Jump to content
Seriously No Politics ×

Thought Crime - part deux


Recommended Posts

A person in the UK fined for prayer about his deceased son in a "safe zone"

 

One article claims his son died due to abortion.

I however did not hear him mention abortion in the video. The police appear to believe he is committing a crime simply for praying.

Text of the PSPO from the bcpcouncil website

https://www.bcpcouncil.gov.uk/Communities/PSPOs/Ophir-Road-and-surrounding-area-Public-Spaces-Protection-Order.aspx

Edited by provoman
Link to comment

https://www.scottishlegal.com/articles/england-man-fined-for-silent-prayer-outside-abortion-facility-in-bournemouth
 

Quote

Adam Smith-Connor stood still and silent on the public street for a few minutes before being approached by “community safety accredited officers”.

He had his back to the clinic in order to be mindful of the privacy of staff and attendees of the abortion facility. Video footage shows the council officers asking what he was doing. Mr Smith-Connor informed them that he was “praying for my son, who is deceased”.…

Mr Smith-Connor has now been issued a fine on the basis of the PSPO. The council stated in their email that the fine is based on his statement that he had been “praying for his son, who is deceased”.…

Jeremiah Igunnubole, legal counsel for ADF UK, said: “Nobody should be criminalised for what they believe – especially not when they express that belief silently, in the privacy of their own minds. Just like in the case of Isabel Vaughan-Spruce last month, Adam could now face prosecution for holding thoughts, and lifting those thoughts to God in prayer, within a censorship zone. The rapid proliferation of orders criminalising volunteers such as Adam and Isabel should be a wake up call to all those who value freedom of expression – even freedom of thought – no matter their views on abortion.”

Upon learning that Mr Smith-Connor had been praying for his late son, the council officer responded: “I’m sorry for your loss. But ultimately, I have to go along with the guidelines of the Public Space Protection Order, to say that we are in the belief that therefore you are in breach of clause 4a, which says about prayer, and also acts of disapproval…”. When Smith-Connor interjected, “I’m just standing praying,”, she again responded, “I do understand that. But the PSPO is in place for a reason and we have to follow through on those regulations.”

Mr Smith-Connor said: “Twenty-two years ago I drove my ex-girlfriend to a facility and paid for her to have an abortion. It was a pivotal moment in my life. The consequences of my actions that day came back to grieve me years later, when I realized I had lost my son Jacob to an abortion I had paid for. Recently, I stood outside a similar facility and prayed to God for my son Jacob, for other babies who have lost their lives to abortion, for their grieving families, and for abortion clinic staff.”

It appears it wasn’t just a random stop. He may be a known protestor since he is identified as a volunteer like  Vaughan-Spruce, therefore it is assumed any action in the buffer zone is a protest. Not saying it should be that way, just saying that it seems likely to be why he was approached quickly, etc. 

another:

https://www.dailysignal.com/2023/01/19/uk-army-veteran-fined-silent-prayer-abortion-facility-is-nature-your-prayer-today-cops-ask/?

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

https://www.scottishlegal.com/articles/england-man-fined-for-silent-prayer-outside-abortion-facility-in-bournemouth
 

It appears it wasn’t just a random stop. He may be a known protestor since he is identified as a volunteer like  Vaughan-Spruce, therefore it is assumed any action in the buffer zone is a protest. Not saying it should be that way, just saying that it seems likely to be why he was approached quickly, etc. 

another:

https://www.dailysignal.com/2023/01/19/uk-army-veteran-fined-silent-prayer-abortion-facility-is-nature-your-prayer-today-cops-ask/?

Entertaining the idea that being known protestor is sufficient to assume illegal protest; that would make existence a crime. (yes hyperbole) 

 

 

Link to comment
1 hour ago, sunstoned said:

There are lots of places to pray.  In your bedroom comes to mind.  You don't need to go search out a Woman's health clinic and stand out in front of it to pray.  That's not prayer, that's protest.

I can see it if it was the clinic the abortion took place in, otherwise it comes across as just a generic prayer against abortion, to soften people’s hearts and such, which there is nothing inherently wrong with and I don’t see as inherently protest, but if the guy happens to be a volunteer for 40 Days For Life or an affiliated protest organization, it would be hard for me to imagine he didn’t search out that particular clinic in order to test the law, put pressure on lawmakers to alter the laws so as to allow more protesting in those areas.

Depending on how prayers are done, they can be pretty easily understood as pressure or shaming tactics as well as protest.  When you insist on praying in a place you know prayer is forbidden and you go out if your way to get there (the guy lives in Southampton and the clinic is in Bournemouth, an hour from home), hard not to see it as a protest.

Link to comment
1 hour ago, sunstoned said:

There are lots of places to pray. 

Yes.  Including public spaces.

1 hour ago, sunstoned said:

In your bedroom comes to mind. 

We need not create an either/or situation here.  A person living in a 21st-century democratic nation ought to be able to silently prayer in his bedroom or in a public space.

1 hour ago, sunstoned said:

You don't need to go search out a Woman's health clinic and stand out in front of it to pray. 

I think it becomes a dangerous thing when we cede to the State power to decide when a person's religious observances are "needed" and when they are not.

1 hour ago, sunstoned said:

That's not prayer, that's protest.

And these days both are thoughtcrimes in the UK.

George Orwell intended 1984 as a cautionary tale, not a how-to manual for the State.

Thanks,

-Smac

Link to comment
8 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

George Orwell would roll his eyes at the inane comparison of this situation to what he was warning against. Just like I am.

An agent of the State to a private citizen: "What is the nature of your prayer?"

And when he responds that he is praying for his deceased son, he is told that the State deems his behavior violative of a "protection order" in a "safe zone."

Yeah, nothing Orwellian about that.  At all.

Personally, I would not be inclined to pray in this context.  "When thou prayest, enter into thy closet" and all that.  However, I would understand and respect other forms of appropriate-in-time-place-and-manner opposition to this odious "Protection Order" and other heavy-handed measures by the State to suppress Free Speech.

Thanks,

-Smac

Link to comment
25 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

Not a thought crime. Nor was the first thread about a thought crime.

Both stories are about thoughtcrimes.  From Wikipedia:

Quote

Thoughtcrime is a word coined by George Orwell in his 1949 dystopian novel Nineteen Eighty-Four. It describes a person's politically unorthodox thoughts, such as beliefs and doubts that contradict the tenets of Ingsoc (English Socialism), the dominant ideology of Oceania. In the official language of Newspeak, the word crimethink describes the intellectual actions of a person who entertains and holds politically unacceptable thoughts; thus the government of the Party controls the speech, the actions, and the thoughts of the citizens of Oceania.[1]

In both threads, the topics involved agents of the State questioning people who are standing quietly on a public street.  It is only after the persons being questioned verbalize their thoughts (that they are silently praying) do the agents of the State deem their behavior violative of the law.

Let's say that Mr. Smith-Connor and another fellow are standing side by side on the public street shown in the above video.  If questioned by State agents about their thoughts, Mr. Smith-Connor might say "I am praying in my mind about my deceased son," and the other fellow might say "I am thinking about what I should make for dinner tonight."  Mr. Smith-Connor would be found to have broken the law, and the second fellow would be free to be on his way.  Same conduct in the same context and circumstances.  The only difference between them are . . . their respective thoughts.  That sounds pretty thoughtcrimey.

Alternatively, take the same scenario as above, but when questioned about their thoughts by State agents, one or the other of the two men, or both, decline to disclose or explain their thoughts to the State.  In the absence of such a disclosure of thoughts, the State agents would be without grounds to cite or arrest either man as having violated the Protection Order.  The differentiating factor, then, is thought.  That sounds pretty thoughtcrimey, too.

Thanks,

-Smac

Link to comment
29 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Both stories are about thoughtcrimes.  From Wikipedia:

In both threads, the topics involved agents of the State questioning people who are standing quietly on a public street.  It is only after the persons being questioned verbalize their thoughts (that they are silently praying) do the agents of the State deem their behavior violative of the law.

Let's say that Mr. Smith-Connor and another fellow are standing side by side on the public street shown in the above video.  If questioned by State agents about their thoughts, Mr. Smith-Connor might say "I am praying in my mind about my deceased son," and the other fellow might say "I am thinking about what I should make for dinner tonight."  Mr. Smith-Connor would be found to have broken the law, and the second fellow would be free to be on his way.  Same conduct in the same context and circumstances.  The only difference between them are . . . their respective thoughts.  That sounds pretty thoughtcrimey.

Alternatively, take the same scenario as above, but when questioned about their thoughts by State agents, one or the other of the two men, or both, decline to disclose or explain their thoughts to the State.  In the absence of such a disclosure of thoughts, the State agents would be without grounds to cite or arrest either man as having violated the Protection Order.  The differentiating factor, then, is thought.  That sounds pretty thoughtcrimey, too.

Thanks,

-Smac

I bet the police would fine them both if they were known and repeated protestors which this guy was. These morons should go protest and make a stink towards people who can actually change the law. Instead they are cowards and try to intimidate the vulnerable who can’t change the law around the clinics. The government basically puts a restraining order around the area and these dimwits deliberately violate it with cameras on them for internet cred and to rile up people supportive of dimwits who harass pregnant women.

Please stop defending these dimwits.

Link to comment
51 minutes ago, smac97 said:

An agent of the State to a private citizen: "What is the nature of your prayer?"

And when he responds that he is praying for his deceased son, he is told that the State deems his behavior violative of a "protection order" in a "safe zone."

Yeah, nothing Orwellian about that.  At all.

Personally, I would not be inclined to pray in this context.  "When thou prayest, enter into thy closet" and all that.  However, I would understand and respect other forms of appropriate-in-time-place-and-manner opposition to this odious "Protection Order" and other heavy-handed measures by the State to suppress Free Speech.

Thanks,

-Smac

I think they would have fined him anyways. It is clear they have a good idea of how this guy is and they can see the camera. They aren’t fining him solely on what he said. They are fining him because he is clearly performing a performative protest while pretending he is not. He is a liar. He is lying about his intent. I don’t think the state has to take this guy’s word that he is just praying when he is clearly NOT JUST DOING THAT!

And nothing about that is Orwellian in the 1984 or general Orwellian sense. Thoughtcrimes were disloyalty to the state which this is not. This is law enforcement enforcing a law designed to protect the vulnerable and a bunch of performative weirdos dancing the edge of the line between legal and illegal to drum up pointless rage. Also to make Christianity more odious to people in general which is what confuses me. Do Christians want to become known for being lying provocateurs doing the “I am not actually touching you” defense like a bullying child.

Link to comment
34 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

I think they would have fined him anyways.

Perhaps so.  Abuse of power is often a natural and foreseeable consequence of ceding too much power to the State.  Strange that we see it coming, yet some of us are still happy to go along with it.

34 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

It is clear they have a good idea of how this guy is and they can see the camera.

Well, no.  A man standing quietly on in a public space, without more, has not done anything wrong.  In the absence of competent evidence, all the police have is speculation.  And speculation don't feed the bulldog.  See here:

Quote

Stop and question: police powers

A police officer might stop you and ask:

  • what your name is
  • what you’re doing in the area
  • where you’re going

You don’t have to stop or answer any questions. If you don’t and there’s no other reason to suspect you, then this alone can’t be used as a reason to search or arrest you.

"You don't have to ... answer any questions."

"If you don't {answer any questions} and there’s no other reason to suspect you, then this alone can’t be used as a reason to search or arrest you."

34 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

They aren’t fining him solely on what he said.

Yes, I think they are.  Without "what he said," they have no basis to fine or arrest him.

34 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

They are fining him because he is clearly performing a performative protest while pretending he is not. He is a liar. He is lying about his intent. I don’t think the state has to take this guy’s word that he is just praying when he is clearly NOT JUST DOING THAT!

Meh.  This is unserious.

34 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

And nothing about that is Orwellian in the 1984 or general Orwellian sense.

There is a lot about this that is Orwellian.

34 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

Thoughtcrimes were disloyalty to the state which this is not.

For some, Paul Krugman's declaration that "everything is political" is a wonderful thing.  If that is so, then the State can stick its grimy fingers into every slice of every pie in society.  Again from Wikipedia:

Quote

Thoughtcrime is a word coined by George Orwell in his 1949 dystopian novel Nineteen Eighty-Four. It describes a person's politically unorthodox thoughts, such as beliefs and doubts that contradict the tenets of Ingsoc (English Socialism), the dominant ideology of Oceania. In the official language of Newspeak, the word crimethink describes the intellectual actions of a person who entertains and holds politically unacceptable thoughts; thus the government of the Party controls the speech, the actions, and the thoughts of the citizens of Oceania.
...

In the story of Nineteen Eighty-Four, the Thinkpol (Thought Police) are responsible for the detection and elimination of thoughtcrime, and for the social control of the populations of Oceania, by way of audio-visual surveillance and offender profiling. Such psychological monitoring allows the Thought Police to detect, arrest, and kill thought criminals, citizens whose independence (intellectual, mental, and moral) challenges the political orthodoxy of Ingsoc (English Socialism) and thus the legitimate government authority of the Party.[4] 

Can the Public Space Protection Order referenced above be reasonably characterized as part of "the political orthodoxy" of the "dominant ideology" in the UK?  I think there is a pretty good argument for a "yes" answer to that question.

34 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

This is law enforcement enforcing a law designed to protect the vulnerable and a bunch of performative weirdos dancing the edge of the line between legal and illegal to drum up pointless rage.

It's a bit jarring to read the above coming from the same fellow who regularly and proudly advocates extralegal physical violence against anyone whom he arbitrarily labels a "nazi" or "fascist" (including octogenarian women crossing a street with a walker).  I get whiplash going from reading your ugly rhetoric advocating wantonly illegal physical violence against people with whom you ideologically disagree to reading your indignant outrage and insults and demands for compliance with the State, all directed at private citizens have done nothing except stand quietly on a public street.

Anyhoo, I reject your characterization here. 

34 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

Also to make Christianity more odious to people in general which is what confuses me.

I understand the sentiment, but I don't think the accusation sticks here.

34 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

Do Christians want to become known for being lying provocateurs doing the “I am not actually touching you” defense like a bullying child.

He said, provocatively.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited by smac97
Link to comment
46 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

I bet the police would fine them both if they were known and repeated protestors which this guy was.

Right.  No need for evidence.  No need for actus reus.  

Again, the abuse of power by the State (such as fining or arresting a man for standing on a public street and nothing else) is a natural and foreseeable consequence of ceding too much authority to the State.

46 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

These morons should go protest and make a stink towards people who can actually change the law. Instead they are cowards and try to intimidate the vulnerable who can’t change the law around the clinics.

"Morons." 

"Liars."

"Cowards."

"Dimwits."

This is unserious stuff.  You have nothing of substance here.  Just conclusory insults.

46 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

The government basically puts a restraining order around the area

And what an oppressive and dangerous "restraining order" it is.

46 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

and these dimwits deliberately violate it with cameras on them for internet cred and to rile up people supportive of dimwits who harass pregnant women.

Please stop defending these dimwits.

I said this previously: Personally, I would not be inclined to pray in this context.  "When thou prayest, enter into thy closet" and all that.  However, I would understand and respect other forms of appropriate-in-time-place-and-manner opposition to this odious "Protection Order" and other heavy-handed measures by the State to suppress Free Speech.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited by smac97
Link to comment
9 hours ago, sunstoned said:

There are lots of places to pray.  In your bedroom comes to mind.  You don't need to go search out a Woman's health clinic and stand out in front of it to pray.  That's not prayer, that's protest.

 

Protesting is not prohibited.

A person lawfully present in the UK, would have the "right" to be in the "safe zone" and protest everything except abortion. 

A person lawfully present in the UK, would have the "right" to be in the "safe zone" and prayer about everything except abortion. 

A person lawfully present in the UK, would have the "right" to be in the "safe zone" and sprinkle holy water, pray out loud, genuflect, so long as a someone seeking services at the clinic is not passing by.

As praying in ones bedroom, the "safe zone" appears to cover the entire sqaure footage between four roads, which means no abortion related prayer even in a personal residence in the "safe zone".

The government poorly wrote the safe zone order; exact compliance is not a crime, though people may not like it.

Link to comment
17 minutes ago, pogi said:

One of many more copy-cats to come I presume.  

I would expect that anyone who values freedom and respects the law, would be stand in the safe zone and "pray" silently about something unrelated to abortion.

We can be upset about someones lawful conduct.

If a society allows for twisting of the law by Government against undesirables, that society lays a red carpet for fascism

Link to comment
1 hour ago, provoman said:

Protesting is not prohibited.

Well, in the UK...

1 hour ago, provoman said:

A person lawfully present in the UK, would have the "right" to be in the "safe zone" and protest everything except abortion. 

Yep.  And note that the fellow in the OP admitted to praying, but about his deceased son.  And yet he was apparently still cited by the police.  

Moreover, I think the UK ought to be ashamed of itself for squelching nonviolent, nondisruptive, appropriate-in-time-and-place-and-manner speech via a "Protection Order."

1 hour ago, provoman said:

A person lawfully present in the UK, would have the "right" to be in the "safe zone" and sprinkle holy water, pray out loud, genuflect, so long as a someone seeking services at the clinic is not passing by.

As praying in ones bedroom, the "safe zone" appears to cover the entire sqaure footage between four roads, which means no abortion related prayer even in a personal residence in the "safe zone".

The government poorly wrote the safe zone order; exact compliance is not a crime, though people may not like it.

Yes, the Protection Order is too broadly worded, but I think that was intended as a feature, not a bug.  The Powers-That-Be wanted to be able to use the broadly-worded Protection Order to suppress what would otherwise be entirely lawful speech.

Thanks,

-Smac

Link to comment
35 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Yep.  And note that the fellow in the OP admitted to praying, but about his deceased son.  And yet he was apparently still cited by the police.  

Please read the article. 

Quote

Recently, I stood outside a similar facility and prayed to God for my son Jacob, for other babies who have lost their lives to abortion, for their grieving families, and for abortion clinic staff.

 

Link to comment
57 minutes ago, Snodgrassian said:

Please read the article. 

Quote

Recently, I stood outside a similar facility and prayed to God for my son Jacob, for other babies who have lost their lives to abortion, for their grieving families, and for abortion clinic staff.

 

I read the article.  I also watched the video, in which he only references praying for his deceased son.  I suppose he could have said something more to the police after the end of the video, along the lines of "for other babies who have lost their lives to abortion, for their grieving families, and for abortion clinic staff."  But the point here is that the police concluded - based only on his statement about praying for his deceased son - that he had violated the Protection Order.  

More to the point, how very creepy and heavy-handed it is to see agents of the State in the UK penalizing someone in this way.  I find the Protection Order largely abhorrent and inimical to the basic principles of freedom that ought to be protected in that great nation.

Thanks,

-Smac

Link to comment
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

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