UK thought police arrest woman for silent prayer

[Metaphor]

The loons from extinction rebellion who disrupt traffic and emergency vehicles by sitting in the road are pretty much left alone.

That's an outright falsehood. Not only are they immediately arrested as soon as the police arrive (although their actual removal from the scene can take a while due to their deliberate obstruction), but they're frequently assaulted by members of the public who they're inconveniencing, and those assaults are rarely acknowledged by the authorities at all.

They are assaulting others by blocking egress in a public place. They are picked up and moved, not assaulted.

Maybe you are sympathetic to loons who block ambulances but the general public isn't.

I love how to you "sitting in a road" is assault, but "forcibly moving someone" is not.

You must have had trouble on the playground as a kid. "But teacher, I had to hit him, he was just sitting there!"

I was the victim of bullies, but I suppose that does not fit your narrative, so you have to concoct phantasias about my personal history instead.

Well, I am sorry to hear that. So was I, and it really sucked. I apologize if I brought up sucky memories for you too, and joking or not, I should not have brought personal experiences into it.

Well, yes, it really sucked. And it's probably part of why I don't take too kindly to being ordered what to do under threat of force.

 

[Metaphor]

Calling nonviolent civil disobedience "assault" while excusing police violence is still pretty bonkers though.

Are you referring to police removing people who are blocking roadways as 'police violence'?

What's bonkers is that Extinction Rebellion (and Insulate Britain and every other activist of their ilk) think their tactics are a winning strategy. Yes, people are talking about them. They're talking about how much they hate their nonsense. If they wanted to harden people's hearts against their cause, they couldn't do better, frankly.

 

[Politesse]

Are you referring to police removing people who are blocking roadways as 'police violence'?

If they hit them first, yeah...

 

[Metaphor]

Are you referring to police removing people who are blocking roadways as 'police violence'?

If they hit them first, yeah...

What do you mean by 'hit'?

Do you think Extinction Rebellion, or any group, has the right to indefinitely block roads? Does anyone have the 'right' to remove them? How much societal destruction do you think people are entitled to, or does the answer depend on how sympathetic you are to their cause?

 

[Politesse]

Are you referring to police removing people who are blocking roadways as 'police violence'?

If they hit them first, yeah...

What do you mean by 'hit'?

Do you think Extinction Rebellion, or any group, has the right to indefinitely block roads? Does anyone have the 'right' to remove them? How much societal destruction do you think people are entitled to, or does the answer depend on how sympathetic you are to their cause?

Like, hit. With fists and batons and the like. What did you think we were talking about? Here is the definition of violence as well, in case you needed that as well. There more you learn, the more you know.

Please don't insult both of our intelligences by obliging me to post one of the many, widely circulated videos of the police doing this to the group in question.

To answer your other question, I don't see civil disobedience by any group as a "right". Rights are by definition granted prerogatives, and no nation considers non-legal actions legal. Whether the police have a "right" to assault citizens is a complicated moral and legal question, and I have no glib or simplistic answer to it. It depends on how you're thinking about things, I think.

 

[Metaphor]

Are you referring to police removing people who are blocking roadways as 'police violence'?

If they hit them first, yeah...

What do you mean by 'hit'?

Do you think Extinction Rebellion, or any group, has the right to indefinitely block roads? Does anyone have the 'right' to remove them? How much societal destruction do you think people are entitled to, or does the answer depend on how sympathetic you are to their cause?

Like, hit. With fists and batons and the like. What did you think we were talking about? Here is the definition of violence as well, in case you needed that as well. There more you learn, the more you know.

Please don't insult both of our intelligences by obliging me to post one of the many, widely circulated videos of the police doing this to the group in question.

I haven't seen any of such actions. I've seen ordinary British citizens get out of their delivery trucks to remove people sitting on the road, and I've seen commuters remove a tosser from the top of a train so they could get to work (imagine staging your climate protest by obstructing public transport).

To answer your other question, I don't see civil disobedience by any group as a "right". Rights are by definition granted prerogatives, and no nation considers non-legal actions legal. Whether the police have a "right" to assault citizens is a complicated moral and legal question, and I have no glib or simplistic answer to it. It depends on how you're thinking about things, I think.

Well, I think somebody blocking roads has earned the 'right' to be removed from those roads.

 

[Politesse]

Are you referring to police removing people who are blocking roadways as 'police violence'?

If they hit them first, yeah...

What do you mean by 'hit'?

Do you think Extinction Rebellion, or any group, has the right to indefinitely block roads? Does anyone have the 'right' to remove them? How much societal destruction do you think people are entitled to, or does the answer depend on how sympathetic you are to their cause?

Like, hit. With fists and batons and the like. What did you think we were talking about? Here is the definition of violence as well, in case you needed that as well. There more you learn, the more you know.

Please don't insult both of our intelligences by obliging me to post one of the many, widely circulated videos of the police doing this to the group in question.

I haven't seen any of such actions. I've seen ordinary British citizens get out of their delivery trucks to remove people sitting on the road, and I've seen commuters remove a tosser from the top of a train so they could get to work (imagine staging your climate protest by obstructing public transport).

To answer your other question, I don't see civil disobedience by any group as a "right". Rights are by definition granted prerogatives, and no nation considers non-legal actions legal. Whether the police have a "right" to assault citizens is a complicated moral and legal question, and I have no glib or simplistic answer to it. It depends on how you're thinking about things, I think.

Well, I think somebody blocking roads has earned the 'right' to be removed from those roads.

I'm sure you do. Thank you for offering up your subjective impressions, based on what you have not seen, to "correct" my neutral and accurate presentation of the information in question. As I am sure that Tom will find the conversation he generated most enlightening.

Back to the OP, if you are unalarmed by police hitting people in the head or smashing in windows for blocking an intersection, detaining people very politely for violating the Public Space Protection Order should not be cause for alarm either, it seems to me. Or are people of different political persuasions subject to different rights under the law?

 

[Metaphor]

Are you referring to police removing people who are blocking roadways as 'police violence'?

If they hit them first, yeah...

What do you mean by 'hit'?

Do you think Extinction Rebellion, or any group, has the right to indefinitely block roads? Does anyone have the 'right' to remove them? How much societal destruction do you think people are entitled to, or does the answer depend on how sympathetic you are to their cause?

Like, hit. With fists and batons and the like. What did you think we were talking about? Here is the definition of violence as well, in case you needed that as well. There more you learn, the more you know.

Please don't insult both of our intelligences by obliging me to post one of the many, widely circulated videos of the police doing this to the group in question.

I haven't seen any of such actions. I've seen ordinary British citizens get out of their delivery trucks to remove people sitting on the road, and I've seen commuters remove a tosser from the top of a train so they could get to work (imagine staging your climate protest by obstructing public transport).

To answer your other question, I don't see civil disobedience by any group as a "right". Rights are by definition granted prerogatives, and no nation considers non-legal actions legal. Whether the police have a "right" to assault citizens is a complicated moral and legal question, and I have no glib or simplistic answer to it. It depends on how you're thinking about things, I think.

Well, I think somebody blocking roads has earned the 'right' to be removed from those roads.

I'm sure you do. Thank you for offering up your subjective impressions, based on what you have not seen, to "correct" my neutral and accurate presentation of the information in question.

Ah, sure. "Neutral" and "accurate". I can't tell if you're trying to be funny.

As I am sure that Tom will find the conversation he generated most enlightening.

Back to the OP, if you are unalarmed by police hitting people in the head or smashing in windows for blocking an intersection, detaining people very politely for violating the Public Space Protection Order should not be cause for alarm either, it seems to me. Or are people of different political persuasions subject to different rights under the law?

I did not claim I was unalarmed by police hitting people in the head. I said I had never seen police be violent (if by violent you mean intended to cause hurt as per the link you provided) with protesters from Extinction Rebellion, Insulate Britain, Stop Oil or any of their ilk. And I find a woman who was not blocking anyone's day to day business and praying silently to be far less worthy of removal and arrest than the ones who intend and do in fact cause disruption, delay, and destruction of property.

 

[TomC]

And I find a woman who was not blocking anyone's day to day business

That's probably where the problem lies. You don't see it.

What was she there for? If she simply wanted to pray silently she didn't have to breach a city council ordinance to do that. She could have done that at home. But instead she decided to break the law.

No. I don't believe for one second that she was just praying in silence. She was trying to intimidate people she didn't like or approve of and broke the law to do so.


Christians are like that. They commonly believe that being held to the same standards that everyone else is held to is persecution. Because they're God's Chosen, above earthly laws.


I don't know anything about the situation there in UK. But I'd be willing to bet a few bucks that if Ms. Isabel Vaughan-Spruce's church or home had a bunch of people intimidating her by standing in her yard she'd expect the law to intervene.
Tom

 

[Metaphor]

And I find a woman who was not blocking anyone's day to day business

That's probably where the problem lies. You don't see it.

What was she there for? If she simply wanted to pray silently she didn't have to breach a city council ordinance to do that. She could have done that at home. But instead she decided to break the law.

No. I don't believe for one second that she was just praying in silence. She was trying to intimidate people she didn't like or approve of and broke the law to do so.


Christians are like that. They commonly believe that being held to the same standards that everyone else is held to is persecution. Because they're God's Chosen, above earthly laws.


I don't know anything about the situation there in UK. But I'd be willing to bet a few bucks that if Ms. Isabel Vaughan-Spruce's church or home had a bunch of people intimidating her by standing in her yard she'd expect the law to intervene.
Tom

Yes, someone uninvited on your private property is indeed intimidating and I would expect the law to intervene.

Now it seems to me that she was not forbidden to simply be there. If that were the case, the police would not have asked her if she were praying. The praying is irrelevant. If she was violating the ordinance by being there, then arrest her for that.

I'm curious as to why the question about prayer. If she had lied and said she wasn't praying in her head at all, would she have been arrested? If the answer is 'no', I found that troubling, because it is a literal manifestation of punishing thoughtcrime.

 

[TomC]

Now it seems to me that she was not forbidden to simply be there.

It's right there in the OP.
"she had breached a speech buffer zone established by the local city council."

I don't know why the local city council decided on this buffer zone. But I saw what local Christian groups did here where I live. They were ugly.

Christians spit on people going into Planned Parenthood. Screamed at them. Threatened to track down their families. The city couldn't keep them away.

Planned Parenthood had to move.

They did. Because Christian folks around here don't believe in the rule of law.

Laws are for the little people. Not the one's who run the city council.
Tom

 

[Metaphor]

Now it seems to me that she was not forbidden to simply be there.

It's right there in the OP.
"she had breached a speech buffer zone established by the local city council."

Why did you snip the entire rest of my post?

What is a "speech buffer zone"? Was she forbidden from simply standing there? If so, why did the police not arrest her straight away? Why was she asked if she was praying?

I don't know why the local city council decided on this buffer zone. But I saw what local Christian groups did here where I live. They were ugly.

Christians spit on people going into Planned Parenthood. Screamed at them. Threatened to track down their families. The city couldn't keep them away.

Planned Parenthood had to move.

They did. Because Christian folks around here don't believe in the rule of law.

Laws are for the little people. Not the one's who run the city council.
Tom

 

[Arctish]

Now it seems to me that she was not forbidden to simply be there.

It's right there in the OP.
"she had breached a speech buffer zone established by the local city council."

Why did you snip the entire rest of my post?

What is a "speech buffer zone"? Was she forbidden from simply standing there? If so, why did the police not arrest her straight away? Why was she asked if she was praying?

I don't know why the local city council decided on this buffer zone. But I saw what local Christian groups did here where I live. They were ugly.

Christians spit on people going into Planned Parenthood. Screamed at them. Threatened to track down their families. The city couldn't keep them away.

Planned Parenthood had to move.

They did. Because Christian folks around here don't believe in the rule of law.

Laws are for the little people. Not the one's who run the city council.
Tom

If you find out what a speech buffer zone is, you'll find out why she wasn't supposed to be there.

As to why the cops asked her what she was doing, maybe they were willing to give her the benefit of the doubt and only arrested her after she convinced them she was knowingly and deliberately violating the zone restrictions.

Anyway, why are you asking TomC when you could just go looking for those answers yourself?

 

[laughing dog]

The protester violated a Public Space Protection Order enacted by the city council. PSPOs have been around the UK since 2014.

In my opinion, those who protest in a method that may intimidate someone seeking to obtain legal medical care are always in the wrong.

 

[Metaphor]

Now it seems to me that she was not forbidden to simply be there.

It's right there in the OP.
"she had breached a speech buffer zone established by the local city council."

Why did you snip the entire rest of my post?

What is a "speech buffer zone"? Was she forbidden from simply standing there? If so, why did the police not arrest her straight away? Why was she asked if she was praying?

I don't know why the local city council decided on this buffer zone. But I saw what local Christian groups did here where I live. They were ugly.

Christians spit on people going into Planned Parenthood. Screamed at them. Threatened to track down their families. The city couldn't keep them away.

Planned Parenthood had to move.

They did. Because Christian folks around here don't believe in the rule of law.

Laws are for the little people. Not the one's who run the city council.
Tom

If you find out what a speech buffer zone is, you'll find out why she wasn't supposed to be there.

So, I did do that. And frankly it's every bit as disturbing as it sounds.

The U.K. May Soon Restrict Pro-Life Speech | National Review

The ‘buffer zone’ law currently being debated in Parliament is an assault on Britons’ fundamental freedoms. It should scare pro-lifers the world over.

www.nationalreview.com

Abortion activists abroad are pressing forward into a foreboding new frontier: weaponizing the law to limit what you can do, say, or even think on public streets surrounding abortion clinics. Their efforts represent a kind of censorship that violates not only the right to free expression, but also the innermost sanctum of free thought.

Despite the American movement’s historic victory in the Dobbs case, in many parts of the world, it is growing more difficult, and sometimes even dangerous, to hold pro-life views. In the United Kingdom, praying in front of an abortion clinic could soon land you in jail for up to two years. Parliament is currently debating a sweeping “buffer zone” law that would restrict speech within a certain distance of the country’s abortion clinics. In a frantic effort to shore up abortion access at the expense of basic human rights, the law would impose a broad ban on “informing,” “advising,” “influencing,” “persuading,” and even “expressing an opinion” around places where women can obtain an abortion.

One need only look to the places where buffer zones already have taken root in the U.K. to understand what’s at stake. Five local councils have set up these zones, with street signs eerily demarcating the areas where free speech is restricted, listing illegal activities ranging from outright protesting to quiet prayer. Per the signs, if you have the audacity to kneel, sprinkle holy water, or cross yourself while praying too close to an abortion clinic, you’ll soon find yourself a criminal under the law.

So the woman wasn't doing anything illegal by merely being in the buffer zone. She was doing something illegal by praying in her head.

As to why the cops asked her what she was doing, maybe they were willing to give her the benefit of the doubt and only arrested her after she convinced them she was knowingly and deliberately violating the zone restrictions.

And I find it very disturbing that praying in your head is the 'violation'. Do you not find that disturbing?

Anyway, why are you asking TomC when you could just go looking for those answers yourself?

Because TomC chose to ignore most of my post whilst endorsing the outcome of this incident, where he himself does not appear to understand (or wants to ignore) the implications.

 

[laughing dog]

BTW, there is no indication that "praying in the head" is the violation. That particular claim is utter horseshit.

 

[Metaphor]

BTW, there is no indication that "praying in the head" is the violation. That particular claim is utter horseshit.

Then why was she asked if she was praying, and why was she arrested only after she said 'praying in my head'?

If that wasn't the violation, then what was?

 

[laughing dog]

If one believes in a god who answers prayers, one does not need to be close to an abortion clinic to pray for one's desired outcome because your god is omnipresent and all powerful. It is reasonable to conclude that such visible prayers are an attempt to intimidate those who are seeking legal medical help. I have no sympathy for this person whatsoever.

 

[Metaphor]

If one believes in a god who answers prayers, one does not need to be close to an abortion clinic to pray for one's desired outcome because your god is omnipresent and all powerful. It is reasonable to conclude that such visible prayers are an attempt to intimidate those who are seeking legal medical help. I have no sympathy for this person whatsoever.

What was visible about her prayer? If it was visible, the police would not have asked her what she was doing. They'd have seen.

If the events are as reported, this is the criminalisation of thought. That you are unconcerned is disturbing but not surprising.

 

[ZiprHead]

BTW, there is no indication that "praying in the head" is the violation. That particular claim is utter horseshit.

Then why was she asked if she was praying, and why was she arrested only after she said 'praying in my head'?

If that wasn't the violation, then what was?

I would assume it was to determine whether she was a protester or someone who just wandered unknowingly into an area she wasn't supposed to be in.

When officers asked whether she was part of a protest, she replied “no.” They then asked if she was praying, to which she said she could be doing so “in my head.” Police then searched her, and patted down her hair, before handcuffing her and escorting her to the station.

She lied when asked if she was a protester.