This is why people are losing respect for the police...
- Thread starter RossGReds
- Start date
- Status
Soldato
- Joined
- 13 May 2003
- Posts
- 8,919
I'm not making a value judgement one way or the other just offering information to the debate from one of the two articles I posted earlier in the thread on the matter. In her own words from the woman arrested.
Isabel Vaugn-Spruce said:
Last edited:
Soldato
No, quite the opposite - I believe people should be allowed to do what they want, when they want, and the state should have minimal control. As long as it doesn't negatively affect others. That last part is key however, and if you are intimidating and threatening people then that should certainly be prevented.
So I was right, you don't understand what it means. Godwin specifically refers to Nazi analogies. Ironically, by invoking it, you appear to have inadvertently "Godwinned" yourself, since nobody else has mentioned Nazis
As I said, she's a known protester in an area known for protesting. The only reason for her being there is to protest. If - as she claims - she "couldn’t, in good conscience, stop actively caring about vulnerable women facing abortion", and only wanted to "pray[ed] silently, in my (her) head", then she could quite easily have done that at home, at church, or any other location, but no - she had to be there, clearly with the intention to be visible and cause controversy.
Would you be happy with a known paedophile to be "standing in the street minding their own business" outside your children's school?
Everything negatively affects others, it's why we wouldn't shouldn't be criminalising people for being 'offensive', but unfortunately we do. Standing there silently praying isn't intimidation or threatening and if you believe it is that only proves my point. Someone, somewhere, is going to find your mere presence intimidating, thus you shouldn't be allowed outside right?
It would be nice if the evangelicals would stay inside yes.
Caporegime
This is the problem. You can make that argument for almost everything. Personally I side more with the people who are doing the offending than those who are offended. I think one of the most important life skills is to be happy and confident enough not to let other peoples actions affect you negatively and its something far too many people are lacking.
We should be teaching people to be more confident and resilient rather than teaching them that the best way to get their own way is to feign offence. I say feign because I cannot genuinely believe some of the strong reactions people have to the most innocuous or innocent issues.
Soldato
My bad, I should have included the words "disproportionately, deliberately and unnecessarily"
The protesters actions were deliberately intended to upset and intimidate - there is no other reason for them to be there.
In any other situation I'd agree with you 10%, but in this case these protesters are targeting extremely vulnerable and emotionally fragile people - you can't really expect them to be in a reasonable frame of mind or to react accordingly. I'm normally the calmest and most placid person you could meet, but I could have quite happily kicked the **** out of the guy who was in our face when we went to the clinic, and the only person I have sympathy for when it inevitably happens is the person who ends up with a criminal record for reacting in a predictable manner.
Like I said before, these protesters are nasty vindictive people who are set on causing pain and suffering, and they deserve everything they get.
Last edited:
Soldato
- Joined
- 13 May 2003
- Posts
- 8,919
Except if the woman's testimony is to be taken at face value she prayed silently out of hours when she expected no one to be attending the clinic.
I'm not looking to make value judgements on the topic in general but if we believe her, she specifically doesn't appear to have had any desire to intimidate.
I accept that isn't universally true and from coverage of the US is most definitely not true.
Last edited:
Last edited:
Caporegime
Getting in peoples faces outside places like this doesn't come under the umbrella of "reasonable" in my view. They are going out of their way to make a bad situation worse. They could be doing exactly what they are doing in a far more appropriate place.
Those vague words can still be used to lock up a lot of people.My bad, I should have included the words "disproportionately, deliberately and unnecessarily"
The protesters actions were deliberately intended to upset and intimidate - there is no other reason for them to be there.
The purpose of being there was to peacefully protest, which should be everyone's right.
Associate
Ultimately women have the right to abortions if you're against it go to London and protest to the government and get them to change the laws not outside of the clinic's.
The hypocrisy is unreal, I guarandamntee it that if someone stood outside people's houses for periods of time they would raise the alarm, complain and ask them to move. While not being normal is not a crime, it is intimidating, and if continued after being asked to stop is harrassement. I would love to see how all these people crying about how "I'm not allowed to think anymore :'(" would feel if a known pedo stood outside their house silently not doing anything just stood there. (After all this women was known protestor not some random women people are trying to make out she is)
It's the whole I want to do this, this is my right but only I can do it, if you do it where I am it's wrong
How everyone on the Right who gets cancelled for random twitter threads is ok that's a good thing but when Gary Lineker comments on an issue and is taken off air it's an uproar and not fair.
You have to treat people equally no one wants to be intimidated or harassed and loitering around clinics either actively protesting or silently protesting is intimidating to these women and shouldn't be allowed.
It is for an individual women to decide what they want to do with their bodies not random men on the internet.
The hypocrisy is unreal, I guarandamntee it that if someone stood outside people's houses for periods of time they would raise the alarm, complain and ask them to move. While not being normal is not a crime, it is intimidating, and if continued after being asked to stop is harrassement. I would love to see how all these people crying about how "I'm not allowed to think anymore :'(" would feel if a known pedo stood outside their house silently not doing anything just stood there. (After all this women was known protestor not some random women people are trying to make out she is)
It's the whole I want to do this, this is my right but only I can do it, if you do it where I am it's wrong
How everyone on the Right who gets cancelled for random twitter threads is ok that's a good thing but when Gary Lineker comments on an issue and is taken off air it's an uproar and not fair.
You have to treat people equally no one wants to be intimidated or harassed and loitering around clinics either actively protesting or silently protesting is intimidating to these women and shouldn't be allowed.
It is for an individual women to decide what they want to do with their bodies not random men on the internet.
Last edited:
It’s difficult to have a discussion with someone who tries to look smart by using terms and phrases that they don’t understand or know the meaning of…
Soldato
If she just wanted to silently pray then why did she need to be at the clinic? Again, I'm not an expert on Christianity, but as far as I'm aware, God doesn't really care if you're within a certain radius of a location which has something to do with the thing you're praying about?
According to the woman herself, she was there to pray. As above, there was no need for her to be there to do that. Ergo, she clearly did it to be visible and cause a reaction - she shouldn't really complain about the fact that she got a reaction.
While she absolutely does have the right to protest - and I do support that - in this case she was doing so in a location in which that was prohibited (for good reason - to protect vulnerable people). Besides, where do you draw the line between peaceful protest and aggressive intimidation? The answer is of course "it's a bit of a grey area", so it's far more pragmatic to simply state: "you can't protest here at all". If she wants to protest then by all means go to the city centre, the council offices, Downing Street, etc. - who knows, she might have a bit more luck and actually get people on side, rather than simply trying to hurt people who are already in a very dark place.
Last edited:
Peacefully and silently standing there is not aggressive intimation or a "grey area".
A different situation but I think it's nonetheless relevant, but lets say we have someone whose been stalked and gotten a restraining order... is it ok for the stalker to go out of their way to be visible to their victim even if it's technically legal?
Legally, yes, but you've already stated that. Ethically, it's going to depend on the exact context. A restraining order would usually be worded to avoid that.
Her actions aren't stalking if that's the comparison you're making.
If someone feels the need to stand outside an abortion clinic and pray, even after they've been warned off, they need locking up. Either in prison for harassment or, if this woman is to be believed and she was compelled to do it but did it out of hours, in a mental facility.
- Status