Jump to content
Seriously No Politics ×

Arrested for praying


Recommended Posts

3 minutes ago, Stormin' Mormon said:

The issue (for those of us dismayed by the application of the law here) is that the thoughts in her head were criminalized.

This has been repeated as a fact on here without any objective evidence that her thoughts were criminalized. 

Link to comment
2 minutes ago, pogi said:

This has been repeated as a fact on here without any objective evidence that her thoughts were criminalized. 

EXACTLY.  But you can ignore all that if you think she got arrested for praying.  Cause, well, praying trumps the facts.

Link to comment
46 minutes ago, pogi said:

This has been repeated as a fact on here without any objective evidence that her thoughts were criminalized. 

Come on, stop presenting your opinion as fact.

She asserted to the police that she was in that specific spot because it was an abortion clinic. (Based on your opinion, it would seems the police had all the needed to arrest on suspicion, but they did not. Why didn't)

The police continued questioning and asked if she was protesting.

She said "No" (But if we accept your analysis, the police already had suspicion enough to arrest. Why did the police continue question)

The police continued questioning, and asked if she was praying.

She replied "might have in my head"

and what was the next question the police asked "once again I am asking you to voluntarily come to the station"

Based on context, I think it is safe to assume, she had already declined their invitation

She apparently declined a second time, and bob's your uncle, she is placed under arrest.

But, if her "background" and her presence in the restricted area is sufficient for suspicion of having committed a crime, AND if she had already refused their invitation....why did the police continue, and only place her under arrest AFTER the question and prayer AND after the second declining of their invitation.

 

It would be nice if you would stop making baseless claims, about an alternative point of view.

Link to comment
1 hour ago, california boy said:

EXACTLY.  But you can ignore all that if you think she got arrested for praying.  Cause, well, praying trumps the facts.

why are you making things up? 

The PSPO is published to the public, prayer is not prohibited; prayer about abortion is prohibited.

Link to comment
1 hour ago, california boy said:

EXACTLY.  But you can ignore all that if you think she got arrested for praying.  Cause, well, praying trumps the facts.

I'm not sure where you're getting this from? The issue is about silent protest, not praying. I (and I'm sure the others) would have the same issue if the person in question admitted to simply thinking negative thoughts about those seeking an abortion.

Link to comment
45 minutes ago, provoman said:

Come on, stop presenting your opinion as fact.

She asserted to the police that she was in that specific spot because it was an abortion clinic. (Based on your opinion, it would seems the police had all the needed to arrest on suspicion, but they did not. Why didn't)

The police continued questioning and asked if she was protesting.

She said "No" (But if we accept your analysis, the police already had suspicion enough to arrest. Why did the police continue question)

The police continued questioning, and asked if she was praying.

She replied "might have in my head"

and what was the next question the police asked "once again I am asking you to voluntarily come to the station"

Based on context, I think it is safe to assume, she had already declined their invitation

She apparently declined a second time, and bob's your uncle, she is placed under arrest.

 

 

It would be nice if you would stop making baseless claims, about an alternative point of view.

We have been over the dialogue a million times.  Saying the same thing again isn't going to make your personal, subjective interpretation of why she was arrested any more objective. 

I will repeat myself, 

Quote

This has been repeated as a fact on here without any objective evidence that her thoughts were criminalized.

That, is a fact.  Everything you state is speculative, subjective interpretation, and not objective in the least. 

The only thing objective we have is the dialogue between her and the police.  All inference beyond that  is entirely subjective.  There is nothing objective which states that her thoughts were criminalized or that she was arrested for her thoughts.  There simply is nothing objective there.  Your guess is no better then mine.  They are both subjective.  My purpose is to show that there are other reasonable interpretations of these events and that the police could have acted entirely lawfully without criminalizing thoughts.   That is how I interpret these events.  Seems perfectly reasonable to me.  Your interpretation is less charitable to the police - with no objective reason. 

Quote

But, if her "background" and her presence in the restricted area is sufficient for suspicion of having committed a crime, AND if she had already refused their invitation....why did the police continue, and only place her under arrest AFTER the question and prayer AND after the second declining of their invitation.

That is a matter of subjective interpretation, isn't it?  I am not the police.  Nothing objective here that I can see.  If you are basing your conclusions on speculation surrounding this question, then you are not basing it on anything objective.  

I have very good and reasonable answer to these questions, but I don't think you really care what I think.  My subjective interpretation is dismissed "alternative point of view" with "baseless claims".   While your subjective interpretation is upheld as "fact"? What makes your interpretation "fact" while my interpretation of the exact same event is "alternative baseless claims"?  We are both looking at the exact same evidence.   What makes your interpretation less subjective and more objective than mine and many other posters on this board?  What are we missing here?  

Edited by pogi
Link to comment
40 minutes ago, provoman said:

Come on, stop presenting your opinion as fact.

Until you can show me objectively (not based on your subjective mind-reading of the police) that she was arrested for her thoughts, then my comment remains factual.

The difference between your approach and mine is that I recognize my position as a personal subjective interpretation which seems more "reasonable" to me.  You posit your opinion as fact.  I would be much less aggressive against you if you simply acknowledged that your position is no more objective than mine.  Your interpretation is no less of a guess than mine.  Your conclusions are no less subjective than mine. You seem to know the mind of the police somehow.  I don't.  But I have reason to believe that they acted lawfully and rightfully under suspicion of staging a silent protest.  

Edited by pogi
Link to comment
1 hour ago, provoman said:

Based on your opinion, it would seems the police had all the needed to arrest on suspicion, but they did not. Why didn't)

Why arrest until they find out if there is more they should arrest her for?

Don’t you watch any police procedural? ;)  They always try to get the suspect to incriminate themselves as much as possible before lowering the boom because they will likely clam up and call for a lawyer.  I have no clue if this is true in real life, but I would expect so…especially given people would have picked it up from watching crime shows.  I am guessing an arrest will shock them into realizing they are in trouble and they will likely ask for a lawyer these days.

 In my opinion, her answer “I might have been praying” showed to the officers she had received legal advice and there was no point in questioning her further for information casually and they needed to do so in a more formal setting, where they may have had access to files and other info (such as when they showed her pictures of her standing there on other days and asked her what she was doing), so they first asked her to come down, but since she refused to do so, they compelled her to do so by arresting her (and her response of “if I have a choice, then no”  making it clear she wasn’t resisting by refusing  to go is confirming to me she had previous legal advice on how to respond).

Edited by Calm
Link to comment
18 hours ago, pogi said:
Quote

So . . . a thoughtcrime.  Vaughan-Spruce was arrested for a thoughtcrime.  Do you agree?

No, not at all.  Silent protest is an action, not a thought.

I hope you give this some further reconsideration.  

First, I ask that you consider the thought experiment I posed previously:

Quote

Vaughan-Spruce and another person are both standing in the same location (where Vaughan-Spruce was arrested), both doing nothing except standing there.  

By the reasoning of some folks here, Vaughan-Spruce could be arrested for violating the PSPO, whereas the other person could avoid arrest.  The difference?  The other person denied silently praying (while Vaughan-Spruce admits it).

In short, the difference between the two - despite them both engaging in the exact same conduct - is a matter of their respective thoughts.  The disparate treatment of the two under the law is due to Vaughan-Spruce having committed . . . a thoughtcrime.

How do you propose for the State to differentiate A) someone engaged in a "silent protest" by standing on a public street and nothing more from B) a person who is standing on a public street and nothing more and not engaging in a "silent protest?"

Second, construing the PSPO as broadly as your position requires is . . . scary.  Here are the guidelines for BSPOs:

Quote

The Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014 provides a broad legal framework within which PSPOs can be implemented.

Orders can be introduced in a specific public area where the local authority is satisfied on reasonable grounds that certain conditions have been met. The first test concerns the nature of the anti-social behaviour, requiring that:

• activities that have taken place have had a detrimental effect on the quality of life of those in the locality, or it is likely that activities will take place and that they will have a detrimental effect

• the effect or likely effect of these activities:
◦ is, or is likely to be, persistent or continuing in nature
◦ is, or is likely to be, unreasonable
◦ justifies the restrictions being imposed. 
...
As a minimum, each PSPO must set out:

• what the detrimental activities are
• what is being prohibited and/or required, including any exemptions
• the area covered
• the consequences for breach
• the period for which it has effect. 

misc-picture-abortion-bournemouth-buffer

I think your position is difficult to reconcile with the BSPO.  The first bulleted item describes "protesting" as "engaging in an act of approval/disapproval or attempted act of approval/disapproval, with respect to issues related to abortion services, by any means."

How is standing on a public street, and nothing more, violative of this provision?

How does standing on a public street, and nothing more, constitute "an act {or attempted act}" of "approval/disapproval" regarding "abortion services?"

Third, if and when the State can punish you for silence, for not engaging in action/conduct, for standing on a public street and nothing more, then we are all in trouble.

How do you distinguish between what apparently happened from DWB ("Driving While Black") or FWA ("Flying While Arab") (used a bit after 9/11)?

Fourth, not only are we seeing the State punishing a person because of her thoughts, this thread appears to have a fairly robust advocacy / defense / approval of the State's conduct.  And not from the State itself, but from onlookers who, for reasons I don't really understand, are pretty hostile toward Vaughan-Spruce, who did nothing more than stand on a public street.

Fifth, I am generally on board with reasonable "time, place, and manner" restrictions on speech.  See, e.g., here:

Quote

Time, place and manner restrictions are content-neutral limitations imposed by the government on expressive activity.

The BSPO is in the UK, not the US, so that's a difference.  Nevertheless, the BSPO is notably not content neutral.  To the contrary, it specifically prohibits conduct based on the content of the involved speech (an act of approval/disapproval or attempted act of approval/disapproval, with respect to issues related to abortion services, by any means").

Quote

Such restrictions come in many forms, such as

  • imposing limits on the noise level of speech,
  • capping the number of protesters who may occupy a given forum,
  • barring early-morning or late-evening demonstrations, and
  • restricting the size or placement of signs on government property.

I don't think we have such "reasonable" restrictions here.  Vaughan-Spruce was not arrested due to "noise level" (she wasn't saying anything.  She was not arrested due to too many people being present in the "forum" (she was standing alone or with a very small group).  She was (apparently) not arrested for being present on the public street in the "early-morning or late-evening," and she was just standing, not "demonstrating."  She was not arrested for having signage on government property (she had no signs at all).

Quote

Restrictions can survive First Amendment challenge under a 3-prong test

To survive First Amendment constitutional challenges, such restrictions must satisfy a three-prong test outlined by the Supreme Court in Ward v. Rock Against Racism (1989).

  1. The regulation must be content neutral.
  2. It must be narrowly tailored to serve a significant governmental interest.
  3. It must leave open ample alternative channels for communicating the speaker’s message.

Regarding the first prong, the BSPO is not content-neutral.  It is, instead, notably content-specific because it prohibits conduct based on the content of the involved speech (an act of approval/disapproval or attempted act of approval/disapproval, with respect to issues related to abortion services, by any means").

Regarding the second prong, the BSPO is anything but "narrowly tailored" (it prohibits all "acts" or "attempted acts" of "approval/disapproval" "by any means").  By your reckoning, protesting "by any means" necessarily includes having thoughts in your head that the State dislikes.  Regarding the second prong, the BSPO also does not, in my view, "serve a significant governmental interest."  What is the "interest" in prohibiting private citizens from speaking thoughts on an important social issue in a public space?

Regarding the third prong, the BSPO does not "leave open ample alternative channels for communicating the speaker's message."  If the message is intended to be communicated to people in the process of seeking abortion services, then content-specific prohibitions of all speech ("by any means") near abortion centers seems quite problematic.

Do you think the BSPO imposes reasonable "time, place, and manner" restrictions on speech in public spaces?  If so, could you explain your position on that point?

18 hours ago, pogi said:

She was arrested on suspicion of violating the PSPO because of her actions over a 4 day period,

This is you not conflating your opinion with "fact," is it?

In any event, her "actions" appear to have involved standing quietly on a public street, and nothing more.  This is, in your view, a "protest" that violates the BSPO?  How?

18 hours ago, pogi said:

which specifically targeted this abortion clinic

How is standing quietly on a public street a "protest" that "specifically" "targets" anything?

18 hours ago, pogi said:

where she has a history of protesting abortion,

She does?  Could you provide some evidence to substantiate that?  Consider this a CFR.

18 hours ago, pogi said:

and because it appeared to be a planned, and coordinated effort with multiple actors and with a media angle.  

"It" and "effort" here refer to Vaughan-Spruce standing quietly on a public street, and nothing more?

How does "planning" to do this inculpate Vaughan-Spruce?

18 hours ago, pogi said:

All of that is objective evidence that can be measured

The UK apparently differs from the US in that it allows more leeway for "propensity" evidence (see, e.g., here).

But even with such evidence, I find it difficult to square this with a violation of the BSPO given that all she did was stand quietly on a public street, and nothing more.

18 hours ago, pogi said:

that has nothing to do with her thoughts, which give them reasonable suspicion to arrest her for further investigation.  

Of course it has "to do with her thoughts."

She was grilled by the police about "her thoughts."  Her arrest was precipitated by the police officer asking if she had been praying (he had to ask, since she had not engaged in any conduct normally associated with praying).

The "reasonable suspicion" arose after she said she "might" have been praying "in {her} mind."  That she was then arrested sure seems indicative of the police officer acting based on what she had been thinking.

18 hours ago, pogi said:

All of that paints a picture that she was symbolically and quite literally standing-up against the clinic and had intentions of spreading her message on the internet.

If the State can criminalize standing quietly on a public street, and nothing more, by characterizing it as an impermissible "protest," then we are all in trouble.

If private citizens - without any prompting by or inducements from the State - publicly support and endorse such criminalization, then we are really in trouble.

18 hours ago, pogi said:

That she had something to say by standing there is not really in question.

Of course that is in question.  The whole point of the BSPO is to prohibit speech based on the content of the speech.

Vaughan-Spruce was standing quietly on a public street, and nothing more.  That the State construed this as a "protest" is kinda scary.  That otherwise good and intelligent people (like yourself) are on board with the State acting this way is also kinda scary. 

18 hours ago, pogi said:

What she was trying to say by standing there is the question.

Well, no.  I think the question is whether standing on a public street, and nothing more, constitutes a "protest" prohibited by the BSPO.

18 hours ago, pogi said:

That requires a judgment call.

In this instance, the "judgment call" included the police officer arresting her after she told him what she "might" have been doing in her mind (praying).

18 hours ago, pogi said:

No not-mind reading.

I submit that the police officer did not have "reasonable grounds" to arrest Vaughan-Spruce.  I think Vaughan-Spruce standing quietly on a public street, and nothing more, did not create "reasonable grounds" to arrest her, and that the police officer only did so after she tentatively admitted that she "might" be praying "in {her} mind."

18 hours ago, pogi said:

But judgment based on all contextual evidence.  

With respect, I do not think you are fairly or accurately reviewing the evidence.

18 hours ago, pogi said:

She was not arrested for what she was thinking,

This is you not conflating your opinion with "fact," is it?

She was standing quietly on a public street, and nothing more.  She gave no indication of approving or disapproving of "abortion services."  She was arrested a few seconds after telling the officer - in response to his question about whether she had been praying - that she "might" have been praying "in {her} mind."

You are excluding these things from "all contextual evidence."  You are ignoring them.  You are preemptively dismissing and discounting and refusing to account for them.

18 hours ago, pogi said:

but for what she was reasonably suspected of saying through her actions. 

Um, what?  How is her "saying {something} through her actions" grounded in "reasonable suspicion" when her "actions" consisted of standing quietly on a public street, and nothing more?

How is it that you can determine that her "thoughts" were not part of the "reasonable grounds" for the police to arrest her when she offered her thoughts mere seconds before the police arrested her?

18 hours ago, pogi said:
Quote

Do you have any concern about ceding power to the State to criminalize thought?

Yes.  

I am glad to hear that.  But it does leave me confused as to your posture in this thread, which seems to be robustly in favor of the State's arrest of Vaughan-Spruce mere seconds after she verbalized the "thought" of praying "in {her} mind" (and she didn't even mention what she might have been praying about).

18 hours ago, pogi said:

But sometimes law-breakers don't always verbalize their thoughts and intentions.  

First, law-abiders also "don't always verbalize their thoughts and intentions."  

Second, basic civil liberties are encroached upon when we cede power to the State to penalize thought (which, I think, is becoming increasingly evident as having happened here).

18 hours ago, pogi said:

Police are frequently placed in the position of having to make judgment calls based on the context of the situation and evidence on hand.  

Yes.  But the deprivation of an individual's liberty is a pretty heavy-handed thing to do.  It is a deprivation (albeit usually of temporary duration) of one of our most fundamental civil liberties.

Vaughan-Spruce was arrested for standing quietly on a public street, and nothing more.  

Alternatively, Vaughan-Spruce was arrested for an exceedingly mild instance of nonviolent civil disobedience.

She was not violent, nor threatening violence.  She was not disturbing the peace.  She was not urinating or defecating on the sidewalk.  She was not damaging or defacing property.  She was not obstructing traffic or pedestrians.  She was either A) doing nothing but standing quietly on a public street, and nothing more, or B) "protesting" by standing quietly on a public street, and nothing more (which, candidly, only works in a "thoughtcrime" kind of way).

And you are . . . on board with this?  With the State arresting her under the auspices of the BSPO?

18 hours ago, pogi said:

Often times, cases boil down to suspected motive of actions/behavior.

Actually, most criminal cases "boil down to" the conduct.  Here, Vaughan-Spruce's "conduct" amounted to standing quietly on a public street, and nothing more.

In your view, this "conduct" constitutes a "protest." Standing quietly on a public street, and nothing more, is a criminal act.  I find that exceedingly problematic and troubling.

18 hours ago, pogi said:

The suspect doesn't have to verbalize their motive to be arrested, or even jailed.

Quite true.  

18 hours ago, pogi said:

It is an imperfect system, but these judgments have to be made because people are not always honest and forthright.  

When the "system" involves giving the State the power to use force to deprive a citizen of a fundamental right where she was only standing quietly on a public street, and nothing more (or, much worse, where she was standing quietly on a public street and praying in her mind), then I think the system needs to change.

18 hours ago, pogi said:

Those judgments are not based on what they are thinking,

This is you not conflating your opinion with "fact," is it?

You keep saying this, I think, to justify evading uncomfortable issues. 

She was arrested mere seconds after verbalizing, under direct questioning of police, her "thoughts," yet you keep insisting that her thoughts had nothing to do with the arrest.

She was arrested despite her "conduct" consisting solely and entirely of . . . standing quietly on a public street, and nothing more.

Alternatively, she was arrested because her "conduct" consisted of standing quietly on a public street, and nothing more except praying in her mind.

I think both are pretty troubling.

18 hours ago, pogi said:

but are based on objective evidence and context.  

Pogi, you are avoiding important portions of the "evidence and context."

18 hours ago, pogi said:

Laws should never be created around our thoughts, but around our actions.

Well, not quite.  Laws contemplate both a "guilty act" (actus reus) and a "guilty mind" (mens rea).

Here, we have a woman standing quietly on a public street, and nothing more (or standing on a public street while praying in her mind)

18 hours ago, pogi said:

Silent protest is an action, not a thought.  There was more than enough reason to suspect the act of silent protest.  

Only if "silent protest" = "standing quietly on a public street, and nothing more."

And if the State can criminalize that by labeling it a "protest," and then proceed to arrest a person for it, then we are in trouble.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited by smac97
Link to comment
1 hour ago, smac97 said:

I hope you give this some further reconsideration.  

First, I ask that you consider the thought experiment I posed previously:

How do you propose for the State to differentiate A) someone engaged in a "silent protest" by standing on a public street and nothing more from B) a person who is standing on a public street and nothing more and not engaging in a "silent protest?"

Second, construing the PSPO as broadly as your position requires is . . . scary.  Here are the guidelines for BSPOs:

I think your position is difficult to reconcile with the BSPO.  The first bulleted item describes "protesting" as "engaging in an act of approval/disapproval or attempted act of approval/disapproval, with respect to issues related to abortion services, by any means."

How is standing on a public street, and nothing more, violative of this provision?

How does standing on a public street, and nothing more, constitute "an act {or attempted act}" of "approval/disapproval" regarding "abortion services?"

Third, if and when the State can punish you for silence, for not engaging in action/conduct, for standing on a public street and nothing more, then we are all in trouble.

How do you distinguish between what apparently happened from DWB ("Driving While Black") or FWA ("Flying While Arab") (used a bit after 9/11)?

Fourth, not only are we seeing the State punishing a person because of her thoughts, this thread appears to have a fairly robust advocacy / defense / approval of the State's conduct.  And not from the State itself, but from onlookers who, for reasons I don't really understand, are pretty hostile toward Vaughan-Spruce, who did nothing more than stand on a public street.

Fifth, I am generally on board with reasonable "time, place, and manner" restrictions on speech.  See, e.g., here:

The BSPO is in the UK, not the US, so that's a difference.  Nevertheless, the BSPO is notably not content neutral.  To the contrary, it specifically prohibits conduct based on the content of the involved speech (an act of approval/disapproval or attempted act of approval/disapproval, with respect to issues related to abortion services, by any means").

I don't think we have such "reasonable" restrictions here.  Vaughan-Spruce was not arrested due to "noise level" (she wasn't saying anything.  She was not arrested due to too many people being present in the "forum" (she was standing alone or with a very small group).  She was (apparently) not arrested for being present on the public street in the "early-morning or late-evening," and she was just standing, not "demonstrating."  She was not arrested for having signage on government property (she had no signs at all).

Regarding the first prong, the BSPO is not content-neutral.  It is, instead, notably content-specific because it prohibits conduct based on the content of the involved speech (an act of approval/disapproval or attempted act of approval/disapproval, with respect to issues related to abortion services, by any means").

Regarding the second prong, the BSPO is anything but "narrowly tailored" (it prohibits all "acts" or "attempted acts" of "approval/disapproval" "by any means").  By your reckoning, protesting "by any means" necessarily includes having thoughts in your head that the State dislikes.  Regarding the second prong, the BSPO also does not, in my view, "serve a significant governmental interest."  What is the "interest" in prohibiting private citizens from speaking thoughts on an important social issue in a public space?

Regarding the third prong, the BSPO does not "leave open ample alternative channels for communicating the speaker's message."  If the message is intended to be communicated to people in the process of seeking abortion services, then content-specific prohibitions of all speech ("by any means") near abortion centers seems quite problematic.

Do you think the BSPO imposes reasonable "time, place, and manner" restrictions on speech in public spaces?  If so, could you explain your position on that point?

This is you not conflating your opinion with "fact," is it?

In any event, her "actions" appear to have involved standing quietly on a public street, and nothing more.  This is, in your view, a "protest" that violates the BSPO?  How?

How is standing quietly on a public street a "protest" that "specifically" "targets" anything?

She does?  Could you provide some evidence to substantiate that?  Consider this a CFR.

"It" and "effort" here refer to Vaughan-Spruce standing quietly on a public street, and nothing more?

How does "planning" to do this inculpate Vaughan-Spruce?

The UK apparently differs from the US in that it allows more leeway for "propensity" evidence (see, e.g., here).

But even with such evidence, I find it difficult to square this with a violation of the BSPO given that all she did was stand quietly on a public street, and nothing more.

Of course it has "to do with her thoughts."

She was grilled by the police about "her thoughts."  Her arrest was precipitated by the police officer asking if she had been praying (he had to ask, since she had not engaged in any conduct normally associated with praying).

The "reasonable suspicion" arose after she said she "might" have been praying "in {her} mind."  That she was then arrested sure seems indicative of the police officer acting based on what she had been thinking.

If the State can criminalize standing quietly on a public street, and nothing more, by characterizing it as an impermissible "protest," then we are all in trouble.

If private citizens - without any prompting by or inducements from the State - publicly support and endorse such criminalization, then we are really in trouble.

Of course that is in question.  The whole point of the BSPO is to prohibit speech based on the content of the speech.

Vaughan-Spruce was standing quietly on a public street, and nothing more.  That the State construed this as a "protest" is kinda scary.  That otherwise good and intelligent people (like yourself) are on board with the State acting this way is also kinda scary. 

Well, no.  I think the question is whether standing on a public street, and nothing more, constitutes a "protest" prohibited by the BSPO.

In this instance, the "judgment call" included the police officer arresting her after she told him what she "might" have been doing in her mind (praying).

I submit that the police officer did not have "reasonable grounds" to arrest Vaughan-Spruce.  I think Vaughan-Spruce standing quietly on a public street, and nothing more, did not create "reasonable grounds" to arrest her, and that the police officer only did so after she tentatively admitted that she "might" be praying "in {her} mind."

With respect, I do not think you are fairly or accurately reviewing the evidence.

This is you not conflating your opinion with "fact," is it?

She was standing quietly on a public street, and nothing more.  She gave no indication of approving or disapproving of "abortion services."  She was arrested a few seconds after telling the officer - in response to his question about whether she had been praying - that she "might" have been praying "in {her} mind."

You are excluding these things from "all contextual evidence."  You are ignoring them.  You are preemptively dismissing and discounting and refusing to account for them.

Um, what?  How is her "saying {something} through her actions" grounded in "reasonable suspicion" when her "actions" consisted of standing quietly on a public street, and nothing more?

How is it that you can determine that her "thoughts" were not part of the "reasonable grounds" for the police to arrest her when she offered her thoughts mere seconds before the police arrested her?

I am glad to hear that.  But it does leave me confused as to your posture in this thread, which seems to be robustly in favor of the State's arrest of Vaughan-Spruce mere seconds after she verbalized the "thought" of praying "in {her} mind" (and she didn't even mention what she might have been praying about).

First, law-abiders also "don't always verbalize their thoughts and intentions."  

Second, basic civil liberties are encroached upon when we cede power to the State to penalize thought (which, I think, is becoming increasingly evident as having happened here).

Yes.  But the deprivation of an individual's liberty is a pretty heavy-handed thing to do.  It is a deprivation (albeit usually of temporary duration) of one of our most fundamental civil liberties.

Vaughan-Spruce was arrested for standing quietly on a public street, and nothing more.  

Alternatively, Vaughan-Spruce was arrested for an exceedingly mild instance of nonviolent civil disobedience.

She was not violent, nor threatening violence.  She was not disturbing the peace.  She was not urinating or defecating on the sidewalk.  She was damaging or defacing property.  She was not obstructing traffic or pedestrians.  She was either A) doing nothing but standing quietly on a public street, and nothing more, or B) "protesting" by standing quietly on a public street, and nothing more (which, candidly, only works in a "thoughtcrime" kind of way).

And you are . . . on board with this?  With the State arresting her under the auspices of the BSPO?

Actually, most criminal cases "boil down to" the conduct.  Here, Vaughan-Spruce's "conduct" amounted to standing quietly on a public street, and nothing more.

In your view, this "conduct" constitutes a "protest." Standing quietly on a public street, and nothing more, is a criminal act.  I find that exceedingly problematic and troubling.

Quite true.  

When the "system" involves giving the State the power to use force to deprive a citizen of a fundamental right where she was only standing quietly on a public street, and nothing more (or, much worse, where she was standing quietly on a public street and praying in her mind), then I think the system needs to change.

This is you not conflating your opinion with "fact," is it?

You keep saying this, I think, to justify evading uncomfortable issues. 

She was arrested mere seconds after verbalizing, under direct questioning of police, her "thoughts," yet you keep insisting that her thoughts had nothing to do with the arrest.

She was arrested despite her "conduct" consisting solely and entirely of . . . standing quietly on a public street, and nothing more.

Alternatively, she was arrested because her "conduct" consisted of standing quietly on a public street, and nothing more except praying in her mind.

I think both are pretty troubling.

Pogi, you are avoiding important portions of the "evidence and context."

Well, not quite.  Laws contemplate both a "guilty act" (actus reus) and a "guilty mind" (mens rea).

Here, we have a woman standing quietly on a public street, and nothing more (or standing on a public street while praying in her mind)

Only if "silent protest" = "standing quietly on a public street, and nothing more."

And if the State can criminalize that by labeling it a "protest," and then proceed to arrest a person for it, then we are in trouble.

Thanks,

-Smac

Your consistent and repetitive "and nothing more" mantra simply doesn't fit the evidence.  There is good reason to believe that there was something more to her standing there.  Coordinating with other pro-life organizations with a camera suggests something more .  Her being there for 4 days with no apparent plans of stopping until she was arrested is suggestive of something more.  Her history of protest against this clinic is evidence of something more.   Her role as a pro-life activist suggests something more.  

Silent protest is not equivalent to standing there "and nothing more".   I have supplied plenty of good reason to suspect silent protest and not just standing there "and nothing more", which has nothing to do with her thoughts.  

Quote

This is you not conflating your opinion with "fact," is it?

No, not at all.  The video clearly states that she was arrested for suspicion of violating the order.  That is a fact.  The officers also stated that they wanted to question her further about her actions there over the 4 day period. That is also a fact.  No conflation of opinion with fact here. 

Edited by pogi
Link to comment
2 hours ago, Vanguard said:

I'm not sure where you're getting this from? The issue is about silent protest, not praying. I (and I'm sure the others) would have the same issue if the person in question admitted to simply thinking negative thoughts about those seeking an abortion.

There, we finally got this.  This  case has nothing to do with prayer.  Yet, did you read the title to this thread?  Have you read all her fund raising and religious outcry that the woman was arrested for prayer? Have you heard her cries to the press that she got arrested for praying?

The issue indeed is about silent protesting and whether any kind of protesting is allowed in an area that has been designated as a not protest area.  Whether silent protest is allowed will be something left up to the courts and the facts as they have unfolded on this case.  All things will be considered, including her past aggressive actions towards the clinic.

Link to comment
8 minutes ago, california boy said:

There, we finally got this.  This  case has nothing to do with prayer.  Yet, did you read the title to this thread?  Have you read all her fund raising and religious outcry that the woman was arrested for prayer? Have you heard her cries to the press that she got arrested for praying?

The issue indeed is about silent protesting and whether any kind of protesting is allowed in an area that has been designated as a not protest area.  Whether silent protest is allowed will be something left up to the courts and the facts as they have unfolded on this case.  All things will be considered, including her past aggressive actions towards the clinic.

Silent prayer falls under the larger silent protest umbrella. That she decries being prevented from silently praying is her particular take on the much larger issue of being able to think what one wants, where one wants to. Now, if she is found to have a history of participating in these supposed myriad examples of frequent, egregious harrassment (where are the videos of these excesses by the way?!) then I will concede the merits of taking her down to the station for questioning. I'm not holding my breathe though...

Link to comment
22 minutes ago, pogi said:

Your consistent and repetitive "and nothing more" mantra simply doesn't fit the evidence. 

Are you sure?

22 minutes ago, pogi said:

There is good reason to believe that there was something more to her standing there. 

Then what was it?  What conduct did she engage in other than quietly standing on a public street?

22 minutes ago, pogi said:

Coordinating with other pro-life organizations with a camera suggests something more .  

What is that "more?"

22 minutes ago, pogi said:

Here being there for 4 days with no apparent plans of stopping until she was arrested is suggestive of something more

This is you not conflating "opinion" with "fact," is it?

Again, what conduct did she engage in other than standing quietly on a public street?

22 minutes ago, pogi said:

Her history of protest against this clinic is evidence of something more.   Her role as a pro-life activist suggests something more.  

You are only proving my point.  

I'm quite willing to concede that the "something more" was "praying in her mind."  Is that what you mean?

22 minutes ago, pogi said:

Silent protest is not equivalent to standing there "and nothing more". 

"Silent protest" is a conclusion of law, not a statement of fact.  This is a really important point that non-lawyers often do not fully grasp.  You are focusing on labels and conclusions of law rather than on the facts and her conduct.

Her conduct consisted of standing quietly on a public street, and nothing more.  As pertaining to her conduct, she was not violent, nor threatening violence.  She was not disturbing the peace.  She was not urinating or defecating on the sidewalk.  She was not damaging or defacing property.  She was not obstructing traffic or pedestrians. 

The only way you can get to "something more" in her conduct is to include the prayer in her mind as "conduct," which thought she vaguely verbalized to the police officer immediately prior to her arrest, and which you keep insisting were not part of the "reasonable grounds" for her arrest.

22 minutes ago, pogi said:

I have supplied plenty of good reason to suspect silent protest and not just standing there "and nothing more", which has nothing to do with her thoughts.  

Pogi, I sense that I have backed you into a corner, and that you are now speaking more defensively than rationally.

Let's take a step back.  Are you really saying that the State can treat quietly standing on a public street and nothing more as a "protest?"  Is that well and truly your position?

What if Vaughan-Spruces silence was intended to comply with the BSPO, rather than violate it?  How would you propose that the State tell the difference between silence as "protest" versus silence as "compliance with the law?"

22 minutes ago, pogi said:
Quote

This is you not conflating your opinion with "fact," is it?

No, not at all. 

Sure seems like it, but okay.

22 minutes ago, pogi said:

The video clearly states that she was arrested for suspicion of violating the order. 

Well, of course the police officer is going to say that.  Do you really think he'd bust out "thoughtcrime" terminology from 1984?

What is it that she did that may violated the BSPO?  She stood quietly on a public street, and nothing more.

Again, she was not violent, nor threatening violence. 

She was not disturbing the peace. 

She was not urinating or defecating on the sidewalk. 

She was not damaging or defacing property. 

She was not obstructing traffic or pedestrians. 

She was not "interfering" or "attempting to interfere" with anyone, either "verbally or physically." 

She was not "intimidating or harassing" anyone, or attempting to do so (unless, of course, you construe doing nothing more than quietly standing on a public street as "intimidation" or "harassment").

She was not "recording or photographing" anyone.

She was not "displaying text or images" to anyone.

She was not playing "amplified music, voice or audio recordings."

She was not "holding vigils where members audibly pray."

She was not "holding vigils where members ... recite scripture."

She was not "holding vigils where members ... genuflect."

She was not "holding vigils where members ... sprinkle holy water."

She was not "holding vigils where members ... cross themselves if they perceive a services-user passing by."

She was not visibly or audibly "praying our counselling."

All of these things are either A) prohibited under other laws (violence, public urination/defecation, etc.), or B) prohibited under the BSPO.

Vaughan-Spruce did none of these things.  She stood quietly on a public street, and nothing more.  

Here are the questions I posed which you did not address (no obligation (except for the CFR), but I thought compiling them might be helpful) :

  • How do you propose for the State to differentiate A) someone engaged in a "silent protest" by standing on a public street and nothing more from B) a person who is standing on a public street and nothing more and not engaging in a "silent protest?"
  • How is standing on a public street, and nothing more, violative of {the BSPO}?  How does standing on a public street, and nothing more, constitute "an act {or attempted act}" of "approval/disapproval" regarding "abortion services?"
  • How do you distinguish between what apparently happened {to Vaughan-Spruce} from DWB ("Driving While Black") or FWA ("Flying While Arab") (used a bit after 9/11)?
  • Do you think the BSPO imposes reasonable "time, place, and manner" restrictions on speech in public spaces?  If so, could you explain your position on that point?
  • Her "actions" appear to have involved standing quietly on a public street, and nothing more.  This is, in your view, a "protest" that violates the BSPO?  How?
  • How is standing quietly on a public street a "protest" that "specifically" "targets" anything?
  • Could you provide some evidence to substantiate that {she has a history of protesting abortion}Consider this a CFR.
  • How does "planning" to do this {stand quietly on a public street} inculpate Vaughan-Spruce?
  • How is her "saying {something} through her actions" grounded in "reasonable suspicion" when her "actions" consisted of standing quietly on a public street, and nothing more?
  • How is it that you can determine that her "thoughts" were not part of the "reasonable grounds" for the police to arrest her when she offered her thoughts mere seconds before the police arrested her?

Thanks,

-Smac

Link to comment
8 minutes ago, Vanguard said:

Now, if she is found to have a history of participating in these supposed myriad examples of frequent, egregious harrassment

She ran one of the organizations that did these things, how is she not responsible for what people under her guidance do time after time as a group?

Edited by Calm
Link to comment
2 minutes ago, Calm said:

She ran one of the organizations that did these things, how is she not responsible for what people under her guidance do time after time as a group?

If this is true could you remind me again where this can be found? I'm referring to examples of where she coordinated and/or participated in the more eggregious examples of harrassment/shaming similar to the letter you provided several days ago of a nearby neighbor complaining about what had happened to the neighborhood as a result of the protests. 

Link to comment
55 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Well, of course the police officer is going to say that.  Do you really think he'd bust out "thoughtcrime" terminology from 1984?

You are right, we shouldn't judge the police based on their words and actions, but we should judge them based on their thoughts, and what we think they are really thinking.  It is all a deception by the police - they'll never admit to it though.  They will NEVER say what they are REALLY doing and thinking, but we know their true thoughts and will judge them guilty of thoughtcrime and publicly humiliate them and create all sorts of suspicion about them because of their thoughts.  Forget about what they actually say and focus on their thoughts!

How ironic this all is! 

The fact that speech and protest can be manifested in more than just words, but can be symbolic statements seems to be beyond your comprehension.  Try meditating on it some. Look up some examples in history.  

Edited by pogi
Link to comment
34 minutes ago, Vanguard said:

If this is true could you remind me again where this can be found? I'm referring to examples of where she coordinated and/or participated in the more eggregious examples of harrassment/shaming similar to the letter you provided several days ago of a nearby neighbor complaining about what had happened to the neighborhood as a result of the protests. 

She was in charge of the 40 Days for Life group, it is after her name in lots of articles…I put up quotes, you can do a search on “Days” in this topic to find them and it might work, it should but it is hit and miss even if I know a word is used.  I linked to a bio iircthat described her participating herself in many of the events.  She is quite devoted.
 

The 40 Days group is described in various places, including in some of the quotes as chanting and loudly saying prayers in the neighborhoods, holding prayer vigils and following women to their cars and then banging on windows (though the last isn’t said that much, so she might be unaware of that).  And they do the 80 days a year (Catholic organization, does it at Lent and I can’t remember the other time) plus hold smaller gatherings the rest of the year.
 

The complaints are consistent enough and line up with how the group describes its work on its own website; the more extreme behaviour does not sound like it was the exception, but is the norm.  Do you need something more precise because I really don’t want to do the work again?

Edited by Calm
Link to comment

Here’s one website…

https://www.40daysforlife.com/en/2015/09/27/birmingham-england

135 people in that small neighbourhood….sheesh

Quote

Birmingham is now conducting its ninth 40 Days for Life campaign. ?We had a record turnout for the kick-off,? said Isabel, the local coordinator, ?with 135 people. It was great to see lots of new faces.?

Edited:  maybe not same neighborhood, thank goodness, though if that many turned up for the smaller clinic, I think they would count it a victory too.  There is another clinic, Maria Stropes, in the city and that sign indicates the kick off was there and not Robert’s Clinic.  I understood it has only had the 40 day protests a few times at Robert’s so far (iirc it was described as recently started and residents referred to having suffered for 80 days a year).

Edited by Calm
Link to comment

Tribal allegiance?  What tribe(s) and which posters or at least which behaviours are smug and lacking of critical thinking.  It isn’t fair to throw out vague accusations and not identify behaviour needing to be changed.

It comes across as rather smug.

Edited by Calm
Link to comment

Found this from the antiabortion side.  Looks like they did try to challenge during legality of the law, but might have been outside the 6 week limit….which is strange if so.  I need to check again if it was closer to the end of Sept than I remember when it went into effect.

And if they did and failed, it makes it even clearer that this is a legal challenge to me in hopes of drawing enough attention to it to get the laws changed.

https://premierchristian.news/us/news/article/legal-action-brought-against-birmingham-city-council-over-prayer-ban-outside-abortion-clinic

In reading the antiabortion material, they present it imo almost as if they are on a roll of taking down abortion.  The oldest abortion clinic closed and is Vaughan-Spruce is telling the truth (which I have my doubts about given her less than stellar honesty in presenting the story to the press vs what she is saying to the police), those working at the clinic were supportive of their work as well as asking for their help in finding new jobs.

However, the info about the PSPO provided by the government sounded like there was a thorough treatment as they had over 600 surveys from the community iirc.  She was upset they weren’t contacted till the end almost, but they don’t live in the area, so why would they be consulted?  I can see consulting tourists or people who use their businesses, but if the main purpose to visit the Kings Norton community is to hold prayer vigils and they don’t also flood the shops and there had been previous conversations between them and the police about agreements about demonstrations (as was listed iirc in the PSPO material), there is little reason for the community leaders to consult those they see as intruders…assuming that is an accurate representation of the dialogue.

Here’s another article, though the Christian Legal Centre is unsurprisingly portraying them as the victims rather than the aggressors…though I think 3 hours or more a day of prayers for 40 days twice a year being spoken loud enough to be heard inside homes is aggressive in much the same way playing rock music for 3 hours straight every day would be.  It would drive me insane.  I have had to close up my windows one summer because of a neighbour who did that and .I didn’t mind a lot of the music, it was the constant presence of it that was intrusive.

https://www.christianpost.com/news/pro-life-group-sues-uk-city-over-abortion-clinic-buffer-zone.html

Quote

Despite the order, protests have resumed near the abortion clinic on the edge of the buffer zone. Some local residents have called for the order to be extended beyond its current borders, claiming 40 Days for Life protests in their neighborhood have led to heated arguments and prompted police to be called. 

 

Edited by Calm
Link to comment

Forgot to add the above link says they have been doing the 40 Days thing since January 2020…so at the very least many residents having to listen to someone praying outside their homes so far 240 days in 3 years…ugh.

Link to comment

This is a brief description of the prayer vigils:

https://goodcounselnet.co.uk/prayer-vigils
 

Quote

A vigil is a prayerful presence near abortion clinics. While one designated person offers help to women coming for an abortion, all the others attending remain in constant prayer for the women, their children, the abortuary staff and the other people involved in her decision.

Their statement of peace does not forbid them from following women to and from their cars as long as they don’t touch the women or obstruct their ways (could be used to defending banging on windows) and it also allows pictures to be taken if registrations and individuals.  They agree to cooperate with local authorities.

https://goodcounselnet.co.uk/statement-of-peace

Edited by Calm
Link to comment
4 hours ago, california boy said:

There, we finally got this.  This  case has nothing to do with prayer.  Yet, did you read the title to this thread?  Have you read all her fund raising and religious outcry that the woman was arrested for prayer? Have you heard her cries to the press that she got arrested for praying?

The issue indeed is about silent protesting and whether any kind of protesting is allowed in an area that has been designated as a not protest area.  Whether silent protest is allowed will be something left up to the courts and the facts as they have unfolded on this case.  All things will be considered, including her past aggressive actions towards the clinic.

It is not a blanket "no protest area"

It is not a blanket "no prayer area"

Link to comment

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...