The thing that boggles my mind most is the UK libel laws where stating a true, verifiable fact can be illegal if it makes the subject look bad. Someone tell me I’ve got that wrong.
That was in a specifically protected area covered by a PSPO that explicitly banned prayer. He then refused to move on, so this was a deliberate protest against abortion.
> On the day, he was asked to leave the area by a community officer who spoke to him for an hour and 40 minutes - but he refused.
I don't think you've got a clear understanding of how PSPO orders work. Do you really think that standing and thinking would be a criminal offense? Maybe if you stood somewhere awkward (e.g. blocking the doors to an A&E department) and refused to move when asked, then I can understand it, but I think you're being disingenuous.
In the linked article, the criminal was not alleged to have obstructed anything. He did message the town council saying he was holding a silent vigil, which he had done before apparently without incident. This time he was arrested, PSPO was applied, and he was fined £9000.
If his message to the council
said he’d be standing there reading the newspaper, would the arrest and conviction have been made?
The PSPO specifically prohibited activity in favour or against abortion services, including protests, harassment and vigils. He was blatantly holding a vigil and even then, I expect he could have just moved on when asked and faced no charges. Reading a newspaper would be fine, obviously, unless he specifically concocted his own newspaper with slogans on it which would then surely be a protest of some kind.
The whole point of the PSPO is to protect the people who are considering using abortion services. If someone is "secretly" doing something, then it's not likely to be harassing others and so wouldn't be illegal under the terms of PSPO.
It's not a difficult concept to understand and nothing to do with trying to police people's thought, but merely stopping the harassment that would otherwise take place. This particular incident would not have happened if the individual was praying somewhere else or not making a particular point about praying exactly where it would harass people using the clinic.
It's fine to have religious beliefs, but it's not fine to go around imposing those beliefs on others - that's how a lot of wars get started.
If I stand in a particular spot and do nothing, it’s OK. Now I do exactly the same thing, except beforehand I say I’ll be thinking a forbidden thought while doing it. My previously legal action is now illegal because I am imposing my religious beliefs on you. Am I understanding correctly?
I would imagine that he made the act of praying to be noticeable to others to act as a protest (e.g. typical head bowed and hands together). If he was simply standing there and minding his own business, then I can't see why there would have been any issue. The idea is that people should be allowed to make use of the health services without feeling undue pressure from others - it's typically a very difficult time for the people involved.
I did have it technically wrong but practically correct.
Do go have a quick conversation with your favorite AI about this. Ask if anyone in the UK has ever been punished for saying a true thing, and whether the cost on the defendant to prove innocence is not so exorbitant as to allow libel to be weaponized by the wealthy against their critics.
Who decides which facts and truth are "correct"? The same arbiters of what is and isn't "antisemitic" is who simply because speech criticizes IDF or Likud propaganda and/or genocide.
Well … it’s even true in Germany, not libel but you can be convicted of „Volksverhetzung“ even if you state something that is true, like that a certain person of a religion would be today be called a pedophile.
It’s literally stated in the religions holy book, but if the statement is ment to push racism it can be still a crime.
