Manchester council set to ban anti abortion protests outside clinics.

Manchester is the second council in the UK to propose such a ban. Last week Ealing council in London overwhelmingly voted in favour  to draw up a public space order to prevent pro life supports demonstrating outside clinics harassing the women entering the clinics.

Should protesters be allowed to voice their concerns freely, or are the councils right in banning their right to free speech outside the abortion clinics.

https://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/greater-manchester-news/manchester-council-ban-abortion-protests-14195314

"Manchester council could ban anti-abortion protests outside clinics to protect women from harassment.

Councillors will this morning debate a motion proposing to ‘explore every possible option’ and ‘take all necessary actions within its powers’ to stop women being ‘intimidated and harassed’ outside clinics in the city.
The proposals follow a similar move in London.
They say women in the city are being followed, recorded and questioned when they enter or leave Manchester’s abortion centres, while ‘graphic’ leaflets featuring ‘dismembered foetuses’ are distributed outside.
‘Significant’ numbers have reported feeling intimidated and distressed as a result, according to those behind the motion.

It is understood vigils outside the Marie Stopes clinic in Fallowfield have been creating particular concern for the council."

My opinion is...even though I do support free speech, in this event I believe the women who enter the clinics should not be harassed and traumatised any more than they are...no doubt its a heart breaking decision for many, they don't need some stranger forcing their views in their faces..

The pro lifers go far beyond peaceful protests, and they have no idea of the reasons the women have chosen abortion.
Its a medical matter, between the woman and her Dr...no one elses business really.

Syl wrote:My opinion is...even though I do support free speech, in this event I believe the women who enter the clinics should not be harassed and traumatised any more than they are...no doubt its a heart breaking decision for many, they don't need some stranger forcing their views in their faces..

The pro lifers go far beyond peaceful protests, and they have no idea of the reasons the women have chosen abortion.
Its a medical matter, between the woman and her Dr...no one elses business really.

Agreed. I think people are under the illusion that having an abortion is an easy choice. Very often it's not, and can leave you traumatized for life. It's a woman's body and her choice. For way too long women have been dictated to in this fashion by men and misogynistic societies and religions.

I heard a discussion on local radio this morning....one of the pro lifers was speaking, saying she would carry on protesting outside the Manchester clinic.
When asked if she harassed women she denied it, she said she simply approached them to ask if they were having an abortion and why.
What bloody business is it of hers.

Its been reported that this group throw holy water on the women as they enter, and shove horrific photos in their faces of late aborted babies.

My free speech zone is supposed to be the entire country. Unfortunately, that is now just the case in a bygone era where people could handle words they didn't like.

Maddog wrote:My free speech zone is supposed to be the entire country. Unfortunately, that is now just the case in a bygone era where people could handle words they didn't like.    

I don't really see how the pro lifers can complain that their free speech is being eroded....they can say what they like, just not WHERE they like.
Women have a right to seek medical help without rabid zealots throwing holy water on them, blocking their way into the clinic, and shoving literature in their faces.

Had the protests been peaceful I doubt it would have come to this.

There would be far more abortions if there wasn’t such a stigma attached to it. That’s my thought on the subject.

Syl wrote:

Maddog wrote:My free speech zone is supposed to be the entire country. Unfortunately, that is now just the case in a bygone era where people could handle words they didn't like.    

I don't really see how the pro lifers can complain that their free speech is being eroded....they can say what they like, just not WHERE they like.
Women have a right to seek medical help without rabid zealots throwing holy water on them, blocking their way into the clinic,  and shoving literature in their faces.

Had the protests been peaceful I doubt it would have come to this.

As long as these rules are applied to other groups, there would be some semblance of fairness. But you can't single out specific groups and locations.

And there are already laws in place to handle non peaceful people

Free speech is fine... so are demonstrations... but harassing people in public is not allowed, and there are already laws against it... Sec 5 of the Public Order Act...

eddie wrote:There would be far more abortions if there wasn’t such a stigma attached to it. That’s my thought on the subject.

I have to disagree. I don't think there are many stigmas or morals left these days. I don't think for one moment some women care two hoots about getting an abortion. But I do think many don't take it lightly, and not for any moralistic reason, or stigma. It'll be necessity as they see it, albeit a very sad one, and one that might stay with them forever as a sadness. Each will have their reasons for it. Some more than others. Who is anyone else to condemn it?

There are plenty of women who see babies as a meal ticket.

I agree with the council.
The Prolifers can get the appropriate permits and hold a rally in a park, if they want to exercise their free speech

veya_victaous wrote:I agree with the council.
The Prolifers can get the appropriate permits and hold a rally in a park, if they want to exercise their free speech  

Just the pro lifers, or everyone that want's to exercise their free speech?

Good on the council.

Maddog wrote:

veya_victaous wrote:I agree with the council.
The Prolifers can get the appropriate permits and hold a rally in a park, if they want to exercise their free speech  

Just the pro lifers, or everyone that want's to exercise their free speech?  

Everyone that wants to organize a political rally, that is the law even the neo nazis in charlottesville could follow it

veya_victaous wrote:

Maddog wrote:
Just the pro lifers, or everyone that want's to exercise their free speech?  

Everyone that wants to organize a political rally, that is the law even the neo nazis in charlottesville could follow it  

So people shouldn't be allowed to protest outside of a neo Nazi meeting? They should be forced to protest in the park down the street?

What about political rallies? No opposition protests anywhere but the park down the street?

Maddog wrote:
My free speech zone is supposed to be the entire country. Unfortunately, that is now just the case in a bygone era where people could handle words they didn't like.    

The best way to deal with "protestors" outside of abortion clinics, and 'Westbro Baptist' type goons outside of anywhere ???

A baseball bat around the ears..

veya_victaous wrote:I agree with the council.
The Prolifers can get the appropriate permits and hold a rally in a park, if they want to exercise their free speech  

I agree with you Veya, no one wants to stifle free speech, but it can be done in a beneficial way for all.

HoratioTarr wrote:

eddie wrote:There would be far more abortions if there wasn’t such a stigma attached to it. That’s my thought on the subject.

I have to disagree.   I don't think there are many stigmas or morals left these days.   I don't think for one moment some women care two hoots about getting an abortion.   But I do think many don't take it lightly, and not for any moralistic reason, or stigma.   It'll be necessity as they see it, albeit a very sad one, and one that might stay with them forever as a sadness.     Each will have their reasons for it.  Some more than others.    Who is anyone else to condemn it?

There are  plenty of women who see babies as  a meal ticket.

You’re kidding. I’ve known so many women get pregnant and tell all us other mums with a sigh and a look of “holy fuck” on their face and when asked “Aren’t you happy about it?” The answer is “Well not really but you know.....”
And I say out loud “Don’t have it then”

And you should see the looks of horror and surprise on all their faces.

You cant tell me there’s no stigma! There’s always stigma! And it’s always an uncomfortable truth for people to talk about. I’ve seen it over and over and over again.

I’ve no idea why you haven’t witnessed that.

Throwing anything on someone else is assault surely, especially these days with acid attacks, how long before some numb skull subsititutes acid for holy water. Free speech and demonstrating is one thing approaching and questioning someone in the way they seem to do is quite another.

Vintage wrote:Throwing anything on someone else is assault surely, especially these days with acid attacks, how long before some numb skull subsititutes acid for holy water. Free speech and demonstrating is one thing approaching and questioning someone in the way they seem to do is quite another.

Some of them are religious zealots kneeling and praying blocking the women as they try to enter the clinic...and we know how unhinged religious zealots can be.

I'm anti abortion but agree to some circumstances. I wouldn't stand outside shouting abuse though.

I,m just a man, but i think what a Woman wants to do with her own body is no ones business but her own,and as for a man demonstrating outside the clinic he can fuck off for a start !

Syl wrote:

veya_victaous wrote:I agree with the council.
The Prolifers can get the appropriate permits and hold a rally in a park, if they want to exercise their free speech  

I agree with you Veya, no one wants to stifle free speech, but it can be done in a beneficial way for all.

Lots of people want to stifle free speech.

Maddog wrote:

Syl wrote:

I agree with you Veya, no one wants to stifle free speech, but it can be done in a beneficial way for all.

Lots of people want to stifle free speech.  

I'm talking about in this case and responding to Veyas comment which was....

"I agree with the council.
The Prolifers can get the appropriate permits and hold a rally in a park, if they want to exercise their free speech"  

The council are not trying to stifle free speech, they are aiming to stop women being harassed as they enter and leave the abortion clinics.

Syl wrote:

Maddog wrote:

Lots of people want to stifle free speech.  

I'm talking about in this case and responding to Veyas comment which was....

"I agree with the council.
The Prolifers can get the appropriate permits and hold a rally in a park, if they want to exercise their free speech"  

The council are not trying to stifle  free speech, they are aiming to stop women being harassed as they enter and leave the abortion clinics.

One person's free speech is another person's harrasment.

Maddog wrote:

Syl wrote:

I'm talking about in this case and responding to Veyas comment which was....

"I agree with the council.
The Prolifers can get the appropriate permits and hold a rally in a park, if they want to exercise their free speech"  

The council are not trying to stifle  free speech, they are aiming to stop women being harassed as they enter and leave the abortion clinics.

One person's free speech is another person's harrasment.  

Well in this case it is harassment...hence the councils decision to make it stop by banning the protesters from certain areas..

Syl wrote:

Maddog wrote:

One person's free speech is another person's harrasment.  

Well in this case it is harassment...hence the councils decision to make it stop by banning the protesters from certain areas..

Well, most people hearing things that they don't like feel harrased. When I was married my wife harassed me all the time about silly stuff. At least in my mind it was harassment because I didn't want to hear it and found it annoying.

Maddog wrote:

Syl wrote:

Well in this case it is harassment...hence the councils decision to make it stop by banning the protesters from certain areas..

Well, most people hearing things that they don't like feel harrased. When I was married my wife harassed me all the time about silly stuff.  At least in my mind it was harassment because I didn't want to hear it and found it annoying.  

Possibly why she is now your ex?

Maddog, pro-lifers can preach as much as they want, but when they continuously hassle already traumatised women, reports have now come in that some women have been spit on as they try to fight through these nutters....its time to move them on.
They are not being silenced, they are being shifted.

Syl wrote:

Maddog wrote:


Well, most people hearing things that they don't like feel harrased. When I was married my wife harassed me all the time about silly stuff.  At least in my mind it was harassment because I didn't want to hear it and found it annoying.  

Possibly why she is now your ex?    

Maddog, pro-lifers can preach as much as they want, but when they continuously hassle already traumatised women, reports have now come in that some women have been spit on as they try to fight through these nutters....its time to move them on.
They are not being silenced, they are being shifted.

Spitting is assault, not speech. I support free speech, not free assault.


I think she's my ex because she exercised too much damn free speech.

I'm not against abortion but I would prefer prevention, it's legal so get over it, it has to be better than back street abortions where so many women died or had their ability to carry a child in future destroyed. I know that it is misused by some.
Before it was legal, if you had the money and the connections you could go to a clinic and be treated for 'women's problems' while those without that kind of wherewithall or connections had little in the way of options, back street abortionists or be sent away in shame to mother and baby units, where at best you were treated as a problem to be solved in private or if in a religious institution - then god help you, you were a sinner of the worst kind, treated with the least compassion possible.
Will these people who demonstrate against abortion personally support the women financially if they keep their child, or offer to adopt it, what about rape, ok its not the child's fault, but why should someone's criminal behaviour be allowed to impact the victim all her life. The woman is already a living being, a child is a potential living being until its able to survive outside the womb, so if an abortion is to be perfomed it should be as early as possible.

Maddog wrote:

Syl wrote:

Possibly why she is now your ex?    

Maddog, pro-lifers can preach as much as they want, but when they continuously hassle already traumatised women, reports have now come in that some women have been spit on as they try to fight through these nutters....its time to move them on.
They are not being silenced, they are being shifted.

Spitting is assault, not speech. I support free speech, not free assault.


I think she's my ex because she exercised too much damn free speech.

Throwing water is an assault too...even if it is holy, shouting in someones face, thrusting pictures under their nose, hustling and shoving, all goes beyond free speech doesn't it?

So you fight for free speech...apart from when your ex indulged.

Syl wrote:

Maddog wrote:

Spitting is assault, not speech. I support free speech, not free assault.


I think she's my ex because she exercised too much damn free speech.

Throwing water is an assault too...even if it is holy, shouting in someones face, thrusting pictures under their nose, hustling and shoving, all goes beyond free speech doesn't it?

So you fight for free speech...apart from when your ex indulged.

Yes, all of those things are illegal. Arrest people that engage in it.

My ex is still free to engage in free speech. I just choose to be someplace where I don't have to listen to it, except about 6 times a year. I'm sure she's still speeching her ass off.

Maddog wrote:

Syl wrote:

Throwing water is an assault too...even if it is holy, shouting in someones face, thrusting pictures under their nose, hustling and shoving, all goes beyond free speech doesn't it?

So you fight for free speech...apart from when your ex indulged.

Yes, all of those things are illegal. Arrest people that engage in it.

My ex is still free to engage in free speech. I just choose to be someplace where I don't have to listen to it, except about 6 times a year. I'm sure she's still speeching her ass off.  

These pro-lifers are there all the time, outside abortion clinics, hustling and mithering women....far better to just ban them and their antics from designated places than keep calling police out.
The council are imo 100% right...hopefully more will follow.

Vintage wrote:I'm not against abortion but I would prefer prevention, it's legal so get over it, it has to be better than back street abortions where so many women died or had their ability to carry a child in future destroyed. I know that it is misused by some.
Before it was legal, if you had the money and the connections you could go to a clinic and be treated for 'women's problems' while those  without that kind of wherewithall or connections had little in the way of options, back street abortionists or be sent away in shame to mother and baby units, where at best you were treated as a problem to be solved in private or if in a religious institution - then god help you, you were a sinner of the worst kind, treated with the least compassion possible.  
Will these people who demonstrate against abortion personally support the women financially if they keep their child, or offer to adopt it, what about rape, ok its not the child's fault, but why should someone's criminal behaviour be allowed to impact the victim all her life. The woman is already a living being, a child is a potential living being until its able to survive outside the womb, so if an abortion is to be perfomed it should be as early as possible.

Well put.

eddie wrote:

HoratioTarr wrote:

I have to disagree.   I don't think there are many stigmas or morals left these days.   I don't think for one moment some women care two hoots about getting an abortion.   But I do think many don't take it lightly, and not for any moralistic reason, or stigma.   It'll be necessity as they see it, albeit a very sad one, and one that might stay with them forever as a sadness.     Each will have their reasons for it.  Some more than others.    Who is anyone else to condemn it?

There are  plenty of women who see babies as  a meal ticket.

You’re kidding.  I’ve known so many women get pregnant and tell all us other mums with a sigh and a look of “holy fuck” on their face and when asked “Aren’t you happy about it?” The answer is “Well not really but you know.....”
And I say out loud “Don’t have it then”

And you should see the looks of horror and surprise on all their faces.

You cant tell me there’s no stigma! There’s always stigma! And it’s always an uncomfortable truth for people to  talk about.  I’ve seen it over and over and over again.

I’ve no idea why you haven’t witnessed that.  

The stigma seems to be attached to those condemning it rather than those who choose to have a termination. If not, there'd be no terminations....as we can see from the protesters, who want to ram 'stigma' down others' throats.

Syl wrote:

Maddog wrote:

Yes, all of those things are illegal. Arrest people that engage in it.

My ex is still free to engage in free speech. I just choose to be someplace where I don't have to listen to it, except about 6 times a year. I'm sure she's still speeching her ass off.  

These pro-lifers are there all the time, outside abortion clinics, hustling and mithering women....far better to just ban them and their antics from designated places than keep calling police out.
The council are imo 100% right...hopefully more will follow.

So part time free speech would be OK. Ban anyone too determined?

Maddog wrote:

Syl wrote:

These pro-lifers are there all the time, outside abortion clinics, hustling and mithering women....far better to just ban them and their antics from designated places than keep calling police out.
The council are imo 100% right...hopefully more will follow.

So part time free speech would be OK.  Ban anyone too determined?

The council could set up a "Protestors Corner" in a local park...

Along the lines of a 'Poets' Corner', but in this case in the furtherest, dankest and dampest corner..

Where those pesky protest groups could assail one another to their hearts' content, and where the good and sensible citizenry don't have to listen to them.

Maddog wrote:

Syl wrote:

These pro-lifers are there all the time, outside abortion clinics, hustling and mithering women....far better to just ban them and their antics from designated places than keep calling police out.
The council are imo 100% right...hopefully more will follow.

So part time free speech would be OK.  Ban anyone too determined?

Just ban them all....save the messing about sorting them into groups.

WhoseYourWolfie wrote:

Maddog wrote:

So part time free speech would be OK.  Ban anyone too determined?

The council could set up a "Protestors Corner" in a local park...

Along the lines of a 'Poets' Corner',  but in this case in the furtherest, dankest and dampest corner..

Where those pesky protest groups could assail one another to their hearts' content, and where the good and sensible citizenry don't have to listen to them.

I like that idea.    In America, the way around the strong First Amendment is to use time/place restrictions.  Those are constitutionally permissible.

Your idea would be a reasonable 'place' restriction.

Syl wrote:

Maddog wrote:

So part time free speech would be OK.  Ban anyone too determined?

Just ban them all....save the messing about sorting them into groups.

And off to the Gulag if they don't listen!!

Original Quill wrote:

WhoseYourWolfie wrote:


The council could set up a "Protestors Corner" in a local park...

Along the lines of a 'Poets' Corner',  but in this case in the furtherest, dankest and dampest corner..

Where those pesky protest groups could assail one another to their hearts' content, and where the good and sensible citizenry don't have to listen to them.

I like that idea.    In America, the way around the strong First Amendment is to use time/place restrictions.  Those are constitutionally permissible.

Your idea would be a reasonable 'place' restriction.

That's usually only done for political conventions. Keeps the politicians from having to hear dissent.

Maddog wrote:

Syl wrote:

Just ban them all....save the messing about sorting them into groups.

And off to the Gulag if they don't listen!!  

That's a bit harsh, but if you think that's right who am I to argue?

Maddog wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

I like that idea.    In America, the way around the strong First Amendment is to use time/place restrictions.  Those are constitutionally permissible.

Your idea would be a reasonable 'place' restriction.

That's usually only done for political conventions. Keeps the politicians from having to hear dissent.  

But it's useful in this context, too.  Britain doesn't have a First Amendment, so they don't have that problem.  Nevertheless, it's a useful suggestion to prevent the kinds of demonstrations that we have in this country.

Original Quill wrote:

Maddog wrote:

That's usually only done for political conventions. Keeps the politicians from having to hear dissent.  

But it's useful in this context, too.  Britain doesn't have a First Amendment, so they don't have that problem.  Nevertheless, it's a useful suggestion to prevent the kinds of demonstrations that we have in this country.

I see no need to prevent free speech.  In fact, I think preventing free speech may be one of the most dangerous things government can do.  Look at how Trump is leaning on the press? Do you want him having more power?  I sure as hell don't.