Freedom Of Speech To Be Banned Near Abortion Clinics

[Longcol]

16 minutes ago, The_DADDY said:

That's simply a cop out.

"For everyone's saftey" can be applied to any cause in order to restrict people's rights or freedoms. Convid showed that .

After all, it's about safety so who on earth would disagree with that?

If you're  going to take everything from a conspiracy point of view then their isn't a lot that's going to convince you is there?

[The_DADDY]

Just now, Delayed said:

So you're worried about the feelings of protestors?

No, the rights of everyone to protest where they feel it has the most effect. 

As long as they don't harass, abuse or assault anyone then I don't really see the issue. Like I said earlier, I believe it's a slippery slope.

 

[Delayed]

1 minute ago, The_DADDY said:

No, the rights of everyone to protest where they feel it has the most effect. 

As long as they don't harass, abuse or assault anyone then I don't really see the issue. Like I said earlier, I believe it's a slippery slope.

 

How about a group of protestors, protesting right outside the door of an abortion clinic, preventing access......is that not harassment?

[The_DADDY]

2 minutes ago, Longcol said:

If you're  going to take everything from a conspiracy point of view then their isn't a lot that's going to convince you is there?

'Conspiracy' or not it's still a valid comparison .

All the measures were 'to keep us safe'.

This is no different.  Ban protests in certain areas to 'keep us safe'..

No, let people protest peacefully and throw the full weight of the law at anyone who wants to start hurling abuse or get aggressive. 

1 minute ago, Delayed said:

How about a group of protestors, protesting right outside the door of an abortion clinic, preventing access......is that not harassment?

That's shameful behaviour and not even close to peaceful protesting.

[Guest makapaka]

25 minutes ago, The_DADDY said:

That's simply a cop out.

"For everyone's saftey" can be applied to any cause in order to restrict people's rights or freedoms. Convid showed that .

After all, it's about safety so who on earth would disagree with that?

There was a post earlier that set out a section of the human rights act which renders all this discussion pointless.

 

none of your existing rights are being taken away - your existing human rights are just being put into effect. 

[Delayed]

1 minute ago, The_DADDY said:

 

That's shameful behaviour and not even close to peaceful protesting.

Indeed. So when protestors are outside and it's not known beforehand how they will protest, it's common sense and being risk averse (Chekov loves risk assessment) to have sufficient distance between protestors and everyone else.

 

Protestors get their message across either by being shouty or waving placards peacefully. And everyone else can go about their life uninterrupted.

 

See? Everyone's happy 

[Guest sibon]

6 minutes ago, The_DADDY said:

No, the rights of everyone to protest where they feel it has the most effect. 

As long as they don't harass, abuse or assault anyone then I don't really see the issue. Like I said earlier, I believe it's a slippery slope.

 

In this case, there is no possibility of peaceful protest.

 

The protesters will be intimidating, simply by their presence. The women trying to use perfectly legal health facilities will include many at the lowest points of their lives. Rape victims, twelve year old kids, women finding it difficult to cope with their lives. 

 

Anyone who chooses to directly confront people in those circumstances, cannot possibly be considered to be peaceful. No matter how quietly they carry out their intimidation.

[The_DADDY]

Just now, Delayed said:

Indeed. So when protestors are outside and it's not known beforehand how they will protest, it's common sense and being risk averse (Chekov loves risk assessment) to have sufficient distance between protestors and everyone else.

 

Protestors get their message across either by being shouty or waving placards peacefully. And everyone else can go about their life uninterrupted.

 

See? Everyone's happy 

My bold.

So protesters are outside, doing what exactly?

Peacefully protesting?  Good, leave them be. 

Being abusive, confrontational? Lock them up and leave the Peaceful ones to their protest. 

 

[Guest]

1 minute ago, sibon said:

In this case, there is no possibility of peaceful protest.

 

The protesters will be intimidating, simply by their presence. The women trying to use perfectly legal health facilities will include many at the lowest points of their lives. Rape victims, twelve year old kids, women finding it difficult to cope with their lives. 

 

Anyone who chooses to directly confront people in those circumstances, cannot possibly be considered to be peaceful. No matter how quietly they carry out their intimidation.

This exactly.

[The_DADDY]

1 minute ago, sibon said:

In this case, there is no possibility of peaceful protest.

 

The protesters will be intimidating, simply by their presence. The women trying to use perfectly legal health facilities will include many at the lowest points of their lives. Rape victims, twelve year old kids, women finding it difficult to cope with their lives. 

 

Anyone who chooses to directly confront people in those circumstances, cannot possibly be considered to be peaceful. No matter how quietly they carry out their intimidation.

I think we'll have to agree to disagree on this sibon. I get the point you're making but I see it a different way.

32 minutes ago, Hecate said:

That absolute state of it.  You really are a nasty piece of work.

 

As for those 'church going pacifists': see that text on the placards they're holding? 40 Days for Life, an American, religious extremist group:

 

From here.

My bold. I'd like an answer please. I asked if this comment was directed at me??

1 minute ago, Hecate said: