Great Repeal Bill wish list 4: Public Order Act – section 5
The following is a cross-post by Young Mr Brown of Marmalade Sandwich:
Andy Stephenson and Kathryn Sloane feel fairly strongly about abortion. So strongly, that they decided to mount a (peaceful) public protest outside an abortion clinic in Brighton. Their method of making their case was to display a large (7ft by 5 ft) graphic banner which showed a picture of an aborted human embryo. Police were called by a member of staff concerned that patients entering the clinic felt traumatised and upset. The Police arrived and told Mr Stephenson and Miss Sloane to take down their banner. They did so, replacing it with another similar banner. The police then arrested the pair, and took them to the police station. And there they held them for 14 hours before finally releasing them at 3 o’clock in the morning.
Mr Stephenson and Miss Sloane were released on police bail, and are due to return to court tomorrow to hear if they will be prosecuted under section 5 of the Public Order Act 1986. (Thanks to Gary Benfold for bringing this story to my notice.)
The issue, of course, is freedom of speech. I was somewhat amused by the comments of Ann Furedi, the head of the British Pregnancy Advisory Service, who said she fully supported the right of pro-life activists to demonstrate against abortion clinics – but who then added: “There is a distinction between freedom of expression and actions that are designed to distress people who are accessing legal, medical services.” Actually, there isn’t. And it’s not as if Mr Stephenson and Miss Sloane simply wanted to distress people for the fun of it. They were trying to make the point that what abortion does to an embryo is something very distressing.
Section 5 of the 1986 Public Order Act says:
A person is guilty of an offence if he—
(a) uses threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour, or disorderly behaviour, or
(b) displays any writing, sign or other visible representation which is threatening, abusive or insulting, within the hearing or sight of a person likely to be caused harassment, alarm or distress thereby.
Section 5 was also the legislation under which Dale McAlpine was arrested.
It seems to me that Section 5 is a piece of legislation in need of repealing. I’ve asked before, but I’ll ask again: “Why do we have a law on our statute book which means that someone can be guilty of a crime simply for using “insulting” words within the hearing or sight of a person likely to be caused “distress”?” The words “abusive or insulting” should go. In fact, the whole section should go – since the matter of threatening behaviour is covered by Section 4 of the Act.
Now, to be honest, I don’t like the pictures that Mr Stephenson and Miss Sloane displayed. They would put me right off my cocoa and buns. But that’s not the point, is it?
So let’s hope that Section 5 is included in Mr. Clegg’s Great Repeal Act.
Tags: Law Moral Ethical
October 12th, 2010 at 6:55 pm
Hmm. It strikes me that although demonstrations are – and should be – legal, that where you do them has to be taken into consideration. An anti-immigration protest directed specifically at a house full of refugees would be unacceptable. This is same sort of bullying – involving targeted distress to specific individuals – and I’m not surprised the police took a dim view.
October 12th, 2010 at 11:35 pm
@Sophie,
“An anti-immigration protest directed specifically at a house full of refugees would be unacceptable.”
With council housing being covertly allocated displacing local citizens then yes those local families and communities would have the right to protest at those properties or even reclaim the housing stock, mass immigration and the corrupt allocation of social housing was and is undemocratic.
October 12th, 2010 at 11:45 pm
I agree Sophie. This is a form of very calculated bullyng of vulnerable people who are acting entirely within the law of the land.
October 12th, 2010 at 11:53 pm
@Jim,
So are all democratic demonstrations to be outlawed or just the ones that are counter to your political persuations.
October 13th, 2010 at 7:36 am
Neither Goy. That’s not what this is about.
Let’s take a different hypothetical example: Two people unfurl a banner right outside a synagogue as families are leaving a service. The banner reads: “Hitler was right. All Jews are vermin and should be exterminated now.”
This understandably causes significant distress to many of those leaving the Synagogue, and one man gets so distressed he has a heart attack.
Someone calls the police to intervene before anything even worse happens. The police say “Sorry. There’s nithing we can do. These people are just exercising their right to demonstrate and their right to freedom of speech. The fact that their banner is calculated to be abusive and alarming, and is causing significant physical and mental distress to a vulnerable group is of no interest to us. We have no right or duty to protect you”
Does this seem reasonable to you?
October 13th, 2010 at 9:51 am
@Jim,
It always amuses how people like you, use a National Socialist scenario to destroy freedom of speech.
The State taking action in to close down protests such your scenario would in fact be the actions of totalitarianism that you profess to oppose.
The cross on the chain around my neck could lead to a criminal prosecution under the auspices of this law – (b) displays any writing, sign or other visible representation which is threatening, abusive or insulting, within the hearing or sight of a person likely to be caused harassment, alarm or distress thereby.
This law is the very stuff of totalitarianism.
Would be interested in your opinion of this- campaign
October 13th, 2010 at 9:58 am
@Goy:
Except in this case, they weren’t protesting the state, or state laws that permit abortion, they were emotionally harassing individuals.
October 13th, 2010 at 11:55 am
Goy
I would suggest that you have an all or nothing view of this. This is not “black or white”/”for us or against us” stuff. Context and intent is at the core of it.
No. Your the cross round your neck obviously does not fall into this category. It fails on many counts, including context, reasonableness likelihood to cause distress, and accepted custom.
I cannot agree that this is the very stuff of totalitarianism. Although, in common with many other laws, it can be used inappropriately to this end. But in that case it’s not the law but the implementers of the law that are in the wrong.
I don’t see why the campaign you link to is relevant. Please explain.
October 13th, 2010 at 11:57 am
Jim, you take my breath away. ‘Calculated bullying of vulnerable people’ bears no moral comparison with the calculated killing of even more vulnerable people who can do nothing to save themselves – unborn babies.
It is now seemingly a crime to show what actually takes place in an abortion. Even though abortion is legal, this is akin to saying that to show pictures of the Holocaust should be illegal, while the Final Solution itself should be fully legal.
For the record, this is not something I personally would do, but bearing in mind that the overwhelming majority of abortions are carried out for social reasons (and many women will have more than one) I applaud the courage of these people. It is very necessary that the public should be better informed about what actually happens during an abortion. Yes, it is shocking, but wilful killing is shocking.
October 13th, 2010 at 12:20 pm
Jill,
Actually I was not arguing for or against abortion. My argument was that this specifcally was inappropriate behaviour.
You say youself that this is not something you would do. Doesn’t that tell you that there’s something not quite right about it?
It may be that many abortions are carrid out for “social” reasons, but what right have these people to assume that every woman going into that clinic falls into this category. What about the woman who whom medical problems compel her to take this course of action, even though she would prefer not to. How would she feel about seeing this poster? Or is this a case of the end justifying the means? If so where does it stop?
You may not agree with the law, but it is the law under which we live. By all means try to get it changed, but do so in ways that in themselves do no harm, including emotional harm.
October 13th, 2010 at 1:12 pm
@Jim:
Right you are about the assumption – this is the same kind of busybodying that produces pharmacists refusing to hand out a client’s prescription for birth control pills, and yet they don’t know whether the person has been prescribed it for birth control or a hormonal problem, etc.
These people are the first to whinge about freedom, but what about the freedom to make one’s own legal personal decisions without being the subject of presumption like this?
October 13th, 2010 at 3:13 pm
Oh come off it, the 0.0001 percent of the 200,000 abortions annually in the UK which may be for medical reasons – likewise the pill for hormonal problems. For this you would trample all over people’s consciences and freedoms. This is a very dangerous path to tread. Much more damaging is the shameless cover-up of what actually happens during abortions. Would you like a detailed description? It is obvious you don’t know.
October 13th, 2010 at 3:36 pm
@Jill:
“Oh come off it, the 0.0001 percent of the 200,000 abortions annually in the UK which may be for medical reasons – likewise the pill for hormonal problems. ”
Regardless of the proportions involved, the protests are based on presumption of what a person’s reasons are for receiving legal medical treatments. Using a carpet-bombing approach like a picture of an aborted foetus is likely to affect more than just those using abortion as a contraceptive, including those seeking abortions for more legitimate reasons.
“For this you would trample all over people’s consciences and freedoms. This is a very dangerous path to tread.”
Nope, never said that one couldn’t protest, just that the mere fact of protesting nor the subject of protest do not automatically mean the means of protest is valid.
And I notice you were quite silent on people’s individual freedoms of receiving legal medical procedures – but then again, consistency has never been a hallmark of the pro-life crowd.
“Much more damaging is the shameless cover-up of what actually happens during abortions. Would you like a detailed description? It is obvious you don’t know.”
Hey, look at that, more presumption. Seems to be a bit of a theme here.
October 13th, 2010 at 4:12 pm
Jill
Cabal beat me to it. My comments would be similar.
Actually I have seen the gory details. That’s not the issue. As Cabal says, too much presumption. I do agree that this is a very important debate. But I think we need to differentiate between fact and emotional opinion.
October 13th, 2010 at 4:25 pm
Jim, abortion leaves one dead and one wounded. Mothers are not ‘programmed’ to kill their own young. Education is the key; we are only given one side of the picture at present – that of ‘choice’. We are not shown the other side of the coin. We are not given facts and figures about depression and even suicide following abortion. The ‘pro choice’ brigade will try to suppress this.
October 13th, 2010 at 4:51 pm
@Jill:
And education is absolutely fine – but trying to indiscriminately provoke a reaction based on little more than viscera is not the same thing as education.
October 13th, 2010 at 5:14 pm
Jill,
I think we’re arguing different things. – Your main argument is that abortion is wrong, and people need to be educated. My main argument is that the means used to “educate” people in this case is wrong. I do not believe that the end always justifies the means.
But I’m happy to debate the ethics of abortion if our webmaster will indulge us.
October 13th, 2010 at 6:05 pm
Not much point in debating the rights and wrongs of abortion, Jim, because I believe that human life is sacred from conception to natural death. Abortion and euthanasia – the culling of the unwanted or less-than-perfect – therein lies eugenics. We don’t have to go far back in history to see where that leads. No amount of argument will make me change my mind.
I don’t have an up-to-date figure for the number of lost lives by abortion, but on the 40th anniversary of legalisation, 2007, it was around 6.7 million. So much for the pill putting an end to unwanted pregnancy.
As to the means of educating people, we haven’t got far after 43 years and women still are not being told the truth. Who can blame people for resorting to these measures?
October 13th, 2010 at 6:15 pm
“No amount of argument will make me change my mind.”
Well, I can see why the poster of an aborted foetus appealed to you.
October 13th, 2010 at 6:47 pm
God bless everyone just thought i would say my two penneth worth.
Where exactly would a decent place be to hold a demo?
In the middle of a field miles away from anywhere?
Its crazy.
The reason these people held a demo near an abortion “clinic” is because there demo was about abortion.
People who are staging a demo
do so near/in/out a relevent place
I do understand that people may be distressed but a life is a life and God is pro life.
I dont agree that a woman can lay with whoever she chooses without facing the consequences.God didnt plan for things to be this way but sadly todays world has the attitude that if something wasnt planned or isnt convenient the you can simply get rid of it!
But Gods way is thus MAN +WOMAN MARRIAGE END OF STORY
October 13th, 2010 at 8:55 pm
A deep division is opening up in this country (U.K.) were some groups are facilitated by the State to hold demonstrations and protests while others are not – the EDL (love them or loath them) have been banned from demonstrating more or less from day one – static demos only usually on designated waste ground or out of the way car parks where the UAF and islamic mobs have been at liberty to stone them at will in full view of the police.
@Jim,
“Except in this case, they weren’t protesting the state, or state laws that permit abortion, they were emotionally harassing individuals.”
Your comment is merely paraphrasing the anti·democratic aspects of this law.
October 13th, 2010 at 9:13 pm
@Goy:
“A deep division is opening up in this country (U.K.) were some groups are facilitated by the State to hold demonstrations and protests while others are not – the EDL (love them or loath them) have been banned from demonstrating more or less from day one – static demos only usually on designated waste ground or out of the way car parks where the UAF and islamic mobs have been at liberty to stone them at will in full view of the police.”
Evidence please.
“Your comment is merely paraphrasing the anti·democratic aspects of this law.”
Nope – the mere act of protesting does not mean it is legally protected or remotely justifiable, or even should be.
October 13th, 2010 at 9:56 pm
@Cabal,
“Evidence please.”
You sound like a jumped up SPC, “evidence please”, “evidence please” so repetitive one can only assume that you are in fact a multi cult or UAF artificial conversational entitie, evidence please!
October 13th, 2010 at 10:02 pm
@Goy:
“You sound like a jumped up SPC, “evidence please”, “evidence please” so repetitive one can only assume that you are in fact a multi cult or UAF artificial conversational entitie, evidence please!”
Yup, it’s because you regularly pull sweeping statements out of your backside without providing the slightest shred of proof for them whatsoever. You want it to change, ball’s in your court – start backing up your arguments.
October 13th, 2010 at 10:14 pm
@Cabal,
Yes the ball is in the right court all over Europe.
October 14th, 2010 at 12:24 am
Jill
Fair enough. I won’t debate this with you, but I’d be intrigued to know what you think my view on abortion is, and on what evidence.
If I may correct one thing, this has nothing to do eugenics, and to suggest that there is a connection is either misguided or plain mischievous!
October 14th, 2010 at 5:38 pm
I believe the quote goes “good people do good things and evil people do bad things, but for good people to do bad things, it takes religion.”
This unpleasant pair are so sure of their righteous anger that no one else’s feelings or needs come into it. They remind me of those US crazies who picket the funerals of gay men, chanting that the deceased will now be burning in hell.
October 14th, 2010 at 5:51 pm
Jim, Wiki includes ‘extermination of “undesired” population groups’ among its definitions of eugenics. It’s bad enough experimenting on human embryos … but perhaps we won’t go there.
I don’t know you, and have no idea what your view on abortion might be. I can only go by the words on the page, and I was a little shocked at your earlier comment ‘This is a form of very calculated bullyng of vulnerable people who are acting entirely within the law of the land’. So I will repeat my earlier response: ‘It is now seemingly a crime to show what actually takes place in an abortion. Even though abortion is legal, this is akin to saying that to show pictures of the Holocaust should be illegal, while the Final Solution itself should be fully legal.’
October 14th, 2010 at 10:19 pm
Jill
You need to read the whole article on eugenics. Context is key.
No. You know perfectly well that it is not a crime to show what an a abortion involves. That is why the pictures are so readily available for anyone to see. It took me all of 5 minutes Googling to find any number of pictures. Again, context is everything. In this case it is the manner in which the action was taken which was debatable. I suspect you will say that this issue is so important that the end justifies the means. It is this with which I do not agree.