There’s recently been a lot of attention on cases concerning the exclusion zones around clinics. Stories of people being arrested and charged for simply praying silently or holding up signs saying “Here to talk, if you want” have even reached the attention of JD Vance, the US Vice-President who sees them as an example of free speech being denied. So, are we in a police state where thought crimes (silent prayer) can lead to arrest and imprisonment? Are Evangelicals that don’t at a minimum oppose the exclusion zones and support those arrested guilty of compromise?
I was fascinated by an article published by Affinity in their Social Issues Bulletin “Silencing Conscience: What Scotland’s Safe Access Zones Mean for Free Speech” by Stephen Allison. What first caught my attention was a quote used to advertise the article from its author
Is this a fair and accurate summation of the issue? Well let’s have a deeper look at the article. First Allison argues that the zones amount to an attack on freedom of expression and other freedoms.
“One of the most concerning aspects of the Act is its impact on freedom of expression, freedom of assembly and freedom of conscience – fundamental rights in any democratic society. This law curtails the ability of individuals to express pro-life views in public spaces. Even silent prayer, a deeply personal act of faith, could now be criminalised within these zones.”
It is worth remembering two things here. First, that those freedoms as understood by relevant treaties on human rights come with responsibilities and so have never been unfettered. For example, the ECHR Article 10 says:
“The exercise of these freedoms, since it carries with it duties and responsibilities, may be subject to such formalities, conditions, restrictions or penalties as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society, in the interests of national security, territorial integrity or public safety, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, for the protection of the reputation or rights of others, for preventing the disclosure of information received in confidence, or for maintaining the authority and impartiality of the judiciary.”[1]
It is clear then that the freedom is not to say anything anywhere or at any time. One concern is that such a freedom should not impact on the freedoms of others. So, for example, the freedom to assemble and protest if it obstructs or intimidates others may be seen to be restricting their freedom of expression, conscience, assembly and movement too. This is why, for example legislation limits what striking picketers can and cannot do.
Allison argues that the zone measures are not proportionate, going beyond what is necessary and that in any case, there are already existing laws. He says:
“Proponents of the law argue that safe access zones are necessary to protect women from distressing encounters when seeking abortion services. However, existing laws (e.g. breach of the peace) already prohibit harassment, intimidation, and obstruction. If harassment occurs, it should be addressed under laws already in place rather than imposing blanket bans that infringe upon civil liberties.
The principle of proportionality is key to any limitation on rights. In this case, the Act appears to extend beyond what is necessary to achieve its stated aim. It does not merely prohibit harassment (which is already illegal) but criminalises entirely peaceful actions. This overreach raises concerns about whether the law is being used to shut down moral and religious viewpoints that some find uncomfortable, rather than addressing actual harm.”
This is to overlook an important point here. Yes, there are legal measures in place against harassment and intimidation. However, that does not prevent new legislation that gives greater clarity and certainty. Arguably, this becomes necessary when people are seen to find ways that give an appearance of being within what the law permits when intending something else. The law here envisages exactly the situation where a person is accused of intimidation or harassment and claims that they were merely “walking past”, “stopping for a breather” or “praying.” This is a proportionate and legitimate use of the law.
He goes on to describe this movement as having chilling effects
“Whilst proponents will argue it is proportionate within a narrow zone around abortion clinics the issue is that it sends a signal – that certain topics should be off limits. This has a chilling effect on freedom of expression around abortion issues in general – compounding a situation where it is already very hard to openly discuss and debate abortion-related issues. Making it illegal to discuss abortion within an exclusion zone makes a statement to society that it is inappropriate to express pro-life views. “
I’m afraid that this is a little disingenuous. The overreach here is in the argument that Allison makes. To limit activities in a specific place does not send out signals about what is permissible elsewhere. This does not mean that we must necessarily agree with the buffer zones. I am not convinced that they are a good idea. They raise a number of questions. The Affinity article raises a legitimate concern about churches that find themselves in buffer zones, the areas they tend to cover are unnecessarily large and it is reasonable to ask whether we would consider them necessary and legitimate on other issues.
Indeed, whilst I have observed above that it is legitimate to provide specific laws that clarify how and where crimes are being committed in order to remove ambiguity, my preference is against lots of additional legislation. Similar arguments can be made of course when it comes to aggravated hate crimes. However, just because we don’t agree with specific legislation neither means that it is either restrictive of our rights in practice or in motive.
This though gets to the heart of the problem with some reactions to situations. There is a sense that we are not being open about things. It’s why I’m unhappy with those who complain that they are being targeted for praying, and claim that prayer is being criminalised, when in fact they were appropriating Christian prayer for political protest purposes. Indeed, there is something contradictory about complaining that you are being prevented from simply praying in your head because the point of such prayer is that we don’t need to be in specific places, take on certain postures or even pray out loud in order for God to hear us. We therefore do not need to be outside an abortion clinic for God to hear our prayers about abortion. So, why are those people going to those places? It seems reasonable to infer that it is not in order to pray.
Similarly, I think we need to be clear about whether or not the person holding up the card was simply offering conversation, or was in fact protesting. It is fascinating that the Affinity article tells us a little bit more about the placard. According to the article, it didn’t simply offer conversation but stated:
“coercion is a crime, here to talk, only if you want’.”
The full wording suggests that this was less about a kind and gracious offer of a friendly chat with a listening ear and more a passive-aggressive statement of protest. We do no favours either to the Gospel or to the specific cause if we are not up front about what we are seeking to do. In these cases, it looks like the specific protests were not even against abortion itself but were about the nature and limits of free speech.
This brings us back to the original quote I highlighted:
“The right response is not to silence voices of compassion and conscience but to foster a society where difficult issues can be discussed with grace, respect, and truth.”
It is important to be clear that whilst there may be specific issues with the legislation, for example, implications for churches and indeed other activities within these zones, the law here is not about silencing voices of compassion.
In fact, therein is a part of the problem with articles of the kind offered by Affinity. If we make this about free speech around a tricky issue, then it is rather difficult, if not impossible to argue against the case for such exclusion zones. Such zones are set up exactly on the premise that this is a difficult issue, one in which some people may disagree passionately with the choices of others but where those choices are recognised as legitimate.
If the intent is to attempt to persuade people to make a different decision in a complex situation, then it is reasonable to ask that those conversations are not held on the doorsteps of the clinics. However, a different argument is that whilst there are complexities behind why a person reaches the point of going for abortion, the decision to abort a child is in the end always morally wrong and as the taking of human life, should not be legally permitted. In other words, those who go into the zones are stepping in where the law and institutions of the land are failing.
This does of course raise other questions around where we draw the line. Is it in either permissible or incumbent on Christians to act in order to prevent things that either are unlawful or that they believe should be unlawful where they believe that either the Law or the institutions upholding the Law are failing? If so where, if anywhere are the limits on this drawn> For what it is worth, I don’t think that we are either free or under obligation to take the law into our own hands. However, I think that those who are up front, that this is what they are doing show greater integrity. They must of course then face the consequences when their actions cross the line so that they break the Law.
In the meantime, we need to ensure that if we want
“a society where difficult issues can be discussed with grace, respect, and truth.”
Then we need to be the ones taking a lead and setting an example
Faithroots 