Censorship and Social Media

[Common Sense Club]

You miss the point that everyone who makes these claims misses!

The “silently praying” justification is an irrelevance. It’s standing in the buffer zone in any way that potentially could be interpreted by a user of the clinic there as intimidatory. It’s their rights that are being protected, not those of those doing the standing. Their right to pray silently in any other nearby public space is not affected. When the only reason they choose to be in the buffer zone is to be seen by those using the clinic there is no reasonable defence possible available to them.

Bus stops won’t be in buffer zones. If a prostitute stood in one then they too risk arrest. Not though for prostitution but for standing in a prohibited area.

So, a no go area for those wishing to save the life of an unborn child, and a no go area in Birmingham for those who want to follow their football team.
It’s going well for the freedoms of the individual…
As a matter of interest is the area around the abortion clinic signposted as such, or can people stray into it unwittingly?

 

[PalazioVecchio]

That way you wouldn't get into arguments about were they silently praying / protesting or just out walking the dog etc.

i never thought that an innocent activity, walking the dog, would become controversial. Political. Theological. Never in my lifetime had i anticipated that. And that my dog was not welcome everywhere.

 

[Wisbech Eagle]

Exactly, so this government doesn't have the courage of its convictions. It wants no go areas but doesn't want to call them that. 😕

They aren’t though no go areas at all. We can still access them. We just cannot behave in a way that has the potential to be interpreted by users of the centre as trying to intimidate them. We can walk through, chatting to each other. Stop to answer the phone, or tie a lace. Standing still in deep contemplation, no. Go to an adjacent street, outside the zone, no problem.

 

[Common Sense Club]

They aren’t though no go areas at all. We can still access them. We just cannot behave in a way that has the potential to be interpreted by users of the centre as trying to intimidate them. We can walk through, chatting to each other. Stop to answer the phone, or tie a lace. Standing still in deep contemplation, no. Go to an adjacent street, outside the zone, no problem.

I wonder what would happen if the Muslim community decided to pray in the street?

 

[Wisbech Eagle]

So, a no go area for those wishing to save the life of an unborn child, and a no go area in Birmingham for those who want to follow their football team.
It’s going well for the freedoms of the individual…
As a matter of interest is the area around the abortion clinic signposted as such, or can people stray into it unwittingly?

No, it’s a buffer zone around an abortion clinic to allow those who wish to use their legally provided services to do so without fear of intimidation.

It has nothing to do with those who hold strong beliefs about abortion. They are fully entitled to hold such beliefs and campaign for them. Just not in prohibited buffer zones where other rights have been deemed to need protection.

Generally the zones are not marked but those wishing to protest will be very aware of them. Others just innocently passing through the area, who stopped for some reason, are unlikely to be affected. The police will ask anyone in conflict with the law to move on, and only arrest and charge for wilful disobedience.

 

[Wisbech Eagle]

I wonder what would happen if the Muslim community decided to pray in the street?

If it was in a buffer zone around an abortion clinic they would be asked to move outside the zone. If they refused they would be arrested and either warned as first time offenders or charged if repeat offenders.

 

[georgenorman]

They aren’t though no go areas at all. We can still access them. We just cannot behave in a way that has the potential to be interpreted by users of the centre as trying to intimidate them. We can walk through, chatting to each other. Stop to answer the phone, or tie a lace. Standing still in deep contemplation, no. Go to an adjacent street, outside the zone, no problem.

I see, so if she was doing star-jumps while silently praying - that would be ok?

 

[Common Sense Club]

No, it’s a buffer zone around an abortion clinic to allow those who wish to use their legally provided services to do so without fear of intimidation.

It has nothing to do with those who hold strong beliefs about abortion. They are fully entitled to hold such beliefs and campaign for them. Just not in prohibited buffer zones where other rights have been deemed to need protection.

Generally the zones are not marked but those wishing to protest will be very aware of them. Others just innocently passing through the area, who stopped for some reason, are unlikely to be affected. The police will ask anyone in conflict with the law to move on, and only arrest and charge for wilful disobedience.

So there’s a police presence there all the time in case somebody wants to stand still in the area, so that they can advise or arrest them.

 

[Wisbech Eagle]

The irrelevant diversion attempts are from you, such as here. I've literally given you an identical example here in Britain to challenge your answer, and instead of realising that it has been shot down, because you know full well the answer, you ring another of your accusation alarm bells.

Sad sad man

You are just digging your hole ever deeper!

Your “example” wasn’t just not identical it had no connection of any kind. It was a pathetic attempt a diversion. We are talking about government employees being refused visas by the authoritarian Trump regime as a form of retribution for being involved in the preparation of the new policies designed to protect minors from online abuse. Policies being introduced, perfectly legally, by national governments. Your response had no connection to that.

In addition you accused me of saying things I have not. I asked for an apology. Or at least for you to remove the libellous post. Nothing yet!

 

[Common Sense Club]

If it was in a buffer zone around an abortion clinic they would be asked to move outside the zone. If they refused they would be arrested and either warned as first time offenders or charged if repeat offenders.

You seriously think that a middle aged woman standing silently would be treated the same as a bearded man in a white robe facing Mecca? You know that some religious beliefs are held in higher regard than others…

 

[cryrst]

You miss the point that everyone who makes these claims misses!

The “silently praying” justification is an irrelevance. It’s standing in the buffer zone in any way that potentially could be interpreted by a user of the clinic there as intimidatory. It’s their rights that are being protected, not those of those doing the standing. Their right to pray silently in any other nearby public space is not affected. When the only reason they choose to be in the buffer zone is to be seen by those using the clinic there is no reasonable defence possible available to them.

Bus stops won’t be in buffer zones. If a prostitute stood in one then they too risk arrest. Not though for prostitution but for standing in a prohibited area.

Especially if she had her tits out 👌

 

[Wisbech Eagle]

So there’s a police presence there all the time in case somebody wants to stand still in the area, so that they can advise or arrest them.

I doubt it, but I would expect there to be cctv scrutiny and a prepared response in place. Most of the likely offenders will be known to the police and face recognition cameras work very well.

 

[Wisbech Eagle]

You seriously think that a middle aged woman standing silently would be treated the same as a bearded man in a white robe facing Mecca? You know that some religious beliefs are held in higher regard than others…

If it was considered that what your hypothetical man was doing wasn’t intimidatory then it might be ignored as no rights are being impacted.

If he was considered to be trying to intimidate users of the clinic then he would be required to move on or face arrest.

 

[Common Sense Club]

I doubt it, but I would expect there to be cctv scrutiny and a prepared response in place. Most of the likely offenders will be known to the police and face recognition cameras work very well.

I’m tempted to take a trip there and stand opposite the clinic with a Palestinian flag and a stop the war placard. I will be secretly praying at the same time…maybe for the soul of the unborn child, maybe for forgiveness of the mother, or maybe for Palace to win the FA Cup again. Could be an interesting day.

 

[Common Sense Club]

If it was considered that what your hypothetical man was doing wasn’t intimidatory then it might be ignored as no rights are being impacted.

If he was considered to be trying to intimidate users of the clinic then he would be required to move on or face arrest.

As I said, some religious beliefs are held in higher regard than others…

 

[Wisbech Eagle]

I’m tempted to take a trip there and stand opposite the clinic with a Palestinian flag and a stop the war placard. I will be secretly praying at the same time…maybe for the soul of the unborn child, maybe for forgiveness of the mother, or maybe for Palace to win the FA Cup again. Could be an interesting day.

Try it!

My guess is you would be asked to move on as I doubt they would consider the Palestinian or stop the war protests to be genuine. Not many of them in side streets. They would quickly work you out. Not too many Palace flags in Birmingham either.

 

[Wisbech Eagle]

As I said, some religious beliefs are held in higher regard than others…

You said it, wrongly. Twice.

It wouldn’t depend on a religion, or lack of one. It depends solely on the possibility that the action could be perceived as intimidating.

 

[Spindle]

I wonder what would happen if the Muslim community decided to pray in the street?

If? Suggest you google "Muslims praying in UK streets" and hit 'Images'

 

[Spindle]

You are just digging your hole ever deeper!

Your “example” wasn’t just not identical it had no connection of any kind. It was a pathetic attempt a diversion. We are talking about government employees being refused visas by the authoritarian Trump regime as a form of retribution for being involved in the preparation of the new policies designed to protect minors from online abuse. Policies being introduced, perfectly legally, by national governments. Your response had no connection to that.

In addition you accused me of saying things I have not. I asked for an apology. Or at least for you to remove the libellous post. Nothing yet!

You are the one who owe's apologies, and many of them to the people on here you troll daily. And to this nation for your part in destroying our culture.

I gave an example of exactly what you said, you didn't like it. Get stuffed.

 

[Common Sense Club]

You said it, wrongly. Twice.

It wouldn’t depend on a religion, or lack of one. It depends solely on the possibility that the action could be perceived as intimidating.

Perceived by who?
One woman’s right to stand silently outweighed by someone’s right to terminate an unborn child.
Standing silently deemed as intimidating…just think about that.
Perhaps the government should ban ‘a minute’s silence’ next time an atrocity occurs or when we commemorate the war dead in November, as someone might find it intimidating.