Council in Ealing, London approves ban on protests outside abortion clinics - Polidicks

[url]http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-41577129[/url] [quote]An "unprecedented" ban on protestors outside abortion clinics could be introduced in a London borough. Councillors in Ealing overwhelmingly backed a proposal to stop anti-abortion groups protesting outside a Marie Stopes clinic in the borough. Bindi Rai, who brought the motion, said it would allow women to access "legal healthcare without intimidation" The Good Counsel Network, which holds daily vigils outside the centre in Mattock Lane, denies harassing women. Two councillors voted against the measure at Tuesday's meeting.[/quote]

I don't understand how people even have time to protest outside of abortion clinics? They are usually the same kind of people who hate 'them welfare bludgers', but instead of working and being productive members of society, they are protesting outside of abortion clinics for up to six days per week? How the fuck can they afford to do that?

[QUOTE=BF;52768287]I don't understand how people even have time to protest outside of abortion clinics? They are usually the same kind of people who hate 'them welfare bludgers', but instead of working and being productive members of society, they are protesting outside of abortion clinics for up to six days per week? How the fuck can they afford to do that?[/QUOTE] I think this very same thing when I drive down the main thoroughfare in my city and see miles of people spaced fifteen feet apart holding big signs of aborted fetuses. When I was younger it grossed me out, now I just block it out. But where that many people can find the time to do this so frequently is beyond me, because I, too, would bet they're the same types that oppose welfare, legal immigration, etc.

So... how exactly are the women being intimidated? Also, isn't the appropriate response to illegal behavior, like harassment, to arrest those doing the harassing and not to ban the activity in general? Let me also note that I'm not making any argument about whether what they're doing is good or not. I'm just trying to clarify their argument.

[QUOTE=sgman91;52768377]So... how exactly are the women being intimidated? Also, isn't the appropriate response to illegal behavior, like harassment, to arrest those doing the harassing and not to ban the activity in general? Let me also note that I'm not making any argument about whether what they're doing is good or not. I'm just trying to clarify their argument.[/QUOTE] [quote=Article]The situation in Ealing is sadly not unique, and women and clinic staff across the country report being followed, filmed, and harassed when trying to access or provide legal healthcare services.[/quote] I imagine the being harassed part could include things like yelling, shaming etc. Things that aren't exactly illegal. But if members of that group consistently do those things, and those behaviours are found to be a significant and encouraged part of their modus operandi, I believe that there are reasonable grounds for shutting the entire group down, or at least prevent them from organising in public in such a way.

[QUOTE=BF;52768480]I imagine the being harassed part could include things like yelling, shaming etc. Things that aren't exactly illegal. But if members of that group consistently do those things, and those behaviours are found to be a significant and encouraged part of their modus operandi, I believe that there are reasonable grounds for shutting the entire group down, or at least prevent them from organising in public in such a way.[/QUOTE] I noticed that line, but it's a little tough to analyze. It's too vague to really be useful because it leaves open the question of what was actually happening. They're just throwing out a second hand anecdotal claim that's impossible to substantiate in any real way. As I said, if there's a group that is consistently doing illegal things (If it isn't illegal, then I'm not sure how it wouldn't be protected as free speech. You can't just ban things because you don't like it. That's the whole point of having rights, people can't take them from you.), then they should go after that group. You don't make something legal, illegal, just because a certain group is extreme. That would be like banning all protests because certain groups protest violently.

[QUOTE=sgman91;52768501]I noticed that line, but it's a little tough to analyze. It's too vague to really be useful because it leaves open the question of what was actually happening. They're just throwing out a second hand anecdotal claim that's impossible to substantiate in any real way. As I said, if there's a group that is consistently doing illegal things (If it isn't illegal, then I'm not sure how it wouldn't be protected as free speech. You can't just ban things because you don't like it. That's the whole point of having rights, people can't take them from you.), then they should go after that group. You don't make something legal, illegal, just because a certain group is extreme. That would be like banning all protests because certain groups protest violently.[/QUOTE] But that's actually what happens, if protests are consistent and violent in a certain area than the government will step in and break up the protests. If every time these vigils happen (6 times a week) it attracts people who harass anyone dealing with the clinic, why shouldn't it be shut down? The certain group you speak of is the entire assembly as a whole, and although you can probably isolate the different parts of it into separate groups, there is not specifically one bad group and one good group in this scenario, just a spectrum of people either passively supporting anti-abortion up to the harassment of anyone in the vicinity,

[QUOTE=Derposaurus;52768617]But that's actually what happens, if protests are consistent and violent in a certain area than the government will step in and break up the protests. If every time these vigils happen (6 times a week) it attracts people who harass anyone dealing with the clinic, why shouldn't it be shut down? The certain group you speak of is the entire assembly as a whole, and although you can probably isolate the different parts of it into separate groups, there is not specifically one bad group and one good group in this scenario, just a spectrum of people either passively supporting anti-abortion up to the harassment of anyone in the vicinity,[/QUOTE] If I read the article right, they aren't trying to stop groups who do illegal things, they are making it illegal for anyone at all to protest, whether nicely or not, in what would otherwise be a public area.

[QUOTE=sgman91;52768631]If I read the article right, they aren't trying to stop groups who do illegal things, they are making it illegal for anyone at all to protest, whether nicely or not, in what would otherwise be a public area.[/QUOTE] Because there's no reasonably enforceable law to force protesters not to intimidate and put pressure on women going to the clinic. You can't make a law that says "Be nice to people" and expect it to ever actually be put into action.

[QUOTE=JeSuisIkea;52768637]Because there's no reasonably enforceable law to force protesters not to intimidate and put pressure on women going to the clinic. You can't make a law that says "Be nice to people" and expect it to ever actually be put into action.[/QUOTE] I mean, doesn't the UK have anti-harassment laws? If these protesters are illegally harassing people, then I'm all for going after them with the law.

[QUOTE=sgman91;52768639]I mean, doesn't the UK have anti-harassment laws? If these protesters are illegally harassing people, then I'm all for going after them with the law.[/QUOTE] hence this decision

[QUOTE=Zukriuchen;52768687]hence this decision[/QUOTE] Again, they're not going after people doing illegal things. They are banning all protesting, even if previously legal.

[QUOTE=sgman91;52768689]Again, they're not going after people doing illegal things. They are banning all protesting, even if previously legal.[/QUOTE] And now, that is an illegal thing I don't see what you're getting at

[QUOTE=Zukriuchen;52768699]And now, that is an illegal thing I don't see what you're getting at[/QUOTE] Would you see no problem with someone saying, "Hey, BLM/the Alt-Right/etc. has a lot of violent protest. We should make all protest illegal?" It's the same logic as this law. The council is saying, "Hey, certain protesters are harassing woman going to get an abortion. We should make all protesting in front of abortion clinics illegal." In both cases, we already have laws against what those specific groups are doing. You don't address the issue by taking away free speech rights in order to stop individual cases of illegal activity.

[QUOTE=sgman91;52768689]Again, they're not going after people doing illegal things. They are banning all protesting, even if previously legal.[/QUOTE] Stabbing people in the face was legal until it became illegal. Protesting outside abortion clinics was also legal until it became illegal. That is how laws work. They change legality of things. It's pretty much why lawgiving exists.

[QUOTE=Riller;52768705]Stabbing people in the face was legal until it became illegal. Protesting outside abortion clinics was also legal until it became illegal. That is how laws work. They change legality of things. It's pretty much why lawgiving exists.[/QUOTE] Does the freedom of speech mean absolutely nothing to you? Hey, I guess a free press was legal until it wasn't legal, right?

[QUOTE=sgman91;52768704]Would you see no problem with someone saying, "Hey, BLM/the Alt-Right/etc. has a lot of violent protest. We should make all protest illegal?" It's the same logic as this law. The council is saying, "Hey, certain protesters are harassing woman going to get an abortion. We should make all protesting in front of abortion clinics illegal." In both cases, we already have laws against what those specific groups are doing. You don't address the issue by taking away free speech rights in order to stop individual cases of illegal activity.[/QUOTE] Except these examples are wildly different? Just because you say it's the same logic doesn't make it so Do you seriously think a nationwide ban on protests is the same as a ban on protests in a specific location? That's just silly

[QUOTE=Zukriuchen;52768710]Except these examples are wildly different? Just because you say it's the same logic doesn't make it so Do you seriously think a nationwide ban on protests is the same as a ban on protests in a specific location? That's just silly[/QUOTE] What about the logic is different? In both cases you are saying that X group took Y action to the extreme. So we are going to ban Y in it's totality. The logic applies equally.

[QUOTE=sgman91;52768711]What about the logic is different?[/QUOTE] Context and scale?

[QUOTE=Zukriuchen;52768714]Context and scale?[/QUOTE] I'm not sure how I'm supposed to go anywhere with these super vague rhetorical questions. How does the context and scale change the logic? I've presented a generalized case that applies to both. Why am I wrong in that application? Making something larger does not inherently mean different logic applies.

[QUOTE=sgman91;52768708]Does the freedom of speech mean absolutely nothing to you? Hey, I guess a free press was legal until it wasn't legal, right?[/QUOTE] I honestly get where you're coming from and how this could pave the way for a bad precedent but perhaps in this case it's understandable, people should be able to visit these clinics without feeling as though there's a large presence there shouting at or even just watching them. It's to give the people who visit these clinics some measure of privacy since there are cases where some come from religious or other shitheap conservative backgrounds and are already terrified as is.

[QUOTE=sgman91;52768711]In both cases you are saying that X group took Y action to the extreme. So we are going to ban Y in it's totality. The logic applies equally.[/QUOTE] So this is nothing but a slippery slope argument, then?

[QUOTE=Zukriuchen;52768722]So this is nothing but a slippery slope argument, then?[/QUOTE] Are you incapable of actually making a positive statement? Every response you've made is some weird rhetorical question that doesn't actually say anything. Are you even reading my posts? I applied the same logic being used by the council to something else, namely, protests generally. I then followed the logic with these new variables. If the logic is applicable to the first case, then it should be applicable to the second case. To show that this is wrong, you would need to posit some other argument for the initial ban that wouldn't equally apply to protests generally, or show how they are meaningfully differet (This is GordonZombie did by presenting the privacy issue.) Just saying that one is a bigger scale does absolutely nothing to refute it. That's the cool thing about logical arguments; they apply generally. [editline]11th October 2017[/editline] [QUOTE=GordonZombie;52768719]I honestly get where you're coming from and how this could pave the way for a bad precedent but perhaps in this case it's understandable, people should be able to visit these clinics without feeling as though there's a large presence there shouting at or even just watching them. It's to give the people who visit these clinics some measure of privacy since there are cases where some come from religious or other shitheap conservative backgrounds and are already terrified as is.[/QUOTE] Thanks for actually responding to the argument. My problem would again go back to the fact that harassment is already illegal. If these groups are doing what you said, like spreading information of these abortions publically, without consent, then the government should follow up on that, but I don't see how that would apply to a peaceful protest. Would that also mean that we should ban protests in front of strip joints, adult shops, bars, etc? It might also be damaging or extremely embarrassing for people if their presence were made public.

[QUOTE=sgman91;52768726]Are you incapable of actually making a positive statement? Every response you've made is some weird rhetorical question that doesn't actually say anything. Are you reading my posts? I applied the same logic being used by the council to something else, namely, protests generally. I then followed the logic with these new variables. If the logic is applicable to the first case, then it should be applicable to the second case. To show that this is wrong, you would need to posit some other argument for the initial ban that wouldn't equally apply to protests generally (This is GordonZombie did by presenting the privacy issue.) [/QUOTE] And I said the context and scale of it all are so wildly different, the logic clearly isn't the same. I didn't think you'd need the context spelled out to you because it's pretty fucking well known, as abortion has been one of the biggest political issues for over what, 30 something years?

[QUOTE=sgman91;52768708]Does the freedom of speech mean absolutely nothing to you? Hey, I guess a free press was legal until it wasn't legal, right?[/QUOTE] Harassment has never been covered under free speech, and that much should be obvious. Read the article again. They're banning it specifically outside a single clinic in particular. It's not a wide, sweeping ban on protesting. And yes, it is harassment. Anti-abortion protests outside of abortion clinics regularly lead to confrontations, sometimes violent. It's not unusual to have shit thrown at you while you walk in. You're practically guaranteed to get cussed out. People will often be filmed without their permission and threatened with being outed to the public for going to an abortion clinic. These protests aren't just for voicing an opinion, they're actively attempting to dissuade people from using a service available to them through intimidation. I'm honestly shocked it took this long for this bullshit to be outlawed anywhere.

[QUOTE=sgman91;52768718]I'm not sure how I'm supposed to go anywhere with these super vague rhetorical questions. How does the context and scale change the logic? I've presented a generalized case that applies to both. Why am I wrong in that application? Making something larger does not inherently mean different logic applies.[/QUOTE] I think I see your concern here, you are seeing a group (generally associated with conservatives) being banned for protesting for their intimidation where other groups (which you associate with liberals and may have a reputation for intimidation) are allowed to go ahead protesting. You're worried about bias against the group. Thing is the abortion activists are still allowed to protest, just not outside abortion clinics. This would be like banning EDL or some other racist group from "protesting" outside a mosque; because like the anti abortion activists they have a track record of abusing and harassing the people they are protesting against. It's not denying their freedom of speech to stop them protesting outside of place where they harass and intimidate people.

[QUOTE=sgman91;52768377][B]So... how exactly are the women being intimidated?[/B] Also, isn't the appropriate response to illegal behavior, like harassment, to arrest those doing the harassing and not to ban the activity in general? Let me also note that I'm not making any argument about whether what they're doing is good or not. I'm just trying to clarify their argument.[/QUOTE] Man, are you for real? Unwanted pregnancy and abortions are already pretty scary things on their own, and there's still a pretty fuckin' significant taboo for both of them even today. There is a lot of shame and scorn associated with both of them, especially for younger women. There might not be familial or even friend support, and just the prospect of going to the abortion clinic on its own can be stressful and intimidating. I honestly don't see how a group of protestors outside the clinic thrown into the mix [I]wouldn't[/I] be intimidating

[QUOTE=sgman91;52768377]So... how exactly are the women being intimidated? [/QUOTE] How is it that you even have to ask this? Pregnancy alone is stigmatised under many circumstances, abortion is an extremely taboo, uncomfortable, and utterly unpleasant subject. The procedure alone is a daunting prospect, now imagine you have to walk through crowds of twats screaming abuse at you like you are being marched to the fucking gallows. The article mentions women being followed (seriously how is that not intimidation?), and even filmed. The aim is obviously to deter women from visiting the clinic. It's not like everyone loves the idea of being recorded on their way to the abortion clinic, because that's totally not going to be used maliciously in a manner potentially damaging to them later down the line, right?.

[QUOTE=Dave_Parker;52769001]The article actually does mention it's a ban on protesting abortion clinics in the borough, but the law was inspired by the protests at the single clinic. I think instead of banning protesting outright, they should post some police outside the clinic and arrest&charge anyone harassing people that are attempting to enter.[/QUOTE] Police in the UK are already struggling from cuts.

[QUOTE=Dave_Parker;52769001]The article actually does mention it's a ban on protesting abortion clinics in the borough, but the law was inspired by the protests at the single clinic. I think instead of banning protesting outright, they should post some police outside the clinic and arrest&charge anyone harassing people that are attempting to enter.[/QUOTE] Probably gonna be straining on police resources since it'll most likely end up a game of cat & mouse, so they're streamlined the legal process of dealing with those being a nuisance around abortion clinics.