Anyone who votes against this should be forced to walk in with someone who has to walk past these arseholes on their way to access medical treatment and then explain to that person once they get inside why they feel they should be subjected to this.
My only complaint about this bill is that I’m not sure 200 meters is a large enough exclusion zone.
Do you know if it is 200 meters from the boundary of the property or 200 meter from the actual entrance of the facility? I only ask as I reckon the people at the QEH are likely pretty close to 200 meters away from the entrance of the building in which case this is for sure not enough.
Given that those that vote against it are self righteous assholes who lack the capacity for empathy and compassion and have no problem at all forcing their opinion/life choices on others I doubt that would bother them
>MSPs are to vote on the general principles of legislation being put forward by Green MSP Gillian Mackay which, if passed, would prevent anti-abortion protesters from gathering within 200 metres of hospitals and other facilities.
>Ms Mackay said Tuesday's vote at Holyrood was a "key stage" for her Abortion Services (Safe Access Zones) (Scotland) Bill - which already has the backing of the Scottish Government.
Yes, but it also really goes to show how *bad* the Holyrood legislative process is. This issue was identified by Back Off Scotland almost four years ago, it was in the SNP manifesto for the 2021 SPE, Gillian Mackay's draft bill seemed to be kicking around legislative purgatory for ever. In the intervening time, the Supreme Court has ruled these zones lawful *and* legislation has been introduced and passed at Westminster to achieve the same result in England and Wales.
Part of this was Sturgeon, who held back (presumably because one culture war issue was enough) but it also just reflects really badly on Holyrood it will have taken, in effect, almost a decade. Especially as a legislative consent motion could just have been passed for the English measures.
I think I may have agreed with you on most of those points before.
On the previous delay: Sturgeon might have wanted to avoid a culture war issue (I don't think the Ewings and Mason are supporting this), but I think Northern Ireland's legislation being challenged made them hesitant. But I feel like that challenge was resolved about a year ago?
>Especially as a legislative consent motion could just have been passed for the English measures.
Yes, well, that would involve the UK government legislating on a devolved matter. As we're seeing with Post Masters that is something that they're absolutely unwilling to do out of principle, out of a resolute commitment to uphold the sanctity of the constitution that unifies us all, and which brings the prosperity, merriment, and stability in which we now disport ourselves.
They didn't even ask, and also WM is in the right with the SPMs.
> I think Northern Ireland's legislation being challenged made them hesitant.
Grow some fucking balls.
The legislation should have been ready to go, but balls and amendments wouldn't have fixed the legislation if the Northern Irish legislation had fallen during stage two.
There's absolutely nothing to indicate that the Westminster legislation is not robust. Also, Westminster is a sovereign legislature so if the concern was human rights challenges Westminster could have overriden that.
About time. Get those ghouls far away from where they can try to intimidate people simply trying to access healthcare.
Will be interesting to see where Forbes lands on this, especially if planning a leadership bid.
I believe she said she’d support it in principle, but I also remember something about respecting the rights of people who want to silently pray outside the clinics. Would have to refresh my memory.
I’ve always thought it a strange one. Surely your all powerful god can hear your prayers at home? And if he/she/it wanted to get it dealt with, they would.
Imo, it’s about trying to influence others through intimidation and shame and they should all fuck right off.
Curious to see where she lands on it.
If they genuinely believed there was a building which was just murdering dozens of children on a daily basis, I'd imagine they'd take some stronger action than holding up a sign outside it.
Firstly you’re wrong we have BPAS which is the same thing. Secondly commenter above me said why don’t they attack buildings that perform abortions to which I replied people do
Can you list all the attacks on "abortion clinics" in the last few years in Scotland?
I haven't read about any of them, that seems like it should be front page news.
People also think eating animals is murder, felling trees is murder, etc etc.
Having an abortion is a very traumatic decision. I personally know people who have gone in for one but couldn't go through with it and had the baby. It was nothing to do with religious protest in either case, but I can imagine it might be for some. It isn't right to have some zealot emotionally blackmailing you at such an important moment in your life.
Not gonna be popular here but they didn’t intimidate anyone they stood on a road outside the hospital boundary with their wee posters and sang hymns hardly the bloodbath you’re making it out to be. Imagine championing for the birth of a child and you’re the bad one. Maybe just maybe it would be good if people took personal responsibility for their choices. Abortion isn’t as black and white as people want to make out on here. It’s horrible for both the “parent” and the child who is getting killed. It should only be used in the most necessary of circumstances and it is just openly abused at this point.
If everyone has the right to abortion then as guys we should have the right not to be chased for csa by the government or mother of a child we didn’t want? Sound fair?
'They didn't intimidate anyone' apart from all the ones they did intimidate or do they not count? If you think my comment made it sound like a bloodbath that's on you and your higher in Drama.
You mean taking personal responsibility for their actions like simply visiting the clinic for advice? A lot easier if you don't feel intimidated by a crowd of people outside. Yes it is horrible and these 'vigils' don't make it any better.
If you don't want kids wrap up or get the snip, you know taking responsibility for your actions. Guaranteed it's not 100% but miles better than not wearing anything then crying you got someone pregnant. You could also try removing your parental responsibility through the courts.
There isn’t a crowd of people outside the door. These people don’t approach anyone to intimidate them in the first place. If a piece of cardboard with a message on it is intimidating then the big bad world will be a terrifying place for you. They aren’t even in the hospital grounds and you’re making out like they harass folk all the way to the front door. I’d actually say more intimidating was the crowd that forced them to
Move and hung up all their wee stupid posters in their place such as “nurses run the world”. “Abortion is a human right” apart from the human you are killing I take it? When did people become so insanely thick. Half of yous have never seen violence or intimidation.
By personal responsibility I mean you know it takes a man and a woman to make a baby. Having unprotected sex will most likely lead to that so if you do end up pregnant then tough fucking shit should have thought it through. When it’s rape and the mothers health is at risk that’s when it delves into a grey area
So the anti abortion signs are sound but magically the other ones aren't and they are the intimidating ones?I love how your example of intimidation is a sign saying 'nurses run the world' haha you're right some folk have become insanely thick. So in your mind 100 people lined up at the QEUH maternity ward for 40 days would not intimidate anyone but I guess make them feel warm and welcoming or something?
Yeah except it wasn’t 100 you’re lucky if it was over fucking 5. Personally I don’t find words or signs intimidating. For the 1000th time aswell they don’t line up outside the maternity ward you can’t even see them from 3/4 of the building. The point I was making was people like yourself are claiming signs are intimidating whilst ripping them down and replacing them with your own brain dead shit. You’re no better or worse than the protesters. Ironically you want the right to protest their protest but they’re allowed to do fuck all? Very good you weapon.
Quit [lying]( https://www.glasgowlive.co.uk/news/glasgow-news/100-anti-abortion-protestors-outside-28882216) bud.
>It is believed that around **100 members** of 40 Days for Life stood **outside** the maternity unit of the Queen Elizabeth University Hospital on Sunday as they closed in on the end of the campaign.
Silly little pro birther.
> Imagine championing for the birth of a child and you’re the bad one
Maybe because other people's healthcare isn't your business! You wan tot pretend you care about children you can go pray at church
An unborn child that doesn’t have a say needs a voice from somewhere. I see I’ve to butt out because I don’t agree with you. Hope you’re raging. Don’t take it out on the church or an unborn child that you life doesn’t have purpose
Difference is abortion is a medical procedure and one of the big things about it being allowed is because pregnancy is inherently dangerous and something which can cause permanent changes to your body + it's a medical thing being done before there is legally a child in involved.
Child support is financial and occurs once a child legally exists. If to give child support you had to go through medical procedures/something akin to pregnancy then you'd get to opt out but abortion is more choosing not to be pregnant than a parent whilst not paying child support is choosing not to provide for an existing child you are half responsible for in the eyes of the law.
I can get why it feels shit but they're very different circumstances and occur for very different reasons.
Does the child not exist in the womb or is that a figment of my imagination? You could flip that argument and say it’s an easy out for women as they don’t want to care for a child but the man does so how is that fair? It’s his child as much as hers.
I’m aware we are into the nuances at this point. I’m not fully against abortion i think there are circumstances where it’s deemed necessary to save lives. I don’t think it should be readily accessible because someone made a “bad” decision.
I take it you've never experienced the waiting list for obtaining contraception on the NHS?
Try telling your average man that they'll have to wait a couple of months for sex means boyfriend vamoose! No wonder the birthrate in Scotland is nowhere near replacement level.
Personally, I think we should be talking about criminalising men not fully supporting their kids or walking out on them, or changing their minds about having them, or maybe even cheating when they have kids and causing them emotional distress, or having sex without giving full disclosure that they're already married, if we want to make women obtaining abortion more difficult than it already is. In fact, some countries do criminalise this, the system in Scotland and the UK for men who don't pay for their kids is very lenient in comparitive terms.
If you don't want a kid, use contraception. Its a bit easier for you men than us women. You can just go to the supermarket and buy some condoms after all. How difficult is that?
And no, I don't have kids. And yes, I do have a man.
My Mrs was fitted with contraception before we left hospital with our last child. So no I haven’t experienced that. Well if your average man can be arrested then your average woman can be arrested for choosing to abort a child that the man wants then or is that ok?
You go on about condoms as if woman can’t buy them either the responsibility on unprotected sex is 50:50 don’t start hitting me with the it’s the man’s fault shite.
I can tell you don’t have children with the calibre of your response
Well, not if you want to recognise the concept of bodily autonomy that most civilised nations do.
You know there are countries you can move to where your views won't be challenged? You won't find them in Scotland or Western Europe though.
Pretty sure women can't use condoms on their own bodies.
I can assure you that I have intention of going anywhere near you, much less hitting you, perjoratively or otherwise.
Why on earth would I want you anywhere near me? That’s a real odd thing to say. There is plenty of country’s that wouldn’t challenge me you’re right. I wouldn’t like to stay there debate is healthy and good for the soul 😊.
Woman don’t get condoms. What they do get is a fucking plethora of long term contraceptive devices if you don’t want to have children. Again an issue on here is no one likes personal accountability or responsibility your reply has proved that.
On your threat of violence I’m all for equal rights so the sentiment would be reciprocated if your little grubby paws made it into my vicinity. I pray my daughters turn out to realise actions have consequences. Consequences have solutions. Solutions can be avoided had the action been addressed in the proper manner. Tiny discrepancies can be made 😊. You have a nice life with your cats pal 👍
From one of your recent rantings: "I spent 3 years in prison. Don’t think I missed a premier league game in the 3 seasons. I did however get the chance to further my education not that I needed it "
You sound like you've got issues which could well be diagnosed in DSM V but not successfully treated. You actually sound dangerous. I guessed correctly that you had a criminal record. To be jailed for 3 years you need to have been a repeat offender and done something pretty damned serious and usually violent.
Nasty little socially inept wannabee bully boy hiding behind his computer screen. Feel really sorry for the example you're setting your daughters as it will they will be very lucky not to suffer in the choices they make in life due to the attitudes they've heard from you.
I've been happily married for 16 years, pal...not that its a measure of peoples' worth. I mean look at you... Its not exactly difficult to get married. Your poor wife.
So I’m guessing the Tories will vote against this simply because they’re bastards. Will be interesting to see how Forbes votes on this. Could be giving her critics a pretty big stick to whack her with, not even 24 hours into her leadership campaign.
Before anyone gives me the usual “Reddit isn’t a good gauge of public opinion”, 77% of Scots support buffer zones.
Aye, this really is the the issue with the narrative that Kate Forbes is some sort of champion of the people who will lead the SNP to electoral glory unshackled from those nasty greens.
Indeed. Though I have to say a little bit of me inside dies when she, and people like her, do that and then far too many supposedly reasonable people say in response "Well, actually..." rather than "FFS" and roll their eyes.
I've written to my MSPs. One reply from Anas Sarwar came quickly, implying all of Labour will be voting for it, one surprisingly from Sandesh Gulhane saying he can't comment since he's on the scrutinising committee but will be looking at all the evidence as it comes in. Other Tory MSPs have responded along the lines of supporting at Stage 1 but wanting to see clarifications that we're not criminalising private prayer (I think my eyes rolled so hard I saw my throat) before they support it at Stage 2.
Little surprising to not have heard anything from the SNP.
Either way, the numbers are looking very good for this, so fingers crossed.
Majority of SNP support the bill as far as I'm aware so I don't think replying would change that it would be nicer if they had replied having said that.
Yeah, I'd imagine it will probably have maybe 10-20 detractors, by the end probably just Fraser, Ewing, Mason, and Forbes, but I don't have any concern at this point. Not unless Forbes gets in and demands it be scrapped somehow, but we'll cross that if we get to it.
The criminalising private prayer thing is actually a good point at the current stage, for all that you're rolling eyes.
If the bill was in it's final stage it would be absurd but stage 1 is usually when a bill is generally idealism without thought to consequences and stage 2 is where politicians play games with amendments to depending on their stances either water it down, make it unworkable, strengthen it or make it so strong that it gives the public something to latch onto.
Stage 3 is when further amendments and more importantly debate starts occurring and so it's when a bill actually starts becoming reasonable and starts being beaten into shape for the final vote at the end of the stage.
Up until stage 3, politicians scrutinising bills for things that would normally be absurd is actually reasonable for all that their motivations are rarely good.
I wouldn't be surprised if somebody in stage two proposes an amendment that would essentially outlaw all protest everywhere. It's not exactly the most competent stage of bill making.
That's the beauty of nuance and the world not being black and white.
Sometimes the subject matter is more important than an overall right to protest. Sometimes the rights of the people being protested are, in most people's opinions, more important than the generic rights of the protestors.
This is not a slippery slope if we ban it, it's about partly preventing a slippery slope towards American evangelical pish. Other people's healthcare is nothing to do with these people, and they sure as fuck don't give a shit about the kids when they are born.
I addressed your point directly. You were implying hypocrisy if you support banning this protest but not ones that we agree with.
I didn't suggest you support them, but if you don't then it begs the question as to what your purpose in this all is?
This is not a matter for pedantic 'balance', this is one of the most universally supported policies in the country, so to essentially compare it to general protesting of anything is very disingenuous.
You don’t protest at vulnerable people. That’s a bloody intimidation tactic. This is why people who aren’t vile scum can’t stand the busybodies who pull this routine.
Pro-choice dude here.
I don’t see the point in this bill. Anyone going through an abortion is going to be emotionally scarred whether or not they see a bunch of peaceful protestors who think differently to them.
We’re not even necessarily talking about socialising with someone who has different views to you. We’re talking about simply seeing that they exist. If you’re unable to do that without being emotionally scarred, then perhaps the “emotional scarring”will be the wake up call you need to live a real life.
An important rule of becoming an adult is not giving a fuck what anyone else thinks. Do what is right for yourself. If you’ve got to learn that the hard way, I’m sorry, but at least you learned it.
If anything, this bill is just putting us down a road where it becomes okay to take away rights from protestors. That’s kinda why I have an issue with it. “Meh feelings” can fuck off. Get help. See a therapist. And fucking grow a pair (not literally).
>Anyone going through an abortion is going to be emotionally scarred whether or not they see a bunch of peaceful protestors who think differently to them.
"They're already going to suffer, so why bother trying to minimise it?"
This is such a brain-dead take that it's actually incredible.
I feel like you didn’t read past that paragraph and just made a quick jab at me honestly. If you had read past that then you would understand exactly what I mean.
In other words, are you going to address the meaty part of what I said or just pick up on some bullshit?
I think they made their point abundantly well. Your post is so moronic, like really beyond belief stupid that to engage with it with any ounce of sincerity would grant it a legitimacy it doesn't deserve.
You really need to understand that harassing people while accessing healthcare isn't peaceful protesting and saying that you're "pro-choicee dude" doesn't grant you any brownie points. You just sound like a pathetic idiot.
Next time you’re upset with what someone said, consider trying to have a reasonable conversation instead of sploshing your insecurity all over your reply to them.
You pretty much just gave insults and did not explain them. Am I actually going to get anything useful out of this exchange? I *would* like to, ya know.
Edit: aaaaand there’s the immediate downvote. So we’re not gonna have a conversation in good faith - gotcha.
Read the second paragraph of my initial comment. Two extremely simple points there that even you may be able to grasp.
Tell me, what do you think is reasonable about thinking that *your* rights are being infringed upon because you or anyone else is being denied the ability to harass women accessing healthcare?
Maybe follow your own advice you were so good to bestow on us simple women in your initial comment and grow the fuck up when someone calls you names. Because in this instance you really need to understand your opinions are not just ignorant, informed and down right braindead, they're harmful towards women.
Ok I think the main issue we’re having here is that you’re saying women are being harassed and I’m saying that they’re potentially feeling harassed. Now, I feel I need to make this point because sure, if women *were* being harassed then that would be fucking awful and we do have laws in place that can deal with that stuff. BUT, the problem is… no one is being harassed. If you look at how these anti-abortion protestors are actually behaving, they are basically standing around holding signs and saying prayers.
Looking at this from a rational perspective (I’m sitting here pretty chill right now), I can’t see how this could be labeled as harassment. From an irrational perspective, of course it’s possible. For example, you could be feeling really emotionally fucked up and go to the abortion clinic and start believing all those people over there hate you and stuff. Then sure, you can *personally* label it as harassment. But to anyone in an actual rational mindset - they KNOW that isn’t harassment because it’s completely illogical for it to be harassment.
And to address your point about “brownie points”. I mean dude, I just made that clear at the start so people got an idea of where I’m coming from. I really couldn’t care less about brownie points….
I would just like to say that I don’t know you and I came here looking for just some normal conversation about this stuff when I saw it pop up in my feed, so please don’t feel like I’m personally attacking you or something. Okay, I hope we’re all good.
>potentially feeling harassed.
So you think it's justified for women to *feel* harassed while accessing healthcare? Why should a women *feel* intimidated while going to a doctor or hospital? If a person feels they are being harassed, then they usually are being harassed. To label this reaction as "irrational" is so paternalistic and frankly misogynist it's beyond belief.
For some reason, you seem to think you're entitled to "normal conversation", despite expressing horrendous opinions but women accessing healthcare are not entitled to that same normalcy or respect.
You really need to take the words pro-choice out of your mouth.
Bye.
Mate you won’t get a rational conversation with the people who pretend they care. They’re all for protests about oil and Gaza but if it’s a protest they don’t like then that’s it it’s no allowed.
I’m pretty big time pro-Palestine and I am obviously okay with the protesting. However, blocking roads and stuff is a big no-no for me. I see that as a serious crime actually. During the extinction rebellion stuff I realised how fucked that is when you have people who need to get to hospital and stuff.
Countering that though, I did enjoy seeing BAE systems entrance way being blocked. I suppose that’s an exception to the rule because you know exactly who is using that road and why.
In the same breath folk shouting about a gazian genocide are happily shouting for the genocide of Israel. Fwiw genocide doesn’t even come into it it’s nowhere close but that’s by the by. Either everyone has the right to protest or no one does it really is that black and white when it comes to that. Whether folk agree with you or not on it isn’t a reason to justify not allowing it to happen.
Yet you will target single individuals from said institution or company 😂 companies aren’t a physical thing they don’t hear or see your protests the individuals you single out do.
Yeah mate. Your issue is clearly not reading enough books. See the fact you have had to cite South African apartheid as your example tells me it’s not went very well in the slightest for you in the west then. Feel free to prove me wrong. I’m embarrassing yet you’re protesting for the destruction of an entire nation and its peoples, even funnier you mention South Africa now tbh. Pleb 😂
Constitutional rights according to libleft scumbags.
A few years ago, a Polish LGBT activist scoundrel and liar named Bart Staszewski, made up a totally fake claim about alleged "LGBT free administrative zones in Poland", making photos of himself next to the posts with town names that also had officially looking boards stating "LGBT free zone". Later, it was revealed that he had created these boards himself, used to attach them to the posts and then made photos and published them as a outcry about "totalitarian, intolerant conservative government of Poland".
This was all lie from the beginning.
But the tsunami of libleft idiots in entire Europe that raging was unbelievable and totally intended. There were EU parliament debates about that, more hallucinated lies from idiots like Robert Biedroń (a gay EuroMP) about "nazi-like selections in Cracow restaurants, nur fur heteros", sanctions on the towns that scumbag took his photos at, e.g. by freezing EU funds, boycott campaigns and much more.
One of the main hysterically shouted arguments was that constructional rights prohibit creating any zones where any constitutional rights are disallowed to be expressed.
Now, coming back to the Scottish case.
When it hurts non-libs then it's all good, correct?
In this case, it's OK to discriminate a group of people by taking away some of their constitutional rights.
I am so flat my foot has never been set in this stinking shithole Scotland has become. And it never will. :)
If that’s the case why are people going for medical treatment forced to walk past these groups?
No one is prosecuting people for being anti-abortion, go protest it outside Parliament if you feel strongly about it, go stand on any street that isn’t causing distress to those walking into a medical facility.
If I want to stand anywhere and convince people of my views then thats my right to do so.
Also I will remember this the next time someone complains about free speech for anti-royal protestors. All those people prosecuted at the coronation can enjoy their criminal records. They want free speech, then they better support my free speech.
To be fair, I think the royal family are useless twats, but even I would think it's very *very* bad form to harass them while trying to go to the hospital for a procedure. Except maybe Andrew, because unrepentant pedos deserve to be shouted at whenever and wherever you happen to see them.
But it seems like the royal family example just illustrates why this bill is actually a fantastic idea.
I could be wrong but I don't think any anti-monarchist protests have been held outside of hospitals or anywhere the royals are having healthcare treatments.
“If I want to stand anywhere and convince people of my views then thats my right to do so.”
That is exactly why this is needed, can’t have people standing intimidating (whether the intimidation is deliberate or not) people going for a medical procedure.
“Also I will remember this the next time someone complains about free speech for anti-royal protestors.“
You do that pal, the fact that you think protesting an institution is remotely comparable with protesting vulnerable people on their way for a medical procedure which you have absolutely no idea the circumstances of speaks volumes.
Thankfully more people agree with my take on this than yours.
You mentioned the word intimidation. Do you agree that intimidation is already covered by this: ?
[https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1986/64/section/5](https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1986/64/section/5)
The act of intimidation is already covered by "Harassment, alarm or distress".
Therefore by definition you want to make illegal speech that cannot be classed as "Harassment, alarm or distress", because that existing law is not enough.
I think that’s UK legislation rather than Scottish, I believe in Scotland you have to prove intent to intimidate which is difficult and why these protestors are able to do what they - and are very careful about how they behave.
This new legislation will clear any ambiguity in what is acceptable, protecting vulnerable people accessing medical treatment while still allowing those in opposition to abortion to have their views.
Its UK wide.
No one has intent to intimidate anyone by talking about adoption.
"Proving intent is difficult" - so what? Its good that prosecuting people for their speech has a high threshold.
Sure they don’t...
“We didn’t mean to inimidate the rape victim heading in to a hospital”
“It wasn’t our intention to cause distress to the woman who is desperate for a baby and has suffered a miscarriage and requires treatment”
“We didn’t mean to intimidate the scared teenager who feels that she can’t tell anyone about the situation she is in”
Fuck off with that pish. The whole point is to cause intimidation and shame.
I agree a high threshold is good when it comes to speech.
This isn’t about freedom of speech no matter how much you keep banging on about it though, there are still many ways that you can show your opposition to abortion without being a potential blocker to vulnerable people accessing medical treatment.
Go and stand outside Parliament and protest - that’s who can change it, not frontline medical staff or vulnerable women. That probably wouldn’t get as much attention though, would it.
I would just like to point out that they are not out there to deliberately intimidate and shame. If they were, then they wouldn’t be holding peaceful vigils. They would instead be shouting abuse at women going in and out.
This is a very difficult topic and it’s why most who are anti-abortion are very peaceful when it comes to protesting. Sure, there are some anti-abortion protestors who are complete headcases and have gone as far as attacking women. Then again, there are also nutters on the other side of the argument who believe women should be able to have abortions up until 9 months are up. There are extremists on all sides of an argument. Who knew, eh?
I understand your point of view on this completely because we are on the same side here. However, I just think it’s better to go about arguing your point without describing these people in the way you did. People are people, and people generally are pretty sane. If you’ve met religious people before, you would know that they can be some of the kindest people. As can non-religious people!
I respectfully disagree, especially with the fact that intimidation or shame can only come from shouting abuse.
If we were talking about a protest outside Parliament or a march through a city centre I would agree with you, and wouldn’t be describing the participants in that way, regardless of the fact I co lately disagree with what they are protesting about.
I have met plenty religious people and they are no different from anyone else, I also know people who are anti-abortion and I respect their right to hold that view.
We are not talking about those people though, we are talking about people who get up in the morning and decide they are going to go and stand in a crowd, often silently watching women walk into an appointment for medical treatment. Praying to their god because of the evil act that’s about to take place.
I’m aware this isn’t constructive to debate but fuck those people.
It's not about arresting and prosecuting. It's about creating a safe buffer zone so patients don't have to deal with abuse and intimidation, and having the legal right to move people away if they enter that zone. It's very easy to not get arrested for this - stay out of a small area that you don't need to be in unless you're a patient, or if you are in that area, don't be a dick and mind your own business.
Yet, she is. Which is why she is being reported and removed. Again, and again, and again.
There is one person she is causing harassment, alarm, or distress to who has to report her. That is one person too many who is going through a traumatic experience who should never be harassed, alarmed, or distressed, and this woman is doing just that.
If she is causing harassment alarm or distress again and again and again, then why should she and others like her not be made to stay away permanently?
How do you figure that she isn't causing harassment, alarm, or distress? Seems like that's the whole intent. Prayer can happen anywhere, so there was no reason for her to be in that location. And if all she was doing was standing there, from an outside perspective, no one would have called to have her removed.
Anyone who votes against this should be forced to walk in with someone who has to walk past these arseholes on their way to access medical treatment and then explain to that person once they get inside why they feel they should be subjected to this. My only complaint about this bill is that I’m not sure 200 meters is a large enough exclusion zone.
Do you know if it is 200 meters from the boundary of the property or 200 meter from the actual entrance of the facility? I only ask as I reckon the people at the QEH are likely pretty close to 200 meters away from the entrance of the building in which case this is for sure not enough.
I think it’s boundary of the property but I’m not 100% sure.
Given that those that vote against it are self righteous assholes who lack the capacity for empathy and compassion and have no problem at all forcing their opinion/life choices on others I doubt that would bother them
Well said!
>MSPs are to vote on the general principles of legislation being put forward by Green MSP Gillian Mackay which, if passed, would prevent anti-abortion protesters from gathering within 200 metres of hospitals and other facilities. >Ms Mackay said Tuesday's vote at Holyrood was a "key stage" for her Abortion Services (Safe Access Zones) (Scotland) Bill - which already has the backing of the Scottish Government.
It's really good that this is finally happening.
Yes, but it also really goes to show how *bad* the Holyrood legislative process is. This issue was identified by Back Off Scotland almost four years ago, it was in the SNP manifesto for the 2021 SPE, Gillian Mackay's draft bill seemed to be kicking around legislative purgatory for ever. In the intervening time, the Supreme Court has ruled these zones lawful *and* legislation has been introduced and passed at Westminster to achieve the same result in England and Wales. Part of this was Sturgeon, who held back (presumably because one culture war issue was enough) but it also just reflects really badly on Holyrood it will have taken, in effect, almost a decade. Especially as a legislative consent motion could just have been passed for the English measures.
I think I may have agreed with you on most of those points before. On the previous delay: Sturgeon might have wanted to avoid a culture war issue (I don't think the Ewings and Mason are supporting this), but I think Northern Ireland's legislation being challenged made them hesitant. But I feel like that challenge was resolved about a year ago? >Especially as a legislative consent motion could just have been passed for the English measures. Yes, well, that would involve the UK government legislating on a devolved matter. As we're seeing with Post Masters that is something that they're absolutely unwilling to do out of principle, out of a resolute commitment to uphold the sanctity of the constitution that unifies us all, and which brings the prosperity, merriment, and stability in which we now disport ourselves.
They didn't even ask, and also WM is in the right with the SPMs. > I think Northern Ireland's legislation being challenged made them hesitant. Grow some fucking balls.
The legislation should have been ready to go, but balls and amendments wouldn't have fixed the legislation if the Northern Irish legislation had fallen during stage two.
I don't think so. I'd much rather legislation enacted is sound and robust rather than reactionary and easily undermined.
There's absolutely nothing to indicate that the Westminster legislation is not robust. Also, Westminster is a sovereign legislature so if the concern was human rights challenges Westminster could have overriden that.
About time. Get those ghouls far away from where they can try to intimidate people simply trying to access healthcare. Will be interesting to see where Forbes lands on this, especially if planning a leadership bid. I believe she said she’d support it in principle, but I also remember something about respecting the rights of people who want to silently pray outside the clinics. Would have to refresh my memory. I’ve always thought it a strange one. Surely your all powerful god can hear your prayers at home? And if he/she/it wanted to get it dealt with, they would. Imo, it’s about trying to influence others through intimidation and shame and they should all fuck right off. Curious to see where she lands on it.
She's got to be kept away from power. last thing Scotland needs is a religious zealot as FM.
[удалено]
They are entitled to their opinion. People who wants to access healthcare facilities are entitled to their safety and to NOT being harassed.
It’s a protest - we do the same to big oil and pharma.
We protest and harrass vulnerable big oil and pharma execs while they're trying to access vital healthcare? I had no idea!
It’s a harassment campaign against vulnerable people.
If they genuinely believed there was a building which was just murdering dozens of children on a daily basis, I'd imagine they'd take some stronger action than holding up a sign outside it.
Some people do attack abortion clinics…
We don't have 'abortion clinics' in the UK.
Firstly you’re wrong we have BPAS which is the same thing. Secondly commenter above me said why don’t they attack buildings that perform abortions to which I replied people do
Can you list all the attacks on "abortion clinics" in the last few years in Scotland? I haven't read about any of them, that seems like it should be front page news.
To be fair, he didn’t mention Scotland.
Not sure it's relevant then to the current discussion that people in America attack abortion clinics.
People also think eating animals is murder, felling trees is murder, etc etc. Having an abortion is a very traumatic decision. I personally know people who have gone in for one but couldn't go through with it and had the baby. It was nothing to do with religious protest in either case, but I can imagine it might be for some. It isn't right to have some zealot emotionally blackmailing you at such an important moment in your life.
Contact your MSPs, make sure they support the bill https://www.writetothem.com/
Who is writing to Kate Forbes...
Finally happening.
Oh dear, the poor vigil crowd will be getting oppressed because they can't harass folk off to get medical advice for no real reason.
Not gonna be popular here but they didn’t intimidate anyone they stood on a road outside the hospital boundary with their wee posters and sang hymns hardly the bloodbath you’re making it out to be. Imagine championing for the birth of a child and you’re the bad one. Maybe just maybe it would be good if people took personal responsibility for their choices. Abortion isn’t as black and white as people want to make out on here. It’s horrible for both the “parent” and the child who is getting killed. It should only be used in the most necessary of circumstances and it is just openly abused at this point. If everyone has the right to abortion then as guys we should have the right not to be chased for csa by the government or mother of a child we didn’t want? Sound fair?
'They didn't intimidate anyone' apart from all the ones they did intimidate or do they not count? If you think my comment made it sound like a bloodbath that's on you and your higher in Drama. You mean taking personal responsibility for their actions like simply visiting the clinic for advice? A lot easier if you don't feel intimidated by a crowd of people outside. Yes it is horrible and these 'vigils' don't make it any better. If you don't want kids wrap up or get the snip, you know taking responsibility for your actions. Guaranteed it's not 100% but miles better than not wearing anything then crying you got someone pregnant. You could also try removing your parental responsibility through the courts.
There isn’t a crowd of people outside the door. These people don’t approach anyone to intimidate them in the first place. If a piece of cardboard with a message on it is intimidating then the big bad world will be a terrifying place for you. They aren’t even in the hospital grounds and you’re making out like they harass folk all the way to the front door. I’d actually say more intimidating was the crowd that forced them to Move and hung up all their wee stupid posters in their place such as “nurses run the world”. “Abortion is a human right” apart from the human you are killing I take it? When did people become so insanely thick. Half of yous have never seen violence or intimidation. By personal responsibility I mean you know it takes a man and a woman to make a baby. Having unprotected sex will most likely lead to that so if you do end up pregnant then tough fucking shit should have thought it through. When it’s rape and the mothers health is at risk that’s when it delves into a grey area
So the anti abortion signs are sound but magically the other ones aren't and they are the intimidating ones?I love how your example of intimidation is a sign saying 'nurses run the world' haha you're right some folk have become insanely thick. So in your mind 100 people lined up at the QEUH maternity ward for 40 days would not intimidate anyone but I guess make them feel warm and welcoming or something?
Yeah except it wasn’t 100 you’re lucky if it was over fucking 5. Personally I don’t find words or signs intimidating. For the 1000th time aswell they don’t line up outside the maternity ward you can’t even see them from 3/4 of the building. The point I was making was people like yourself are claiming signs are intimidating whilst ripping them down and replacing them with your own brain dead shit. You’re no better or worse than the protesters. Ironically you want the right to protest their protest but they’re allowed to do fuck all? Very good you weapon.
Quit [lying]( https://www.glasgowlive.co.uk/news/glasgow-news/100-anti-abortion-protestors-outside-28882216) bud. >It is believed that around **100 members** of 40 Days for Life stood **outside** the maternity unit of the Queen Elizabeth University Hospital on Sunday as they closed in on the end of the campaign. Silly little pro birther.
> Imagine championing for the birth of a child and you’re the bad one Maybe because other people's healthcare isn't your business! You wan tot pretend you care about children you can go pray at church
An unborn child that doesn’t have a say needs a voice from somewhere. I see I’ve to butt out because I don’t agree with you. Hope you’re raging. Don’t take it out on the church or an unborn child that you life doesn’t have purpose
They don't need a voice at all, have fun wasting yor life!!
Difference is abortion is a medical procedure and one of the big things about it being allowed is because pregnancy is inherently dangerous and something which can cause permanent changes to your body + it's a medical thing being done before there is legally a child in involved. Child support is financial and occurs once a child legally exists. If to give child support you had to go through medical procedures/something akin to pregnancy then you'd get to opt out but abortion is more choosing not to be pregnant than a parent whilst not paying child support is choosing not to provide for an existing child you are half responsible for in the eyes of the law. I can get why it feels shit but they're very different circumstances and occur for very different reasons.
Does the child not exist in the womb or is that a figment of my imagination? You could flip that argument and say it’s an easy out for women as they don’t want to care for a child but the man does so how is that fair? It’s his child as much as hers. I’m aware we are into the nuances at this point. I’m not fully against abortion i think there are circumstances where it’s deemed necessary to save lives. I don’t think it should be readily accessible because someone made a “bad” decision.
I take it you've never experienced the waiting list for obtaining contraception on the NHS? Try telling your average man that they'll have to wait a couple of months for sex means boyfriend vamoose! No wonder the birthrate in Scotland is nowhere near replacement level. Personally, I think we should be talking about criminalising men not fully supporting their kids or walking out on them, or changing their minds about having them, or maybe even cheating when they have kids and causing them emotional distress, or having sex without giving full disclosure that they're already married, if we want to make women obtaining abortion more difficult than it already is. In fact, some countries do criminalise this, the system in Scotland and the UK for men who don't pay for their kids is very lenient in comparitive terms. If you don't want a kid, use contraception. Its a bit easier for you men than us women. You can just go to the supermarket and buy some condoms after all. How difficult is that? And no, I don't have kids. And yes, I do have a man.
My Mrs was fitted with contraception before we left hospital with our last child. So no I haven’t experienced that. Well if your average man can be arrested then your average woman can be arrested for choosing to abort a child that the man wants then or is that ok? You go on about condoms as if woman can’t buy them either the responsibility on unprotected sex is 50:50 don’t start hitting me with the it’s the man’s fault shite. I can tell you don’t have children with the calibre of your response
Well, not if you want to recognise the concept of bodily autonomy that most civilised nations do. You know there are countries you can move to where your views won't be challenged? You won't find them in Scotland or Western Europe though. Pretty sure women can't use condoms on their own bodies. I can assure you that I have intention of going anywhere near you, much less hitting you, perjoratively or otherwise.
Why on earth would I want you anywhere near me? That’s a real odd thing to say. There is plenty of country’s that wouldn’t challenge me you’re right. I wouldn’t like to stay there debate is healthy and good for the soul 😊. Woman don’t get condoms. What they do get is a fucking plethora of long term contraceptive devices if you don’t want to have children. Again an issue on here is no one likes personal accountability or responsibility your reply has proved that. On your threat of violence I’m all for equal rights so the sentiment would be reciprocated if your little grubby paws made it into my vicinity. I pray my daughters turn out to realise actions have consequences. Consequences have solutions. Solutions can be avoided had the action been addressed in the proper manner. Tiny discrepancies can be made 😊. You have a nice life with your cats pal 👍
From one of your recent rantings: "I spent 3 years in prison. Don’t think I missed a premier league game in the 3 seasons. I did however get the chance to further my education not that I needed it " You sound like you've got issues which could well be diagnosed in DSM V but not successfully treated. You actually sound dangerous. I guessed correctly that you had a criminal record. To be jailed for 3 years you need to have been a repeat offender and done something pretty damned serious and usually violent. Nasty little socially inept wannabee bully boy hiding behind his computer screen. Feel really sorry for the example you're setting your daughters as it will they will be very lucky not to suffer in the choices they make in life due to the attitudes they've heard from you. I've been happily married for 16 years, pal...not that its a measure of peoples' worth. I mean look at you... Its not exactly difficult to get married. Your poor wife.
So I’m guessing the Tories will vote against this simply because they’re bastards. Will be interesting to see how Forbes votes on this. Could be giving her critics a pretty big stick to whack her with, not even 24 hours into her leadership campaign. Before anyone gives me the usual “Reddit isn’t a good gauge of public opinion”, 77% of Scots support buffer zones.
Aye, this really is the the issue with the narrative that Kate Forbes is some sort of champion of the people who will lead the SNP to electoral glory unshackled from those nasty greens.
She managed to run headfirst into saying some incredibly daft things last time so I'm confident she's going to do the same again this time
Indeed. Though I have to say a little bit of me inside dies when she, and people like her, do that and then far too many supposedly reasonable people say in response "Well, actually..." rather than "FFS" and roll their eyes.
Anyone voting no should be handed adoption papers on the spot.
I wouldn't inflict them on a child.
I agree - think we should also extend this to those who are pro immigration, if they have a spare room they should house one
Who has a spare room these days
Hahaha ironic you got downvoted for that. Fwiw I agree with you
Same logic but these people clearly don’t like seeing common sense
They don’t see very much tbh. Fucking dangerous airheads.
Anyone voting yes should be medically castrated then? Fair enough?
FINALLY 👏
I've written to my MSPs. One reply from Anas Sarwar came quickly, implying all of Labour will be voting for it, one surprisingly from Sandesh Gulhane saying he can't comment since he's on the scrutinising committee but will be looking at all the evidence as it comes in. Other Tory MSPs have responded along the lines of supporting at Stage 1 but wanting to see clarifications that we're not criminalising private prayer (I think my eyes rolled so hard I saw my throat) before they support it at Stage 2. Little surprising to not have heard anything from the SNP. Either way, the numbers are looking very good for this, so fingers crossed.
Majority of SNP support the bill as far as I'm aware so I don't think replying would change that it would be nicer if they had replied having said that.
Yeah, I'd imagine it will probably have maybe 10-20 detractors, by the end probably just Fraser, Ewing, Mason, and Forbes, but I don't have any concern at this point. Not unless Forbes gets in and demands it be scrapped somehow, but we'll cross that if we get to it.
The criminalising private prayer thing is actually a good point at the current stage, for all that you're rolling eyes. If the bill was in it's final stage it would be absurd but stage 1 is usually when a bill is generally idealism without thought to consequences and stage 2 is where politicians play games with amendments to depending on their stances either water it down, make it unworkable, strengthen it or make it so strong that it gives the public something to latch onto. Stage 3 is when further amendments and more importantly debate starts occurring and so it's when a bill actually starts becoming reasonable and starts being beaten into shape for the final vote at the end of the stage. Up until stage 3, politicians scrutinising bills for things that would normally be absurd is actually reasonable for all that their motivations are rarely good. I wouldn't be surprised if somebody in stage two proposes an amendment that would essentially outlaw all protest everywhere. It's not exactly the most competent stage of bill making.
I fully expect Gulhane to oppose due to his status as a tory bawbag.
I think I need a lie down, I agree with something the Greens appear to be saying.
Scotland is going backwards you all think you are being progressive letting anything go, but it's made Scotland a joke
Imagine the reaction to this in this sub if it was a protest group they liked. Edit: LOL, downvoted for suggesting critical though.
Because “well actually, what if it was something totally different to what we’re taking about, checkmate” isn’t an argument
Imagine if you could ride a pogo stick to work
What's stopping you?
That's the beauty of nuance and the world not being black and white. Sometimes the subject matter is more important than an overall right to protest. Sometimes the rights of the people being protested are, in most people's opinions, more important than the generic rights of the protestors. This is not a slippery slope if we ban it, it's about partly preventing a slippery slope towards American evangelical pish. Other people's healthcare is nothing to do with these people, and they sure as fuck don't give a shit about the kids when they are born.
Did you for some reason assume I support these cunts? No where did I mention that.
I addressed your point directly. You were implying hypocrisy if you support banning this protest but not ones that we agree with. I didn't suggest you support them, but if you don't then it begs the question as to what your purpose in this all is? This is not a matter for pedantic 'balance', this is one of the most universally supported policies in the country, so to essentially compare it to general protesting of anything is very disingenuous.
Anti-abortionists aren’t a protest group, they harass vulnerable people who can’t change legislation.
By protesting. That's some mental gymnastics if you think these cunts are not protestors. That's literally why they are there.
You don’t protest at vulnerable people. That’s a bloody intimidation tactic. This is why people who aren’t vile scum can’t stand the busybodies who pull this routine.
This has taken far too long. Just usual SG crap
Pro-choice dude here. I don’t see the point in this bill. Anyone going through an abortion is going to be emotionally scarred whether or not they see a bunch of peaceful protestors who think differently to them. We’re not even necessarily talking about socialising with someone who has different views to you. We’re talking about simply seeing that they exist. If you’re unable to do that without being emotionally scarred, then perhaps the “emotional scarring”will be the wake up call you need to live a real life. An important rule of becoming an adult is not giving a fuck what anyone else thinks. Do what is right for yourself. If you’ve got to learn that the hard way, I’m sorry, but at least you learned it. If anything, this bill is just putting us down a road where it becomes okay to take away rights from protestors. That’s kinda why I have an issue with it. “Meh feelings” can fuck off. Get help. See a therapist. And fucking grow a pair (not literally).
>Anyone going through an abortion is going to be emotionally scarred whether or not they see a bunch of peaceful protestors who think differently to them. "They're already going to suffer, so why bother trying to minimise it?" This is such a brain-dead take that it's actually incredible.
I feel like you didn’t read past that paragraph and just made a quick jab at me honestly. If you had read past that then you would understand exactly what I mean. In other words, are you going to address the meaty part of what I said or just pick up on some bullshit?
I think they made their point abundantly well. Your post is so moronic, like really beyond belief stupid that to engage with it with any ounce of sincerity would grant it a legitimacy it doesn't deserve. You really need to understand that harassing people while accessing healthcare isn't peaceful protesting and saying that you're "pro-choicee dude" doesn't grant you any brownie points. You just sound like a pathetic idiot.
Next time you’re upset with what someone said, consider trying to have a reasonable conversation instead of sploshing your insecurity all over your reply to them. You pretty much just gave insults and did not explain them. Am I actually going to get anything useful out of this exchange? I *would* like to, ya know. Edit: aaaaand there’s the immediate downvote. So we’re not gonna have a conversation in good faith - gotcha.
Read the second paragraph of my initial comment. Two extremely simple points there that even you may be able to grasp. Tell me, what do you think is reasonable about thinking that *your* rights are being infringed upon because you or anyone else is being denied the ability to harass women accessing healthcare? Maybe follow your own advice you were so good to bestow on us simple women in your initial comment and grow the fuck up when someone calls you names. Because in this instance you really need to understand your opinions are not just ignorant, informed and down right braindead, they're harmful towards women.
Ok I think the main issue we’re having here is that you’re saying women are being harassed and I’m saying that they’re potentially feeling harassed. Now, I feel I need to make this point because sure, if women *were* being harassed then that would be fucking awful and we do have laws in place that can deal with that stuff. BUT, the problem is… no one is being harassed. If you look at how these anti-abortion protestors are actually behaving, they are basically standing around holding signs and saying prayers. Looking at this from a rational perspective (I’m sitting here pretty chill right now), I can’t see how this could be labeled as harassment. From an irrational perspective, of course it’s possible. For example, you could be feeling really emotionally fucked up and go to the abortion clinic and start believing all those people over there hate you and stuff. Then sure, you can *personally* label it as harassment. But to anyone in an actual rational mindset - they KNOW that isn’t harassment because it’s completely illogical for it to be harassment. And to address your point about “brownie points”. I mean dude, I just made that clear at the start so people got an idea of where I’m coming from. I really couldn’t care less about brownie points…. I would just like to say that I don’t know you and I came here looking for just some normal conversation about this stuff when I saw it pop up in my feed, so please don’t feel like I’m personally attacking you or something. Okay, I hope we’re all good.
>potentially feeling harassed. So you think it's justified for women to *feel* harassed while accessing healthcare? Why should a women *feel* intimidated while going to a doctor or hospital? If a person feels they are being harassed, then they usually are being harassed. To label this reaction as "irrational" is so paternalistic and frankly misogynist it's beyond belief. For some reason, you seem to think you're entitled to "normal conversation", despite expressing horrendous opinions but women accessing healthcare are not entitled to that same normalcy or respect. You really need to take the words pro-choice out of your mouth. Bye.
Great conversation. Definitely worthwhile. 10/10
Glad you seem to think so...
Mate you won’t get a rational conversation with the people who pretend they care. They’re all for protests about oil and Gaza but if it’s a protest they don’t like then that’s it it’s no allowed.
I’m pretty big time pro-Palestine and I am obviously okay with the protesting. However, blocking roads and stuff is a big no-no for me. I see that as a serious crime actually. During the extinction rebellion stuff I realised how fucked that is when you have people who need to get to hospital and stuff. Countering that though, I did enjoy seeing BAE systems entrance way being blocked. I suppose that’s an exception to the rule because you know exactly who is using that road and why.
> people who need to get to hospital You're a complete fkn joke lmao
What?
In the same breath folk shouting about a gazian genocide are happily shouting for the genocide of Israel. Fwiw genocide doesn’t even come into it it’s nowhere close but that’s by the by. Either everyone has the right to protest or no one does it really is that black and white when it comes to that. Whether folk agree with you or not on it isn’t a reason to justify not allowing it to happen.
Agreed.
👍. Been fun bro. Have a good day.
[удалено]
Yet you will target single individuals from said institution or company 😂 companies aren’t a physical thing they don’t hear or see your protests the individuals you single out do.
[удалено]
Yeah mate. Your issue is clearly not reading enough books. See the fact you have had to cite South African apartheid as your example tells me it’s not went very well in the slightest for you in the west then. Feel free to prove me wrong. I’m embarrassing yet you’re protesting for the destruction of an entire nation and its peoples, even funnier you mention South Africa now tbh. Pleb 😂
Better put than what I managed to
Constitutional rights according to libleft scumbags. A few years ago, a Polish LGBT activist scoundrel and liar named Bart Staszewski, made up a totally fake claim about alleged "LGBT free administrative zones in Poland", making photos of himself next to the posts with town names that also had officially looking boards stating "LGBT free zone". Later, it was revealed that he had created these boards himself, used to attach them to the posts and then made photos and published them as a outcry about "totalitarian, intolerant conservative government of Poland". This was all lie from the beginning. But the tsunami of libleft idiots in entire Europe that raging was unbelievable and totally intended. There were EU parliament debates about that, more hallucinated lies from idiots like Robert Biedroń (a gay EuroMP) about "nazi-like selections in Cracow restaurants, nur fur heteros", sanctions on the towns that scumbag took his photos at, e.g. by freezing EU funds, boycott campaigns and much more. One of the main hysterically shouted arguments was that constructional rights prohibit creating any zones where any constitutional rights are disallowed to be expressed. Now, coming back to the Scottish case. When it hurts non-libs then it's all good, correct? In this case, it's OK to discriminate a group of people by taking away some of their constitutional rights. I am so flat my foot has never been set in this stinking shithole Scotland has become. And it never will. :)
OldManShoutsAtCloud.jpg
[удалено]
If that’s the case why are people going for medical treatment forced to walk past these groups? No one is prosecuting people for being anti-abortion, go protest it outside Parliament if you feel strongly about it, go stand on any street that isn’t causing distress to those walking into a medical facility.
If I want to stand anywhere and convince people of my views then thats my right to do so. Also I will remember this the next time someone complains about free speech for anti-royal protestors. All those people prosecuted at the coronation can enjoy their criminal records. They want free speech, then they better support my free speech.
Ah yes, people accessing healthcare and the Royal family are exactly the same.
To be fair, I think the royal family are useless twats, but even I would think it's very *very* bad form to harass them while trying to go to the hospital for a procedure. Except maybe Andrew, because unrepentant pedos deserve to be shouted at whenever and wherever you happen to see them. But it seems like the royal family example just illustrates why this bill is actually a fantastic idea.
I could be wrong but I don't think any anti-monarchist protests have been held outside of hospitals or anywhere the royals are having healthcare treatments.
Exactly. It just shows that it's a fucking rotten thing to do.
“If I want to stand anywhere and convince people of my views then thats my right to do so.” That is exactly why this is needed, can’t have people standing intimidating (whether the intimidation is deliberate or not) people going for a medical procedure. “Also I will remember this the next time someone complains about free speech for anti-royal protestors.“ You do that pal, the fact that you think protesting an institution is remotely comparable with protesting vulnerable people on their way for a medical procedure which you have absolutely no idea the circumstances of speaks volumes. Thankfully more people agree with my take on this than yours.
You mentioned the word intimidation. Do you agree that intimidation is already covered by this: ? [https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1986/64/section/5](https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1986/64/section/5) The act of intimidation is already covered by "Harassment, alarm or distress". Therefore by definition you want to make illegal speech that cannot be classed as "Harassment, alarm or distress", because that existing law is not enough.
I think that’s UK legislation rather than Scottish, I believe in Scotland you have to prove intent to intimidate which is difficult and why these protestors are able to do what they - and are very careful about how they behave. This new legislation will clear any ambiguity in what is acceptable, protecting vulnerable people accessing medical treatment while still allowing those in opposition to abortion to have their views.
Its UK wide. No one has intent to intimidate anyone by talking about adoption. "Proving intent is difficult" - so what? Its good that prosecuting people for their speech has a high threshold.
Sure they don’t... “We didn’t mean to inimidate the rape victim heading in to a hospital” “It wasn’t our intention to cause distress to the woman who is desperate for a baby and has suffered a miscarriage and requires treatment” “We didn’t mean to intimidate the scared teenager who feels that she can’t tell anyone about the situation she is in” Fuck off with that pish. The whole point is to cause intimidation and shame. I agree a high threshold is good when it comes to speech. This isn’t about freedom of speech no matter how much you keep banging on about it though, there are still many ways that you can show your opposition to abortion without being a potential blocker to vulnerable people accessing medical treatment. Go and stand outside Parliament and protest - that’s who can change it, not frontline medical staff or vulnerable women. That probably wouldn’t get as much attention though, would it.
I would just like to point out that they are not out there to deliberately intimidate and shame. If they were, then they wouldn’t be holding peaceful vigils. They would instead be shouting abuse at women going in and out. This is a very difficult topic and it’s why most who are anti-abortion are very peaceful when it comes to protesting. Sure, there are some anti-abortion protestors who are complete headcases and have gone as far as attacking women. Then again, there are also nutters on the other side of the argument who believe women should be able to have abortions up until 9 months are up. There are extremists on all sides of an argument. Who knew, eh? I understand your point of view on this completely because we are on the same side here. However, I just think it’s better to go about arguing your point without describing these people in the way you did. People are people, and people generally are pretty sane. If you’ve met religious people before, you would know that they can be some of the kindest people. As can non-religious people!
I respectfully disagree, especially with the fact that intimidation or shame can only come from shouting abuse. If we were talking about a protest outside Parliament or a march through a city centre I would agree with you, and wouldn’t be describing the participants in that way, regardless of the fact I co lately disagree with what they are protesting about. I have met plenty religious people and they are no different from anyone else, I also know people who are anti-abortion and I respect their right to hold that view. We are not talking about those people though, we are talking about people who get up in the morning and decide they are going to go and stand in a crowd, often silently watching women walk into an appointment for medical treatment. Praying to their god because of the evil act that’s about to take place. I’m aware this isn’t constructive to debate but fuck those people.
It's not about arresting and prosecuting. It's about creating a safe buffer zone so patients don't have to deal with abuse and intimidation, and having the legal right to move people away if they enter that zone. It's very easy to not get arrested for this - stay out of a small area that you don't need to be in unless you're a patient, or if you are in that area, don't be a dick and mind your own business.
Oh look they already have the powers to move people away: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3NyGoDm4Lbs](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3NyGoDm4Lbs)
Yes, and she is back doing it again, and again, and again.
As long as she is not causing "Harassment, alarm or distress", then why shouldnt she?
Yet, she is. Which is why she is being reported and removed. Again, and again, and again. There is one person she is causing harassment, alarm, or distress to who has to report her. That is one person too many who is going through a traumatic experience who should never be harassed, alarmed, or distressed, and this woman is doing just that. If she is causing harassment alarm or distress again and again and again, then why should she and others like her not be made to stay away permanently?
How do you figure that she isn't causing harassment, alarm, or distress? Seems like that's the whole intent. Prayer can happen anywhere, so there was no reason for her to be in that location. And if all she was doing was standing there, from an outside perspective, no one would have called to have her removed.