Expressing opinions is not intimidation or harassment.She opposes the existence of the clinic. She has expressed this opposition. She has expressed her opinions of their staff, and she has expressed her opinions on what they do.It was a protest. I see no evidence it was intimidation or harassment.She could have been "standing there breathing and admiring the sky" and that, too, would elicit the same response, because for her, in that space, for that duration, any presence in that place is "protest... intimidation... harassment"
If, as her lawyer's statement asserts, she only protested when the clinic was closed, I do not regard her protest as intimidation or harassment.This existential opposition, combined with their presence in the vicinity, in the clear reality of attacks made on businesses such as that by groups such as this, is intimidation. Due to their behavior in the past of harassing folks passing through that space, just being there to see and watch people move through that space is intimidation.
That's absurd. Other people are not "harassed" by merely being disapproved of, visible disapproval or not. Do you think a frown at bad customer service is 'harassment'?And, being there for that long, praying, visibly or as publicly stated by the guilty party, is an act of harassment. It is a communication of message (though her loitering presence is sufficient to make that comminication, given her reputation), that they disapprove of the behavior of the patrons of the business, and of the business. It is an unwanted behavior visibly directed at a captive group. That is harassment.
Sure Jan.Your inability to see it is directly proportional to the percentage of your vision you seem to be willfully obstructing with your hand and eyelids and mental faculties.
It absolutely can be. If someone expressed the opinion that gay people should be stoned whenever you posted and asked probing questions about your address and then expressed those opinions while standing outside your home address, for example, that expression of an "opinion" would be a threat against you, intimidation.Expressing opinions is not intimidation or harassment.
So you admit she was breaking the order by "protesting" there, irrespective of the activity of the protest. This not for "prayer" but for "protest".If, as her lawyer's statement asserts, she only protested when the clinic was closed, I do not regard her protest as intimidation or harassment.
Obviously they are if they are captive to the event. That is the very nature of harassment, any act of communication or behavior that is not absolutely necessary which someone is captive to, and which they wish to end.Other people are not "harassed" by merely being disapproved of, visible disapproval or not.
Clearly, the officials elected in Birmingham disagree.If, as her lawyer's statement asserts, she only protested when the clinic was closed, I do not regard her protest as intimidation or harassment.
Yeah, threatening behaviours are threatening. Expressing opinions, per se, is not intimidation or harassment.It absolutely can be. If someone expressed the opinion that gay people should be stoned whenever you posted and asked probing questions about your address and then expressed those opinions while standing outside your home address, for example, that expression of an "opinion" would be a threat against you, intimidation.Expressing opinions is not intimidation or harassment.
Another difference is that she did not say that the clinic workers should be 'stoned'. Or did she?The only difference here is that she didn't need to ask for an address, as she already had one, and it is a place of business not a residence.
It is evident you haven't read the thread for clarity, but for revenge. I never denied she was protesting as defined by the rules laid out in the PSPO. And one activity defined as protest in the PSPO is prayer. It is explicitly mentioned. And she was asked if she was praying.So you admit she was breaking the order by "protesting" there, irrespective of the activity of the protest. This not for "prayer" but for "protest".If, as her lawyer's statement asserts, she only protested when the clinic was closed, I do not regard her protest as intimidation or harassment.
They are not 'captive' to the behaviour.And, people still have to go to a workplace on occasion when it is "closed" and will still be captive to that behavior when they do, harassing off-hours workers and intimidating them away from doing so.
They are not captive to it.Obviously they are if they are captive to the event.Other people are not "harassed" by merely being disapproved of, visible disapproval or not.
Your characterisation of standing alone silently in a public street, having never physically assaulted anybody, carrying no signs or weapons, as "intimidating and harassing", is absurd.That is the very nature of harassment, any act of communication or behavior that is not absolutely necessary which someone is captive to, and which they wish to end.
Someone could achieve the definition of harassment as much by doggedly "approving" of someone as well. It's the doggedness amid nonconsent, not the specific behavior that makes someone harassment.
Your attempt to make a carve-out in harassment so you can specially plead is absurd.
Yeah, I kind of get that already. The same officials who banned silent prayer think differently to me. Quelle surprise.Clearly, the officials elected in Birmingham disagree.If, as her lawyer's statement asserts, she only protested when the clinic was closed, I do not regard her protest as intimidation or harassment.
Yes, they are, they must be there to do their job. They cannot leave, as their obligations to do work and maintain their job would be violated were they to not be there.They are not 'captive' to the behaviour.
No.Yeah, I kind of get that already. The same officials who banned silent prayer think differently to me. Quelle surprise.Clearly, the officials elected in Birmingham disagree.If, as her lawyer's statement asserts, she only protested when the clinic was closed, I do not regard her protest as intimidation or harassment.
They walk in the street and go inside. Nobody is captive.Yes, they are, they must be there to do their job. They cannot leave, as their obligations to do work and maintain their job would be violated were they to not be there.They are not 'captive' to the behaviour.
If you were standing there silently, had never assaulted me, had no weapons, and said you were praying for me, I would not feel intimidated. I might feel 'harassed', but not in a way that justified the gov't banning you from praying in your head.I repeat, were I to stand silently on a public street that happened to be the place where you live, I would risk being charged with "harassment and intimidation", especially if I had no pressing need to be there.
There's nothing special about it. Silent prayer is thoughts in your head.Your special pleading that prayer can't possibly constitute an intimidating act is laughable.
Why have you put 'protest' in inverted commas? What on earth do you think she was doing? She was obviously protesting.Her behavior was illegal. It was already illegal when she was "protesting".
Yes indeed. The PSPO bans prayer in the exclusion zone, an extremely troubling misuse of gov't power.She dug herself deeper when she discussed praying, which was also listed explicitly as a form of protest which in that location was banned.
Her prior protests may have. The behaviour at the protest she was arrested at in the video? It is not reasonable to classify that as intimidating and harassing.Her protests at the clinic constitute intimidation and harassment of the clients and staff, and nothing you say will change that fact.
There are no circumstances where the gov't should ban private prayer.That she chose a vehicle for illegal protest which is normally protected is metaphorocally shitting where you eat and sleep. It's not a way to get away with illegal activity, but rather a way to find new and correct ways your normally protected rights don't apply.
How many times do people have to repeat, " She didn't get in trouble for prayer, private or at the top of her lungs!"There are no circumstances where the gov't should ban private prayer.
You can repeat it an infinite number of times if you like. The PSPO bans prayer in the exclusion zone.How many times do people have to repeat, " She didn't get in trouble for prayer, private or at the top of her lungs!"There are no circumstances where the gov't should ban private prayer.
I'm trying to 'push' an issue on you by talking about a PSPO that bans prayer? But when you post your not 'pushing' an issue?
So, while I oppose some elective abortions I'm also about keeping peace amongst diverse people. So is the Birmingham city council. And that's what I see going on here. Birmingham city council trying to balance everybody's issues while you and Ms. V-S try to push your issues on the rest of us.
I'm trying to 'push' an issue on you by talking about a PSPO that bans prayer? But when you post your not 'pushing' an issue?
So, while I oppose some elective abortions I'm also about keeping peace amongst diverse people. So is the Birmingham city council. And that's what I see going on here. Birmingham city council trying to balance everybody's issues while you and Ms. V-S try to push your issues on the rest of us.
They have to walk across that street she is occupying to get inside. They are captive to that.They walk in the street and go inside. Nobody is captive.
So, the government shouldn't ban private prayer, outside a car, in the middle lanes of the highway?There are no circumstances where the gov't should ban private prayer.
Standing silently on your own is not 'occupying' the street. Occupiers act in concert and physically disrupt the flow of traffic and other pedestrians.They have to walk across that street she is occupying to get inside. They are captive to that.They walk in the street and go inside. Nobody is captive.
The government bans stopping your car in the middle of a highway and exiting it. That's the problem. Whether you are singing ABBA's 'Chiquitita' in your head, or praying in your head, after having done this act is entirely irrelevant.So, the government shouldn't ban private prayer, outside a car, in the middle lanes of the highway?There are no circumstances where the gov't should ban private prayer.
Yeah, I know.The fact is, this order bans literally all activity (including prayer) that can be construed as "pursuant to protest, harassment, and intimidation".
The crime is driving a getaway car. There is nothing in bank robbery laws that say it is forbidden to pray in your head while committing a bank robbery.The law only maintains the legality of prayer when it is not done in the act of committing a crime.
I expect the law also bans private prayer in a car outside a bank, assuming the person "privately praying outside a bank in a running car" happens to be driving the car that five bank robbers are about to get into, and telling the police officer that's what you were doing there will not get you out of a charge for aiding and abetting a bank robbery.
I'm mad at the people who banned silent prayer.Breaking the law by "praying" is an excellent way to get protections for "praying" chipped away at. It will not save you from having your activities identified as wrong.
The issue here is that this group has abused the right to pray in an attempt to avoid enforcement of laws intended to prevent harassment and intimidation. If you want to be mad at anyone for getting "prayer" banned, be mad at the people who finally figured out how to do something observably illegal through an act of prayer.
If you are in the street, you are occupying the place in the street where you are.Standing silently on your own is not 'occupying' the street
And the government bans occupying space outside an abortion clinic without the intent to use their services. In both situations prayer is secondary to the crime.The government bans stopping your car in the middle of a highway and exiting it.
Which is why when the bank robber gets arrested "while being there for the purposes of praying" and charged not for "praying" but for "robbing a bank". This woman will be charged for violating a PSPO and charged not for "praying" but for "protesting in a restricted area".The crime is driving a getaway car. There is nothing in bank robbery laws that say it is forbidden to pray in your head while committing a bank robbery.
So you are mad at a lie you believed, that this order bans prayer rather than all protest in that space, the same way as the highway laws ban such "prayer".I'm mad at the people who banned silent prayer.
Nobody banned silent prayer.I'm mad at the people who banned silent prayer.
I have already explained upthread what I would have done. VS is the problem, so I'd simply put an ASBO on her preventing her from being within x metres of the clinic. I would not have banned prayer in the exclusion zone.
Yes...people can't defy the laws of physics surprisingly, but that is not the typical use of the word 'occupy', like occupying a toilet.If you are in the street, you are occupying the place in the street where you are.Standing silently on your own is not 'occupying' the street
Prayer is the crime in the PSPO zone, along with a number of other acts that are considered protesting. Silent prayer should not be in that list.And the government bans occupying space outside an abortion clinic without the intent to use their services. In both situations prayer is secondary to the crime.The government bans stopping your car in the middle of a highway and exiting it.
Yeah, I know. And praying is considered protest.Which is why when the bank robber gets arrested "while being there for the purposes of praying" and charged not for "praying" but for "robbing a bank". This woman will be charged for violating a PSPO and charged not for "praying" but for "protesting in a restricted area".The crime is driving a getaway car. There is nothing in bank robbery laws that say it is forbidden to pray in your head while committing a bank robbery.
Where is this "using the space for transit" wording? In the PSPO?All the law does is name a few of the activities people say they are doing there which are not "using the space for transit". If they prayed while "using the space for transit", then they are not violating the order.
It bans prayer, and I never believed protest was not banned.So you are mad at a lie you believed, that this order bans prayer rather than all protest in that space,I'm mad at the people who banned silent prayer.
I did not claim it was a defense. She was clearly protesting. But silent prayer should not be in the PSPO.the same way as the highway laws ban such "prayer".
Praying is not a defense against violating the legal purposes of a space.
Nobody banned silent prayer.I'm mad at the people who banned silent prayer.
Nobody.
Yes, all those things are banned. They are explicitly named as acts that constitute protest. It's in the PSPO.You keep going on about it. But that's not happened.
I have already explained upthread what I would have done. VS is the problem, so I'd simply put an ASBO on her preventing her from being within x metres of the clinic. I would not have banned prayer in the exclusion zone.
Ms. V-S isn't the whole problem. She is the leader of a group, but that's not the same.
She's determined to screw with people she doesn't like. She'll break the law to do so. She'll lie to get her way. Like "I was arrested for praying!".
Which is the OP, if you'll recall. The lie that the UK thought police arrested her for praying. That didn't happen, and now everyone who cares knows it. The real reason she was arrested has become known. Your post "I'm mad at the people who banned silent prayer."
Is just so much bullshit. Silent prayer, out loud prayer, even screaming loud prayer is not banned.
Your last statement is false. The PSPO does not mention 'legitimate reasons'.Being on that particular piece of property, without a legitimate reason, is banned.
Tom
The PSPO bans it. It is in fact explicitly included in the list of things that will b
I reject the basis of your question. I understand the PSPO bans prayer (as well as a list of other activites) in the PSPO, because these activities are regarded as 'protest'. It's in the PSPO.The PSPO bans it. It is in fact explicitly included in the list of things that will b
No it doesn't.
Can you grasp that praying, silent or not, is not banned by the PSPO?
It's a yes or no question. Do you understand that praying is not banned by the PSPO?
Tom
THE ACTIVITIES
The Activities prohibited by the Order are:
i Protesting, namely engaging in any act of approval or disapproval or attempted act of
approval or disapproval, with respect to issues related to abortion services, by any means.
This includes but is not limited to graphic, verbal or written means, prayer or counselling,
