Posted in: History. Tagged: Australia, Bible, Christianity, Faith, Free, Free Indeed, Free Men, Free Press, Free Society, free speech, Free Thought, Freedom, Freedom for Faith, freedom of Movement, Freedom of Religion, Freedom of speech, Freedom of the Press, Freedom of Thought, Freedom to meet, Freedoms, Germany, History, Liberty/Freedom, Life, Medical Freedom, News, Political, Politics, religion, religious freedom, Russia, Science, Soviet Russia, truth, Truth/Lies, UK/England, USA, war, Wars, World History. Leave a comment
‘Labour MP Rupa Huq is making another attempt to introduce new legislation that would ban any sort of prayer, protest or support offered to people outside of abortion clinics across the country.
In an amendment to the Public Order Bill, the proposed text suggests that anyone found within these censorship zones – which constitute a 150m radius around abortion clinics – could face a fine or six months’ imprisonment, and if found for a second time, could even face up to two years in prison.
To be clear, these punishments are reserved for anyone who “interferes with any person’s decision to access, provide or facilitate the provision of abortion services in that buffer zone.”
However, ‘interferes with’ is further broken down, making it clear that it targets anyone who might be there to offer appropriate support and advice to women looking for help. The amendment lays out that ‘interferes with’ can be defined as:
“(a) seeks to influence; or
(b) persistently, continuously or repeatedly occupies; or
(c) Impedes or threatens; or
(d) intimidates or harasses; or
(e) advises or persuades, attempts to advise or persuade, or otherwise expresses opinion; or
(f) informs or attempts to inform about abortion services by any means, including, without limitation, graphic, physical, verbal or written means; or
(g) sketches, photographs, records, stores, broadcasts, or transmits images, audio, likeness or personal data or any person without express consent.”
The growing use of ‘buffer zones’
The effort to shut down the pro-life voice by any means is sadly not new. In fact, the proposed amendment is simply the re-tabling of the same amendment brought forward by Ms Huq in 2021, which ended up not being put to a vote after opposition from Parliament and the public.
However, an increasing number of local councils have gone out of their way to enact Public Space Protection Orders (PSPOs), which essentially have the same legal effect as creating a so-called ‘buffer zone’.
Most famously, in October 2019, Christian Hacking became the first person to be arrested for publicly praying in front of an abortion clinic, in violation of the UK’s first ‘buffer zone’ in Ealing, West London. Since then, two more ‘buffer zones’ have been created in the UK, effectively silencing the pro-life voice outside abortion clinics.
More recently, Birmingham City Council has consulted on creating a new PSPO around another abortion clinic, arguing that it was in the ‘public interest’ to protect residents from allegedly ‘violent protestors’. Pro-life group 40 Days for Life, which regularly sets up peaceful prayer vigils outside abortion clinics (far enough away from the entrance so as not to cause disturbance), was accused by the council of sending ‘violent protestors’ to the Robert Clinic, Birmingham, who allegedly harass and interrogate the public. Yet the council failed to recognise that in reality, it is the pro-life volunteers who regularly face harassment from the public.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w_sGmizYSQs Lots of foul language against those praying for those seeking an abortion.
Yet in reality, these zones are really ‘censorship zones’. The real purpose of them is shut down any form of pro-life action, prayer or support, outside of abortion clinics. In effect, this gives priority to a pro-abortion viewpoint over a pro-life viewpoint.
Even pro-abortion MP Kit Malthouse seemed to point out the hypocrisy of so-called ‘buffer zones’ during the second reading of the Public Order Bill in the House of Commons, commenting:
“I am honestly and genuinely perplexed by the argument about buffer zones … I understand the sensitivity in that particular situation, but why is it that we object to and are willing to restrict that particular form of protest, but not others?”
The pro-life presence outside abortion clinics in the UK is a peaceful one, with most groups setting up prayer vigils or silent demonstrations, with the occasional leaflet or booklet being offered to those who pass by.
Many women – and men – have been helped by these pro-lifers outside abortion clinics, being shown there are other options to abortion. For example, Danny and Carla were helped by 40 Days for Life outside an abortion clinic when they felt they had no other choice than to terminate Carla’s pregnancy. They are now proud parents to baby Betsy.
Similarly, the testimonies of those helped by abortion pill reversal suggest a growing number of women who regret choosing abortion, and point to a much-needed pro-life presence outside abortion clinics.
It makes sense for the pro-life movement to be present outside the very place it objects to; much as you might find animal rights’ protestors outside shops that sell fur or products tested on animals. The difference is, those with a pro-life point of view are effectively being told their views aren’t valid and must be shut down, even when they cause no disruption.
In turn, this essentially allows ideological abortion providers to hide all opposition to what they’re doing to where no one can see it. It lets them keep women, who may be being coerced or uncertain about their decision, on the abortion conveyor belt that always ends in the ‘choice’ to abort.
Breach of human rights
These censorship zones effectively breach freedom of religion and belief by banning a pro-life viewpoint from being expressed within a certain area. They are also a wildly disproportionate response to the activity that generally goes on outside abortion clinics.
Article 9 of the Human Rights Act in the UK protects freedom of thought, belief and religion, which Article 10 protects the right to freedom of expression. Similarly, Article 11 of the European Convention of Human Rights provides freedom of assembly, meaning that everyone, no matter the cause, has a right to protest, demonstrate or march in a public space – which includes outside abortion clinics.
The universal introduction of so-called ‘buffer zones’ would inhibit these freedoms and may well be ruled to breach human rights.
‘Buffer zones’ not supported by Parliament or public
On various occasions, both Parliament and the public have opposed the introduction of these areas of censorship around abortion clinics.’https://christianconcern.com/action/praying-outside-an-abortion-clinic-could-land-you-in-jail-for-two-years/
I don’t know anything about the movie but the Muslims won the night by getting it cancelled! Another win for the Islamists! Hmm, I wonder if this was a film that Christians were protesting what would be the outcome?
‘It is hard to overstate just how sinister the Online Safety Bill is. The gravest threat to freedom of speech since section 5 of the Public Order Act 1986, which criminalised “insulting words and behaviour”? That scarcely does it justice. Let’s settle on the most serious threat since the proposal to force state regulation on the press in the aftermath of Levison.
The Online Safety Bill, which has already had its second reading in the House of Commons, is intended to make the UK the safest place in the world to go online. If you think “safest” is code for “most heavily regulated” you’re not far wrong.
The Bill will empower Ofcom, the broadcast regulator, to fine social media companies up to 10 per cent of their global turnover if they fail to remove harmful content — and not just harmful to children, which is hard to argue with, but to adults as well.
What does the Government mean by “harmful”? The only definition the Bill offers is in clause 150, where it sets out the details of a new Harmful Communications Offence, punishable by up to two years in jail: “‘harm’ means psychological harm amounting to at least serious distress.”
But, confusingly, it won’t just be harmful content that meets this definition that the bill will force social media companies to remove. After all, this relates to a new criminal offence — and content that meets the threshold for prosecution under this new law will, by definition, be illegal. Notoriously, the Bill will also force social media companies to remove “legal but harmful” content — and exactly what that is, is anyone’s guess. I’m sure political activists and lobby groups claiming to speak on behalf of various victim groups will have a lot to say about it.
The bottom line is that stuff it is perfectly legal to say and write offline will be prohibited online. And not just mildly prohibited — YouTube or Twitter or Facebook could be fined of up to 10 per cent of their annual global turnover for a transgression — so in Facebook’s case $11.7 billion, based on its 2021 revenue.
That’s a powerful incentive for social media companies to remove anything remotely contentious — and they hardly need much encouragement. Facebook deleted 26.9 million pieces of content for violating its Community Standards on “hate speech” in the first quarter of 2020, 17 times as many as the 1.6 million instances of deleted “hate speech” in the last quarter of 2017.
More than 97 per cent of Facebook’s purged “hate speech” in the last three months of 2020 was identified by an algorithm and removed automatically. It’s a safe bet that the sensitivity dials on the algorithms social media companies use to censor questionable content will be turned up to 11 if this Bill ever becomes law.’ More of this article at https://thecritic.co.uk/issues/june-2022/why-i-fear-this-censors-charter/
‘A guide listing 37 different gender terms and sexual identities has been issued to police officers and staff to help them when dealing with members of the public.
Norfolk Constabulary’s document, ‘The + in LGBT’, explains current terminology alongside a picture of a ‘gender bread person’ – a play on gingerbread man.
Critics called it a ‘complete waste of taxpayers’ money’ last night.’ More at https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10771349/Norfolk-Constabulary-issues-inclusive-language-list-37-sexual-identities-genders.html
‘An Employment Tribunal has ruled in favour of a Christian pastor and school caretaker who was punished for a tweet that said LGBTQ pride events are harmful and should not be attended by Christians and children.
Employment Judge King ruled that Pastor Keith Waters, 55, who has been supported by the Christian Legal Centre, had been discriminated against when he was hounded out of his part-time caretaker role at the Isle of Ely primary school in 2019 following a social media maelstrom, which included a death threat.
In an important ruling, the employment tribunal found in favour of Pastor Waters’ freedom to express his biblical beliefs on human identity and sexual morality on social media.
Furthermore, the ruling finds that Christian pastors that have employment alongside their church ministries are free to express their biblical faith online without fear of losing other jobs.
Before a full Employment Tribunal in Cambridge in January 2022, Pastor Waters’ lawyer, Michael Phillips, had argued that the Isle of Ely primary school had interfered with Pastor Waters’ rights to freedom of religion, thought and expression and that the tweet that led to his forced resignation was a manifestation of his Christian beliefs.
Freedom of Speech
Handing down judgment on the case this week, Employment Judge King ruled that Pastor Waters had been discriminated against by the school, saying: ‘The fact that the claimant made the tweet outside of work on his personal account as part of his role as a Christian Minister is highly relevant. It is one thing to have rules that apply during work and something else to extend those to one’s private life outside of work.’
Judge King added that: ‘To curtail the claimant’s freedom of speech outside of work which is an important part of his role as a Christian minister and thus part of freedom to practice his religion must be done with some exercise of caution and only in the clearest cases where the rights of others are being damaged should the School intervene to prevent the claimant from preaching.
‘It is clear to us that evangelical Christian ministers will have views not necessarily shared by everyone in Society but that is part of their duty as a Christian minister to preach those beliefs.’
On whether it was lawful for the school to give Pastor Waters a final written warning, forcing him to choose between his caretaker role and freedom to ability to express the Christian faith on social media, Judge King ruled:
‘It was not proportionate to act in the way the [school] did given that the views expressed were done so as part of the claimant’s religious beliefs outside of work. The claimant relies on the risk of getting a disciplinary sanction as being the act of indirect discrimination. We accept that it was a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim for the claimant to be investigated and called to a disciplinary meeting to explore further the relationship between the tweet and his roles but we do not accept that giving the claimant a final written warning for his tweet in this context was a proportionate means of achieving the legitimate aims. Giving the claimant a final written warning did not protect the School or the Trust as it would have been confidential and not in the public domain so as far as parents were concerned the claimant would have still been employed had he not resigned.
The judge ruled that giving a final warning, unlike a public statement, would not even reduce the alleged offence caused by the tweet, and said: ‘The giving of a final written warning cannot eliminate the offence caused to others .’
Christian beliefs protected and ‘worthy of respect’
Judge King made further important points on whether Pastor Waters’ Christian beliefs are protected under the Equality Act 2010. For example, on his beliefs are ‘worthy of respect in a democratic society’ as outlined as part of the seminal Grainger PLC v Nicholson (2010) criteria of what qualifies as a ‘philosophical belief’ to be protected under the Equality Act, Judge King said:
‘We discussed the claimant’s beliefs and we were satisfied that the claimant genuinely held these beliefs and that they formed a considerable part of how he lived his life as a Christian minister for his Church. To the claimant they were cogent, serious and of the upmost importance.’
‘We spent more time considering the last of the Grainger requirements and whether all of the claimant’s beliefs are worthy of respect in a democratic society and in particular his views on sexual relationships being only within heterosexual marriage as these may be said to conflict with the fundamental rights of others.
‘However, it is clear that the same could be said about some other aspects of Christianity which could conflict with other religions. This does not mean that they are not capable of being respected. Whilst a majority may not share those views, the claimant is entitled to hold them. This is of course different to how those beliefs manifest themselves and to the specific issues in this case.’
Furthermore, she said: ‘Beliefs which are offensive, shocking or even disturbing to others can still be protected.’
Relieved and delighted
Responding to the outcome Pastor Waters said:
“I am relieved and pleased with the outcome. This is a victory, not just for me, but for Christian evangelical leaders across the country.
“I pray that this ruling will help protect Pastors in the future that have to work part time in other jobs to make up their income. This is an important win for our freedom to speak the truth of the gospel without fear of losing our jobs.
“I took legal action, not because I wanted to sue the school, but because what happens to me goes to the heart of what it means to be free to preach the gospel in the UK. I believed the issues my case raised were much bigger than anything that was happening to me and that it was the right thing to do.
“Despite knowing this was the right thing to do, this whole episode has left me in some emotional turmoil and has taken a lasting toll on me and my family. In 37 years of employment, I have never been treated in such a heartless and hostile way. The freedom to resign from your job or be silenced from speaking as a Christian pastor is no freedom at all.
“I still stand by what I said, and I’ll always stand up for the truth. I believe that children’s safety is paramount, and that everyone, but especially Christian pastors, must be able to voice concerns and ‘raise red flags’ where children may be at risk”.
“Anyone who attends a ‘Pride’ event risks being exposed to obscenities. That is self-evidently harmful for children and in a free, responsible and truly loving society we must be free to say that and raise concern without fear.”
Andrea Williams, chief executive of the Christian Legal Centre, said: “We are happy that Keith has finally received justice in this crucial case for Christian freedom.
“For loving Jesus, speaking biblical truth, and caring for the welfare of children, Keith became persona non grata – his words and intentions distorted, his character assassinated.
“Our schools and churches need more community-minded people like him, not less. For sending one tweet, that raised genuine concern for children, he was vilified, threatened and hounded out of his employment.
“Despite an abundance of psychological studies concluding that children exposed to sexually explicit content at an early age are more likely to develop disorders and addictions, there are many articles online that encourage parents to bring their children to Pride parades.
“Why should a Christian pastor not be able to speak out on such concerning issues without being threatened and losing his job?
“What happened to Keith Waters is the latest in a long line of cases where honest, kind, normal people are subjected to harassment and intimidation for expressing moderate, mainstream Christian views on sexual ethics.”‘ For more of this story go to https://christianconcern.com/news/pastor-who-warned-against-lgbtq-pride-events-wins-discrimination-case/
Yep, ‘Until last week, the British government offered the best source of raw data on the efficacy of the Covid vaccines. Each Thursday, the UK Health Security Agency reported the number of new infections, hospitalizations, and deaths by vaccine status.
Since last fall, and especially since the Omicron variant hit, the reports have presented an increasingly dismal picture of vaccine efficacy. Last week’s report showed that in March, nearly 90 percent of adults hospitalized for Covid were vaccinated. And OVER 90 percent of deaths were in the vaccinated:
The importance of these reports is hard to overstate.
They were the single best source of raw data about how well the Covid vaccines were or were not working anywhere in the world. It was a long-running sequential series with clearly defined rules from a large country with high vaccine coverage.
Plus, because the British have national health insurance, the government could determine with near-certainty who had been vaccinated. As you can see, fewer than 1 percent of the people in the reports are called “unlinked” – meaning their vaccine status was undetermined.
AS OF THIS WEEK’S REPORT THE BRITISH GOVERNMENT IS NO LONGER PROVIDING THESE CHARTS.
The British government is offering the nonsensical excuse that it can no longer provide the figures because it has ended free universal testing for Covid: Such changes in testing policies affect the ability to robustly monitor COVID-19 cases by vaccination status, therefore, from the week 14 report onwards this section of the report will no longer be published.
The British government is lying.
Even if the end of free testing somehow affected its ability to provide “robust” data about infections, it would make no difference to the hospitalization or death figures, which are far more important. Unless Covid patients are going to be hospitalized anonymously, the Health Security Agency will still be able to match their names (and the names on death certificates) against vaccination records.
In fact the British government would be derelict not to continue to collect the data, and it surely will. But the public will no longer see it.
One reason and one reason only. Ever since I mentioned the existence of these reports to Joe Rogan in October, they have become an embarrassment. They are impossible to spin, and the clearest possible signal of vaccine failure.
But hiding the numbers won’t make the vaccines work better. It will just make people less likely to believe anything else public health authorities tell them about Covid and the vaccines – if that’s even possible at this point.’https://alexberenson.substack.com/p/the-british-are-now-officially-hiding?s=r
‘As reported earlier by Richard Abelson — Leading British Islam critic Tommy Robinson was detained in Mexico landing at Cancun Friday and threatened with deportation, Gateway Pundit reveals exclusively.
A customs officer detaining Tommy told him the detention was “for United States”.
When Tommy, whose real name is Stephen Yaxley-Lennon, asked the customs guard for the reason he was being detained, the office told him the orders were “confidential from Mexico City” and for reasons of “national security.”
Tommy has visited Cancun twice without any issues. Speaking to the officer, Tommy noted he had had not committed any crime in Mexico. “What I do in my home country is, I criticize Islam.”
“Ah, that was the reason”, the customs guard replied. Then the officer seemed to misspeak. “For United States… I can’t say the word, but for that reason Mexico do not allow you to enter.”
Later, Mexican border officials told Tommy possibly the UK government was behind it.
So is the failing Biden Regime telling other countries not to let in critics of Islam?
On Sunday Tommy Robinson returned back home to Britain. Upon arriving at the airport a British police officer roughed Tommy up in what he says was an attempt to provoke him.
Here is the copper roughing me up in the airport, no doubt in the hope he provoked me into a reaction so he could do me for a bullshit assault on a copper charge.
So I’m a national security threat in Mexico according to the British government, but could legally come back to the UK and system pigs had to try and bait me into a reaction so they could arrest me legitimately.
You failed you wankers.