- Joined
- Oct 22, 2002
- Messages
- 39,690
- Location
- Frozen in Michigan
- Gender
- Old Fart
- Basic Beliefs
- Don't be a dick.
Apparently prayer has a very short effective range.
Because if she had a legitimate reason for violating the ordinance things would have been different.Not this again. Why did the officer ask if she was praying?
Tom, you don't understand the PSPO. You cannot 'legitimately' violate it. You are allowed to be inside the exclusion zone. You are not allowed to protest inside the exclusion zone.Because if she had a legitimate reason for violating the ordinance things would have been different.Not this again. Why did the officer ask if she was praying?
You seem to be agreeing that praying in her head violated the conditions of the exclusion zone.The cop got her on camera explaining that she was there to violate the PSPO. She didn't care about anyone except herself.
Not the clinic staff. Not the clients. Not the neighbors.
She was there to screw with everyone she didn't like. Because she thinks her religion makes her better than the rest of us.
If you have a different explanation for why she was flouting the locals, and the ordinance that they put in place to protect themselves from people like her, please explain it.
Tom, you don't understand the PSPO. You cannot 'legitimately' violate it.
Tom, you don't understand the PSPO. You cannot 'legitimately' violate it.
I think that you are the one who doesn't understand the PSPO.
Do you think that a staff member on their way into the facility is violating the PSPO? I don't.
If the staff member were praying "Please don't let this be the day a violent Christian firebombs the clinic", would that be a violation of the PSPO?
I don't.
No. I don't think that you understand the PSPO. You don't understand why it was put in place.
I don't know what VS was thinking, so I can't be sure why she violated it.Or why Ms V-S violated it, deliberately and on camera.
I don't think you understand that.
Tom
There's a video of their interaction. Go ahead and watch it and then make your own guess as to why. If you think Vaughan-Spruce saying she "might by praying in [her] head" had a greater influence on the outcome than her admission she was standing where she was because "it's an abortion center", or the allegations she had repeatedly violated the PSPO on prior occasions, then make your case using the evidence.Not this again. Why did the officer ask if she was praying?Not this again.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 thatSeems to me that is exactly what the PSPO did and the perp admitted to violating it.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.
* 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.
She wasn't arrested for praying in her head.
Read the PSPO. It doesn't require the prayer to be out loud.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 thatSeems to me that is exactly what the PSPO did and the perp admitted to violating it.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.
* 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.
The.video clearly shows that the arrest occurs because MS Vaughan-Spruce refuses to go to the station to answer questions.There's a video of their interaction. Go ahead and watch it and then make your own guess as to why. If you think Vaughan-Spruce saying she "might by praying in [her] head" had a greater influence on the outcome than her admission she was standing where she was because "it's an abortion center", or the allegations she had repeatedly violated the PSPO on prior occasions, then make your case using the evidence.
I've watched the video. I did not say it had a 'greater influence'. I do know that the PSPO forbids praying in the exclusion zone and that after that answer, she was asked to go with the police. Praying was not necessary to her having been arrested but it seems to have been sufficient.There's a video of their interaction. Go ahead and watch it and then make your own guess as to why. If you think Vaughan-Spruce saying she "might by praying in [her] head" had a greater influence on the outcome than her admission she was standing where she was because "it's an abortion center", or the allegations she had repeatedly violated the PSPO on prior occasions, then make your case using the evidence.Not this again. Why did the officer ask if she was praying?Not this again.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 thatSeems to me that is exactly what the PSPO did and the perp admitted to violating it.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.
* 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.
She wasn't arrested for praying in her head.
Yeah...I understand that. That's what makes the PSPO straight-up fascist. It doesn't make the PSPO better. It makes it worse.Read the PSPO. It doesn't require the prayer to be out loud.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 thatSeems to me that is exactly what the PSPO did and the perp admitted to violating it.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.
* 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.
As far as I can tell it worked correctly. She appears to have gone there with the purpose of violating it. She was arrested which is the proper outcome. Just because she engineered her disobedience to be barely dipping her toe over the line is irrelevant. You don't get to say "pay no attention to my toe, I didn't cross the line." The camel's nose should be whacked!Yeah...I understand that. That's what makes the PSPO straight-up fascist. It doesn't make the PSPO better. It makes it worse.Read the PSPO. It doesn't require the prayer to be out loud.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 thatSeems to me that is exactly what the PSPO did and the perp admitted to violating it.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.
* 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.
Loren, if you can't see why it's a bad thing for the government to ban silent prayer, I cannot help you. Have a good day.As far as I can tell it worked correctly. She appears to have gone there with the purpose of violating it. She was arrested which is the proper outcome. Just because she engineered her disobedience to be barely dipping her toe over the line is irrelevant. You don't get to say "pay no attention to my toe, I didn't cross the line." The camel's nose should be whacked!Yeah...I understand that. That's what makes the PSPO straight-up fascist. It doesn't make the PSPO better. It makes it worse.Read the PSPO. It doesn't require the prayer to be out loud.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 thatSeems to me that is exactly what the PSPO did and the perp admitted to violating it.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.
* 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.
LOL.Loren, if you can't see why it's a bad thing for the government to ban silent prayer, I cannot help you. Have a good day.
Is that you stipulating that the fetuses she's trying to prevent from being aborted don't count as "anyone"?Because if she had a legitimate reason for violating the ordinance things would have been different.Not this again. Why did the officer ask if she was praying?
The cop got her on camera explaining that she was there to violate the PSPO. She didn't care about anyone except herself.
Not the clinic staff. Not the clients. Not the neighbors.
Self-autonomy isn't the right to kill human beings you find inconvenient either
She probably figured getting herself arrested for silently praying would mean bad press for the other side and make it more likely that she'd ultimately succeed in saving some fetuses from getting aborted. It looks like she's playing chess while the city council thinks it's playing whack-a-mole.She was there to screw with everyone she didn't like. Because she thinks her religion makes her better than the rest of us.
If you have a different explanation for why she was flouting the locals, and the ordinance that they put in place to protect themselves from people like her, please explain it.
I don't think you can.
Yes, I know. I've read the PSPO.LOL.Loren, if you can't see why it's a bad thing for the government to ban silent prayer, I cannot help you. Have a good day.
The government did not ban silent prayer. It banned protesting in this specific zone after years of antisocial disruption
- showing disapproval OR approval, by any means
- including, but not limited to:
- - Praying
- - Holding signs
- - blocking the entrance
- - Harassing the clients or staff
- - Or neighbors
You don't get it, Rhea.And we get that you don’t see that,
She was arrested for protesting in the exclusion zone. Praying in your head is one of the acts that is explicitly defined as protesting.and that you bought the lie that she was “arrested for” silently praying in her head,
I didn't see her harass anybody in the video. I can't speak to previous occasions.when in actuality she was clearly arrested for harassing people by constantly getting in their faces and spaces
You don't get it, Rhea.with the intent to intimidate as her organizaion clearly states they want to do.
I get that you have bought the outrage porn
You don't get it, Rhea.about “fascism” when she is the one who is bullyingg. And I get that you allow that lie about her arrest to blind you to the fact that you are making excuses for a bully.
The government banned silent prayer in the exclusion zone, among other things that it banned as 'protesting'.But yeah, the government didn’t ban silent prayer. It banned harassment and intimidation in this space after years of people harassing and intimidating while calling it a “protest”.
The evidence it's a lie is a bunch of people saying it's a lie. The evidence it's true is the text of the PSPO and the video. When you tell us it's a lie again and call what the police say "corrective" again, that will most likely be about as convincing to the readers of a freethinkers' forum as proof by repetition and argument from authority typically are.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.
That argument deserves only ridicule; but I suspect you may not appreciate being ridiculed, so let's put it this way: when a law prohibits murder and someone is observed to be arrested immediately after being discovered murdering, you would not argue "Saying she was arrested for murdering is a lie; she was arrested for breaking the law." But when a law prohibits praying and someone is observed to be arrested immediately after being discovered praying, you do make the parallel argument. That looks like a textbook case of a "Special Pleading Fallacy."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...
why did he ask her if she was praying?
I'll take a wild guess here. Could be that he was building a case against her (which is similar to what the police do here in America). If she admitted to praying it could be used as evidence that she was breaking the law. The PSPO says prayer (which itself is verbal or non verbal) is a violation . Get it now? GOSH!
If a criminal commits four crimes and is arrested for all four, that means he was arrested for the first, and for the second, and for the third, and for the fourth. It does not mean he was arrested for the first, and for the second, and for the third, but not at all for the fourth.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.
The evidence it's a lie is a bunch of people saying it's a lie. The evidence it's true is the text of the PSPO and the video. When you tell us it's a lie again and call what the police say "corrective" again, that will most likely be about as convincing to the readers of a freethinkers' forum as proof by repetition and argument from authority typically are.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.
That argument deserves only ridicule; but I suspect you may not appreciate being ridiculed, so let's put it this way: when a law prohibits murder and someone is observed to be arrested immediately after being discovered murdering, you would not argue "Saying she was arrested for murdering is a lie; she was arrested for breaking the law." But when a law prohibits praying and someone is observed to be arrested immediately after being discovered praying, you do make the parallel argument. That looks like a textbook case of a "Special Pleading Fallacy."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...
why did he ask her if she was praying?
I'll take a wild guess here. Could be that he was building a case against her (which is similar to what the police do here in America). If she admitted to praying it could be used as evidence that she was breaking the law. The PSPO says prayer (which itself is verbal or non verbal) is a violation . Get it now? GOSH!
If a criminal commits four crimes and is arrested for all four, that means he was arrested for the first, and for the second, and for the third, and for the fourth. It does not mean he was arrested for the first, and for the second, and for the third, but not at all for the fourth.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.
It does not appear that 'silently praying' was cited by the police or the courts as a reason for the arrest, and it's obvious it wasn't needed for the charges to be substantiated.
What is your evidence it was the possible praying in her head that got her arrested, not her being in the area covered by the PSPO because "it's an abortion center", or the allegations she had violated the PSPO on other occasions?