Armed Polite Society
Main Forums => Politics => Topic started by: Ben on December 29, 2022, 10:11:39 AM
-
I think she deserves her own thread. Perhaps I missed something, but I have found nothing that suggests she was doing anything more than she was arrested for - standing on a public (I guess that may have a different definition in the UK) sidewalk and silently praying. If she had been dishonest and told the cop she was only standing there and not "praying in my head", would she have still been arrested?
I don't see how this is not 100% thought crime. It seems the incident has sparked international outrage, and I hope that includes non-religious people as well, since prayer is only one kind of thought you can have in your head.
https://twitchy.com/mikel-313136/2022/12/29/thoughtcrime-uk-woman-arrested-for-silently-praying-outside-abortion-clinic-speaks-out/
-
Anything to make sure women who kill their children don't need to feel any guilt. The worst thing in the world is to judge the choices of a woman, after all.
In France, if I remember correctly, it is actually illegal to try and convince a woman not to have an abortion.
In the USA, there are several states with no age limit on killing your child in the womb at all.
-
Be interesting to see what their reaction would have been if she was kneeling on a prayer rug at the time. Seriously.
-
Anything to make sure women who kill their children don't need to feel any guilt. The worst thing in the world is to judge the choices of a woman, after all.
In France, if I remember correctly, it is actually illegal to try and convince a woman not to have an abortion.
In the USA, there are several states with no age limit on killing your child in the womb at all.
I would argue that this is not about abortion. In this case, abortion is the "X" thought she was arrested for. The "X" variable could be any thought unpopular with the government or with certain segments of society.
-
I would argue that this is not about abortion. In this case, abortion is the "X" thought she was arrested for. The "X" variable could be any thought unpopular with the government or with certain segments of society.
From the govt point of view yes. For others, it is an ends justify the means issue. The ends is she doesn't like abortion so any means used against her is ok. The left has no other principals.
-
Many Commonwealth nations appear at first glance to have similar freedoms, and share enough in language and culture to let us imagine they share our view of authoritarianism. However as we have seen repeatedly - especially during the COVID pandemic - for many nations freedom is merely a decorative façade that is shattered the moment it is convenient to do so.
The constitutional protections we enjoy in our country - while imperfect and inconsistently applied - are simply not the norm around the world. They feel like basic values that we assume are widely shared, but they're in fact extreme outliers.
-
Many Commonwealth nations appear at first glance to have similar freedoms, and share enough in language and culture to let us imagine they share our view of authoritarianism. However as we have seen repeatedly - especially during the COVID pandemic - for many nations freedom is merely a decorative façade that is shattered the moment it is convenient to do so.
The constitutional protections we enjoy in our country - while imperfect and inconsistently applied - are simply not the norm around the world. They feel like basic values that we assume are widely shared, but they're in fact extreme outliers.
Meanwhile the left constantly tells us we need to be like the rest of the world
-
Meanwhile the left constantly tells us we need to be like the rest of the world
And while the rest of the world is beating a path to our door (despite our systemic racism, fascism, pervasive racism, corruption, and did I mention racism?), there's only a trickle of lefties moving to the paradise of Somalia, Congo, Pakistan, Belarus, Mongolia, Burma, Cuba, Venezuela, North Korea, and so forth and so on. (There really aren't all that many lefties and Californians fleeing to Canada, the U.K., France, or the Nordic nations either - dammit!)
-
Meanwhile the left constantly tells us we need to be like the rest of the world
Not everyone in our country shares very many of the values it was founded on.
-
Not everyone in our country shares very many of the values it was founded on.
Just a guess on my part, but I doubt that even half of the people share the values this country was founded on.
-
Isn't there some guy over there who's supposed to be the defender of the faith?
Then again, she's apparently Catholic, so wrong faith, I guess.
-
And while the rest of the world is beating a path to our door (despite our systemic racism, fascism, pervasive racism, corruption, and did I mention racism?), there's only a trickle of lefties moving to the paradise of Somalia, Congo, Pakistan, Belarus, Mongolia, Burma, Cuba, Venezuela, North Korea, and so forth and so on.
Why move when they can and are turning home into those places?
-
From the govt point of view yes. For others, it is an ends justify the means issue. The ends is she doesn't like abortion so any means used against her is ok. The left has no other principals.
Yes, but my argument is that it affects much more than the single issue of abortion.
-
Be interesting to see what their reaction would have been if she was kneeling on a prayer rug at the time. Seriously.
Which brings up the point that she wasn't even engaging in the physical act of kneeling or having her hands clasped in prayer. She was just standing there with hands at her sides and head bowed.
-
I guess it depends on whether or not you think the UK's Public Space Protection Orders are useful and valid.
https://www.theguardian.com/cities/2015/sep/08/pspos-new-control-orders-public-spaces-asbos-freedoms
https://www.local.gov.uk/sites/default/files/documents/10.21%20PSPO%20guidance_06_1.pdf
(I don't, but the English seem to and she pretty clearly broke one)
-
I guess it depends on whether or not you think the UK's Public Space Protection Orders are useful and valid.
Sorry, I'm not sure I follow. What is it that depends on whether we think that particular law is "useful and valid"?
The PSPO legislation was mentioned at Ben's link, and given that she was charged after her arrest I assumed she had broken that law sufficiently to support the prosecution. Seems likely to me she broke it knowingly and in the mildest way possible to push the issue legally.
-
Seems likely to me she broke it knowingly and in the mildest way possible to push the issue legally.
Yeah, it sounded like the cop didn't even want to arrest her, and when he asked if she was praying (why he was required to ask is yet another issue), I think he was hoping that she said "no", so that he could have avoided arresting her. It sounds as though had she been standing there thinking about what she was going to have for dinner, she would have been fine, but because she was praying, she broke the law.
-
Sorry, I'm not sure I follow. What is it that depends on whether we think that particular law is "useful and valid"?
The PSPO legislation was mentioned at Ben's link, and given that she was charged after her arrest I assumed she had broken that law sufficiently to support the prosecution. Seems likely to me she broke it knowingly and in the mildest way possible to push the issue legally.
Sorry I only typed half my thoughts. I'm doing some database manipulation on my other screen.
How much one might be outraged or want to make sure this doesn't happen again depends on whether you think that law, and various "anti-social criminalization" laws are valid. Usefulness isn't a good barometer of it, on second blush.
She was arrested for protesting where the government told her she couldn't. Despite the protestations of "thought crime" this was not that. She could have prayed in her home, her car, or across the street and her thoughts would have been legal. It was her act of protesting that got her arrested. That act was combining prayer with a location. I also agree that silent prayer is about the most low key protest one can do.
So for it to be useful the discussion needs to focus on whether, and how strictly, the government should be allowed to restrict people from protesting the actions of other people. The fact that the protest took the form of silent prayer is irrelevant except to show that quite or non-disruptive protests are not immune from government oversight, currently.
Yeah, it sounded like the cop didn't even want to arrest her, and when he asked if she was praying (why he was required to ask is yet another issue), I think he was hoping that she said "no", so that he could have avoided arresting her. It sounds as though had she been standing there thinking about what she was going to have for dinner, she would have been fine, but because she was praying, she broke the law.
I also got the feeling that the cop was really hoping she'd just stay she was standing there. He warned her several times that her admission would be used against her.
-
Persecuting a woman for silently praying, in a place where she apparently has every right to be if she's not praying, should outrage anyone who believes that human rights exist at all. We're talking a form of "protest" (if it is that) so mild, the police couldn't even be sure it was happening, without asking the subject herself. And we're questioning how much it should outrage us? LOL
I know trying to be The Level-headed Smart Guy amongst all the conservative mouth-breathing firebrands is just as valid a sport as trying to be The Most Performatively Outraged Conservative/Libertarian Sovereign Citizen. But let's try not to over-exert ourselves here.
-
Persecuting a woman for silently praying, in a place where she apparently has every right to be if she's not praying, should outrage anyone who believes that human rights exist at all. We're talking a form of "protest" (if it is that) so mild, the police couldn't even be sure it was happening, without asking the subject herself. And we're questioning how much it should outrage us? LOL
I know trying to be The Level-headed Smart Guy amongst all the conservative mouth-breathing firebrands is just as valid a sport as trying to be The Most Performatively Outraged Conservative/Libertarian Sovereign Citizen. But let's try not to over-exert ourselves here.
No, I'm questioning why everyone thinks that the silent praying is the issue here, and not the "arrested for protesting".
By framing it as "Thought Crime" everyone is acting like the praying was the catalyst for the arrest, which means the cops can back off this in a couple weeks and let her go, and high fives will be exchanged that "Prayer is legal again" all over the internet, while tacitly legitimizing the subjective as hell anti-social behavior protective orders.
I'm not playing Level Headed Guy, I'm playing Flaming Libertarian that is pointing out you are all being distracted by the "Prayer".
Jeez. I guess I'll try to work some World Economic Forum jabs in my next post.
-
I didn't realize we were trying to figure out the most appropriate cause of outrage. If that's the game, maybe the fact abortions are taking place should get more attention.
It's not exactly unprecedented for demonstrators to be arrested for one reason or another. Time, place, and manner. I'm still comfortable finding "arrested for prayer" to be the headliner here.
-
She was arrested for protesting where the government told her she couldn't. Despite the protestations of "thought crime" this was not that. She could have prayed in her home, her car, or across the street and her thoughts would have been legal. It was her act of protesting that got her arrested. That act was combining prayer with a location. I also agree that silent prayer is about the most low key protest one can do.
Reading your one link, I get the impression that this law(s?) was another of those "good intention, common sense, reasonable" laws that as usual, grow into something terrible.
From that link, it appears they were trying to curtail stuff like hostile vagrants on street corners demanding money, or antifa/proud boys types of protests and altercations. The kind of "reasonable" things people might get behind, just like we all want idiots to stop protesting in the middle of the street. But then the usual suspects decided to push it further, like the dog walking example, then further and further.
I have to also disagree on the thought crime, because to me, that's exactly what it was. Had she been there with a sign or attempting to engage passers by, that might fall into the original intent of this law (though I disagree with that intent as well - there are other ways to handle nasty vagrants and antifa). In the interview I saw with this woman, she was not there to protest the abortion place, but to pray for the women and their unborn children that were using it (I am unclear if it was a "clinic" or a support group" or something).
Arresting her for any outward signs of expressing herself, might be defensible for this law. Having to dig into her consciousness to figure out what she was thinking about while standing there is a thought police thing. Just like in the UK you can be arrested for misgendering someone. What happened to this woman was like instead of verbally misgendering, believing that a man is a man and a woman is a woman, and being arrested for just thinking that, rather than verbalizing it. Which, verbalizing also shouldn't be a crime, but we're talking UK here.
-
How much one might be outraged or want to make sure this doesn't happen again depends on whether you think that law, and various "anti-social criminalization" laws are valid.
??? That is just a tautology, isn't it?
She was arrested for protesting where the government told her she couldn't. Despite the protestations of "thought crime" this was not that. She could have prayed in her home, her car, or across the street and her thoughts would have been legal. It was her act of protesting that got her arrested. That act was combining prayer with a location. I also agree that silent prayer is about the most low key protest one can do.
I agree that this was part of a protest (despite the fact that she denied that it was), and likely a protest that achieved its goal.
Yes, it was a combination of prayer and location, but when the prayer in question was entirely silent and happening entirely in her own thoughts - and was one of two necessary components for there to be a crime - I think the term thoughtcrime is an appropriate description. I'd agree that thoughtcrime encompasses other things as well, but to exclude this simply because there was a geographical requirement is absolutely picking nits.
So for it to be useful the discussion needs to focus on whether, and how strictly, the government should be allowed to restrict people from protesting the actions of other people. The fact that the protest took the form of silent prayer is irrelevant except to show that quite or non-disruptive protests are not immune from government oversight, currently.
I don't think that your suggested direction for the conversation is without merit, however I disagree that it the only useful direction.
1. You keep saying "prayer" wasn't the real issue, however prayer (at least in support of or opposition to abortion) was one of the things specifically prohibited in that zone (see below).
2. Most of us agree that certain forms of destructive, violent, or sometimes merely inconveniencing protests and rioting can at times legitimately be shut down by government. The fact that a protest so calm, silent, and unobtrusive resulted in arrest and charges is relevant. We agree that a silent, internal prayer is about as low key as it gets, so that description is also a shorthand for noting the extreme nature of the law.
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,
https://www.birmingham.gov.uk/downloads/file/24121/robert_clinic_station_road_b30
No, I'm questioning why everyone thinks that the silent praying is the issue here, and not the "arrested for protesting".
There are a number of issues, and while you're laser focused on the prayer thing, I don't personally think that's the only offensive aspect of the law. The fact that an individual woman was arrested while standing silently and unobtrusively and doing nothing untoward is absolutely remarkable.
By framing it as "Thought Crime" everyone is acting like the praying was the catalyst for the arrest
Well, it was literally the letter of the law that she broke.
I'm not playing Level Headed Guy, I'm playing Flaming Libertarian that is pointing out you are all being distracted by the "Prayer".
Oh yes, I'm definitely seeing someone distracted by prayer. What was the ardent, flaming libertarian defense of this woman again?
I don't [think the law is useful or valid]
Whoa, steady on there, mate. This guy is just crazy about liberty! Two whole words in tepid opposition to the law in question, and paragraphs stressing why prayer just isn't relevant.
-
Yes, but my argument is that it affects much more than the single issue of abortion.
I agree. IMO, the "ends justify the means" is almost always short term only and steps on multiple issues. Leftists don't care if their actions cause severe consequences later as long as their ends are achieved today. It is mostly short term emotional (and/or arrogant) thinking.
-
Persecuting a woman for silently praying, in a place where she apparently has every right to be if she's not praying, should outrage anyone who believes that human rights exist at all. We're talking a form of "protest" (if it is that) so mild, the police couldn't even be sure it was happening, without asking the subject herself. And we're questioning how much it should outrage us? LOL
I know trying to be The Level-headed Smart Guy amongst all the conservative mouth-breathing firebrands is just as valid a sport as trying to be The Most Performatively Outraged Conservative/Libertarian Sovereign Citizen. But let's try not to over-exert ourselves here.
I thought I spoke and understood English (or, at least, American English) fairly well, but I guess I was wrong. I'm having a difficult time equating silent prayer with "protest."
Does anyone have a copy of the actual law she allegedly broke? I assume it prohibits "protests." Is "protest" defined?
-
Does anyone have a copy of the actual law she allegedly broke? I assume it prohibits "protests." Is "protest" defined?
https://www.birmingham.gov.uk/downloads/file/24121/robert_clinic_station_road_b30
It specifically prohibits prayer (among other things).
-
If the UK government had "good intentions" they would shut down the clinic killing people right across the street.
Of course, so would our governments.
-
https://www.birmingham.gov.uk/downloads/file/24121/robert_clinic_station_road_b30
It specifically prohibits prayer (among other things).
Sorry -- I missed it the first time around.
I wonder if silent meditation was what the authors of the law had in mind when they wrote it, or if what they thought they were prohibiting was vocal, verbal prayer.
‘Protesting’ means being in the restricted area (whether by yourself or with others) and 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;
‘Service user’ includes any patient or visitor to the Robert Clinic.
"Well, yes, Officer, I was indeed praying ... but I wasn't praying about abortion, I was praying for [the recovery of my dear mother who was just diagnosed with cancer] [a new job, because I just lost mine] [rain]. Oh ... is that building an abortion clinic?"
-
Even as an atheist I am particularly against any law that prohibits or criminalizes the free exercise of religion. As I would equally be vehemently against a law requiring religious participation. Far too close to "thought crime".
-
She should have set up a pedophilia ring.
-
Well people have left that country because of religious persecution in the past =)
-
She should have set up a pedophilia ring.
With govt funding
-
it was both a thoughtcrime and a facecrime .
It's a fascinating case, I'm mostly anarchist that's been forced to vote for the vast right-wing conspiracy.
The cultural radical liberal anarchist typically supports a woman's "right" to have someone murder her baby, I know abortion is a repugnant abomination ( am I redundant or what lol ) so even though I'm an anarchist in my mind, I know I have to vote for someone to pay for the military and roads
This whole thread is really bringing up great thought experiments, if the goal is using prayer to end abortion, why admit that its what you were doing?. I think her goal was ending abortion and protesting facecrime and thoughtcrime laws
Like when you answer "nothing illegal in my car" because you know the town you're driving through is known for civil asset forfeiture but the cop is trying to find out if you have a few thousand in your vehicle so he can legally confiscate it, even tho you're just going to look at a used car or do not trust banks .
Another thing, we are flooded with immigrants who hate freedom and move here for the prosperity freedom brings yet at the same time do their best to eliminate the freedom that ushered in the prosperity , thusly losing the prosperity as well as the freedom .
A few years ago I got a letter many cali expats get, a letter demanding money for unpaid taxes .
I went to the office that sent the letter, some official govt tax place and demanded that they close the case as I do not owe anything and have nothing to give them. The bureaucrat I spoke to was fresh off the plane from red China, and was trying to tell me I have to prove I did not work in california - I couldn't help but raise my voice and instruct him on innocent until proven guilty, Jurisprudence, and that Nevada is not pronounced "win-ada"... his supervisor over heard me, intervened, closed out the case and sent me on my way.
I've watched a ton of "first amendment audits" on youtube, a ton of govt employees now seem to be foreigners who've assumed unconstitutional powers because they have no idea that we are allowed to talk back to govt employees and that we the people are their employers . While many of them are brats with a cell phone looking for internet fame, we really do have a legit first amendment .
if I was the The British Praying Woman I would have told the cop to read my mind or leave me alone
-
it was both a thoughtcrime and a facecrime .
It's a fascinating case, I'm mostly anarchist that's been forced to vote for the vast right-wing conspiracy.
The cultural radical liberal anarchist typically supports a woman's "right" to have someone murder her baby, I know abortion is a repugnant abomination ( am I redundant or what lol ) so even though I'm an anarchist in my mind, I know I have to vote for someone to pay for the military and roads
This whole thread is really bringing up great thought experiments, if the goal is using prayer to end abortion, why admit that its what you were doing?. I think her goal was ending abortion and protesting facecrime and thoughtcrime laws
Like when you answer "nothing illegal in my car" because you know the town you're driving through is known for civil asset forfeiture but the cop is trying to find out if you have a few thousand in your vehicle so he can legally confiscate it, even tho you're just going to look at a used car or do not trust banks .
Another thing, we are flooded with immigrants who hate freedom and move here for the prosperity freedom brings yet at the same time do their best to eliminate the freedom that ushered in the prosperity , thusly losing the prosperity as well as the freedom .
A few years ago I got a letter many cali expats get, a letter demanding money for unpaid taxes .
I went to the office that sent the letter, some official govt tax place and demanded that they close the case as I do not owe anything and have nothing to give them. The bureaucrat I spoke to was fresh off the plane from red China, and was trying to tell me I have to prove I did not work in california - I couldn't help but raise my voice and instruct him on innocent until proven guilty, Jurisprudence, and that Nevada is not pronounced "win-ada"... his supervisor over heard me, intervened, closed out the case and sent me on my way.
I've watched a ton of "first amendment audits" on youtube, a ton of govt employees now seem to be foreigners who've assumed unconstitutional powers because they have no idea that we are allowed to talk back to govt employees and that we the people are their employers . While many of them are brats with a cell phone looking for internet fame, we really do have a legit first amendment .
if I was the The British Praying Woman I would have told the cop to read my mind or leave me alone.
Every one of those paragraphs deserves a round of applause. =D
-
Every one of those paragraphs deserves a round of applause. =D
THANK YOU VERY MUCH