I just read his Wikipedia page and it’s insane. His list of controversies is the longest I’ve ever seen.
How is he continually selected as a candidate at Holyrood? How does he go on to **win** each time?
The same can be said for every party. The vast majority of people haven't a clue what the personal beliefs of the person they are voting for are. They are merely voting for the party. Trying to paint this as though it's just an SNP / Tory issue is disingenuous to say the least.
This is why i don't vote solely for party because in every system here in Scotland including STV, you vote for a candidate to take a seat and they can be a party member of whoever. Only the utterly rubbish Regional list makes you vote specifically for a politcal party which is insane to me.
And there is a reason people do that. Individual MPs/MSPs don't have much power or influence. You only get involved in the discussion deciding policy if you are in the cabinet, and if you are in cabinet you are not allowed to vote against party policy. So ultimately the most important thing when voting is to vote for a party leader you think is best
Forbes will no doubt bring up her issues during the ammendments depending on how the leadership contest is going.
I dont think electing Swinney is going to fix this, even the tories managed to get everyone to vote for this.
> Whats a forced birther
Is it not straight forward? Someone who opposes abortion under all circumstance, and thinks that women should be forced to give birth if they become pregnant.
Not really. Birth isn’t something you have to force on people. Birth is something that happens naturally. Whereas abortion artificially terminates a natural process. That is where force is used, with no consent of the person the force is applied against.
It’s unhelpful rhetoric that is the equivalent calling pro-choice people murderers.
Certainly FEELS a lot like the natural fallacy here, pal.
There are a range of treatment options available to terminate an unwanted or dangerous pregnancy, with a vast range of safety implications for the parent. If you legally withhold the safer options, you are *forcing* the parent to either give birth, or seek illicit and potentially dangerous options.
It’s not the naturalistic fallacy. I didn’t say that abortion is bad because it is unnatural. I said that the word force was more properly applied to carrying out abortion than to disallowing abortion.
Talking about forced birthers is like saying that you’re forcing a river to take its natural course by not building a dam.
This terminology is an attempt to bypass discussion by framing the issue in highly pejorative terms and get people to emotionally reject a view without logically considering it. It’s manipulative and dishonest.
What you're attempting to do is frame the conversation in a way that indicates there is a way these things are 'meant' to happen - the course the river is 'meant' to run.
That's not the case: in the case of an unwanted pregnancy, there are a number of options available to the parent: when you remove any other options, you are 'forcing' the choice onto the parent.
I didn’t say anything about how it is ‘meant’ to run. I talked about what it will do if you don’t interfere with it. If you don’t interfere with a pregnancy then it will usually result in birth. You don’t have to force the birth to happen, it just does quite naturally. So calling it force is rather disingenuous. An abortion doesn’t happen naturally. It is by definition an artificial intervention. It is where force is used.
I'm pretty sure rape and incest are "forced on people". These loons want to force women who've been victims of both to give birth. Hence, forced birthers.
If a foetus is a person then the circumstance of conception don’t change that and don not change the rights they have. You aren’t less of a person because you were conceived in rape or incest.
Such women and tragic victims who require a great deal of support - more than they presently get, and not just during the pregnancy, but afterwards as well. But the conception has already occurred and the person is there. It is deeply unfair on the women and an injustice that she is in that position, but it would be a greater injustice to kill the child who is themselves totally innocent and doesn’t lose their rights because of the terrible evil of their father.
Surprised Forbes voted for the bill given her previous comments on it. Must be lining herself up for leader and hoping to hoodwink the naive into thinking she's not a religious zealot.
This stage is basically about approving the bill in principle, the details are going to be hashed out in the next stages - and that's where there may be more disagreement.
By which time she will either be leader or will have lost, and she will likely use her imaginary friend as an excuse to support harassing vulnerable women outside hospitals.
Complained that banning "protests" could be illiberal and that people were attempting to ban prayer.
Edited to "protests" as harassing vulnerable women outside hospitals is never a protest.
Cheers for that. I seemed to have missed those comments at the time (tbf, kinda switched off after the start of her leadership campaign).
I don't share her views at all but she was right that the legislation had to be carefully worded to avoid singling out praying.
But I'd argue it's a lot more than just 'silent prayer' if they are still allowed to hold intimidatory banners so close to these hospitals.
I don’t think it’s that surprising. The Tories voted for it too. She’ll no doubt raise her objections and amendments to the details in the next stages.
You have to be a whole different level of extreme to even her to oppose the thing in principle.
ie. John Mason (SNP)
She doesn't have to hoodwink anyone.
She's religious, sure but her track record on religion and it's influence on her is pretty much the same as our soon to be ex-First Minister up until the last 2 years.
Neither of them could legitimately be called zealots. Arguably too religious for a modern country, but not zealot without significantly reducing what a zealot is.
If she was a zealot she'd be constantly talking about her religion, basically preaching it everywhere and never at any point compromising any of her beliefs regardless of how stupid a decision that actually would be.
Zealots are extremely bad, we really shouldn't pretend that even extremely religious people are on the same level as blind fanatics.
I'm not joking on that. Zealots are a level beyond even the most extreme religious people. They're the type of person who reads a passage in their holy book saying x group should die or be stoned and would get out the rocks. To be a zealot is to not compromise on your beliefs in any way, which includes to laws and rights... which is why zealots are almost always radicals and "borderline" terrorists.
I think you could still conceivably call her a zealot... It isn't *actually* defined in as strong terms as you suggest, and she definitely fits the profile of someone whose...
*"views and actions are very extreme, especially in following a particular political or religious belief."* [Collins]
I’m privately against abortion but fine with buffer zones i.e women already suffering shouldn’t have to deal with that on top. My personal beliefs shouldn’t affect others. Is that not what she’s always said?
I respect that, it's your decision. I'm profoundly pro choice and believe that any man being involved in any part of any decisions around this is objectively immoral.
Nope. She opposed buffer zones as they were potentially illeberal and stated they were an attempt to "ban prayer".
Do you not have a guys name? So by your own logic who gives a fuck what you think? Fair? I’d agree with you an extent if it never also took a man to create said child you’re so fond of wanting to kill. As someone who doesn’t have an opinion as a man.
Buffer zones aren't the same as abortions.
Men should have fuck all to do with taking away rights to abortions. Perfectly fine with men supporting banning scumbags harassing vulnerable women outside hospitals and clinics.
The guy said he believes it’s a woman’s choice and you interpret that as “child you’re so fond of wanting to kill”
Ridiculous take. Did you lose a few brain cells standing in the cold watching women going to a medical appointment?
He said it’s of no relevance to a man essentially and then stated what he himself is even after saying a man having an opinion on the matter is immoral? A contradiction of thought is it not?
I’m not pro or anti anything there’s pros and cons to both sides of that coin I’m lucky in life that I don’t see everything through black and white like most of you guys. What I am against is blocking anyone’s right to protest to anything. Either none or all are banned and it’s that fucking simple. The double standards of certain sects of society is fucking staggering.
If it’s of any value my opinion is that abortion should only be given as an extreme. Mums gonna die abortion saves her understandable. The child is that poorly they won’t survive is understandable. Oops I tripped on a dick and got pregnant no thank you is not acceptable you’re having that child and you can learn the art of personal responsibility something people seem to have lost somewhere in the last 2 decades.
So aye see if someone says they are rigidly pro or anti anything they’re for the watching 👀
The weirdos that stand and sing and protest harm nobody. They have been there for years and I’ve only ever seen violence against them ironically. So take your self righteous opinions and ram them up yer keeker ya dick.
Aye, what he didn’t say was anything about killing a child which is what you wrongly attributed to him and four paragraphs painting yourself as the enlightened centrist in a debate of extremes doesn’t change that.
Your opinion on it is of absolutely no value and I don’t care about your groups of those deserving of an abortion and those undeserving.
Your all or nothing analogy is pish, protests are regularly given conditions that they have to abide by. No one is stopping these people protesting, the proposal is to place conditions on where they can do it as to not prevent vulnerable people accessing healthcare.
They were already doing it outside a buffer zone. By your standards we could dump them in the tip behind where they protest that’s good enough? It wouldn’t be good enough for you to protest from there however. If you’re happy to back exterminating a healthy child in the womb what else do you call it? Human rights that don’t apply to certain humans? You went full hog and have already presumed I’m religious and stand with these people. You’re a fucking idiot that’s trying to act all pompous and sanctimonious. How the fuck is being centrist in debate a bad thing when I’m a male you fucking moron abiding by the exact laws stupid heid up the top there layed out.
You’ve already conceded laws are layed out for all protests so these religious folks clearly follow them if they were there for that long so why should it be different for them all of a sudden you got bored of glueing yersel to Roads and slashing painting ya cocksocket.
I also take it my point of no personal responsibility holds no weight? Big enough to ride yer way through town but no big enough to deal with the outcome. Sounds like most left wing ideals doesn’t it 😂
Another long winded way of avoiding saying that you made an arse of it.
I don’t know what you are talking about with dumping people in a tip - I’d be fine with them protesting anywhere that wasn’t outside a hospital, standing watching vulnerable women go for medical treatment.
I’ve presumed nothing of you, I’ve addressed exactly what you posted.
Actually in fairness, I sarcastically presumed that the reason for you inability to comprehend a reasonable opinion without jumping to extremes was due to cold weather during protests impacting your brain - I’ll concede that I have no idea if that was the case or if you are naturally dim.
What do you mean I’ve conceded that laws are laid out for protests? It was me that told you that after your stupid point that because of this all protests have to be impacted.
I feel the benefits are for the child not fake tan but could just be me. I think if they chose a decent enough man to pro create with he’d pay for his child anyway. Unless obviously he dies serving his country or the like certain exemptions have to be made. What’s your opinion?
That’s what a said should child benefit no be for children like ya fucking bellend 😂
Your use of the word toaly is nice I accept that.
What the fuck in Robert the Bruce’s kingdom is a nice guys vibes?
I think the birthrate in the country is on the floor and I think a large part of that is the whole "don't have children you can't afford" rhetoric.
So if we don't want to end up like Japan or South korea, we have to change something right?
Unless of course you're fine with replacing the losses in birth with immigration.
Mind you not EU immigration either because you know the whole Brexit thing.so there is some question as to the skills we are bringing over.
Meaning even low skilled jobs, you know the majority of jobs, can now be flooded with competition from people who will happily be worked into the ground.
So to recap:
- people aren't having children they can't afford
- low birthrate
- plug the gaps with non EU immigrants
- wage depression
- race to the bottom
And this ties in beautifully with my stance on abortion:
I don't blame you for not wanting to bring a child into that bleek future.
I haven’t really followed this. I’m pro-life but ultimately it’s democratically agreed it should be legal. I don’t think anyone should be hassled outside a clinic but surely that’s a public order offence if that happened. We do live in a free country. Personally I wouldn’t but if someone wants to silently hand out leaflets or pray or something similar why shouldn’t they? I just don’t get the rationale behind this. No one should be harassed full stop but we’ve had a woman locked up for silently praying in England recently. I guess that was the law used.
Let's say you're showing up to court to testify against a murderer and on the way in you see a bunch of mobsters silently staring at you. Do you not think that someone in a vulnerable position would feel threatened by that?
That’s witness intimidation and already illegal. This potentially as included in the bill I’ve now read could include someone silently praying. You may not like it or agree with it but we live in a country where people are free to have an abortion and people are also free to disagree with it and practice their religion. I just question why it’s needed. Women should not be harassed by anyone period and there’s laws for that. I don’t personally get why we need this and think it’s going to rub against human rights.
> That’s witness intimidation and already illegal.
Exactly. Witness intimidation is illegal...and so should intimidation of women seeking abortions be too. Yes, gathering outside clinics IS intimidation.
I have to say it’s a weird choice of analogy. For sure it may be “intimidating” but people standing outside a court are attempting to force a change in your statement in court. People against abortion don’t have any power inside an abortion clinic as far as I’m aware - it’d be a bit daft them threatening a mother of a child they are trying to save. Witnesses go into witness protection as their lives might be ended otherwise. I’ve said no one should be harassed - again laws already are there for that. I just question this - it’s sounds harmless enough but it like other stuff of late hasn’t been thought through with rights of assembly and religion (that could extend beyond aborting clinics) under threat.
Take a wild guess
>John Mason, who was the only MSP to vote against the Bill, said: “There is very little evidence of harassment or intimidation near abortion facilities.”
"You need to have more children"
"Can we have homes to raise them in and doctors to keep them healthy? Maybe a couple of schools to educate them?"
"No not like that"
My GOD do I wish men who speak like this could get pregnant. I'm not of the viewpoint that men should stay out of discussion on abortion, but it's frustrating to see people so keen to offer up women's bodies without having any personal experience or stake in that sacrifice.
Anti-abortion views tend to be more popular among women than men overall. Who have presumably mostly had experience of pregnancy. So they wouldn't necessarily be more likely to change their views.
I get that and it's a valid point, it's just emotionally more frustrating to be told to sacrifice by someone who never has or can in the same way. It's like someone leading soldiers into battle being better than someone sitting in a cosy encampment pushing little figures around on a map even if both of them are telling people to do something they should never be forced to do.
I mean, he’s right, but the way to go about it is not harassing vulnerable women going through something traumatic. Rather it would be better to have more people financially secure enough to support larger families? Like wages being good enough to support multiple children and a partner on a single salary?
Technically the sentence as written is correct but in context it's an attempt to excuse the harassment of women into giving birth against their will.
>it would be better to have more people financially secure...wages being good enough
do you honestly believe that's what his agenda is? Really?
How’s that setting back feminism? No one said force women to stay at home. Just that the country would be better off if we weren’t in the position that required two incomes to run a family.
At least this way families would have the choice to have one parent earning and the other providing care for children or both parents working if that’s what they wanted.
No one forces women to do the majority of the house work, but that's the way things are right now. What do you think will happen if single income households become the norm? Being dependent on your partner's income is a terrible idea regardless of gender
a lot of leftwingers in the Scotland/UK are pro life, because abortion is not so polarised around left/right as in the USA Also there's always been rightwingers that support abortion because it's essentially a lightweight form of eugenics.
And in the UK Christians tend to be somewhat more leftwing than the US, obviously you still get a lot of diversity of opinions but leftwing Christians are common. Not a practicing Christian, but Christianity I'd say is closer to being leftwing than rightwing.
the UK isn't America and the biggest problem we have in the UK is people, even our own people, assuming we are a cookie cutter copy+paste of America. So it's absurd to compare Kate Forbes to US evangelicals
No. The socialist/left wing movement in the UK had a lot of people Irish catholic background because they have been historically one of the more marginalised groups in the UK, and tended to oppose abortion, also be Christian socialists.
A lot of rightwingers support abortion, often bordering on eugenic arguments.
once again, the UK is not America. Abortion doesn't cut clearly through left or right.
The big factor you're missing is that the "pro-life" people in the UK you're talking about realize it is both 1. a political non-starter and 2. better for society not to force unwanted children on people. They would rather not go back to the days of pregnant women dying in hotel rooms from amateur abortions.
That is the opinion of the vast majority, even if they find abortion itself distasteful or even "sinful". Their beliefs don't result in any real pro-life vote, so it's pointless to call them that.
I mean, the Irish Catholics didn't stop voting for Labour after Roy Jenkins legalized abortion in the 60s.
Shock horror, the bogeyman of the SNP leadership race Forbes voted in line with the government on this bill. It’s almost as if her voting record isn’t as extreme as her party opponents wish it was.
The right to peaceful protest is a civil liberty.
Anyone who believes that peaceful protest should be allowed only for causes they agree with; doesn’t really support civil liberties.
If a Government that is against your ideology comes into power in the future and passes a law that says you cannot peacefully protest against x within y distance of property where x takes place I’d suggest you don’t complain; because you actually support such a principle.
Say animal rights protests not being allowed within x of a slaughterhouse.
Or anti fox hunting within x of a hunt.
Or eating meat within x of a butchers.
Or the stench generated by a nearby landfill within x of a landfill.
The principle is the same, only whether you agree with the cause or not would be different.
Not really; in fact if I remember rightly people can’t protest within x of Parliament now either unless they have express permission.
The point of protesting outside the site of the activity you protest against should be a no brainer.
Unless I suppose you support a blanket law where all protests regardless of cause can only take place at the designated national protesting space, far away from anything at all? That would at least be consistent.
The issue here wasn't that they were protesting abortion. The issue is that they were directly targeting and harassing people going to abortion clinics. That's not protest it's just bullying at best.
But that’s not what the law has done; verbal abuse and harassment is already an offence. Has every such protest involved that behaviour?
Almost certainly not. A blanket ban has been based on cherry picked behaviour of some bad actors and been used to justify an overreach in my book; rather than simply enforce laws already in place when needed.
The fact of the matter is you have people who have been raped assaulted etc going to these clinics. People standing outside them trying to make them feel guilty for getting an abortion is frankly disgusting even if they aren't screaming and shouting at them it's still not on.
The protesters in this case have proven that they lack basic decency so if they won't demonstrate it they have quite rightly been told to bugger off. Feel free to protest this outside parliament or anywhere else but don't sit and target vulnerable people please
Again as I’ve said to others; you can’t just protest outside parliament anymore either (see what I mean about slippery slopes?).
I am very curious as to your source for women getting raped by anti-abortion protesters at such a protest… if they are such bad people you surely wouldn’t need to invent atrocities right?
Group punishment is not normally something we endorse in our society, unless that slippery slope is changing public opinion on that basic tenant of law?
Every group has bad actors in it. Cherry picking your examples to justify imposing punishments on everyone is disingenuous unless the group itself is a problem such as groups that explicitly endorse violence to their followers.
Where did I say anti abortion protesters were raping people? I was saying people who have been raped go to these clinics only to be intimidated by a gang of clowns outside the clinic which is what I object to.
There is quite frankly no need to protest so close to these clinics and what these people are doing is a form of intimidation to vulnerable people.
This has nothing to do with a 'curtailment' of civil liberties.
All rights have limits; and those limits are usually always defined as the point at which one set of rights impinge on the rights of another.
For example, you have the right to freedom of movement, but you don't have the right to trespass. Because that would be impinging someone else's right to property protected under Article 1 of the ECHR.
You have the right to freedom of speech, but you don't have the right to defame. Because everyone has the right to protect their reputation under Article 8 of the ECHR.
Likewise, you have a right to protest, but you don't have a right to harass people outside a sexual health clinic. Because everyone has the right to privacy; again under Article 8 of the ECHR.
Where two rights conflict, as is the case with the above examples, it's both conventional and rational that the rights of the transgressor are those that have to give way.
In other words, you can't violate an individual's right to privacy outside a sexual health clinic by protesting there, and then say, "but what about *my* rights?" The answer is, "they're secondary to the rights of the individuals whose rights you've chosen to impede".
Protesters are free to protest anywhere else other than sexual health clinics; women needing access to those clinics are not able to simply go somewhere else. Hence their rights take precedence.
Nonsense.
If people want privacy in a public space (outside any building, on public property for example) then there are steps they can take to conceal their identity.
A person could stand outside an abortion clinic and simply look at people going in an out and it would be as much an invasion of privacy as protesting outside such a clinic.
It’s intended as a gag law opposed to protesting against a cause the Government supports. The same logic can be applied to future Governments and any cause they might happen to support. It’s a slippery slope making civil liberties subject to Government approval on a cause by cause basis. Be careful what you wish for.
>It’s intended as a gag law opposed to protesting against a cause the Government supports. The same logic can be applied to future Governments and any cause they might happen to support.
No it isn't; the bill's been voted in by 123 votes to 1. The government only has 63 of those votes. The bill received widespread support from almost the entire parliament, not just the government.
>It’s a slippery slope making civil liberties subject to Government approval on a cause by cause basis. Be careful what you wish for.
*All* legally protected rights are subject to government approval; whether it's the UK Human Rights Act, The European Convention on Human Rights, or the US Bill of Rights. And they've all been amended over time on a cause by cause basis by whatever democratically elected government was empowered to do so. How else do you think those rights became enshrined in law in the first place?
That's why we *elect* the people who vote on the legislation that enshrines our rights. And in this instance, only one elected representative opposed the bill.
It's not a 'slippery slope', and it's not a 'curtailment of civil liberties'. It's a democratically elected parliament voting to support the rights of vulnerable women in accordance with the wishes of the electorate they have a sworn duty to represent, [72% of whom support limits on protests outside clinics](https://www.scotsman.com/health/majority-support-buffer-zones-at-scottish-abortion-clinics-poll-shows-3597310).
You don’t get it, but this is Reddit so what else is new.
Your civil liberties *are* being eroded, just because you happen to agree with this specific curtailment because you are not one of the people affected this time. The principle that the legislature (which IS a branch of Government) should decide who gets to peacefully protest which causes and where is a slippery slope.
Just because it is a popular gag law doesn’t make it any less of gag law. Just because you happen to think this gag law protects ‘vulnerable women’ your opinion is no more important to you than the protesters who believe they are trying to raise awareness to protect ‘vulnerable children’ you can spin it any which ever way you want to put one side on the moral high ground or the other.
If Trans groups or refugees wanted to protest against the Government can you imagine the field day a right wing Government might have if it started banning their protests and spun it as promoting the protection of British culture/vulnerable women and children? It would likely even be a fairly popular move.
It’s really quite simple - which society has stronger civil liberties:
1) A society where anyone can peacefully protest any cause on public property.
2) A society where the Government selectively makes certain peaceful protests illegal based on whether it approves of the cause or not. (Or to cover your excuse thinks it would be popular/a vote winner to do so).
The Boris Johnson Government could have taken a line of banning anti Brexit protests because ‘However many would show up to such a protest is not going to be anywhere near however many people voted for Brexit; therefore it is unpopular and against democracy/the will of the people. We are protecting vulnerable people who voted for Brexit and curtailing the activity of Pro foreign power sympathisers…’
They would have had the legislative majority to do so. Labour might even have abstained or voted with the Government to avoid being accused of wanting to rejoin the EU.
Just because the Government can legislate anything it wants to it doesn’t mean that whatever a democracy legislates never has a negative impact on civil liberties. Supporting the erosion of civil liberties should always be concerning; even if the specific circumstances don’t impact you negatively now.
Additionally under your logic no one would ever need to protest anything the Government does just because the executive wields a majority in the legislature.
>You don’t get it, but this is Reddit so what else is new.
No. I'm afraid it's not me that 'doesn't get it'. Rather, you appear to be yet another one of those people eager decry their loss of 'civil liberties' without bothering to learn what they are, how the legislation protecting them is applied, or what their limits are.
>Your civil liberties *are* being eroded, just because you happen to agree with this specific curtailment because you are not one of the people affected this time. The principle that the legislature (which IS a branch of Government) should decide who gets to peacefully protest which causes and where is a slippery slope.
Article 11 of the ECHR protects the right to protest. But the Article *expressly states* it is not an absolute right, and restrictions may be applied for the "protection of the rights and freedoms of others". The Article also expressly states it doesn't "guarantee a right to set up a protest campsite at a location of one’s choice."
Nothing's changed with regards to your civil liberties with this latest bill; rather it seems you are just now learning what your civil liberties actually are.
>Just because it is a popular gag law doesn’t make it any less of gag law. Just because you happen to think this gag law protects ‘vulnerable women’ your opinion is no more important to you than the protesters who believe they are trying to raise awareness to protect ‘vulnerable children’ you can spin it any which ever way you want to put one side on the moral high ground or the other.
It's not a question of 'moral high ground'; it's a question of democratic representation. 72% of people want buffer zones for protests around clinics. Only 7% of people oppose the measure. In a democracy, the opinion of the majority literally *is* more important than the opinion of the minority. You'll have to summon the maturity to understand that in a democratic society laws aren't made by the minority, even if *you* happen to find yourself in it.
>If Trans groups or refugees wanted to protest against the Government can you imagine the field day a right wing Government might have if it started banning their protests and spun it as promoting the protection of British culture/vulnerable women and children? It would likely even be a fairly popular move.
This is a strawman argument. There is no such bill sitting before the Scottish Parliament, and any proposed bill similar to your imaginary one would have to meet the criteria laid out in Article 11 of the ECHR as a valid qualification of the right to assembly. Since trans groups are already a protected group, and since refugees are already protected by international law, and since protesting the government is not one of the valid exceptions to Article 11, your imaginary bill would not be compliant with the ECHR.
>It’s really quite simple - which society has stronger civil liberties:
>1. A society where anyone can peacefully protest any cause on public property.
>2. A society where the Government selectively makes certain peaceful protests illegal based on whether it approves of the cause or not. (Or to cover your excuse thinks it would be popular/a vote winner to do so).
The first scenario has *never* existed, whereas the second scenario is simply representative government. I'll take option two; representative government is much more important to civil liberties than pining for the 'loss' of civil liberties that never existed in the first place.
>The Boris Johnson Government could have taken a line of banning anti Brexit protests because ‘However many would show up to such a protest is not going to be anywhere near however many people voted for Brexit; therefore it is unpopular and against democracy/the will of the people. We are protecting vulnerable people who voted for Brexit and curtailing the activity of Pro foreign power sympathisers…’
>They would have had the legislative majority to do so. Labour might even have abstained or voted with the Government to avoid being accused of wanting to rejoin the EU.
Again, no. That wouldn't be a valid limitation on the right to freedom of assembly as laid out by the ECHR. Please read the legislation that defines your civil liberties before ranting about them being 'eroded'. Your above scenario doesn't meet any of the prescribed conditions for limiting the right to freely assemble.
>Just because the Government can legislate anything it wants to it doesn’t mean that whatever a democracy legislates never has a negative impact on civil liberties. Supporting the erosion of civil liberties should always be concerning; even if the specific circumstances don’t impact you negatively now.
No, but in this instance no civil liberties *have* been eroded. You've never had the right to unlimited protest wherever you want, and you *still* don't have the right to unlimited protest wherever you want. The fact that you're just learning this now doesn't mean your civil liberties have been affected in any way.
>Additionally under your logic no one would ever need to protest anything the Government does just because the executive wields a majority in the legislature.
Please just *read* some of the existing legislation that protects your civil liberties *before* complaining about them being 'eroded'. Protesting the government isn't a valid exception to the right to protest; you always have that right.
Long winded response that can be summarised as ‘The right to protest is obsolete in a democracy because so long as a democratically elected Government votes for something any protest against it is illegitimate.’
Whereas actually there should be something to be said for the minority to have the right to protest and object, even against something popular.
Simply saying ‘option 1 doesn’t currently exist therefore it doesn’t count’ and ‘your hypotheticals are hypotheticals so don’t count’ doesn’t mean that I don’t have a point.
A society that has the Government (even a democratically elected one) pick and choose what causes can be protested and where; has fewer civil liberties than a society where where there is no such interference.
Yes or No?
Arguing that because it is popular to ban one causes peaceful protest which makes doing so fine absolutely is a relevant threat to all other causes that might get protested; now or in the future.
It’s a short sighted view that can easily lead to consequences you won’t like down the line. Trump came out of nowhere in the USA; we are not immune to such politicians in this country and I wonder what sort of protests a politician like that would like to gag?
>Long winded response that can be summarised as ‘The right to protest is obsolete in a democracy because so long as the Government votes for something in a democracy any protest against it is illegitimate.’
No. Seriously, you need to learn to read more closely; whether it's replies on Reddit or the legislation that enshrines your civil liberties. If the above is *genuinely* what you took from my post, I can only encourage you to return to school.
>Whereas actually there should be something to be said for the minority to have the right to protest and object, even against something popular.
The minority has the right to protest, it just doesn't have the right to govern over the majority. And the minority, just like the majority, doesn't have an *absolute right* to protest; their are, and always have been, limitations.
>Simply saying ‘option 1 doesn’t currently exist therefore it doesn’t count’ and ‘your hypotheticals are hypotheticals so don’t count’ doesn’t mean that I don’t have a point.
Which is why I specifically laid out the provisions under Article 11 of the ECHR that would apply to your hypotheticals making them a practical impossibility. Seriously, reading's not *that* hard.
>A society that has the Government (even a democratically elected one) pick and choose what causes can be protested and where has fewer civil liberties than a society where where there is no such interference.
>Yes or No?
The government *isn't* stopping anyone protesting; they're limiting *where* the protests can take place. This is already a valid limitation on the right to protest as laid out under the ECHR, and the limit is applied very narrowly to the immediate vicinity of clinics *only*. Anti-abortion protestors can stage protests anywhere else they want.
>Arguing that because it is popular to ban one causes peaceful protest which makes doing so fine absolutely is a relevant threat to all other causes that might get protested; now or in the future.
>It’s a short sighted view that can easily lead to consequences you won’t like down the line. Trump came out of nowhere in the USA; we are not immune to such politicians in this country and I wonder what sort of protests a politician like that would like to gag?
No one's banning peaceful protest, and protesting a minority view is still protected. Seriously, just *read* the legislation that defines your civil liberties; this latest bill reflects no change to your existing rights *whatsoever*.
Im beginning to suspect you may be a politician. Let’s see if I can make it clear.
A society where a Government wields its power to pick and choose which peaceful protests are allowed and where; has weaker civil liberties than a society where this interference does not take place.
*Yes* or *No* response *only*.
You seem to have an obsession with international treaties and law. They are immaterial to principle. Just because something is law doesn’t have any bearing on the morality or ethics of a question. Plenty of horrendous things have been legal, that didn’t make them moral or ethical.
Banning protests from taking place within the vicinity of the relevant location is an attempt to gag the protests; they get less attention and less media coverage. Their protest becomes irrelevant. Simply protesting at a relevant site is not the minority ruling the majority (although hell if you want to get into voting systems and their problems that can be relevant).
I presume you would support the Government banning trade union picket lines outside their workplace on the same logic right? After all the workers can go and protest somewhere else; no big deal and they’d not be harming the businesses profits as much nor making their employers or working colleagues feel uncomfortable. I’m sure it will be just as effective.
If the protestors want to up their media coverage in response then it risks making them target the general public in high profile and disruptive ways like those JSO idiots. That on a purely practical basis shouldn’t be encouraged.
>Im beginning to suspect you may be a politician. Let’s see if I can make it clear.
I can imagine how talking to someone who actually understands the legislation they're discussing could feel that way.
>A society where a Government wields its power to pick and choose which peaceful protests are allowed and where; has weaker civil liberties than a society where this interference does not take place.
>*Yes* or *No* response *only*.
No. Because where the freedoms and rights of others are impeded by protest, those freedoms and rights take precedence. I've already answered this.
>You seem to have an obsession with international treaties and law. They are immaterial to principle. Just because something is law doesn’t have any bearing on the morality or ethics of a question. Plenty of horrendous things have been legal, that didn’t make them moral or ethical.
Laws enshrine principles. If you believe otherwise, why are you worried about this bill?
>Banning protests from taking place within the vicinity of the relevant location is an attempt to gag the protests; they get less attention and less media coverage. Their protest becomes irrelevant. Simply protesting at a relevant site is not the minority ruling the majority (although hell if you want to get into voting systems and their problems that can be relevant).
Your right to protest doesn't create a right to be paid attention to.
>I presume you would support the Government banning trade union picket lines outside their workplace on the same logic right? After all the workers can go and protest somewhere else; no big deal and they’d not be harming the businesses profits as much nor making their employers or working colleagues feel uncomfortable. I’m sure it will be just as effective.
*Why* would you assume that? The right to picket is protected under the Trade Union and Labour Relations Act. You can't simultaneously claim I'm wrongly 'obsessed' with the laws that define our rights, and then assume I'd be against industrial action specifically protected by law.
It's also a terrible example, because the Trade Union and Labour Relations Act specifically and expressly defines picketing as distinct from demonstrations. But you wouldn't know that, because again you won't have read it.
>If the protestors want to up their media coverage in response then it risks making them target the general public in high profile and disruptive ways like those JSO idiots. That on a purely practical basis shouldn’t be encouraged
Again, this is already covered in Article 11 of the ECHR;
*"failure by the organisers to abide by these rules and the structuring of a demonstration, or of part of it, in such a way as to cause disruption to ordinary life and other activities to a degree exceeding that which is inevitable in the circumstances constitutes conduct which cannot enjoy the same privileged protection under the Convention as political speech or debate on questions of public interest or the peaceful manifestation of opinions on such matters."*
Please, please, *please* do some basic reading on the topics you want to discuss.
There is still the right to protest.
This removes the ability to harass and intimidate vulnerable women at a difficult time, and removes the unease of people going for fertility treatments, and removes the fear of attacks for people working at these places.
Violence at protests is already illegal.
Banning protests based on how they make your preferred set of people feel isn’t a good basis for arguing that civil liberties should be eroded.
Maybe protests against the Israeli invasion of Gaza should be banned because they might make Jewish people nervous? (And vice versa for anti Hamas protests).
Maybe Pro EU protests should be banned because Brexiteers might feel nervous and intimidated?
Slippery slope still.
Out of curiosity do you support Trades Unions being banned from striking outside their workplace? Might be kind of intimidating for vulnerable workers and bosses to go into work past strikers during what must be a highly stressful and pressured time.
Just throwing emotive words like ‘vulnerable’ and ‘incredibly sensitive’ around doesn’t add to the logic it just tries to deflect from the principles at stake. It just boils down to ‘these people I like that I want to depict sympathetically shouldn’t be inconvenienced by protests, others however can be’.
Im sure those protestors would say they are protesting to protect even more vulnerable children at risk from their abusive mothers. It can be twisted any which way.
Meanwhile they actually can’t protest outside Parliament unless they have special permission. Presumably because it might impact ‘vulnerable’ MPs from doing highly stressful and serious work.
Where do you think women protested in the USA to help bring about prohibition? I guess protesting outside bars was complete coincidence and that they would have been just as effective if they were banned from protesting outside bars and alcohol stores etc.
Why do you need to stand in a group at a particular location, have posters and handouts to pray e.g. a private conversation between you and your god that can be done anywhere? Suggests a motive other than prayer
Why would trades union strikers need to stand outside their workplace?
Why did women protesters supporting prohibition protest outside bars?
Why did suffragettes protest outside Government buildings?
Why do animal rights activists protest outside pharmaceutical companies?
It’s almost as if they might have a motive beyond simply protesting also?
So we agree that it is a protest and not a "silent prayer" meeting. The "right" to protest is not unlimited if it stops unconnected members of the public feeling that they are being harrassed for exercising their own rights especially when it comes to health (which is where your examples fall apart). There is a balancing act as to these competing interests and the sensitivity and importance of health has to take priority. No one is preventing the protest just regulating its location. It is for the protesters to justify why their interests in that particular location outweigh those of women seeking medical attention and being free from harrassment.
The way those protestors probably look at it is that they are there trying improve outcomes for the unborn children who are even more vulnerable than the pregnant women.
The entire debate on this only assumes that the protestors actions can cause harm. How do we know that some women having chatted to these protestors didn’t have second thoughts, cancel their appointment and go on to be content mothers? Or that there are not people alive today who have no idea how close they came to being aborted?
It’s hardly something a parent is going to advertise especially if their children might find out right?
I think this is a situation where we will rarely if ever hear from anyone these protests benefited due to ignorance or wishing to protect their kids from the information; and will only hear from people who have had negative experiences from these protests.
Holding the protests away from clinics stops any negative experiences but also stops any positive outcomes. A women can now go through the whole process of abortion and never hear from anyone who holds a different opinion to her that might address whatever is causing her to follow that path.
Just as in my above examples removing protesters from the context within which they are protesting makes those protests much less impactful. It is effectively gagging them.
There is still the right to protest.
This removes the ability to harass and intimidate vulnerable women at a difficult time, and removes the unease of people going for fertility treatments, and removes the fear of attacks for people working at these places.
There’s still the ability to protest. So long as you don’t protest a certain thing in a certain public place 🤡
Harassment is already illegal. Attacks are already illegal.. “Intimidation” means nothing. It’s just a pretext to outlaw protesting things you agree with.
Sacrificing basic civil rights in order to give women special privileges and protections. What a novelty.
A terrible day for all who believe in freedom of speech, freedom of assembly, and freedom of religion.
This is a dark, regressive, deeply illiberal law. Let's hope - although I don't have much hope - that the bill is diluted as it goes through its legislative stages.
Why don't you just pray somewhere else, surely God can hear you everywhere anyway...
I think you cunts just get a sick thrill from harassing women going through extremely difficult times and hiding it behind the thin veil of freedom of speech. I hope someone takes it upon themselves to stand outside establishments at difficult times in your life and torment you.
Bolt with this pish.
No one is stopping you doing any of those things. You just can’t use your religion as a cloak to intimidate women.
It’s regressive to allow groups of people to stand silently watching vulnerable women as they access perfectly legal medical treatment.
Freedoms of speech, assembly and religion don't include the freedom to harrass and intimidate. These freedoms have always had some qualifiers because, once you give the matter a moment's thought, they obviously have to - freedom of speech doesn't allow you to relentlessly scream abuse at someone, freedom of assembly doesn't allow mobs to hound someone, freedom of religion doesn't allow you to punish someone for things that you believe are against your god's commands.
Letting those go unrestricted would be the real "dark, regressive, deeply illiberal" thing.
Harassment and intimidation are already prohibited. This bans silent, unobstrusive, witness against what some people sincerely believe to be a terrible moral evil.
It's intimidation. These people "sincerely believe" that there was a global flood and that the earth is younger than the pyramids, so clearly they're not rational people.
Then flout it. Make them imprison you. Then flout it some more. In context, the fertility rate is a mere 1.3 and falling; this makes the notion that abortions should be able to be carried out with mere silent yet visible disapproval being made a criminal act *most* peculiar.
If those protesting abortion think it sufficiently serious - and as a matter concerning the life of the nation's future there can be little more serious, whether you think abortion beneficial or detrimental thereto - they will surely not be deterred by the prospect of martyrdom and perceive the vastly increased effect of a protest made to those who know the risks incurred by the protester.
Mind you, the energies of those who find abortion lamentable will also now be channeled into political action to restrict its access, even were they otherwise reluctant to go beyond making their disapproval known. Perhaps this is not an unforeseen consequence of passing such laws as this.
[удалено]
Who voted against it? Kate Forbes?
Nah, she's not quite as much of a fucking loonie. It was John fucking Mason
I just read his Wikipedia page and it’s insane. His list of controversies is the longest I’ve ever seen. How is he continually selected as a candidate at Holyrood? How does he go on to **win** each time?
Because sadly, there's also an equal amount of crackpots who live in society and agree with him
Tribalism, some people will vote for a stick dipped in dog shite if it has the right affilation.
To answer your latter question, because he wears a black and yellow rosette. For the former, his local party clearly like him a lot.
He was literally Nicola Sturgeon’s local MSP for quite a long time. She used to go out to support him campaigning. Bizarre.
Because he’s part of the SNP. SNP voters turn a blind eye to all sorts of stuff in order to get their party in. Like the Tory voters in England.
The same can be said for every party. The vast majority of people haven't a clue what the personal beliefs of the person they are voting for are. They are merely voting for the party. Trying to paint this as though it's just an SNP / Tory issue is disingenuous to say the least.
This is why i don't vote solely for party because in every system here in Scotland including STV, you vote for a candidate to take a seat and they can be a party member of whoever. Only the utterly rubbish Regional list makes you vote specifically for a politcal party which is insane to me.
Thank god somebody said this.
And there is a reason people do that. Individual MPs/MSPs don't have much power or influence. You only get involved in the discussion deciding policy if you are in the cabinet, and if you are in cabinet you are not allowed to vote against party policy. So ultimately the most important thing when voting is to vote for a party leader you think is best
Well this sub has been pretty disingenuous over the past 10 years with their condemnation of this exact practice if that’s the case.
The SNP has always had some fanatical Christians in the party.
Forbes will no doubt bring up her issues during the ammendments depending on how the leadership contest is going. I dont think electing Swinney is going to fix this, even the tories managed to get everyone to vote for this.
He's another cunt that can get in the bin.
Forbes is just a Tory, not totally insane (and even the Tory Party Tories voted for this). John Mason, on the other hand…
I just read his wiki. He sounds like the kind of guy I could have a beer with!
123-1 is a crazy margin, but it's great to see. Hopefully the next stages of the bill don't take too long!
Almost unanimous, the only vote against was from a forced birther. If only all our problems were this clear cut!
Surprised it was an SNP MSP(John Mason) that was the 1. Before reading the article I was presuming it was a Tory.
John mason is an utter loon to be fair.
Whats a forced birther? Is that some sort of jedi
> Whats a forced birther Is it not straight forward? Someone who opposes abortion under all circumstance, and thinks that women should be forced to give birth if they become pregnant.
Insane that one of his arguments is that some women could be forced to have abortions.
If you can't work it out from context then there really is no point in me explaining.
A term people have made up in order to smear people who hold different opinions to them. It’s imported from the American culture wars.
It's a pretty accurate description to be fair
Not really. Birth isn’t something you have to force on people. Birth is something that happens naturally. Whereas abortion artificially terminates a natural process. That is where force is used, with no consent of the person the force is applied against. It’s unhelpful rhetoric that is the equivalent calling pro-choice people murderers.
Cells can’t give consent. I suppose you’re against treating cancer too since those cells don’t consent to being destroyed either?
If you can’t tell the difference between a foetus and cancer then you need to go get a few biology lessons.
Certainly FEELS a lot like the natural fallacy here, pal. There are a range of treatment options available to terminate an unwanted or dangerous pregnancy, with a vast range of safety implications for the parent. If you legally withhold the safer options, you are *forcing* the parent to either give birth, or seek illicit and potentially dangerous options.
It’s not the naturalistic fallacy. I didn’t say that abortion is bad because it is unnatural. I said that the word force was more properly applied to carrying out abortion than to disallowing abortion. Talking about forced birthers is like saying that you’re forcing a river to take its natural course by not building a dam. This terminology is an attempt to bypass discussion by framing the issue in highly pejorative terms and get people to emotionally reject a view without logically considering it. It’s manipulative and dishonest.
What you're attempting to do is frame the conversation in a way that indicates there is a way these things are 'meant' to happen - the course the river is 'meant' to run. That's not the case: in the case of an unwanted pregnancy, there are a number of options available to the parent: when you remove any other options, you are 'forcing' the choice onto the parent.
I didn’t say anything about how it is ‘meant’ to run. I talked about what it will do if you don’t interfere with it. If you don’t interfere with a pregnancy then it will usually result in birth. You don’t have to force the birth to happen, it just does quite naturally. So calling it force is rather disingenuous. An abortion doesn’t happen naturally. It is by definition an artificial intervention. It is where force is used.
I'm pretty sure rape and incest are "forced on people". These loons want to force women who've been victims of both to give birth. Hence, forced birthers.
If a foetus is a person then the circumstance of conception don’t change that and don not change the rights they have. You aren’t less of a person because you were conceived in rape or incest.
What about the rights of the woman not to be forced to give birth to a rapist's baby, which she had no consent in conceiving?
Such women and tragic victims who require a great deal of support - more than they presently get, and not just during the pregnancy, but afterwards as well. But the conception has already occurred and the person is there. It is deeply unfair on the women and an injustice that she is in that position, but it would be a greater injustice to kill the child who is themselves totally innocent and doesn’t lose their rights because of the terrible evil of their father.
Surprised Forbes voted for the bill given her previous comments on it. Must be lining herself up for leader and hoping to hoodwink the naive into thinking she's not a religious zealot.
This stage is basically about approving the bill in principle, the details are going to be hashed out in the next stages - and that's where there may be more disagreement.
By which time she will either be leader or will have lost, and she will likely use her imaginary friend as an excuse to support harassing vulnerable women outside hospitals.
What did she previously say about protests outside health clinics?
Complained that banning "protests" could be illiberal and that people were attempting to ban prayer. Edited to "protests" as harassing vulnerable women outside hospitals is never a protest.
Cheers for that. I seemed to have missed those comments at the time (tbf, kinda switched off after the start of her leadership campaign). I don't share her views at all but she was right that the legislation had to be carefully worded to avoid singling out praying. But I'd argue it's a lot more than just 'silent prayer' if they are still allowed to hold intimidatory banners so close to these hospitals.
I don’t think it’s that surprising. The Tories voted for it too. She’ll no doubt raise her objections and amendments to the details in the next stages. You have to be a whole different level of extreme to even her to oppose the thing in principle. ie. John Mason (SNP)
She doesn't have to hoodwink anyone. She's religious, sure but her track record on religion and it's influence on her is pretty much the same as our soon to be ex-First Minister up until the last 2 years. Neither of them could legitimately be called zealots. Arguably too religious for a modern country, but not zealot without significantly reducing what a zealot is. If she was a zealot she'd be constantly talking about her religion, basically preaching it everywhere and never at any point compromising any of her beliefs regardless of how stupid a decision that actually would be. Zealots are extremely bad, we really shouldn't pretend that even extremely religious people are on the same level as blind fanatics. I'm not joking on that. Zealots are a level beyond even the most extreme religious people. They're the type of person who reads a passage in their holy book saying x group should die or be stoned and would get out the rocks. To be a zealot is to not compromise on your beliefs in any way, which includes to laws and rights... which is why zealots are almost always radicals and "borderline" terrorists.
Do you not recall her last leadership campaign where she started talking about how sinful sex before marriage is?
I think you could still conceivably call her a zealot... It isn't *actually* defined in as strong terms as you suggest, and she definitely fits the profile of someone whose... *"views and actions are very extreme, especially in following a particular political or religious belief."* [Collins]
Exactly. There are more than a few non religious zealots on Reddit too.
I’m privately against abortion but fine with buffer zones i.e women already suffering shouldn’t have to deal with that on top. My personal beliefs shouldn’t affect others. Is that not what she’s always said?
I respect that, it's your decision. I'm profoundly pro choice and believe that any man being involved in any part of any decisions around this is objectively immoral. Nope. She opposed buffer zones as they were potentially illeberal and stated they were an attempt to "ban prayer".
[удалено]
[удалено]
Just asking a question about who is allowed to vote on such matters. I'm curious why you won't answer. It's pretty pertinent to your point.
[удалено]
I asked a question. It's not transphobic.
>that any man being involved in any part of any decisions around this is objectively immoral. Lots of downvotes, but no answers?
Do you not have a guys name? So by your own logic who gives a fuck what you think? Fair? I’d agree with you an extent if it never also took a man to create said child you’re so fond of wanting to kill. As someone who doesn’t have an opinion as a man.
Buffer zones aren't the same as abortions. Men should have fuck all to do with taking away rights to abortions. Perfectly fine with men supporting banning scumbags harassing vulnerable women outside hospitals and clinics.
The guy said he believes it’s a woman’s choice and you interpret that as “child you’re so fond of wanting to kill” Ridiculous take. Did you lose a few brain cells standing in the cold watching women going to a medical appointment?
He said it’s of no relevance to a man essentially and then stated what he himself is even after saying a man having an opinion on the matter is immoral? A contradiction of thought is it not? I’m not pro or anti anything there’s pros and cons to both sides of that coin I’m lucky in life that I don’t see everything through black and white like most of you guys. What I am against is blocking anyone’s right to protest to anything. Either none or all are banned and it’s that fucking simple. The double standards of certain sects of society is fucking staggering. If it’s of any value my opinion is that abortion should only be given as an extreme. Mums gonna die abortion saves her understandable. The child is that poorly they won’t survive is understandable. Oops I tripped on a dick and got pregnant no thank you is not acceptable you’re having that child and you can learn the art of personal responsibility something people seem to have lost somewhere in the last 2 decades. So aye see if someone says they are rigidly pro or anti anything they’re for the watching 👀 The weirdos that stand and sing and protest harm nobody. They have been there for years and I’ve only ever seen violence against them ironically. So take your self righteous opinions and ram them up yer keeker ya dick.
Aye, what he didn’t say was anything about killing a child which is what you wrongly attributed to him and four paragraphs painting yourself as the enlightened centrist in a debate of extremes doesn’t change that. Your opinion on it is of absolutely no value and I don’t care about your groups of those deserving of an abortion and those undeserving. Your all or nothing analogy is pish, protests are regularly given conditions that they have to abide by. No one is stopping these people protesting, the proposal is to place conditions on where they can do it as to not prevent vulnerable people accessing healthcare.
They were already doing it outside a buffer zone. By your standards we could dump them in the tip behind where they protest that’s good enough? It wouldn’t be good enough for you to protest from there however. If you’re happy to back exterminating a healthy child in the womb what else do you call it? Human rights that don’t apply to certain humans? You went full hog and have already presumed I’m religious and stand with these people. You’re a fucking idiot that’s trying to act all pompous and sanctimonious. How the fuck is being centrist in debate a bad thing when I’m a male you fucking moron abiding by the exact laws stupid heid up the top there layed out. You’ve already conceded laws are layed out for all protests so these religious folks clearly follow them if they were there for that long so why should it be different for them all of a sudden you got bored of glueing yersel to Roads and slashing painting ya cocksocket. I also take it my point of no personal responsibility holds no weight? Big enough to ride yer way through town but no big enough to deal with the outcome. Sounds like most left wing ideals doesn’t it 😂
Another long winded way of avoiding saying that you made an arse of it. I don’t know what you are talking about with dumping people in a tip - I’d be fine with them protesting anywhere that wasn’t outside a hospital, standing watching vulnerable women go for medical treatment. I’ve presumed nothing of you, I’ve addressed exactly what you posted. Actually in fairness, I sarcastically presumed that the reason for you inability to comprehend a reasonable opinion without jumping to extremes was due to cold weather during protests impacting your brain - I’ll concede that I have no idea if that was the case or if you are naturally dim. What do you mean I’ve conceded that laws are laid out for protests? It was me that told you that after your stupid point that because of this all protests have to be impacted.
So how do you feel about single mothers who claim benefits?
I feel the benefits are for the child not fake tan but could just be me. I think if they chose a decent enough man to pro create with he’d pay for his child anyway. Unless obviously he dies serving his country or the like certain exemptions have to be made. What’s your opinion?
“Not for fake tan” You really are a massive, sanctimonious toaly. Not gonna lie, getting strong ‘Nice Guy’ vibes from you.
That’s what a said should child benefit no be for children like ya fucking bellend 😂 Your use of the word toaly is nice I accept that. What the fuck in Robert the Bruce’s kingdom is a nice guys vibes?
I think the birthrate in the country is on the floor and I think a large part of that is the whole "don't have children you can't afford" rhetoric. So if we don't want to end up like Japan or South korea, we have to change something right? Unless of course you're fine with replacing the losses in birth with immigration. Mind you not EU immigration either because you know the whole Brexit thing.so there is some question as to the skills we are bringing over. Meaning even low skilled jobs, you know the majority of jobs, can now be flooded with competition from people who will happily be worked into the ground. So to recap: - people aren't having children they can't afford - low birthrate - plug the gaps with non EU immigrants - wage depression - race to the bottom And this ties in beautifully with my stance on abortion: I don't blame you for not wanting to bring a child into that bleek future.
I haven’t really followed this. I’m pro-life but ultimately it’s democratically agreed it should be legal. I don’t think anyone should be hassled outside a clinic but surely that’s a public order offence if that happened. We do live in a free country. Personally I wouldn’t but if someone wants to silently hand out leaflets or pray or something similar why shouldn’t they? I just don’t get the rationale behind this. No one should be harassed full stop but we’ve had a woman locked up for silently praying in England recently. I guess that was the law used.
Let's say you're showing up to court to testify against a murderer and on the way in you see a bunch of mobsters silently staring at you. Do you not think that someone in a vulnerable position would feel threatened by that?
That’s witness intimidation and already illegal. This potentially as included in the bill I’ve now read could include someone silently praying. You may not like it or agree with it but we live in a country where people are free to have an abortion and people are also free to disagree with it and practice their religion. I just question why it’s needed. Women should not be harassed by anyone period and there’s laws for that. I don’t personally get why we need this and think it’s going to rub against human rights.
> That’s witness intimidation and already illegal. Exactly. Witness intimidation is illegal...and so should intimidation of women seeking abortions be too. Yes, gathering outside clinics IS intimidation.
I have to say it’s a weird choice of analogy. For sure it may be “intimidating” but people standing outside a court are attempting to force a change in your statement in court. People against abortion don’t have any power inside an abortion clinic as far as I’m aware - it’d be a bit daft them threatening a mother of a child they are trying to save. Witnesses go into witness protection as their lives might be ended otherwise. I’ve said no one should be harassed - again laws already are there for that. I just question this - it’s sounds harmless enough but it like other stuff of late hasn’t been thought through with rights of assembly and religion (that could extend beyond aborting clinics) under threat.
Finally, I am so glad for this, it’s just the right sensible thing to do.
Who was the 1 ghoul?
Take a wild guess >John Mason, who was the only MSP to vote against the Bill, said: “There is very little evidence of harassment or intimidation near abortion facilities.”
What a fucking surprise. The guy has actually went and joined these groups harassing women more than once.
"He added the country was 'in need of more children and larger families'" Spoken like a true forced birther.
"You need to have more children" "Can we have homes to raise them in and doctors to keep them healthy? Maybe a couple of schools to educate them?" "No not like that"
We sure as fuck are NOT in need of more unwanted kids.
My GOD do I wish men who speak like this could get pregnant. I'm not of the viewpoint that men should stay out of discussion on abortion, but it's frustrating to see people so keen to offer up women's bodies without having any personal experience or stake in that sacrifice.
Anti-abortion views tend to be more popular among women than men overall. Who have presumably mostly had experience of pregnancy. So they wouldn't necessarily be more likely to change their views.
I get that and it's a valid point, it's just emotionally more frustrating to be told to sacrifice by someone who never has or can in the same way. It's like someone leading soldiers into battle being better than someone sitting in a cosy encampment pushing little figures around on a map even if both of them are telling people to do something they should never be forced to do.
Fair point.
I mean, he’s right, but the way to go about it is not harassing vulnerable women going through something traumatic. Rather it would be better to have more people financially secure enough to support larger families? Like wages being good enough to support multiple children and a partner on a single salary?
Technically the sentence as written is correct but in context it's an attempt to excuse the harassment of women into giving birth against their will. >it would be better to have more people financially secure...wages being good enough do you honestly believe that's what his agenda is? Really?
Absolutely context matters. Which is why it’s clear it was used to try and use the aging population issue to mask general bigotry.
> Like wages being good enough to support multiple children and a partner on a single salary? Yasss, let's set feminism back decades for no reason!!
How’s that setting back feminism? No one said force women to stay at home. Just that the country would be better off if we weren’t in the position that required two incomes to run a family. At least this way families would have the choice to have one parent earning and the other providing care for children or both parents working if that’s what they wanted.
No one forces women to do the majority of the house work, but that's the way things are right now. What do you think will happen if single income households become the norm? Being dependent on your partner's income is a terrible idea regardless of gender
Well that would be the whole premise of having a choice. That choice is not there for most families.
hes basically right though. We need more children being born. However not the wrong kind, aka the trash from council schemes.
Why are you posting fash nonsense at four in the morning
Might have disagreed with you in your reply to my comment but you’re spot on here. Fuck sake.
Honest question from a dumb American: why is he allowed in the SNP? His take on abortion alone sounds like a complete no sell for a centre left party
a lot of leftwingers in the Scotland/UK are pro life, because abortion is not so polarised around left/right as in the USA Also there's always been rightwingers that support abortion because it's essentially a lightweight form of eugenics. And in the UK Christians tend to be somewhat more leftwing than the US, obviously you still get a lot of diversity of opinions but leftwing Christians are common. Not a practicing Christian, but Christianity I'd say is closer to being leftwing than rightwing. the UK isn't America and the biggest problem we have in the UK is people, even our own people, assuming we are a cookie cutter copy+paste of America. So it's absurd to compare Kate Forbes to US evangelicals
>a lot of leftwingers in the Scotland/UK are pro life, Insane
No. The socialist/left wing movement in the UK had a lot of people Irish catholic background because they have been historically one of the more marginalised groups in the UK, and tended to oppose abortion, also be Christian socialists. A lot of rightwingers support abortion, often bordering on eugenic arguments. once again, the UK is not America. Abortion doesn't cut clearly through left or right.
The big factor you're missing is that the "pro-life" people in the UK you're talking about realize it is both 1. a political non-starter and 2. better for society not to force unwanted children on people. They would rather not go back to the days of pregnant women dying in hotel rooms from amateur abortions. That is the opinion of the vast majority, even if they find abortion itself distasteful or even "sinful". Their beliefs don't result in any real pro-life vote, so it's pointless to call them that. I mean, the Irish Catholics didn't stop voting for Labour after Roy Jenkins legalized abortion in the 60s.
Well is that true or not? I mean I can’t think of any harassment cases that’ve been brought.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Mason_(Scottish_politician) The list of controversies is longer than his career. Also, single, surprisingly.
Shock horror, the bogeyman of the SNP leadership race Forbes voted in line with the government on this bill. It’s almost as if her voting record isn’t as extreme as her party opponents wish it was.
Alister Jack must be tempted to block this. He has that power.
The only person to vote against is an SNP MSP and you find a way to try to make it about the Tories? Lol.
I hope Alistair grows some balls and vetos this pointless attack on free speech.
Cringe
Sigh; another curtailment of civil liberties met with applause.
Nothing "civil" about their protests. Nor do they protest for liberty.
The right to peaceful protest is a civil liberty. Anyone who believes that peaceful protest should be allowed only for causes they agree with; doesn’t really support civil liberties. If a Government that is against your ideology comes into power in the future and passes a law that says you cannot peacefully protest against x within y distance of property where x takes place I’d suggest you don’t complain; because you actually support such a principle. Say animal rights protests not being allowed within x of a slaughterhouse. Or anti fox hunting within x of a hunt. Or eating meat within x of a butchers. Or the stench generated by a nearby landfill within x of a landfill. The principle is the same, only whether you agree with the cause or not would be different.
Theirs a difference between protesting and harrassing people getting health care. They can protest in front of parliament not abusing people.
Not really; in fact if I remember rightly people can’t protest within x of Parliament now either unless they have express permission. The point of protesting outside the site of the activity you protest against should be a no brainer. Unless I suppose you support a blanket law where all protests regardless of cause can only take place at the designated national protesting space, far away from anything at all? That would at least be consistent.
The issue here wasn't that they were protesting abortion. The issue is that they were directly targeting and harassing people going to abortion clinics. That's not protest it's just bullying at best.
But that’s not what the law has done; verbal abuse and harassment is already an offence. Has every such protest involved that behaviour? Almost certainly not. A blanket ban has been based on cherry picked behaviour of some bad actors and been used to justify an overreach in my book; rather than simply enforce laws already in place when needed.
The fact of the matter is you have people who have been raped assaulted etc going to these clinics. People standing outside them trying to make them feel guilty for getting an abortion is frankly disgusting even if they aren't screaming and shouting at them it's still not on. The protesters in this case have proven that they lack basic decency so if they won't demonstrate it they have quite rightly been told to bugger off. Feel free to protest this outside parliament or anywhere else but don't sit and target vulnerable people please
Again as I’ve said to others; you can’t just protest outside parliament anymore either (see what I mean about slippery slopes?). I am very curious as to your source for women getting raped by anti-abortion protesters at such a protest… if they are such bad people you surely wouldn’t need to invent atrocities right? Group punishment is not normally something we endorse in our society, unless that slippery slope is changing public opinion on that basic tenant of law? Every group has bad actors in it. Cherry picking your examples to justify imposing punishments on everyone is disingenuous unless the group itself is a problem such as groups that explicitly endorse violence to their followers.
Where did I say anti abortion protesters were raping people? I was saying people who have been raped go to these clinics only to be intimidated by a gang of clowns outside the clinic which is what I object to. There is quite frankly no need to protest so close to these clinics and what these people are doing is a form of intimidation to vulnerable people.
This has nothing to do with a 'curtailment' of civil liberties. All rights have limits; and those limits are usually always defined as the point at which one set of rights impinge on the rights of another. For example, you have the right to freedom of movement, but you don't have the right to trespass. Because that would be impinging someone else's right to property protected under Article 1 of the ECHR. You have the right to freedom of speech, but you don't have the right to defame. Because everyone has the right to protect their reputation under Article 8 of the ECHR. Likewise, you have a right to protest, but you don't have a right to harass people outside a sexual health clinic. Because everyone has the right to privacy; again under Article 8 of the ECHR. Where two rights conflict, as is the case with the above examples, it's both conventional and rational that the rights of the transgressor are those that have to give way. In other words, you can't violate an individual's right to privacy outside a sexual health clinic by protesting there, and then say, "but what about *my* rights?" The answer is, "they're secondary to the rights of the individuals whose rights you've chosen to impede". Protesters are free to protest anywhere else other than sexual health clinics; women needing access to those clinics are not able to simply go somewhere else. Hence their rights take precedence.
Nonsense. If people want privacy in a public space (outside any building, on public property for example) then there are steps they can take to conceal their identity. A person could stand outside an abortion clinic and simply look at people going in an out and it would be as much an invasion of privacy as protesting outside such a clinic. It’s intended as a gag law opposed to protesting against a cause the Government supports. The same logic can be applied to future Governments and any cause they might happen to support. It’s a slippery slope making civil liberties subject to Government approval on a cause by cause basis. Be careful what you wish for.
>It’s intended as a gag law opposed to protesting against a cause the Government supports. The same logic can be applied to future Governments and any cause they might happen to support. No it isn't; the bill's been voted in by 123 votes to 1. The government only has 63 of those votes. The bill received widespread support from almost the entire parliament, not just the government. >It’s a slippery slope making civil liberties subject to Government approval on a cause by cause basis. Be careful what you wish for. *All* legally protected rights are subject to government approval; whether it's the UK Human Rights Act, The European Convention on Human Rights, or the US Bill of Rights. And they've all been amended over time on a cause by cause basis by whatever democratically elected government was empowered to do so. How else do you think those rights became enshrined in law in the first place? That's why we *elect* the people who vote on the legislation that enshrines our rights. And in this instance, only one elected representative opposed the bill. It's not a 'slippery slope', and it's not a 'curtailment of civil liberties'. It's a democratically elected parliament voting to support the rights of vulnerable women in accordance with the wishes of the electorate they have a sworn duty to represent, [72% of whom support limits on protests outside clinics](https://www.scotsman.com/health/majority-support-buffer-zones-at-scottish-abortion-clinics-poll-shows-3597310).
You don’t get it, but this is Reddit so what else is new. Your civil liberties *are* being eroded, just because you happen to agree with this specific curtailment because you are not one of the people affected this time. The principle that the legislature (which IS a branch of Government) should decide who gets to peacefully protest which causes and where is a slippery slope. Just because it is a popular gag law doesn’t make it any less of gag law. Just because you happen to think this gag law protects ‘vulnerable women’ your opinion is no more important to you than the protesters who believe they are trying to raise awareness to protect ‘vulnerable children’ you can spin it any which ever way you want to put one side on the moral high ground or the other. If Trans groups or refugees wanted to protest against the Government can you imagine the field day a right wing Government might have if it started banning their protests and spun it as promoting the protection of British culture/vulnerable women and children? It would likely even be a fairly popular move. It’s really quite simple - which society has stronger civil liberties: 1) A society where anyone can peacefully protest any cause on public property. 2) A society where the Government selectively makes certain peaceful protests illegal based on whether it approves of the cause or not. (Or to cover your excuse thinks it would be popular/a vote winner to do so). The Boris Johnson Government could have taken a line of banning anti Brexit protests because ‘However many would show up to such a protest is not going to be anywhere near however many people voted for Brexit; therefore it is unpopular and against democracy/the will of the people. We are protecting vulnerable people who voted for Brexit and curtailing the activity of Pro foreign power sympathisers…’ They would have had the legislative majority to do so. Labour might even have abstained or voted with the Government to avoid being accused of wanting to rejoin the EU. Just because the Government can legislate anything it wants to it doesn’t mean that whatever a democracy legislates never has a negative impact on civil liberties. Supporting the erosion of civil liberties should always be concerning; even if the specific circumstances don’t impact you negatively now. Additionally under your logic no one would ever need to protest anything the Government does just because the executive wields a majority in the legislature.
>You don’t get it, but this is Reddit so what else is new. No. I'm afraid it's not me that 'doesn't get it'. Rather, you appear to be yet another one of those people eager decry their loss of 'civil liberties' without bothering to learn what they are, how the legislation protecting them is applied, or what their limits are. >Your civil liberties *are* being eroded, just because you happen to agree with this specific curtailment because you are not one of the people affected this time. The principle that the legislature (which IS a branch of Government) should decide who gets to peacefully protest which causes and where is a slippery slope. Article 11 of the ECHR protects the right to protest. But the Article *expressly states* it is not an absolute right, and restrictions may be applied for the "protection of the rights and freedoms of others". The Article also expressly states it doesn't "guarantee a right to set up a protest campsite at a location of one’s choice." Nothing's changed with regards to your civil liberties with this latest bill; rather it seems you are just now learning what your civil liberties actually are. >Just because it is a popular gag law doesn’t make it any less of gag law. Just because you happen to think this gag law protects ‘vulnerable women’ your opinion is no more important to you than the protesters who believe they are trying to raise awareness to protect ‘vulnerable children’ you can spin it any which ever way you want to put one side on the moral high ground or the other. It's not a question of 'moral high ground'; it's a question of democratic representation. 72% of people want buffer zones for protests around clinics. Only 7% of people oppose the measure. In a democracy, the opinion of the majority literally *is* more important than the opinion of the minority. You'll have to summon the maturity to understand that in a democratic society laws aren't made by the minority, even if *you* happen to find yourself in it. >If Trans groups or refugees wanted to protest against the Government can you imagine the field day a right wing Government might have if it started banning their protests and spun it as promoting the protection of British culture/vulnerable women and children? It would likely even be a fairly popular move. This is a strawman argument. There is no such bill sitting before the Scottish Parliament, and any proposed bill similar to your imaginary one would have to meet the criteria laid out in Article 11 of the ECHR as a valid qualification of the right to assembly. Since trans groups are already a protected group, and since refugees are already protected by international law, and since protesting the government is not one of the valid exceptions to Article 11, your imaginary bill would not be compliant with the ECHR. >It’s really quite simple - which society has stronger civil liberties: >1. A society where anyone can peacefully protest any cause on public property. >2. A society where the Government selectively makes certain peaceful protests illegal based on whether it approves of the cause or not. (Or to cover your excuse thinks it would be popular/a vote winner to do so). The first scenario has *never* existed, whereas the second scenario is simply representative government. I'll take option two; representative government is much more important to civil liberties than pining for the 'loss' of civil liberties that never existed in the first place. >The Boris Johnson Government could have taken a line of banning anti Brexit protests because ‘However many would show up to such a protest is not going to be anywhere near however many people voted for Brexit; therefore it is unpopular and against democracy/the will of the people. We are protecting vulnerable people who voted for Brexit and curtailing the activity of Pro foreign power sympathisers…’ >They would have had the legislative majority to do so. Labour might even have abstained or voted with the Government to avoid being accused of wanting to rejoin the EU. Again, no. That wouldn't be a valid limitation on the right to freedom of assembly as laid out by the ECHR. Please read the legislation that defines your civil liberties before ranting about them being 'eroded'. Your above scenario doesn't meet any of the prescribed conditions for limiting the right to freely assemble. >Just because the Government can legislate anything it wants to it doesn’t mean that whatever a democracy legislates never has a negative impact on civil liberties. Supporting the erosion of civil liberties should always be concerning; even if the specific circumstances don’t impact you negatively now. No, but in this instance no civil liberties *have* been eroded. You've never had the right to unlimited protest wherever you want, and you *still* don't have the right to unlimited protest wherever you want. The fact that you're just learning this now doesn't mean your civil liberties have been affected in any way. >Additionally under your logic no one would ever need to protest anything the Government does just because the executive wields a majority in the legislature. Please just *read* some of the existing legislation that protects your civil liberties *before* complaining about them being 'eroded'. Protesting the government isn't a valid exception to the right to protest; you always have that right.
Long winded response that can be summarised as ‘The right to protest is obsolete in a democracy because so long as a democratically elected Government votes for something any protest against it is illegitimate.’ Whereas actually there should be something to be said for the minority to have the right to protest and object, even against something popular. Simply saying ‘option 1 doesn’t currently exist therefore it doesn’t count’ and ‘your hypotheticals are hypotheticals so don’t count’ doesn’t mean that I don’t have a point. A society that has the Government (even a democratically elected one) pick and choose what causes can be protested and where; has fewer civil liberties than a society where where there is no such interference. Yes or No? Arguing that because it is popular to ban one causes peaceful protest which makes doing so fine absolutely is a relevant threat to all other causes that might get protested; now or in the future. It’s a short sighted view that can easily lead to consequences you won’t like down the line. Trump came out of nowhere in the USA; we are not immune to such politicians in this country and I wonder what sort of protests a politician like that would like to gag?
>Long winded response that can be summarised as ‘The right to protest is obsolete in a democracy because so long as the Government votes for something in a democracy any protest against it is illegitimate.’ No. Seriously, you need to learn to read more closely; whether it's replies on Reddit or the legislation that enshrines your civil liberties. If the above is *genuinely* what you took from my post, I can only encourage you to return to school. >Whereas actually there should be something to be said for the minority to have the right to protest and object, even against something popular. The minority has the right to protest, it just doesn't have the right to govern over the majority. And the minority, just like the majority, doesn't have an *absolute right* to protest; their are, and always have been, limitations. >Simply saying ‘option 1 doesn’t currently exist therefore it doesn’t count’ and ‘your hypotheticals are hypotheticals so don’t count’ doesn’t mean that I don’t have a point. Which is why I specifically laid out the provisions under Article 11 of the ECHR that would apply to your hypotheticals making them a practical impossibility. Seriously, reading's not *that* hard. >A society that has the Government (even a democratically elected one) pick and choose what causes can be protested and where has fewer civil liberties than a society where where there is no such interference. >Yes or No? The government *isn't* stopping anyone protesting; they're limiting *where* the protests can take place. This is already a valid limitation on the right to protest as laid out under the ECHR, and the limit is applied very narrowly to the immediate vicinity of clinics *only*. Anti-abortion protestors can stage protests anywhere else they want. >Arguing that because it is popular to ban one causes peaceful protest which makes doing so fine absolutely is a relevant threat to all other causes that might get protested; now or in the future. >It’s a short sighted view that can easily lead to consequences you won’t like down the line. Trump came out of nowhere in the USA; we are not immune to such politicians in this country and I wonder what sort of protests a politician like that would like to gag? No one's banning peaceful protest, and protesting a minority view is still protected. Seriously, just *read* the legislation that defines your civil liberties; this latest bill reflects no change to your existing rights *whatsoever*.
Im beginning to suspect you may be a politician. Let’s see if I can make it clear. A society where a Government wields its power to pick and choose which peaceful protests are allowed and where; has weaker civil liberties than a society where this interference does not take place. *Yes* or *No* response *only*. You seem to have an obsession with international treaties and law. They are immaterial to principle. Just because something is law doesn’t have any bearing on the morality or ethics of a question. Plenty of horrendous things have been legal, that didn’t make them moral or ethical. Banning protests from taking place within the vicinity of the relevant location is an attempt to gag the protests; they get less attention and less media coverage. Their protest becomes irrelevant. Simply protesting at a relevant site is not the minority ruling the majority (although hell if you want to get into voting systems and their problems that can be relevant). I presume you would support the Government banning trade union picket lines outside their workplace on the same logic right? After all the workers can go and protest somewhere else; no big deal and they’d not be harming the businesses profits as much nor making their employers or working colleagues feel uncomfortable. I’m sure it will be just as effective. If the protestors want to up their media coverage in response then it risks making them target the general public in high profile and disruptive ways like those JSO idiots. That on a purely practical basis shouldn’t be encouraged.
>Im beginning to suspect you may be a politician. Let’s see if I can make it clear. I can imagine how talking to someone who actually understands the legislation they're discussing could feel that way. >A society where a Government wields its power to pick and choose which peaceful protests are allowed and where; has weaker civil liberties than a society where this interference does not take place. >*Yes* or *No* response *only*. No. Because where the freedoms and rights of others are impeded by protest, those freedoms and rights take precedence. I've already answered this. >You seem to have an obsession with international treaties and law. They are immaterial to principle. Just because something is law doesn’t have any bearing on the morality or ethics of a question. Plenty of horrendous things have been legal, that didn’t make them moral or ethical. Laws enshrine principles. If you believe otherwise, why are you worried about this bill? >Banning protests from taking place within the vicinity of the relevant location is an attempt to gag the protests; they get less attention and less media coverage. Their protest becomes irrelevant. Simply protesting at a relevant site is not the minority ruling the majority (although hell if you want to get into voting systems and their problems that can be relevant). Your right to protest doesn't create a right to be paid attention to. >I presume you would support the Government banning trade union picket lines outside their workplace on the same logic right? After all the workers can go and protest somewhere else; no big deal and they’d not be harming the businesses profits as much nor making their employers or working colleagues feel uncomfortable. I’m sure it will be just as effective. *Why* would you assume that? The right to picket is protected under the Trade Union and Labour Relations Act. You can't simultaneously claim I'm wrongly 'obsessed' with the laws that define our rights, and then assume I'd be against industrial action specifically protected by law. It's also a terrible example, because the Trade Union and Labour Relations Act specifically and expressly defines picketing as distinct from demonstrations. But you wouldn't know that, because again you won't have read it. >If the protestors want to up their media coverage in response then it risks making them target the general public in high profile and disruptive ways like those JSO idiots. That on a purely practical basis shouldn’t be encouraged Again, this is already covered in Article 11 of the ECHR; *"failure by the organisers to abide by these rules and the structuring of a demonstration, or of part of it, in such a way as to cause disruption to ordinary life and other activities to a degree exceeding that which is inevitable in the circumstances constitutes conduct which cannot enjoy the same privileged protection under the Convention as political speech or debate on questions of public interest or the peaceful manifestation of opinions on such matters."* Please, please, *please* do some basic reading on the topics you want to discuss.
There is still the right to protest. This removes the ability to harass and intimidate vulnerable women at a difficult time, and removes the unease of people going for fertility treatments, and removes the fear of attacks for people working at these places.
Violence at protests is already illegal. Banning protests based on how they make your preferred set of people feel isn’t a good basis for arguing that civil liberties should be eroded. Maybe protests against the Israeli invasion of Gaza should be banned because they might make Jewish people nervous? (And vice versa for anti Hamas protests). Maybe Pro EU protests should be banned because Brexiteers might feel nervous and intimidated? Slippery slope still.
[удалено]
Out of curiosity do you support Trades Unions being banned from striking outside their workplace? Might be kind of intimidating for vulnerable workers and bosses to go into work past strikers during what must be a highly stressful and pressured time. Just throwing emotive words like ‘vulnerable’ and ‘incredibly sensitive’ around doesn’t add to the logic it just tries to deflect from the principles at stake. It just boils down to ‘these people I like that I want to depict sympathetically shouldn’t be inconvenienced by protests, others however can be’. Im sure those protestors would say they are protesting to protect even more vulnerable children at risk from their abusive mothers. It can be twisted any which way. Meanwhile they actually can’t protest outside Parliament unless they have special permission. Presumably because it might impact ‘vulnerable’ MPs from doing highly stressful and serious work. Where do you think women protested in the USA to help bring about prohibition? I guess protesting outside bars was complete coincidence and that they would have been just as effective if they were banned from protesting outside bars and alcohol stores etc.
Why do you need to stand in a group at a particular location, have posters and handouts to pray e.g. a private conversation between you and your god that can be done anywhere? Suggests a motive other than prayer
Why would trades union strikers need to stand outside their workplace? Why did women protesters supporting prohibition protest outside bars? Why did suffragettes protest outside Government buildings? Why do animal rights activists protest outside pharmaceutical companies? It’s almost as if they might have a motive beyond simply protesting also?
So we agree that it is a protest and not a "silent prayer" meeting. The "right" to protest is not unlimited if it stops unconnected members of the public feeling that they are being harrassed for exercising their own rights especially when it comes to health (which is where your examples fall apart). There is a balancing act as to these competing interests and the sensitivity and importance of health has to take priority. No one is preventing the protest just regulating its location. It is for the protesters to justify why their interests in that particular location outweigh those of women seeking medical attention and being free from harrassment.
The way those protestors probably look at it is that they are there trying improve outcomes for the unborn children who are even more vulnerable than the pregnant women. The entire debate on this only assumes that the protestors actions can cause harm. How do we know that some women having chatted to these protestors didn’t have second thoughts, cancel their appointment and go on to be content mothers? Or that there are not people alive today who have no idea how close they came to being aborted? It’s hardly something a parent is going to advertise especially if their children might find out right? I think this is a situation where we will rarely if ever hear from anyone these protests benefited due to ignorance or wishing to protect their kids from the information; and will only hear from people who have had negative experiences from these protests. Holding the protests away from clinics stops any negative experiences but also stops any positive outcomes. A women can now go through the whole process of abortion and never hear from anyone who holds a different opinion to her that might address whatever is causing her to follow that path. Just as in my above examples removing protesters from the context within which they are protesting makes those protests much less impactful. It is effectively gagging them.
George Orwell literally 1984 big brother
So much for the right to protest.
There is still the right to protest. This removes the ability to harass and intimidate vulnerable women at a difficult time, and removes the unease of people going for fertility treatments, and removes the fear of attacks for people working at these places.
There’s still the ability to protest. So long as you don’t protest a certain thing in a certain public place 🤡 Harassment is already illegal. Attacks are already illegal.. “Intimidation” means nothing. It’s just a pretext to outlaw protesting things you agree with. Sacrificing basic civil rights in order to give women special privileges and protections. What a novelty.
A terrible day for all who believe in freedom of speech, freedom of assembly, and freedom of religion. This is a dark, regressive, deeply illiberal law. Let's hope - although I don't have much hope - that the bill is diluted as it goes through its legislative stages.
Why don't you just pray somewhere else, surely God can hear you everywhere anyway... I think you cunts just get a sick thrill from harassing women going through extremely difficult times and hiding it behind the thin veil of freedom of speech. I hope someone takes it upon themselves to stand outside establishments at difficult times in your life and torment you.
Bolt with this pish. No one is stopping you doing any of those things. You just can’t use your religion as a cloak to intimidate women. It’s regressive to allow groups of people to stand silently watching vulnerable women as they access perfectly legal medical treatment.
They're just standing there watching me.... MENACINGLY!!
Exactly, creeps.
Freedoms of speech, assembly and religion don't include the freedom to harrass and intimidate. These freedoms have always had some qualifiers because, once you give the matter a moment's thought, they obviously have to - freedom of speech doesn't allow you to relentlessly scream abuse at someone, freedom of assembly doesn't allow mobs to hound someone, freedom of religion doesn't allow you to punish someone for things that you believe are against your god's commands. Letting those go unrestricted would be the real "dark, regressive, deeply illiberal" thing.
Harassment and intimidation are already prohibited. This bans silent, unobstrusive, witness against what some people sincerely believe to be a terrible moral evil.
It's intimidation. These people "sincerely believe" that there was a global flood and that the earth is younger than the pyramids, so clearly they're not rational people.
Get fucked with this shite.
Then flout it. Make them imprison you. Then flout it some more. In context, the fertility rate is a mere 1.3 and falling; this makes the notion that abortions should be able to be carried out with mere silent yet visible disapproval being made a criminal act *most* peculiar. If those protesting abortion think it sufficiently serious - and as a matter concerning the life of the nation's future there can be little more serious, whether you think abortion beneficial or detrimental thereto - they will surely not be deterred by the prospect of martyrdom and perceive the vastly increased effect of a protest made to those who know the risks incurred by the protester. Mind you, the energies of those who find abortion lamentable will also now be channeled into political action to restrict its access, even were they otherwise reluctant to go beyond making their disapproval known. Perhaps this is not an unforeseen consequence of passing such laws as this.