Abort 67 "intimidating protests" outside Blackfriars/London clinic

[SpookyFrank]

so people's right to protest flies out the window when you disgree with them. are you prepared to put your money where your mouth is and arrange or attend a counter-demonstration?

Do you have the right to demonstrate in favour of denying rights to others? It's a tricky one.

e2a: There are laws against causing harassment or distress, which demonstrating outside an abortion clinic is pretty much guaranteed to cause. And they're specifically targetting vulnerable people, which I don't believe anyone has the right to do. They could go to westminster and demonstrate outside parliament, taking their views to the people who can actually change the laws around abortion, but they don't do that. Most likely because they know they'd be chased off by counter-demonstrators.

 

[Athos]

I wouldn't frame the thing in terms of 'rights' at all, tbh. It was a response to another poster. Sometimes people can become so twisted up by a logic discussion involving rights that they forget what is important, what is the decent and compassionate thing to do. Here, what is important above all is the wellbeing of the women using the clinic. That's what I'm concerned about.

Whilst I agree with the sentiment, I'm not sure that sentiment is the best basis for a principled position; it must be tempered by reason. I don't think the right to protest should be discounted so easily.

 

[Pickman's model]

Do you have the right to demonstrate in favour of denying rights to others? It's a tricky one.

the legal right? yes. and often the moral right, too. i think many people would support a demonstration to deny civil rights to lib dem mps, for example.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

Whilst I agree with the sentiment, I'm not sure that sentiment is the best basis for a principled position; it must be tempered by reason. I don't think the right to protest should be discounted so easily.

They want the law changing. Let them demonstrate outside parliament. Do we have the right to upset others to make our point wherever and whenever we like? No we don't.

 

[butchersapron]

They want the law changing. Let them demonstrate outside parliament. Do we have the right to upset others to make our point wherever and whenever we like? No we don't.

How would that play out in say, the anti-poll tax movement?

 

[Athos]

They want the law changing. Let them demonstrate outside parliament. Do we have the right to upset others to make our point wherever and whenever we like? No we don't.

Hmmm, a toughie. Does anyone have a right not to be upset? Ought that to trump a right to free speech? Is speech truly free if it is limited to particular locations?

All in all, I don't think this is something with which we ought to look to the law for help.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

How would that worked in say, the anti-poll tax movement?

Were they targeting and intimidating individuals who'd paid the poll tax? Or were they targeting the govt machinery?

If you can't see the difference between women seeking an abortion and government employees enforcing a tax, then you're lost.

 

[SpookyFrank]

the legal right? yes. and often the moral right, too. i think many people would support a demonstration to deny civil rights to lib dem mps, for example.

Lib dem MPs have chosen to become such. By definition nobody chooses to have an unwanted pregnancy.

 

[SpookyFrank]

How would that play out in say, the anti-poll tax movement?

To me this sort of protest is more like opposing the poll tax by barracking the binmen and road gritters whose wages the poll tax would've paid for.

 

[butchersapron]

Were they targeting and intimidating individuals who'd paid the poll tax? Or were they targeting the govt machinery?

If you can't see the difference between women seeking an abortion and government employees enforcing a tax, then you're lost.

We were targeting bailiffs and stopping them going about their lawful business and harassing and intimidating them at their homes and places of business. And i was speaking more of the suggestion that here is the place that laws are made, so you must go there and only there to protest. Not only does this give unwarranted legitimacy to parliament, it's also tactically suicidal, politically limiting and radical vicarish. if you can't see why then...

 

[butchersapron]

To me this sort of protest is more like opposing the poll tax by barracking the binmen and road gritters whose wages the poll tax would've paid for.

I'm not making a comparison between the two but asking how the command to go to parliment and only parliament - this being the only legitimate form of protest apparently - would have played out in the poll tax if followed. I'll tell you, it would have strangled the social movement we helped create at birth by removing it from wider social life and into the only acceptable arena of parliament and official politics. Never mind the same question posed as regards the miners strike or other more direct clashes.

 

[butchersapron]

Were they targeting and intimidating individuals who'd paid the poll tax? Or were they targeting the govt machinery?

If you can't see the difference between women seeking an abortion and government employees enforcing a tax, then you're lost.

I asked you about how your suggestion of what the only legitimate thing for protesters to do would have played out in the anti-poll tax movement if followed. Can you try and give an answer please?

 

[ddraig]

We have problems in Cardiff occassionally with pro life groups although the police here do make them protest across the street, and the department store across the street isn't keen either. The counter demos are very deliberately when the clinic isn't open so it doesn't add to the distress of anyone attending.

they've been seen off apparently
http://www.urban75.net/forums/threads/anti-choice-bigots-defeated-in-cardiff.328279/

 

[SpookyFrank]

I'm not making a comparison between the two but asking how the command to go to parliment and only parliament - this being the only legitimate form of protest apparently - would have played out in the poll tax if followed. I'll tell you, it would have strangled the social movement we helped create at birth by removing it from wider social life and into the only acceptable arena of parliament and official politics. Never mind the same question posed as regards the miners strike or other more direct clashes.

I'm not suggesting everyone should take all their grievances to parliament square, as you say that would preclude basically any effective direct action. I'm saying that women going to an abortion clinic are not the best target to choose if you want things to change, but they are the best people to target if you just want to cause the maxmimum possible distress.

 

[butchersapron]

I'm not suggesting everyone should take all their grievances to parliament square, as you say that would preclude basically any effective direct action. I'm saying that women going to an abortion clinic are not the best target to choose if you want things to change, but they are the best people to target if you just want to cause the maxmimum possible distress.

But again, that's irrelevant to my point. The content of this specific protest - or any other - doesn't matter. What matters is the argument that if you want the law changed then all you can and must do is go to parliament. That's what i was querying by asking how it would have played out in previous protests.

 

[cantsin]

like they do against the Westboro Baptist bigade, stand in front of them / form a barrier between them and the clinic / anyone attending ?

( apols, in response to the 'what can be done' comment ?

 

[SpookyFrank]

A lot of the anti-choice movement's tactics stem from willful disinformation as well, like in the US where they'll set up centres purporting to offer impartial advice but which actually exist only to dissuade women from getting an abortion. This goes hand in hand with political campaigning to close down abortion clinics and legitimate advice centres.

This is not a social movement. It's a crusade run by a handful of wealthy and influential people and groups which has aspects that are designed to like like a social movement. It's literally rent-a-mob tactics.

 

[Pickman's model]

They want the law changing. Let them demonstrate outside parliament. Do we have the right to upset others to make our point wherever and whenever we like? No we don't.

why not? on what basis do you make that bold claim?

 

[SpookyFrank]

But again, that's irrelevant to my point. The content of this specific protest - or any other - doesn't matter. What matters is the argument that is you want the law changed then all you can and must do is go to parliament. That's what i was querying by asking how it would have played out in previous protests.

I've stood outside parliament shouting a fair few times. It hasn't yet achieved anything as far as I can tell.

People can choose how to protest just as they can choose what to protest about. I just think their choice of tactics and targets is proof of their cruelty and cynicism.

 

[butchersapron]

A lot of the anti-choice movement's tactics stem from willful disinformation as well, like in the US where they'll set up centres purporting to offer impartial advice but which actually exist only to dissuade women from getting an abortion. This goes hand in hand with political campaigning to close down abortion clinics and legitimate advice centres.

This is not a social movement. It's a crusade run by a handful of wealthy and influential people and groups which has aspects that are designed to like like a social movement. It's literally rent-a-mob tactics.

Again, it doesn't matter if it was the exact same as the anti-poll tax movement or other examples i could give. What matters is what the advice offered by lbj as to what protesters should/must do would have done to those movements. If anything, the argument that, well it's different for the examples i gave actually bolsters the idea that it's only things that he agrees with that need such policing. Now given there's many things that we disagree on, i don't find that very reassuring - and certainly not regarding support for my right to protest in ways outside of the rules for things we disagree on.

 

[butchersapron]

I've stood outside parliament shouting a fair few times. It hasn't yet achieved anything as far as I can tell.

People can choose how to protest just as they can choose what to protest about. I just think their choice of tactics and targets is proof of their cruelty and cynicism.

Well then we're talking about entirely different things - and i can't see why you responded to my original question.

 

[SpookyFrank]

I was trying to clarify the distinction between people who are responsible for something you disapprove of, and those merely involved in it.

 

[butchersapron]

I was trying to clarify the distinction between people who are responsible for something you disapprove of, and those merely involved in it.

You what?

 

[Pickman's model]

I was trying to clarify the distinction between people who are responsible for something you disapprove of, and those merely involved in it.

pedantry alive and well i see.

 

[andysays]

i know for a fact if animal right protesters appear outside a shipping company with more than 2 members and have not informed the police they will be moved on

wtf "limited power's"

Is there some legal significance to you saying "more than 2 members"?

The reason I ask is that a few years ago I went to an abortion clinic with my then girlfriend, to be met with a small scale protest/picket of two people. We both found this annoying/unpleasant, but thinking about it now, I would agree that they had a reasonable right to protest which I don't think they were exceeding.

The picture in the article linked to suggests a far larger protest which might be considered intimidating and therefore unreasonable (to me personally), but I'm wondering if there is a clear legal definition which might be relevant.

 

[SpookyFrank]

pedantry alive and well i see.

You think that's a trivial distinction then I take it?

 

[SpookyFrank]

You what?

Why don't you and Pickmans take turns in the tedious old grouch role, instead of both rocking up on the same thread and saying the same things?

 

[butchersapron]

Why don't you and Pickmans take turns in the tedious old grouch role, instead of both rocking up on the same thread and saying the same things?

I asked a question of lbj - he hasn't bothered replying. You jumped in and answered another one. No prob. Talked and clarified. Hours later no needed attack comes.

And oddly enough, spotting the gaps and probs in what people post, many people do it.

 

[Pickman's model]

You think that's a trivial distinction then I take it?

you haven't clarified it.

 

[Pickman's model]

Why don't you and Pickmans take turns in the tedious old grouch role, instead of both rocking up on the same thread and saying the same things?

why don't you say things worth reading instead of things which a child of eight would be embarrassed with?