UK thought police arrest woman for silent prayer

[Metaphor]

The religious right has a common tactic of trying to find "innocent" ways to break restrictions. Then they go screaming to the press that they were punished for doing nothing wrong. It's a way of stirring up the sheep but people who actually pay attention to what happened realize they did do something wrong.

VS violated the PSPO in two ways:
She stood silently outside the abortion clinic
She said she 'might' be praying in her head.

Now, if VS standing silently outside an abortion clinic is causing harm, ban VS (personally, via an ASBO) from being within the exclusion zone.

Nothing, but nothing, justifies forbidding a person to pray inside their head no matter where they are. This particular PSPO is a fascist response to a government's previous failing, and it deserves to be exposed.

This was a deliberate stunt to get exactly the result she got and rile up the sheep.

All protests are 'stunts', but since VS exposed that the PSPO forbids silent prayer in the exclusion zone, it was a commendable stunt to expose a fascist policy.

 

[TSwizzle]

If by “almost immediately” you mean “after YEARS of doing this every other day.
So cumulatively, we can estimate she “gets lifted by the plod” after doing it for over 500 days, maybe 1000 days?

That is SO NOT “immediately,” yanno?

The PSPO for that area was implemented in September.

 

[ZiprHead]

If by “almost immediately” you mean “after YEARS of doing this every other day.
So cumulatively, we can estimate she “gets lifted by the plod” after doing it for over 500 days, maybe 1000 days?

That is SO NOT “immediately,” yanno?

The PSPO for that area was implemented in September.

The actions that prompted the PSPO have been going on for years. That was Rhea's point.

 

[laughing dog]

There is no logical explanation nor any evidence to support the assertion that anyone silently praying in that PSPO would necessarily be arrested.

This woman was recognized as a serial “ protester” who was trying to intimidate possible seekers of the services of that abortion clinic. The arrest kept that woman from her tactics.

 

[Metaphor]

There is no logical explanation nor any evidence to support the assertion that anyone silently praying in that PSPO would necessarily be arrested.

The PSPO specifically forbids praying in the exclusion zone. The fact that such a thing is generally unenforceable, or relies on prayers dobbing themselves in, or relies on the subjective impression of the police, is a sign that it's a bad law, not that it is not the law.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

And how is that different than a restraining order? Different label, same basic concept.

Different in almost every conceivable aspect.

A "restraining order", AVO, ASBO, etc applies to a person and generally restricts who they can contact and how close they can be to another person.

A PSPO applies to everyone and forbids them from otherwise perfectly legal activities in a specific defined geography.

Both are the same basic concept: Behavior that would normally be legal is causing trouble, therefore a special restriction is made on the scenario that has been causing trouble. Whether it's a person or an area doesn't change this.

It changes it fundamentally.

You seem to be missing what I'm saying. I'm saying both forms are examples of a category that doesn't have a term to describe it.

 

[Bomb#20]

Po-tay-toe, po-tat-oh. I made an inference, and since according to you people cannot read minds, when you replied to my inference with "You don't read minds." you were derailing the thread with a zero-information red herring, apparently to distract readers from the fact that you were unable to produce any evidential basis for your inference that "feigned obtuseness" was being displayed.

I disputed your false statement. If that is a derail, then so was your original statement and your response.

But you didn't dispute my statement (which wasn't false.) I hadn't claimed to read minds; I'd claimed you don't have a reason to think what was written constitutes "feigned obtuseness". "You don't read minds.", (assuming it wasn't a derail onto the subject of ESP) was a metaphorical way to dispute the merits of the procedure I used to infer my conclusion, not a dispute of my statement itself. "I do have a reason to think he feigned obtuseness." would have been dispute of my original statement, but you didn't say that. We can all guess why not.

No one asked for evidence.

I have no reason to ask you for evidence. I've read the thread so I already know you don't have any; and I'm not cross-examining you so there's nothing I need to ask you. You wrote to me. I was talking to Tom, not to you.

Repeating a question after it has been answered suggested obtuseness - feigned or real.

You are now speaking in broad generalities. You're in effect suggesting that someone repeated a question after it had been answered, but without you actually pointing out any specific example of anyone doing so.

There is a problem around the abortion clinic in Birmingham. Abortion protesters have disturbed the neighborhood and distressed clients of the clinic for years. The protesters do not have to protest near the clinic but they do so to intimidate potential users of a legal medical procedure or counseling. There is a tradeoff between free speech rights, free speech responsibilities (because all rights carry responsibilities)

That's a bumper-sticker-sized cliche people use to turn off critical thought. Of course not all rights carry responsibilities; to suggest they do exhibits an utter failure to think for two seconds about the implications of the proposal.

and the rights of people to have access to legal medical care.

Unless you feel that free speech rights trump people's access to legal medical care, what should be done to balance the rights of both sides? Requiring protesters to be far enough away from the clinic so as to allow potential users easy access does not keep anyone from protesting.

People have easy access to the clinic whether she's there or not. That sidewalk is five or six feet wide. A woman standing at the edge of it praying in her head does not block any people's access to legal medical care. Therefore whatever balancing needs to be done does not need to prohibit a woman from standing at the edge of it and praying in her head. Whatever should be done to balance the rights of both sides must necessarily be something that balances the rights of both sides, not something that violates the right to stand and pray without adding any substantive protection to the right to access legal medical care.

Do you have a better solution?

Piece of cake: delete "prayer" from the PSPO. Not necessarily the best solution, but plainly better.

 

[Bomb#20]

There is no logical explanation nor any evidence to support the assertion that anyone silently praying in that PSPO would necessarily be arrested.

The PSPO specifically forbids praying in the exclusion zone. The fact that such a thing is generally unenforceable, or relies on prayers dobbing themselves in, or relies on the subjective impression of the police, is a sign that it's a bad law, not that it is not the law.

Moreover, the circumstance that the police would enforce a law against whom they choose and would not enforce it against violators they don't feel like enforcing it against is not generally considered a point either in the law's or in the police's favor.

 

[Bomb#20]

It isn't obvious to me one way or another. Obviously she was not doing any of the things (public prayer, signs, multi-person lineups, reading/speaking aloud) that led to the creation of the PSPO. Those things were explicitly and obviously forbidden. I think she read the PSPO and thought "I'll see if standing silently outside the clinic will be interpreted as protesting". Rhea would call it 'edgelording' or some such, but in legal jurisprudence I think I would call it a 'test case'.

A number of posters here have been arguing the way people would who had gotten their notions of what's an appropriate way for governments to behave by analogy with their notions of what's an appropriate way for a privately owned discussion board's moderators to behave.

Cop: I'm giving you a traffic ticket for driving 34 in a 35 zone.

Motorist: But that's below the speed limit!

Cop: You were "brinking".​

 

[Arctish]

It isn't obvious to me one way or another. Obviously she was not doing any of the things (public prayer, signs, multi-person lineups, reading/speaking aloud) that led to the creation of the PSPO. Those things were explicitly and obviously forbidden. I think she read the PSPO and thought "I'll see if standing silently outside the clinic will be interpreted as protesting". Rhea would call it 'edgelording' or some such, but in legal jurisprudence I think I would call it a 'test case'.

A number of posters here have been arguing the way people would who had gotten their notions of what's an appropriate way for governments to behave by analogy with their notions of what's an appropriate way for a privately owned discussion board's moderators to behave.

Cop: I'm giving you a traffic ticket for driving 34 in a 35 zone.​

​

Motorist: But that's below the speed limit!​

​

Cop: You were "brinking".​

Your analogy is flawed.

Brinking like what Ms. Vaughan-Spruce was doing would be driving 36-38 mph in a 35 mph zone right in front of the cop who pulled you over for speeding on a prior occasion, when it was your driving that caused the town to post that particular speed limit on that particular street. And the crying about your Right of Free Travel being infringed upon would be just as disingenuous.

 

[Metaphor]

It isn't obvious to me one way or another. Obviously she was not doing any of the things (public prayer, signs, multi-person lineups, reading/speaking aloud) that led to the creation of the PSPO. Those things were explicitly and obviously forbidden. I think she read the PSPO and thought "I'll see if standing silently outside the clinic will be interpreted as protesting". Rhea would call it 'edgelording' or some such, but in legal jurisprudence I think I would call it a 'test case'.

A number of posters here have been arguing the way people would who had gotten their notions of what's an appropriate way for governments to behave by analogy with their notions of what's an appropriate way for a privately owned discussion board's moderators to behave.

Cop: I'm giving you a traffic ticket for driving 34 in a 35 zone.​

​

Motorist: But that's below the speed limit!​

​

Cop: You were "brinking".​

Your analogy is flawed.

Brinking like what Ms. Vaughan-Spruce was doing would be driving 36-38 mph in a 35 mph zone right in front of the cop who pulled you over for speeding on a prior occasion, when it was your driving that caused the town to post that particular speed limit on that particular street. And the crying about your Right of Free Travel being infringed upon would be just as disingenuous.

No, that would not be 'brinking', at least as Rhea has used the term. To 'brink' or 'edgelord' is to do something that would be interpreted as not violating any written rule in a technical sense but which goes as far as possible without violating it to the letter of the policy.

Private message boards can do what they like, but when the State creates a law it better be damn well as clear as possible what it is enabling or what it is forbidding. I sure as hell do not want some laws to be left up to the subjective interpretation of whatever cop is enforcing it that day.

I think this PSPO should have explicitly forbidden public (spoken out loud) prayer but not private (internal monologue, no matter where the prayer is) prayer. I think the behaviour that led to the creation of PSPO was about public prayer, and I think the PSPO was written with that kind of prayer in mind.

But the PSPO has multiple problems. Any action whatsoever can be interpreted as 'protesting'. It literally has no limits.

And if VS was the problem, just put an ASBO on her forbidding her being within however many metres of the abortion clinic as is deemed necessary.

 

[ZiprHead]

Private message boards can do what they like, but when the State creates a law it better be damn well as clear as possible what it is enabling or what it is forbidding.

Seems to me that is exactly what the PSPO did and the perp admitted to violating it.

 

[Metaphor]

Private message boards can do what they like, but when the State creates a law it better be damn well as clear as possible what it is enabling or what it is forbidding.

Seems to me that is exactly what the PSPO did and the perp admitted to violating it.

It does not seem obviously so to me. I would not have supposed that the 'prayer' included in the PSPO would have meant 'prayer in your head', especially given that
* The behaviours that led to the PSPO were all outwardly-directed, such as spoken prayer, signs, etc; and
* Banning praying in your head is straight-up fascist.

 

[Arctish]

Private message boards can do what they like, but when the State creates a law it better be damn well as clear as possible what it is enabling or what it is forbidding.

Seems to me that is exactly what the PSPO did and the perp admitted to violating it.

It does not seem obviously so to me. I would not have supposed that the 'prayer' included in the PSPO would have meant 'prayer in your head', especially given that
* The behaviours that led to the PSPO were all outwardly-directed, such as spoken prayer, signs, etc; and
* Banning praying in your head is straight-up fascist.

Not this again.

She wasn't arrested for praying in her head. She was arrested for her actions. The officer placed her under arrest on suspicion she was violating the PSPO and had done so on other occasions. The evidence of her violating the PSPO was her standing in front of the clinic - apparently long enough for the police to have been called to the scene, her admission she was there because "it's an abortion center", and whatever the people who made the allegations about her actions on other days said she was doing and/or recorded her doing.

 

[Rhea]

Not this again.

I know, right?

We already went over this.
The assertion that her arrest hinges on only one of the multiple questions the police officer asked is… not supported by any evidence.


Where in any of the police paperwork does it say that her arrest hinges on that question? It it not evident anywhere outside of the manufactured outrage of a tabloid headline. The police officer asked many questions. The video, indeed, is not a complete record of the interface.

There is no evidence that her arrest hinges on that private prayer. None. So it is manufactured outrage.

Every time you try to diminish the encounter to one answer to one question and ignore both the rest of the order and the rest of the encounter, you fall prey to the tactics of the bullies who have harassed clinic patients, staff and the neigborhood for years. Ignore the 9,999 things we did wrong and let’s talk only about this one moment when we were only maybe wrong and proclaim that we are never wrong and the law can’t touch us. They are good at this, they work hard at this. And it’s intentional. They hope the public falls for it.

 

[Rhea]

A web search shows that all of the FOX news and faux outrage outlets have picked up on the outrage wording that this is “what she was arrested for,” when it is not at all what she was arrested for. They have a purpose and an agenda. They have no compunctions about using false headlines to further their goal of creating outrage.

I was able to find at least one outlet on the frist page of search returns that said “hold up, that is not the reason for the arrest, that is a false statement.” I’m not sure how reliable this source is - their page has the vibe of a tabloid - but I found it a relief that at least one publication was not running with a misleading headline. They refer to some “corrective statement” on twitter (not sure whose, nor who made them run it), which appears to be the police trying to stop the spread of the lie via misleading headlines.

The lies further harm the neighborhood and the staff and patients of the clinic, playing into the hands of the bullies.

Row erupts after claim 'woman arrested for silently praying' – here's what really happened​

In a corrective statement attached to the post, they wrote: “The woman in the video, Isabel Vaughan Spruce, was not arrested for silently praying.

“She was arrested for breaking a temporary Public Space Protection Order on four separate occasions which were used to ban protests outside of an abortion clinic due to safety concerns.”

Ms Spruce was charged with breaching an exclusion zone and “four counts of failing to comply with a Public Space Protection Order (PSPO)”, according to West Midlands police.

She was arrested on December 6 and charged on December 15.

 

[laughing dog]

Thank you for providing more relevant information. Let's see if it stems the flow of misplaced outrage and false claims.

 

[Bomb#20]

What's going on is that Ms. Vaughan Spruce and the Birmingham City Council have been engaged in an arms race, a cycle in which each side makes moves intended to obstruct the other side from achieving its last move's goal. Banning protestors from praying near the clinic was a move; praying silently at the edge of the road in order to provoke an arrest third parties would inevitably see as unjustifiable was a countermove. Based on the ensuing fallout, it's painfully obvious that the move of banning protestors from praying near the clinic was an imprudent move on Birmingham's part. A general practice of punctilious respect for the civil rights of opponents isn't just good for a government's subjects; it also protects governments themselves from making rookie errors that are likely to come back and bite them.

 

[Metaphor]

Private message boards can do what they like, but when the State creates a law it better be damn well as clear as possible what it is enabling or what it is forbidding.

Seems to me that is exactly what the PSPO did and the perp admitted to violating it.

It does not seem obviously so to me. I would not have supposed that the 'prayer' included in the PSPO would have meant 'prayer in your head', especially given that
* The behaviours that led to the PSPO were all outwardly-directed, such as spoken prayer, signs, etc; and
* Banning praying in your head is straight-up fascist.

Not this again.

She wasn't arrested for praying in her head.

Not this again. Why did the officer ask if she was praying?

 

[Metaphor]

Not this again.

I know, right?

We already went over this.
The assertion that her arrest hinges on only one of the multiple questions the police officer asked is… not supported by any evidence.


Where in any of the police paperwork does it say that her arrest hinges on that question?

Do you have the police paperwork?

It it not evident anywhere outside of the manufactured outrage of a tabloid headline. The police officer asked many questions. The video, indeed, is not a complete record of the interface.

There is no evidence that her arrest hinges on that private prayer. None. So it is manufactured outrage.

Her arrest happens after he asked her if she was praying. Evidently the officer thought it was pertinent to know if she was praying in her head.

Every time you try to diminish the encounter to one answer to one question and ignore both the rest of the order and the rest of the encounter,

I'm not doing that. You ignored my thought experiment counterfactual earlier, claiming I was 'moving the goalposts'. You didn't engage with it.

I would prefer it was the case, in fact, that it is not sufficient for VS to have been arrested for praying in her head and being in the exclusion zone at the same time. But since the PSPO itself bans praying in the exclusion zone....I don't know what else to tell you.

you fall prey to the tactics of the bullies who have harassed clinic patients, staff and the neigborhood for years. Ignore the 9,999 things we did wrong and let’s talk only about this one moment when we were only maybe wrong and proclaim that we are never wrong and the law can’t touch us. They are good at this, they work hard at this. And it’s intentional. They hope the public falls for it.