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_b30No, 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.
