if it could have been his way of challenging the concept of the PSPO.

What someone says of a situation vs his actual reason isn't always the same. I think only the man in question knows what he was really trying to do, or to provoke.
Click to expand...
Damn! You finally got it! Congrats.
 
Buckeye said:
Damn! You finally got it! Congrats.
Click to expand...
Please enlighten us all with what you think I might have got. Me listing a number of possibilities doesn't necessarily mean I assume one of those possibilities is specifically the correct one.

Do some believe he was using the memory of his aborted child to challenge the PSPO, which might be contrary to what he said in court as to his reason for being there.

What a way to use the memory of an aborted child. Seems in reality to be a disregard for his child, and for the people at the clinic.
 
Last edited:
Naturally said:
If reasonable, the same can be said of those kneeling at the playing of the national anthem.
They should be arrested, fined and placed on probation for attempting to force their beliefs onto others?
Click to expand...
No that isnt the same.
Those people are not being somewhere they are not supposed to be, using kneeling as an excuse to be somewhere suppossed to be clear of people.
 
Buckeye said:
There was no indication that more than 1 person was praying, and there was no indication that there was any sort of barricade, or any other obstruction that would cause anyone to have a problem getting into the clinic. None. Just one man wanting to pray for his aborted son.
Click to expand...

If he wanted to pray for his son he could do that anywhere.

And of course rules apply to everyone - whether 1 person or 20 people. If an area is to be kept clear, it is to be kept clear.
Or 1 person being allowed would lead to 20 people being allowed to form a silent prayer barricade. Exactly the sort of thing the rule is designed to prevent.

Which I'm sure was his intention- to test the waters himself so others could follow suit.
 
January said:
No that isnt the same.
Those people are not being somewhere they are not supposed to be, using kneeling as an excuse to be somewhere suppossed to be clear of people.
Click to expand...
And therein lies the rub. Protesters, even if they dare to silently pray, have the first amendment right to gather and protest on public property. Or at least we used to. And as far as "barricades", that is a different issue. In the States, Protesters can't block access, but they still have the right to protest on public property. If it's 1 or 2 or 20 of 200, as long as they are not blocking access, and stay on public property they are where they ARE "supposed to be".

Again, I'm not on either side of the abortion debate. This is 1st amendment right for Americans.
 
Buckeye said:
And therein lies the rub. Protesters, even if they dare to silently pray, have the first amendment right to gather and protest on public property. Or at least we used to. And as far as "barricades", that is a different issue. In the States, Protesters can't block access, but they still have the right to protest on public property. If it's 1 or 2 or 20 of 200, as long as they are not blocking access, and stay on public property they are where they ARE "supposed to be".

Again, I'm not on either side of the abortion debate. This is 1st amendment right for Americans.
Click to expand...


this happened in UK - US first amendment rights dont apply
 
Buckeye said:
There was no indication that more than 1 person was praying, and there was no indication that there was any sort of barricade, or any other obstruction that would cause anyone to have a problem getting into the clinic. None. Just one man wanting to pray for his aborted son.
Click to expand...
How did he know it was a son?
 
Pepper said:
How did he know it was a son?
Click to expand...
I gather it is common these days to determine the sex of the unborn child. Blood tests are available at the end of the first trimester and ultrasound at ~20 weeks are also used. Having said that, it really is immaterial.
 
Oh well, all rights are balanced against the rights of others.

People attending a clinic have the right to do so without being hassled, including by the presence of people 'silently praying'

If his objective is really prayer he can do that somewhere else.

Otherwise he is just trying to find a loophole to justify his presence somewhere he should not be.
 
January said:
Oh well, all rights are balanced against the rights of others.

People attending a clinic have the right to do so without being hassled, including by the presence of people 'silently praying'

If his objective is really prayer he can do that somewhere else.

Otherwise he is just trying to find a loophole to justify his presence somewhere he should not be.
Click to expand...
Again, can't speak for London, but in the US, the right to gather and protest is in the First Amendment, the other "right" is just your opinion. Why would you feel "hassled" by the presence of someone "silently praying"? I would thank them for their prayers.

And for what I hope is the last time, he WAS where he should be allowed to be, and was apparently intending to challenge the law that said he couldn't be their to silently pray.
 

You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top