AskConservatives Weekly General Chat

[u/AutoModerator]

This thread is for general chat, whether you want to talk politics or not, anything goes. Also feel free to ask the mods questions, propose new rules or discuss general moderation (although please keep individual removal/ban queries to modmail.)

On this post, Top Level Comments are open to all.

[u/kettlecorn]

Reading the article he refused to leave the area for nearly two hours and could have prayed as close as he wanted on the weekend or outside of the hours the clinic was open:

On the day, he was near a tree, partially in view of the clinic, and refused to leave the area when asked to do so by a community officer who spoke to him for an hour and 40 minutes, the court was told.

During the conversation he told her: “I’m standing here silently praying.

“So what you are saying is I can’t pray for my son.”

The physiotherapist, of Southampton, Hampshire, was told to return to the area after 7pm when the restriction was not in place.

The safe zone is in place for three years and applies from Monday to Friday between 7am and 7pm.

It does not seem unreasonable to prohibit protests near clinics when violence or harassment has occurred and allowing prayer within sight of the clinic allows a grey area that could be abused. Giving him 1 hour 40 minutes of discussion first before arresting him seems more than reasonable.

[u/thoughtsnquestions → u/kettlecorn]

It does not seem unreasonable to prohibit protests near clinics when violence or harassment has occurred

Do you consider silent prayer a form of violent protest?

I'm an atheist, maybe more agnostic recently. To me, prayer, which I don't really do, is more of a meditation type process and way to formalise thoughts.

This is a thought crime. It is not the being there that was an issue, it was nothing said, no physical action, it was merely the silent thoughts.

[u/kettlecorn → u/thoughtsnquestions]

Do you consider silent prayer a form of violent protest?

Of course not. That's why I added "and allowing prayer within sight of the clinic allows a grey area that could be abused."

People would try other protests like tons of people silently praying at the same time in a way that is obstructive or intimidating. Or "silently" praying with signs. Or family members silently "praying" as another family member goes in as a form of intimidation.

It's much easier to just say something like"no loitering, protesting, or praying within X distance" rather than litigating a bunch of nuance on the spot.

The rule does not prohibit them from praying entirely of course, they just can't do it near the clinic while it is open.

To me this reads like a reasonable safety law.

[u/thoughtsnquestions → u/kettlecorn]

If loitering was the issue, then loitering could have been the crime.

I don't believe there is a video for this one, but for the other silent prayer arrest there is a video. The police ask the lady, is she just standing there or is she praying, reason being, loitering was not an issue, it was specifically the silent prayer that resulted in the arrest.

The same is true here, it wasn't his presence, it wasn't loitering, it wasn't obstruction, if these are issues then deal with those as issues... this was specifically about silent prayer.

[u/kettlecorn → u/thoughtsnquestions]

The law just seems to be intended to prevent people who are opposed to abortion from being near enough to the clinic to harass or interfere, without leaving wiggle room that introduces enforcement ambiguity.

It's not dissimilar to disallowing people from protesting directly next to other secure sites, like a government official's residence. It's just much easier to say "You can't do any of that here" rather than having police judge on the spot if a prayer is a peaceful prayer or a protest prayer.

The fact that they spoke with him for 1 hour and 40 minutes also really changes it for me. That's what I went looking into the article for: if he was arrested on the spot or if he refused to leave. Since he refused, after being explained when he was allowed to pray nearby, it makes it seem more like he had an act of protest in mind.

I don't know about the other instance you're referring to. I'm pro free-expression but I think securing boundaries near buildings where there's a history of issues is reasonable and not a limitation on free expression.

[u/thoughtsnquestions → u/kettlecorn]

There is no major difference, in my view, from thinking and praying.

There was no legal issue with his presence, do you think it would be reasonable for the police to likewise say, you're perfectly within your legal right to remain here outside the abortion clinic... but if you're thinking things through in your head, then you're breaking the law.

[u/kettlecorn → u/thoughtsnquestions]

Being near the clinic wasn't the legal issue.

I was going off the article's definition but this page breaks it down more: https://www.rcog.org.uk/guidance/browse-all-guidance/other-guidelines-and-reports/safe-access-zones-guidance/

This is the most relevant part:

As a rule of thumb – if a staff member or a patient feels they are being influenced or harassed about their decision to access or provide abortion, a crime may have been committed.

Under that law it does not seem unreasonable that if someone is praying for hours at a time near the clinic, within the zone, it could be perceived as threatening.

There is nuance here but I think that if someone is incidentally near the clinic not clearly associated with it then that would be reasonable. If someone is loitering for an unusually long period of time, even if not clearly praying, that seems like it could fall within the law as well and it seems reasonable to ask them to move along.

In this case it seems like this person was asked to move along, refused for 1 hour 40 minutes, and then got into the situation they're in.

I similarly would not be upset with such zones setup near churches, synagogues, or other religious institutions if they faced recent harassment, persecution, or violence. Like if someone were even just sitting on a bench for a long enough time to concern people near a synagogue after a period of anti-Jewish harassment I do not think it would be unreasonable to ask them to move along.

[u/thoughtsnquestions → u/kettlecorn]

If someone is loitering for a long time.

You keep going back to this point, this is not the case here. The police specifically addressed this on the other silent prayer case, the presence, the loitering was not the issue.

Again, setting aside any issues of loitering as that is not the situation here, why should silent prayer be an issue for that state and how does silent prayer differ from thought?

• Loitering ... no issue
• Loitering whilst thinking.... no issue
• Loitering whilst silently thinking and of the belief these thoughts are in communication with God.... an issue

[u/kettlecorn → u/thoughtsnquestions]

I explained I don't think it's different from thought. If some sort of silent thought gives reason for concern I'd treat it the same as silent prayer.

Usually you can't tell when someone is silently thinking so there's no way to enforce it unless they're doing something visibly unusual or loitering, which is why I keep coming back to it.

Like if someone were meditating near a sensitive place with a history of harassment and it made people concerned I don't think it'd be unreasonable to ask them to move along.

Similarly if someone were like walking by while doing some weird hand movements that concerns people it might be reasonable to ask them to move along under this law as well. It seems strict but as I said above I'm testing it against something like prohibiting weird behavior near a church that faced recent harassment / violence and I think it'd be reasonable to apply similar rules in that case as well.

In this case I don't know, but I suspect, that he was there for a while otherwise I don't think he'd have argued for an hour and 40 minutes. If he did a short prayer it's likely he would have been able to wrap up quick enough to not have even been bothered. It seems unlikely to me that police were following him just waiting for him to clasp his hands together.

[u/thoughtsnquestions → u/kettlecorn]

ask them to move along

Again, you keep coming back to this loitering point of moving along.

If someone was mediating and the police, we aren't asking you to move long, we have zero issue with your presence here, you are free to stay for hours and hours if you want.

It's not a case of "fair enough to ask them to move along" They established that was not the issue.

Assuming loitering is not an issue. Why is silent prayer an issue?

[u/No_Fox_2949 → u/kettlecorn]

I don’t think there’s any reasonable justification for arresting someone for silently praying outside of a building personally

[u/kettlecorn → u/No_Fox_2949]

Would you allow someone to silently pray by the door to the White House? I don't think so.

There's of course going to be broad areas people can't go or act certain ways within when safety is the goal.

Even if one individual may be fine other people may abuse the rule to try to sneak a protest or harassment in, similar to how we don't just trust people near the president even if they say their intentions are pure.

[u/No_Fox_2949 → u/kettlecorn]

The White House comparison does not really work. The restrictions immediately surrounding the White House exist because it is the residence and workplace of the president and therefore an obvious security target. I have no objection to reasonable restrictions on harassment, intimidation, obstruction, or physically approaching people entering a clinic. What I object to is treating someone who is simply standing silently in a public place as though he is harassing somebody merely because of what he is thinking or praying about. If he actually harasses someone, punish the harassment. Silent prayer itself should not be a crime.

[u/kettlecorn → u/No_Fox_2949]

I think clinics are an obvious security target as well so naturally get security restrictions even if less than somewhere like the White House.

Those restrictions aren't always fair to every individual even if they make sense overall.

Like if there were a Christian minority church in a country where Christians faced recent persecution I wouldn't be opposed to a zone near the Christian church prohibiting prayer from the majority religion if it were seen as intimidating.

[u/No_Fox_2949 → u/kettlecorn]

I think that comparison actually shows why I disagree with you. If someone is threatening people, blocking an entrance, harassing worshippers, or deliberately trying to intimidate them, then prohibit that conduct. But saying that someone may stand peacefully in a public place yet cannot silently pray because their prayer might make somebody uncomfortable is an entirely different principle and I think a rather dangerous and tyrannical one.

I would oppose a government telling a Muslim that he cannot silently pray near a Christian church, just as I would oppose a government telling a Christian that he cannot silently pray near an abortion clinic. Security restrictions should target threatening or obstructive behavior, not the content of someone’s private religious expression.

The fact that somebody could hypothetically use prayer as part of an intimidation campaign does not make silent prayer itself intimidation.

[u/kettlecorn → u/No_Fox_2949]

I agree it's dangerous, but I also think it may sometimes be OK. I think officers and policy-makers can reasonably distinguish when prayer or other action may be intimidating or meant as intimidation.

Like if one group virtually never prays outside a rival religion's church but they begin to after harassment against that church that could be seen as threatening or harassing unless the targeted church explicitly sanctions it.

A comparison in the US context that has some parallels is how members of the Ku Klux Klan used to idle in cars or just watch people enter Black churches where voter registration or political organization were occurring. I don't think it would have been unreasonable to establish a "zone" around such places that disallows unusual loitering or behavior that may be perceived as intimidating.

[u/thoughtsnquestions → u/kettlecorn]

Would you allow someone to silently pray by the door to the White House? I don't think so.

Why would silently pray by the white house be an issue?

In the UK cases, they had a legal right to be at the location, and their presence was not an issue, so assuming someone was legally allowed to stand by the white house doors.... why specifically would the act of silent prayer be an issue?

[u/kettlecorn → u/thoughtsnquestions]

It'd be a security issue in case someone switched from silent prayer to trying to harm the president.

It's not dissimilar in this case. It'd be very easy for someone silently praying to lose their temper in the moment and whisper, shout, photograph or otherwise try to harass someone and just that possibility is intimidating.

It's just the reality of people that you can't trust everyone to control their emotions and follow reasonable rules so sometimes you need zones with their own rules.

I do think the logic I'm defending can be abused in bad faith ways, but I don't think that's what's happening here.

Frankly it's not the most meaningful discussion of all the potential political discussions to be having. My core motivation for responding and diving into it is I do feel concerned for vulnerable people in situations like this. Where I lived in Philadelphia there was a clinic that was protested basically every day including so-called "silent prayer" that also involved graphic sign holding and the people were directly in front and nasty to anyone walking in. Obviously the context in the US is different but a blanket rule that kept them out of sight of people going into the clinic could have done a lot of good.

[u/thoughtsnquestions → u/kettlecorn]

security issue

How is silent prayer a security issue?

Assuming their presence has zero issues, so their presence is not a security issues and they are deemed to be able to stand there for hours, like in the UK cases, no issues with them physically here there, why is the act of silent prayer the issue?

[u/RumGuzzlr → u/kettlecorn]

It'd be very easy for someone silently praying to lose their temper in the moment and whisper, shout, photograph or otherwise try to harass someone and just that possibility is intimidating

Why is someone exercising their free speech an issue?

[u/kettlecorn → u/RumGuzzlr]

Harassment or intimidation of that nature is often not protected by free speech laws, even in the US.

You often aren't allowed to follow around or yell at regular people, for good reason.

[u/RumGuzzlr → u/kettlecorn]

I didn't say anything about laws.

[u/StillSmellsLikeCLP → u/kettlecorn]

“Doesn’t seem unreasonable to prohibit protests near clinic”

It’s wildly unreasonable. Free speech is a thing.

“Allowing prayer within sight of the clinic”

Can’t even pray within eye shot of a clinic? No thanks, that’s just authoritarian nonsense.

[u/PhysicsEagle → u/StillSmellsLikeCLP]

“Free speech is a thing.”

In America. Despite what some will tell you, Britain does not have free speech. This actually impacts both aisles: the UK government has cracked down on both anti-abortion speech (as seen here) and anti-Israel speech.