Arrested for praying

[rodheadlee]

1 hour ago, pogi said:

Do you go in no protest zones with a history of violence etc. over a period of 4 days with a camera-man on standby to record when the police show up with only having the intent to “pray”, and with no  other ulterior motives?

Watch the video Scott provided. Can there honestly be any doubt that this was an organized public protest in a no-protest zone?  1) We have the video from 4 years ago speaking about an organized “campaign” to protest these things that she is a part of; 2) we have the pro-life organization camera man there to record the whole thing; 3) We have the upload of the video online with accompanying protest; 4) she is the director of the UK Match for Life.  

Person, history, place, camera man, uploaded video, organized on-line protest.  No question whatsoever what this really was.

This was an act of activism plain and simple - and prayer was simply being used as a tool and reduced to filthy chum, or stink bait.

Smoke and mirrors people, smoke and mirrors!  Prayer is being defiled in this way.  She never admitted that she was even praying to be honest.  We have no evidence or confession that she was praying, but we have bountiful evidence of an organized protest and public activism in a no-protest zone.  Pretty straight forward to me.

In the video, she says “if I was praying…”. In teddyaware’s link it says this:

When officers showed her security footage of her standing outside the clinic on three separate occasions, she said it was impossible to know if she was praying at those moments. She could just as easily have been thinking about something else

 

If she is not making this about prayer to the police, why is it being made about prayer to the public - seems rather deceptive.    Perhaps we should not make this about something we have no evidence for and make it more about the clear and present evidence of protest/activism.

Ok. She is protesting a law that is a thought crime. I'm down with that. 

PS the 2 people that downvoted my hijab comment are not being honest with themselves 

[LoudmouthMormon]

16 hours ago, CA Steve said:

What's amazing is people who defend breaking the law.

Does praying make law breaking okay?

So, the law doesn't just criminalize speech, it criminalizes thought?

Yeah, what could possibly go wrong with laws like that.

[Calm]

1 hour ago, Vanguard said:

And this is one of the areas I'm getting hung up on. No one should have any problem with you being suspicious of another who is 'hanging around' - that shouldn't even be one of the questions. It should be something like - the police have followed up on your concern and found the individual to be doing nothing that runs afoul of any law. Why do you still think you have cause?

Is the question to posters here or what you would ask someone who made a complaint?

In my not a legal expert at all opinion, her choice to create a Schrödinger’s cat scenario (yeah, I know it doesn’t apply, but it is likely the closest I will ever get to a justified use of the label) of ‘maybe I was praying, maybe I wasn’t’ forced the police to arrest her due to the new law while making it very difficult to prosecute the actual violation of the new law. 

It’s a clever tactic, she draws attention to the new law and promotes the view that it is ridiculous; she gets to make herself out to be a victim by pushing the “I was just praying silently” narrative with the press while making it pretty impossible to prosecute her for praying by refusing to confirm she was praying with the police. 

Like I said before, she is trying to have her cake and eat it too. 

Edited December 24, 2022 by Calm

[Vanguard]

6 minutes ago, Calm said:

She certainly is not attempting to fight for the right to pray where she wants when she won’t even commit to actually praying, but only that she might have been, both in the encounter outside the clinic and later interrogation.

I think she is fighting for the right to be thinking whatever it is she wants to think (including the experience of conducting private prayer) without law enforcement arresting her for it. 

[Stormin' Mormon]

41 minutes ago, Calm said:

Someone who actually cares enough to do research, bravo. I was wondering if anyone defending her would even bother.

 The clinic being closed makes it explicit she couldn’t have been there to help anyone personally (in the interview posted she talks about women coming to talk to her and that appears to be one of her reasons to oppose the new laws that were being explored at the time as the government held hearings among other things I expect; one result was the limited expansion of the restricted space to solely 150 meters from the clinics as public feedback showed that was all that was needed to prevent harassment).

That the clinic was closed for all three times indicates to me she was there to make a point about the restricted space, not there to pray over any souls or potential souls in the building, since there were none (as I listed in my evidence list in response to Scott’s claim of lack of evidence).  It is a good PR move, which is why I think of it as evidence she consulted legal advice to fine tune her protest to attack the restricted space law.

The fact that the  clinic was closed actually swings me in the opposite direction that it swings you. 

Firstly, it indicates that nobody was there to be harassed, so there was even less of a reason for the police to confront her.

Secondly, at least for LDS believers, we believe that prayers said in a building can bless people who visit at a later date or weren't anywhere nearby when the prayer was offered. Isn't that what we do with temple and home dedications? 

Praying outside of an empty abortion clinic has all the same spiritual benefits of praying outside an open one, but SHOULD have none of the confrontational controversy.

Edited December 24, 2022 by Stormin' Mormon

[Calm]

2 minutes ago, LoudmouthMormon said:

So, the law doesn't just criminalize speech, it criminalizes thought?

Yeah, what could possibly go wrong with laws like that.

From what I have read of the law, this is a weak point. I haven’t seen any language differentiating between silent prayer and public prayer.  Maybe someone familiar with UK law can find the full text of the law and see if I am right. 

If so, this could be useful in making it clear what the law is intended to deal with is appearance of behaviour that creates fear and it doesn’t matter what the internal process is at the time. Iow, physical hanging out at an abortion clinic for an extended period multiple times is logically seen as suspicious behaviour no matter what the person is thinking because it is the presence of the person others respond to, not their unspoken thoughts.   The law should focus on no loitering as well as no protests, imo. 
 

No one would blame a parent or teacher for calling the cops on someone hanging out at schools or playgrounds watching kids without an apparent reason for being there or the cops for telling the person to move out if they didn’t have a requirement to be there.  An abortion clinic is a high risk target, so neighbours being suspicious and careful is smart, so why shouldn’t it be the same…if the person doesn’t need to be there, they should move along if requested by cops. (Not saying this is applicable in this case as I haven’t come across any suggestions of warnings being given, just responding to a previous comment about the police letting someone be after checking them out, I think the wiser course is to make it a no loitering zone as well because of the risk factor).

[Vanguard]

Just now, Calm said:

It’s a clever tactic, she draws attention to the new law and promotes the view that it is ridiculous; she gets to make herself out to be a victim by pushing the “I was just praying silently” narrative with the press while making it pretty impossible to prosecute her for praying by refusing to confirm she was praying with the police. 

But isn't that exactly some times what people must do in order to bring attention to what they believe to be unjust? To bring attention to something that could indeed become a slippery slope before it gets even further out of hand? You reduce this effort (my inference) to 'clever tactic' as though it was almost conniving whereas I see it (yes, my position is crystalizing!) as an effort to protect what should be an inalienable right to think what she wants where and when she wants.

[Vanguard]

3 minutes ago, Calm said:

I think the wiser course is to make it a no loitering zone as well because of the risk factor).

Bingo. If there were a law prohibiting loitering, I would not be making an argument. If the area outside the abortion clinic were simply a no protest zone, however, then I think concerned citizens do not have cause to have this lady arrested.

[Calm]

1 hour ago, Stormin' Mormon said:

 

Praying outside of an empty abortion clinic has all the same spiritual benefits of praying outside an open one, but SHOULD have none of the confrontational controversy.

If the only issue surrounding abortion clinics was confrontation, I would agree with you that praying after hours shouldn’t be an issue, but break-ins and bombs are on the list of high risks. 
 

As for her, if she had admitted to the police to praying, I would be more inclined to see her as sincere, not just there to create both a legal challenge (which qualifies her act as a protest) and a more or less separate PR moment, but her ‘I neither deny nor confirm I was praying’ with the cops shifts it firmly into the legal maneuvering arena while her ‘I was just silently praying’ to the media makes it a PR attempt, a likely highly successful one. Bet her legal fees fundraiser is through the roof by now. 

Edited December 24, 2022 by Calm

[Stormin' Mormon]

1 minute ago, Calm said:

If the only issue surrounding abortion clinics was confrontation, I would agree with you that praying after hours shouldn’t be an issue, but break-ins and bombs are on the list of high risks. 
 

As for her, if she had admitted to praying, I would be more inclined to see her as sincere, not just there to create a legal challenge (which qualifies her act as a protest) and PR moment, but her ‘I neither deny nor confirm I was praying’ with the cops shifts it firmly into the legal maneuvering arena while her ‘I was just silently praying’ to the media makes it a PR attempt, a likely highly successful one. Bet her legal fees fundraiser is through the roof by now. 

That brings up an interesting wrinkle. If praying outside a clinic is illegal, the only way to prosecute it would be through self-incrimination. Which then brings in a new load of 5th amendment issues along with the 1st amendment issues it's already laden with (ignoring, of course, that this particular situation occured outside the jurisdiction of the US constitution.)

[LoudmouthMormon]

11 hours ago, The Nehor said:

Who are the brownshirts here? Seriously….who?

11 hours ago, The Nehor said:

Also DEATH TO FASCISTS!

um

 

[pogi]

42 minutes ago, Vanguard said:

And this is one of the areas I'm getting hung up on. No one should have any problem with you being suspicious of another who is 'hanging around' - that shouldn't even be one of the questions. It should be something like - the police have followed up on your concern and found the individual to be doing nothing that runs afoul of any law. Why do you still think you have cause?

Activism and protest is illegal in that zone.  Is there any doubt that is what the purpose of this group - she clearly was not acting alone.  It was an organized illegal protest.

[Stormin' Mormon]

8 minutes ago, Vanguard said:

Bingo. If there were a law prohibiting loitering, I would not be making an argument. If the area outside the abortion clinic were simply a no protest zone, however, then I think concerned citizens do not have cause to have this lady arrested.

My position exactly. 

I understand the sensitivity surrounding abortion clinics. So, make it illegal to hang around outside of them. Don't make it legal for some to do so, but illegal for others, based only on who thinks what about abortion.

[Vanguard]

6 minutes ago, Calm said:

As for her, if she had admitted to praying, I would be more inclined to see her as sincere, not just there to create a legal challenge (which qualifies her act as a protest) and PR moment, but her ‘I neither deny nor confirm I was praying’ with the cops shifts it firmly into the legal maneuvering arena while her ‘I was just silently praying’ to the media makes it a PR attempt, a likely highly successful one. Bet her legal fees fundraiser is through the roof by now.

But again, that she didn't admit to 'behind the eyeballs' praying should be wholly irrelevant. Should we really be concerned about whether a person actually tells law enforcement what they're thinking when their behavior isn't demonstrably a protest? Good grief. And I do agree that she was there to create a legal challenge about what protest behavior should actually mean.

[Calm]

7 minutes ago, Vanguard said:

But isn't that exactly some times what people must do in order to bring attention to what they believe to be unjust? To bring attention to something that could indeed become a slippery slope before it gets even further out of hand? You reduce this effort (my inference) to 'clever tactic' as though it was almost conniving whereas I see it (yes, my position is crystalizing!) as an effort to protect what should be an inalienable right to think what she wants where and when she wants.

If she was consistent in her presentation, choosing “yes, I was praying” or “nope, just standing here thinking deep thoughts” or even if she just presented the same narrative of “maybe I was, maybe I wasn’t’ to the media as the cops, I would be less cynical about her reasons***. Her having it both ways, the most beneficial for her in both the legal arena for limiting the possibility of going to jail (since her lawyer can argue the police cannot prove she was actually praying) and the most beneficial for fundraising (few things will draw more sympathy from the religious I am guessing than not being allowed to even pray) is what is making me think of this as more a gimmick than a sincere woman fighting for a cause at great risk to herself. 

As the law now stands…or at least as far as I have seen the law explained by various sites, it does appear to me to need clarifying and I would have admired someone who actually took a stand to force a clarification while risking jail time. 
 

***She categorically states to the press she was praying and it was praying that got her arrested:

Quote

It’s abhorrently wrong that I was searched, arrested, interrogated by police and charged simply for praying in the privacy of my own mind.

https://aleteia.org/2022/12/24/uk-woman-arrested-for-silent-prayer-outside-english-abortion-clinic/

[Calm]

34 minutes ago, Vanguard said:

But again, that she didn't admit to 'behind the eyeballs' praying should be wholly irrelevant. Should we really be concerned about whether a person actually tells law enforcement what they're thinking when their behavior isn't demonstrably a protest? Good grief. And I do agree that she was there to create a legal challenge about what protest behavior should actually mean.

You are focusing solely on the legal challenge. If that was the only thing involved, I would agree. But she and her colleagues are pushing a different narrative to the press. I am addressing her global behaviour, not just her behaviour outside the clinic. 
 

I have got to quit. House to finish cleaning, waffle batter to make, presents to wrap and more for the next 5 hours. 
 

Hopefully I am making my point clear.  One more time just in case I haven’t.  I think she is a hypocrite for being two faced, the victim face of “I was only praying” to the press to garner sympathy and money and the likely very low risk of going to jail move of  ‘I was doing no wrong, you can’t charge me for standing here thinking as I stated for the record I wasn’t protesting and you can’t prove I was praying’ with the cops.
 

 If she had thrown “yes, I was praying, where are the handcuffs” into the face of the cops, I would have applauded (even if I believe there should be a no loitering zone around abortion and other medical clinics for privacy reasons, but especially abortion clinics for safety reasons) and if she had told the press “look, this is a legal maneuver to show how stupid the law is”, I would be agreeing with her (because from what I have seen it is goes either too far by limiting thoughts or not far enough by not banning loitering).  But the latter doesn’t make her out to be a victim, but  instead a smart protestor and will no doubt draw less sympathy and donations. 

Edited December 24, 2022 by Calm

[pogi]

57 minutes ago, rodheadlee said:

Ok. She is protesting a law that is a thought crime. I'm down with that. 

PS the 2 people that downvoted my hijab comment are not being honest with themselves 

So, you admit that she was defiling prayer as political bait?  You’re down with that - reducing it to political chum and stink bait?   You agree that she was breaking the law for protesting in an no-protest zone and not for praying?

Anyone who thinks that a person standing outside an abortion clinic for multiple days after hours wearing a hijab would not have been reported by security is not being honest with themselves.  

You continue to spin this about prayer/religion even after acknowledging that was just a guise for ulterior illegal motives. 

She was lying to authorities about not being there to protest - are you down with that too?

There certainly is dishonesty, deceit and illegal activity happening here, and it is happening in the name of prayer - that is something I can’t get “down with”.  Sorry.

Edited December 24, 2022 by pogi

[Vanguard]

7 minutes ago, pogi said:

Activism and protest is illegal in that zone.  Is there any doubt that is what the purpose of this group - she clearly was not acting alone.  It was an organized illegal protest.

But she wasn't actively protesting anything. She was just silently standing there. Your argument hangs too heavily on - "But Vanguard, she was 'protest thinking' (through silent prayer) those entering the abortion clinic and we can't have personal, silent, not- beknown-to-the-public-eye thoughts like that!" If the video crew were outside of the zone (which certainly is not illegal) and if they started videoing in response to the LEOs questioning and then ultimately carting her off then I say the crew's presence takes on an even more important role. 

[Vanguard]

10 minutes ago, Calm said:

But she and her colleagues are pushing a different narrative to the press. I am addressing her global behaviour, not just her behaviour outside the clinic.

And how is this "pushing [of] a different narrative to the press" relevant to her being arrested?

[pogi]

5 minutes ago, Vanguard said:

And how is this "pushing [of] a different narrative to the press" relevant to her being arrested?

Because it is proof of an organized protest in an illegal zone.

She was arrested under “suspicion”.  Her behavior and camera man passes as “suspicious” of illegal protest to me.

Edited December 24, 2022 by pogi

[Calm]

10 minutes ago, Vanguard said:

And how is this "pushing [of] a different narrative to the press" relevant to her being arrested?

It is not, it is very relevant to getting sympathy and donations though.
 

That is my problem with her. She is playing two games at once, it is hypocritical to play the victim of religious oppression to the press while refusing to commit to actually being religious to the police (essentially ‘I can neither confirm nor deny I was praying’).

Edited:  but also what Pogi said…while the press game does not affect her arrest, it does add to the evidence her being there was a planned protest even though she denied it was a protest…if anyone needs more evidence than her colleagues just happening to be there even when the clinic was closed to catch her arrest on camera. 

Edited December 24, 2022 by Calm

[Vanguard]

2 minutes ago, Calm said:

It is not, it is very relevant to getting sympathy and donations though.
 

That is my problem with her. She is playing two games at once, it is hypocritical to play the victim of religious oppression to the press while refusing to commit to actually being religious to the police (essentially ‘I can neither confirm nor deny I was praying’).

I'm down with that. I don't particularly have an issue with it but I can respect this position.

But has your position changed? You seem to now have more of an issue with this woman's after-the-fact posturing than you do with the fact that she was arrested for only standing. If her efforts to get the UK legislature to reconsider some of their laws worked, I say more power to her.

Edited December 24, 2022 by Vanguard

[Calm]

If she was just there praying with no other intent (to protest), someone needs to explain why the other(s) who filmed her arrest were also there. Remember the clinic was closed and they were not arrested for protesting or anything else.  They weren’t just strangers attracted by the uniforms. They were her colleagues.

Edited December 24, 2022 by Calm

[Calm]

3 minutes ago, Vanguard said:

I'm down with that. I don't particularly have an issue with it but I can respect this position.

Thank you. My work is done.  

[Vanguard]

8 minutes ago, pogi said:

Because it is proof of an organized protest in an illegal zone.

She was arrested under “suspicion”.  Her behavior and camera man passes as “suspicious” of illegal protest to me.

She wasn't protesting. She was standing. She was standing and was unlawfully arrested for protesting - the arresting LEO already made it a protest for her. She is protesting after-the-fact what should be an unlawful arrest which is the sole recourse for an innocent citizen up against the strong arm of the law. Now, you seem to want to take that away too. In other words, "you can't protest - even in your mind - by an abortion clinic and now you can't protest that the LEO did something he shouldn't have done". Wow. That's a pretty low bar for illegally protesting. : (