Girl's Behavior 
Guy's Behavior 
Flirting 
Dating 
Relationships 
Fashion & Beauty 
Health & Fitness 
Marriage & Weddings 
Shopping & Gifts 
Technology & Internet 
Break Up & Divorce 
Education & Career 
Entertainment & Arts 
Family & Friends 
Food & Beverage 
Hobbies & Leisure 
Other 
Religion & Spirituality 
Society & Politics 
Sports 
Travel 
Trending & News 
What is your opinion?
Add Opinion
Superb Opinion
Anonymous(45 Plus)+1 yThe second part of this has been addressed previously on this site, the fact of the matter is that those religious people had been interfering with the clinic over a long period of time, they were invited politely and firmly over a long period of time to fuck off and mind their own business but they refused, continued to harass people and a restraining order / exclusion zone was set up. That is what the woman is being arrested for violating the exclusion zone and she knows damn well that she isn't allowed to be there because she has been told again and again and again. She is a fucking troll and should be banged up.
Regarding the first part which is new to me I will explain the position;
People in the UK have a protected right to freely express their sexuality in any manner they choose with a consenting adult partner or partners.
As such it was inappropriate for the priest, who was acting as a representative of the hospital, to tell the patient that their life choices are wrong.
Religious freedom does not extend to oppressing the rights of other people.
The priest is complaining that he is being wrongfully terminated but this simply not the case; the long and the short of it is that he can't do the job.
We are not talking about some random fucking priest who has been invited in off the street to do whatever the fuck he wants like he owns the place or he is on his own time here.
There are multiple lengthy documents clearly listing and defining the standards which must be met any a person in this role, just as there is for every fucking job in the NHS.
This guy has been doing this along time and he fucking damn well knows that he expressly forbidden to proselytise so when he 'is asked what he thinks about homosexuality' he is not infact being asked what he thinks, he is not at liberty to disclose what he personally thinks about homosexuality, he isn't being asked to use his own judgement about the interpretation of religious text, he is not there to change anyones mind, pass judgement, to educate, inform, instruct or otherwise modify anyones belief or choices about anything.
The role is to provide comfort and support etc in a manner which is beneficial for and in the interests of the patient.
That is what the fucking job is and it doesn't matter if they are paid or volunteers, they are expect to conduct themselves to the required standards and if they can't then they can't be there.
The priest says quote 'I didn't try to push it on him, I just sort of laid it out to try to open his mind slowly about it, and it wasn't a confrontational talk' it doesn't matter how gently or in what manner he is approaching the subject, he is not there to 'open minds' he has been explictly and expressly forbidden from doing this and he is fully aware of this fact.
Quote from the Chaplaincy code of conduct: Patients and service users have a right to expect that chaplaincy care will be experienced as neither insensitive nor proselytising.
136 Reply- Opinion Owner+1 y
As I say, its not like that is the first time that has ever happened and nazi fucking stormtroopers turn up to oppress her for thought crime.
The entire fucking church that she goes to has been harassing the clinic for ages, months.
The police have been called out to the place a million times and its been to court and new fucking laws had to be created to deal with these trolls.
There is only one place in the entire fucking country where that (being told you are not allowed to pray even silently to yourself) can happen and it exists because of those people, it was created for them because they just won't fucking let it go.
That fucking trolling bitch in the photograph should be in a prison. - Opinion Owner+1 y
I haven't even made this clear enough.
Everyone else stopped.
The exclusion zone was created specifically because of and exclusively for that particular woman, I mean i obviously technically it applies to everyone but she is the only person who is enough of an asshole to actually invoke it. - Opinion Owner+1 y
You misunderstand completely.
No one is being prevented from expressing any view at all, it is a protected right.
You can have a KKK rally in the UK.
You can run for government with KKK policies.
What you can't do is claim that your freedom allows you to reduce the freedom of someone else.
There is a time and a place, context matters.
Furthermore what you claimed isn't entire true, you have hundreds of thousands of people petitioning to designate the KKK a terrorist group, so clearly not everyone is 'handling it'.
Also you allow people to have angry violence inciting protests outside of your abortion clinics which has resulted in 11? murders? So no you aren't 'handling it'.
Doing fuck all and having a bunch of dead people lying around isn't handling something is just ignoring it and letting it happen, which is fine, I understand the principle but don't then claim to be 'handling it', because that simply isn't true. - Opinion Owner+1 y
Did you even read anything I said to you?
- Opinion Owner+1 y
Literally any of it?
Because you are demonstrating a profound lack of understanding on the subject. - Opinion Owner+1 y
11 might be a low number compared to 1000 but it is a high number compared to zero, things are relative.
- Opinion Owner+1 y
That woman can do exactly what she is doing 100 yards down the road.
She just can't do it exactly where she is standing and she can't do it because she has been trolling that place for a long long time, doing far more than just standing around.
lol the same feeling about me?
Pathetic, it doesn't apply. - Opinion Owner+1 y
can't have zero?
Pretty much every other country in the fucking world has zero. - +1 y
I don't care what she didn't pass, all she did was stand there silently. There's nothing you can say that can get away from that fact. Unless she has made bomb threats or something, she's not causing any harm to anyone.
Have you forgotten that every country in the world has criminals that don't care about the little laws you make? Acid and knives will replace guns and of course there is the black market. - Opinion Owner+1 y
You don't like the solution, ok, that's a valid position and i have explictly stated that you can take that position if you want, I totally understand it but what you can't do is take that position and then claim that you are 'handling it' because you aren't. You do not protect peoples rights and freedoms in America.
11 fucking murders is NOT protection.
This woman not being allowed to silently pray INSIDE THE EXCLUSION ZONE WHICH HAD TO BE CREATED BECAUSE OF HER, is the compromise action taken SO THAT EVERYONES RIGHTS ARE PROTECTED AND MAXIMISED.
How can you possibly not fucking grasp the extremely fucking simple premise that originally she could have done exactly what she is doing now, SHE MADE IT ILLEGAL though her actions.
We have fucking spent hundreds of thousands of fucking pounds on this fucking trolling bitch making sure that we are doing EVERY FUCKING THING POSSIBLE TO MAXIMISE HER FREEDOM WHILE SIMULATNEOUSLY RESPECTING AND PROTECTING THE RIGHTS OF OTHER PEOPLE FROM HER.
You act like someone thought a person might be praying and then nazi stormtroopers turned up and started clubbing her to death.
Your attitude is absurd and profoundly fucking ignorant.
You deliberately refuse to understand anything about this situation, what is happening, why its happening.
You fucking arrogantly pretend that you live in a 'free country' where awful shit like this doesn't happen, its ridiculous, in your fucking country the police get fucking told over and over and over again that people are threatening them with death and they just dont do anything about it.
The attitude outside of America is that being free to be dead isn't freedom at all.
- Opinion Owner+1 y
As for this;
Quote
Have you forgotten that every country in the world has criminals that don't care about the little laws you make? Acid and knives will replace guns and of course there is the black market.
What the fuck are you talking about?
Relevance? - +1 y
More people die per year from kitchen accidents so your emotional blackmail is rather ineffective.
You are not maximizing freedom for anybody. You are a nation that is confused by a single woman protesting quietly by fucking standing there. America can figure this out, why can't you guys? It's obvious she isn't going to kill anyone.
"in your fucking country the police get fucking told over and over and over again that people are threatening them with death and they just dont do anything about it."
If you have actual proof of the death threat, then the police will help you. Incitement is not covered by the first amendment. - Opinion Owner+1 y
11 PEOPLE WERE FUCKING MUDERED YOU FUCKING MORON.
You think no one fucking called?
You think it wasn't reported ahead of time? - Opinion Owner+1 y
IF YOUR FUCKING POLICE ARE INEFFECTIVE IT doesn't FUCKING MATTER WHAT YOUR LAWS ARE.
You made the fucking point yourself and somehow still don't understand it.
Those people are fucking dead you idiot.
Kitchen accidents are completely irrelevant, its nothing to do with it. - Opinion Owner+1 y
Nice job on women's rights by the way.
You managed recently to roll back social progress about hundred years.
These are the sorts of outcomes that you are getting.
What you are doing over there is clearly objectively superior, right? - Opinion Owner+1 y
You have restraining orders in the US, how many restraining orders do you think have been issued because of abortion clinics?
That is essentially all the exclusion zone is, it just says don't interfere with the people going to the clinic, thats literally all it is.
by the way, when abortion was still legal in the US YOU had exclusion zones around abortion clinics, youve had them for at least 10 years.
Furthermore these laws which have been brought in in the UK, they are are a result of US religious groups stirring up trouble in the UK and around the world.
Not only can you not sort your own fucking shit out you are exporting your problems to other countries.
Your complaint is beyond ridiculous. - Opinion Owner+1 y
From what i can gather, America fucking invented exclusion zones and you have had them in your country for at least 30 years.
We just started having to do this shit just now because of you. - +1 y
No man, you can protest in front of abortion clinics all you want but you can't block the entrances to them in the USA.
If those zones did exist then I would want them to be abolished. We are America, we are proud and let even neo-nazis have free speech because we're just better than Europe 🤷♂️ - +1 y
"In 2014, the U. S. Supreme Court struck down the Massachusetts law that placed a 35-foot buffer zone around clinic entrances."
www.guttmacher.org/.../protecting-access-clinics
There are tons of unconstitutional laws on the books that we Americans must fight tooth and nail to remove. - Opinion Owner+1 y
Quote:
If those zones did exist then I would want them to be abolished. We are America, we are proud and let even neo-nazis have free speech because we're just better than Europe.
Unbelievably ignorant jibberish which is not supported by evidence.
Your argument by the way as you are apparently not aware of it is 'America is better because I say it is'.
Quote:
No man, you can protest in front of abortion clinics all you want but you can't block the entrances to them in the USA.
This is simply wrong. It simply isn't true. What do you want me to fucking tell you? You don't know what the fuck you are talking about.
Again quote:
we are proud and let even neo-nazis have free speech
Total fucking ignorance on your part as it has already been explained to you that Europeans have a protected right of freedom of expression, you can express any view that you want to. That freedom is protected by law.
You don't even understand the fucking issue.
You seem to think that you have superior levels of freedom when the reality is that you have inferior levels of freedom. Choosing religious freedom over the freedom to choose abortion is not 'better' just because you say it is. Those people who are dead because of this choice that was made by your legal system are not 'free' they are 'dead'.
One persons freedom ends where another persons freedom begins.
Also don't pretend that Americans care about or understand the constitution because if that were true you wouldn't have a standing army.
Are you 'fighting tooth and nail' to get that removed?
No. - +1 y
There is nothing in America stopping you from getting an abortion if you live in the right state. Women are not in danger of death because they get abortions.
Hey man, if I could I would remove the standing army as well because what good has that really done us besides World War 2? - Opinion Owner+1 y
Quote
There is nothing in America stopping you from getting an abortion if you live in the right state. Women are not in danger of death because they get abortions.
Yes, there is and they are.
There are angry fucking religious psychopaths with guns who murder them and the doctors performing the operations.
This happens because your 'freedoms' and 'rights' are NOT PROTECTED.
You just go around killing each other and if 'might is right' then functionally, the defacto situation is that you have no rights.
Nevermind a feotus having a right to life your adult population does not have a protected right to life, you have the highest murder rate in the western world by a wide margin because you aren't 'free to live' you are 'free to kill' that is the outcome which your system produces.
What does it matter what you pretend your principles are?
Look at your outcomes.
You were trying to tell me before that 11 deaths don't matter, they are necessarily broken eggs when making omelette.
In reality you have more broken eggs than we do and you don't have an omelette. - +1 y
"There are angry fucking religious psychopaths with guns who murder them and the doctors performing the operations."
*Yawn* nope. All you brought before me was, like what? 11 deaths? Are you fucking serious?
The murder rate of the USA is irrelevant to this discussion and it's much more based on economics. - Opinion Owner+1 y
Yawn?
Yes you don't like facts because they don't support your position, how annoying that I am asking you to get 'bogged down in annoyances like 'facts and objective reality'
The murder rate is not irrelevant, it demonstrates that your system does not protect your right to life as I have said already.
But whatever you don't bring anything to the table and having to say everything to you a dozen times before you begin to understand it is annoying to me.
If you want to respond again you can respond to the many things which you have just ignored.
- Opinion Owner+1 y
You are fucking idiot.
I have demonstrated through my words that I have a complete grasp of your position.
You can't even be honest. - Opinion Owner+1 y
But yes, you should go back to your fantasy world where you can pretend you know what you are talking about and that what passes for freedom in your country is as good as what others are enjoying elsewhere.
Most Helpful Opinions
2.8K opinions shared on Society & Politics topic. It is rather worse than you think Juxapose because there is no such thing as free thought in the case of the woman silently praying. At bottom is a review of this case by Black Belt Barrister who runs a very good youtube. Link at bottom.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FS5FT-4Kx7E
He finds that rights to assemble and protest are an EC (European Community) conditional right. In other words it can be proscribed by a UK council through by laws. Far far far worse is that SILENT thoughts are also a conditional right and can also be proscribed by local laws. Silent praying is silent thought. In consequence you can be arrested on a criminal charge and a Public Space Personal Order (PSPO) can be made.
In this case the woman - who foolishly admitted she might have been praying - is banned from not only praying by the abortion clinic but in any public space.
This was not discussed but I think a church would constitute a public space since anyone can go to it an enter it. So in that case the PSPO injuncts her from praying in a church. Even if she goes to a church service where praying commonly happens presumably she can be charged for breaching the PSPO.
Silent Thought crime is alive and well in the UK.
In the case of the catholic priest who was asked by a Catholic patient as to what Catholic dogmas was WTF? How could even a mentally ill patient expect a different answer to what he knew that churches doctrine is. And then attempt to sue.
It beggars the imagination. Not quite as bad as the PSPO but getting close.11 Reply
Well honestly.. what you put there is not free speech possibly
First example the hospital if its not a public one, then no.. its not free speech as a private place can set its laws as it wish, like to decide maybe not to employ someone that may be speaking against a group of there costumers even if its there belief, anyway he sued them, and the result of that will set what is the UK law about it, not just the action of the place
Second example its nice how they only say "A woman" like she is just some random person doing it, she is an activist to anti-abortion and did it in an area that is consider a type of "safe zone" for anyone that want to go get an abortion that should not be bothered, and she did it twice so both times acting as if "I did nothing wrong" in the type of the "Gocha" stuff, so basiclly she was trolling
If she decide to have pray in a public place out side of the "zone" she will have not been bother, but she put her self inside that area, I don't think it was just an innocent action, even more twice
As much as I know UK is less into Free Speech in the type of the US, but in both cases the Free Speech is only for the government not for private places, and even if you allowed to speak as you like, no one has to listenI am not really trying to take a side here, I am just trying to make this a little more on point of what seem to be missing, at least from my understanding of how that law works and all
115 Reply- +1 y
So you skip my text?
I said there very spastically that its not that she was in public, she was doing it inside the "safe zone" of the abortion clinic
And seeing that she did it twice she did it to provoke not to pray
Also you somehow completely missed the "If she decide to have pray in public place out side of the "zone" she will have not been bothered"? - +1 y
Look honestly if she was an anyone standing there just like that no one will have likely bother
How ever considering she is the head of the anti abortion movement in that area, I am pretty sure the reason she did it and the reason anyone respod to it is they know she was up to something
Also if she prey in her head, why will the police be called? I mean if you just stand in the street sidewalk no one call police on you
I may be confusing this with something else
But I think when this burst out last time it was revealed she did more then silent preying
And also stand and prey loadly out of buildings
Just not in an area where you not suppose to do it, that is a small area over all - +1 y
Yes, but as the head of a group against its place, she pick to stand in a place in a very set area and do that
In the end she was not there to prey, she was there to create trouble or something of that sort
Again if someone just stand somewhere, no one knows what you doing, police will have not been called
This is not that case, even if she try to roll it as such, again if it was the case, why was the police even called, no know she was prey or doing anything there right?
Or you saying she had a holy glow or something?
She is pushing her self to a location knowing what she is doing, this is not an innocent act - +1 y
I don't think you are recognizing the essential point it was silent thought that was the issue. SILENT. The woman concerned admitted to a policeman that "she might have been praying". For her to be convicted, the court has to presume what she was silently thinking. She might have been praying for Queen Elizabeth II soul or for Charles III to be given the strength to be a good king.
For criminal cases the standard of proof is 'beyond reasonable doubt' but there is no evidence possible other than she was having thoughts. That is simply Orwellian and I really don't think much more needs to be said.
- +1 y
@RavVid
There need to be said context our asker seem to be ignoring, and by this point I guess not by chance alone or mestik
The truth of things is preying was not the reason, but the who, where and why that made the police come
Again not the first time
Again not any person
And again not any public place
Context means a lot - +1 y
Please watch the video I linked. It is - in my view - reasonable to limit rights to assemble and to limit public speech if it is intended to limit lawful rights being exercised. It is quite easy to see a woman seeking an abortion might turn away if there is a large noisy pro life demonstration in front of the clinic. With higher standards of free speech I would expect many US people to disagree vehemently with my view above.
Post Brexit there is still EC legislation that applies to the UK. In this case it is EC law that applies. As part of that EC enshrines CONDITIONAL rights to assembling, to free speech AND TO FREE THOUGHT which is something of a surprise.
Conditional rights permit legislative limits to be imposed. It is quite legal to do so.
What you are doing is arguing what the law is and it is not actually written as you claim it to be. So your argument is incorrect on that point. Not only incorrect but irrelevant.
People who want laws to be different to what is written need to advocate for that.
Which is what I am doing in my own small way here in saying
1. It is offensive in the extreme that what one is silently think could be a crime.
2. It is even more offensive in the extreme that a criminal case can be at a lesser standard of "beyond a reasonable doubt".
3. It is highly unreasonable that law should extend well beyond the scope of the act that caused it to be applied.
4. It is even further offensive that criminal law can be retrospectively fitted to cover a circumstance you might wish it covered. Which is where I point out your failed logic.
Now I am not a UK citizen but am in a country whose laws derive from the UK. So as a member of the Commonwealth of Nations I feel a right to object to thought crime in another member nation. Are you a UK person living in Israel or not a UK citizen at all?
- +1 y
@RazVid.. what?
Ok lets again roll to what did happen and not try to read a crystal ball
The police come to move her away from there, they need a legal reason for it, or they breash the law
The government supply a law that honestly is kind of sad and kind of funny to give the police power for this cases
In reality I don't think the lady will face any real charges, they just want her away from giving issues, and till this don't go to court we can't know how that roll down
In the of the day this is not about praying this is about enforcing idles on someone else, sure that makes them sound worst, unlike the made up idea of being arrested for preying i. public that is not what this is really about in the end - +1 y
The woman WAS convicted of having silent thoughts and received a PSPO that will lead to a very significant fine if she has further silent thoughts in any unrelated public space.
It isn't a 'made up idea of being arrested for praying' because that is exactly what happend and it is a matter of public record that she was criminally charged and convicted for that.
You don't seem to be grasping either the events or what the particular law says. Did you watch the link for the legal diagnosis by the barrister at all?
I am not sure if 'idles' was meant to be 'ideas' but it cannot be enforcing ideas on someone else if it consists of silent unspoken thoughts. That is simply impossible. - +1 y
@RavVid
Lets roll back a little as you seem to miss understand
I am not talking about the law, that I agree its wrong to have like that
But I do think in this again this case alone its justifyed for a few reasons
1. she was not only in the zone, she was outside the entrance
2. She did it more then once
3. She is not any person on the street she is the head of anti abortion
4. From the video she was asked to leave with a warning on the action and arrested it seems after not leaving
5. The she can't prey any where you got the public record? because I can only find one report saying it
I watch the video now, and will point out that he also says "if true" not "is true"
And no, its not exactly what happen because again, context that is what I am posting about, again not the law, the context - +1 y
BBB would always say if true because he is covering himself professionally and in any case the purpose of his channel is to show non-lawyers how the law applies in various circumstances. Sometimes he gets more involved such as raising a petition to get Depp a retrial in England in which case he has taken an active role for a public good..
The PSPO bail conditions restrict her from silently praying in any public place. Aside from the specific area in question that would seem to include Churches.
I'm glad that you now understand this act and disagree with the silent thought aspect.
But there is another issue:-
WRONG/BAD LAW = RIGHT RESULT
this can never be if there is to be justice. In this case, being in the zone is not proscribed and it is not proscribed to be a member of a political group that has an anti-abortion agenda and be in the zone. If neither are proscribed, then doing it more than once is quite reasonable.
As the 'context' was not proscribed (excepting the silent thoughts/prayer) then her activities were entirely lawful.
The injustice is in lawful activities suddenly becoming unlawful especially in respect to one or a group of people. That is quite a dangerous change to the justice system.
- +1 y
@RavVid
"Now you understand" no, I did before as well
Point how ever stand
Regardless honestly do you think she was standing there just to prey silently and not to be a disturbance one way or outer?
Honestly asking, because again its all I am talking about, not doing right or wrong just giving the context is all I wanted to do
+1 yNow you've done it, liberals will start saying that freedom of speech means freedom from being charged with a crime but not freedom of consequences because they are the side that uses this to get their way.
If it was reversed and they were all being fired for saying something the right disagreed with they would not be saying this.
The UK and Europe do have it, in regards to you don't get charged with a crime but they silence people by firing them for talking and expressing beliefs and opinions.
The US is getting that way now too, which is exactly how Democrats want it. They want to be able to get people they disagree with fired and have them starve to death, so they essentially kill the right out of existence.
219 Reply- +1 y
Yes, "liberals will start saying that freedom of speech means freedom from being charged with a crime but not freedom of consequences", but not "because they are the side that uses this to get their way", but because their speech is usually in defence of the powerless, not attacking them.
Do you think people should be able to say anything they like without consequences? - +1 y
@goaded Generally yes, I think they can have consequences but not death... that is too much and taking someone's job away and making it so they can't get a job, puts them on the road to starvation and death.
They should not get a death sentence because they disagreed with someone. While at the same time people saying, you have freedom of speech but not freedom from consequences.
That is exactly what happens to people when they lose their income and can't get a job because of that. - +1 y
@aerissa_jade Wow: "taking someone's job away and making it so they can't get a job, puts them on the road to starvation and death" is very much not anything that would happen in the UK.
@Juxtapose So free speech should be limitied, but only in the ways you want it to be? The UK has different societal norms to the US, so does Germany, for some very particular and excellent reasons. - +1 y
@goaded incitement is a pretty barebone standard and I don't think a society that allows it exists, right? "Hate speech" by comparison only hurts your feelings. Obama is a constitutional law professor and one thing that he said that I really agree with is that you defeat hate speech with not repression but more speech.
- +1 y
@goaded I could support all this taking away jobs if those people who want them fired, are fine giving them UBI and healthcare the rest of their life. They can pay a tax just on them to fund it.
Then we will see how many people really want someone fired for speaking their mind on something they disagreed with. Now they can decide if it is worth it or not.
In the US that happens though. They become homeless, can't get back on their feet and ultimately end of dying of starvation or exposure.
It is good that the UK gives people free housing, free food, free healthcare, so no one really needs to work then... and can be taken care of if they get fired for saying something. - +1 y
You don't get free everything, but there's a pretty good social safety net, and universal health care. Nobody cares very much about what regular people say or do, and they're certainly not going to appear in the newspapers for it so they'll always be able to get another job. If someone famous says something stupid and gets fired for it, it's not a matter of them being actively stopped from getting another job, it's just that they're likely to be a liability to anyone else who hires them.
- +1 y
Hate speech incites people to commit attrocities like shooting up mosques or even shops with brown people in them. It's not just hurting people's feelings.
When people use their "more speech" to defeat hate speech, you call it cancel culture.
It takes orders of magnitude more effort to refute a lie as it does to make one up or repeat one. - +1 y
No, trauma or severe mental illness does that. People who want to kill are unstable. People who are bigoted, are open with it but otherwise keep to themselves are not a threat to anyone.
No, we call it winning a debate and GIVING our opponent's a platform to speak on and be heard. Let the KKK speak and be refuted, but don't ever repress them if they don't incite violence or the like.
Repression won't get to the root. You gotta win the culture and show them you're not afraid to have your opponent's voices heard, no matter how offensive you find them.
I hate the Nazis but they deserve to be heard and then of course people will avoid them. The government should not interfere. - +1 y
"People who want to kill are unstable."
Well, yes, and hate speech directs them in a particular direction with its lies. It can also traumatise people. "They're coming for your children!", "They're coming for your jobs!", "They're coming for your guns!".
When was the last time you saw the KKK "speak and be refuted"? Would you expect them to be allowed to write an op-ed in a major news outlet? No? Why not? It's because nobody will give them a platform. Their views are too far outside the mainstream. - +1 y
@goaded and what about the people who worship a magical man in the sky who gives them a wonderful afterlife if only they obey his edicts?
If you're going to argue about banning what you view is misinformation, the most honest place to start would be with religion since that is the ultimate misinformation. Entire societies are influenced by these delusions. - +1 y
It's not so much about being an "arbiter of truth", it's more about people who never hear the truth, because the first thing a propagandist will tell you is not to listen to anyone but them.
Coming back to your " The more you educate people and allow free discussion, the more people with an actual brain will connect the dots. "
Why do you think Republicans are doing so much to make education unavailable to people?
Do you believe the 2020 election was stolen for Biden? Why?
Ask to an AI Persona
Gamer Bella
With my passion and experience in hobbies and leisure activities, I'm here to offer personalized...
Advisor Smith
With years of experience guiding individuals in their education and career paths, I'm here to...
Cinematic Lily
With my rich background and passion for the arts, I share insights on films, TV shows, and...
James The Foodie
From savoring Italian classics to discovering the bold flavors of Japanese cuisine, I explore...
Fashionista Amy
I'm here to inspire and guide you with a touch of latest trends or advice on personal style.💅👒
Athletic Chloe
Whether you need tips on improving your game, insights on fitness and nutrition, or just want to...
Love Doctor Brad
Welcome to the heart of understanding and transformation. I am your guide on this journey to...
Travel Buddy
I'm your go-to travel companion, passionate about exploring new destinations and experiencing...
Laura
Have questions about GirlsAskGuys? I'm here to help!
What Girls & Guys Said
8
Opinion
23Opinion
5.8K opinions shared on Society & Politics topic. Free speech is pretty unique to the United States of America. The power of the press was vital to the revolutionary army with Benjamin Franklin as the owner of "The Pennsylvania Gazette"
Newspaper.Compare that to the UK that has the state run BBC. It being the first TV station in England.
Also what i see above could be the equivalent to trespassing in America no different then whats happening in either or places. In terms of global freedom index nothing is that different.
10 Reply- Anonymous(36-45)+1 y
It is unfortunate that British subjects and i suppose broadly speaking parliamentarians have little to no rights at all.
To defend your rights and uphold any constitution a goverment must have checks and balances. Thus any system which gives the largest minority party compete control of the goverment respects people's rights only by democratic desire.
As today's generation was mostly raised in goverment schools to be fascist we have lost a lot of freedom in such countries.Short of pushing back and teaching theses little fascist the value of liberty they were neglected in school we will all lose a lot more.
10 Reply Only people on the far sides of things tend to have free speech, I still remember the swat police protecting the group of terrorist Muslims from thousands of Brits trying to attack them. After they planned, booked and asked for permission to burn poppies during the 2 minutes silence, on a popular street in London. I was absolutely fuming when I read the paper and I live hours away and it was many weeks after the act. Yet if the same was done but it was the quan that would not be allowed, as it's upsetting the peace.
10 Reply
+1 yyou know i feel sorry for these people who are pro abortion... it's a big sin. God is always willing to forgive though if you repent. Judgement Day has a date and so until that day comes we can still avail God's mercy but pls don't treat God as dumb because i often hear people be like i just keep sinninh then ask for forgiveness. God isn't dumb
00 Reply2.8K opinions shared on Society & Politics topic. There is no free speech in the UK, that is true.
But least I don't have to get vaccinated to enter the UK as a foreigner.
Get vaccinated (with an experimental corporately concocted poison) dudes!
10 Reply
+1 yCanadian here sir. Trust me, if I am saying Britain is fucked, you had best believe it. Fuck King Charles and his dildo kids. My respect died with the Queen and I will pray for her any way I see fit. Your bobbies would get fucking shot over here. Seriously, you folks hetter start fighting, the noose is already around you neck and the whole world is watching your execution.
00 Reply- 1.2K opinions shared on Society & Politics topic.
+1 yNot compared to the USA. Under Article 10 of the Human Rights Act 1998, “everyone has the right to freedom of expression” in the UK. But the law states that this freedom “may be subject to formalities, conditions, restrictions or penalties as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society”.
06 Reply- +1 y
- +1 y
- +1 y
@LiamJHayden
How is it possible that you haven't blocked that America-hating POS?
- +1 y
@Juxtapose Have you read @Guffrus' opinion?
- 1.9K opinions shared on Society & Politics topic.
+1 yYou have free speech there so long as you only say things they approve of.
Anything related to social conservatism is definitely not allowed.22 Reply- +1 y
@Exterminatore. Can you believe how willing to throw away hard fought for rights this generation is? They have no concept of their own embracing of totalitarianism could ever bite them. Their naive belief that the system could never turn against them is striking.
- +1 y
I fully agree. I can believe it. These leftists if today are militant. They want to be the sole holders of the truth and will not allow other opinions. Any opinions they encounter that are contrary to their ideology is quickly labeled hate speech, sexist, racist or whatever in order to stifle contrary opinions.
They are profoundly ignorant. They talk about love for democracy on one hand, then on the other want to stifle dissent.
Them: porn is free speech, protect free speech.
Us: tramsmen should not participate in women’s sports and disenfranchise them in their own sports.
Them: you can’t say that. It’s hate speech, you’re a bigot and trannyophobe and hatemongor.
They are totalitarian and in fact the worst sort of tyrants.
Sic Semper Tyrannis.
1.1K opinions shared on Society & Politics topic. Previous incidents like Count Dankula getting fined for a joke have made it clear that UK objectively does not have freedom of speech.
UK censorship is still not as bad as in Russia though where they send you to the West front.
10 Reply12.2K opinions shared on Society & Politics topic. That's nothing to do with free speech, dummy.
The priest was in a temporary position and should have been more diplomatic in his responses. You cannot stand in Starbucks while suggesting people drink at Costas instead.
As for the woman in the street. She was blocking a private place and told she will be trespassed.
21 Reply- 454 opinions shared on Society & Politics topic.
+1 yI mean she knew what she is doing isn't wanted. It was her second offense. I honestly don't care if she was silently preying, it's still a nuisance and the woman needs to get a damn life.
02 Reply- +1 y
Not in that zone, no.
Aren't these the same clowns that still had a monarchy? Am I supposed to be surprised?
10 ReplyI bet if she was Muslim the police would have run away
121 Reply- +1 y
Stop saying this about muslims. Its completly nothing to do with if she muslims or not muslims. It conpletly depends on the police officer that she met and the media who choosed to publish the article. There is a lot of unfair arrests on muslims in uk as well o see them all the time not in the media in real life.
- +1 y
Thats the polices fault not the muslims. Muslims are victim of injustice just as much as christians
- +1 y
The police are to blame for a lot of injustice but people are told that its politicaly incorect to critisize the legal sysrem government or the police. Muslims are victim of injustuce christians are victim of unjustice. And actualy most people in uk are victim of injustice. The statistic of people of have been arrested in their life time in the uk is a third of the population. Thats huge. there no way a third of the uk population diserved this when it happened.
- +1 y
Yea they are victims but there are other victims. There are also muslims girls getting raped. And there so many other injutice. That artivle is one injustice but there are a lot more its nothing to do with a particular religion its to do with the legal system.
- +1 y
I am sorry that your thinking that way. As a girl i have been preyed on by a lot of men and nearly raped as well and some of them were muslim but the majority were white British.
- +1 y
"Eleanor Williams jailed over false rape claims"
"A woman who falsely claimed she was raped by multiple men and trafficked by an Asian grooming gang has been jailed for eight-and-a-half years."
www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-cumbria-64950862 - +1 y
@JustMeL120 not a single Muslim has ever been arrested by police in the UK or the US. ever
- +1 y
It happens all the time. I see that kind of things happen myself.
- +1 y
@JustMeL120 lies
- +1 y
@InsecureLivesMatter similar thinh maybe not arrested for praying bit mocked at least. Girls being mocked for carfying a gum bag and the teacher saying for exemple is this a bomb and stufc like that. Please stop saying muslim dobt go thtough injustice you obviously hate muslims i dont get why.
- +1 y
@JustMeL120 there is no such thing as an incarcerated muslim... HAIL BORIS!
- +1 y
@JustMeL120 anyone who doesn't remotely like boris or jk rowling should be locked up in prison... British CONSERVATIVE NATIONALISM WILL RETURN!!
- +1 y
@JustMeL120 ALL CHRISTIANS ARE GOOD PEOPLE. THE "PREDATOR PASTOR" stories are all crisis actor hoaxes
- +1 y
@JustMeL120 THE UK WILL HAVE ABSOLUTELY ZERO BUSINESS WITH INDIA, THE MIDDLE EAST, OR CHINA OR UKRAINE! HAIL OUR EMPEROR' BORIS JOHNSON WILL RETURN ONCE AGAIN AND KICK ALL HIS OPPONENT's asses
- +1 y
just to clarify I was just mocking British conservatism.. tbf it's wacker than American conservatism, even
No, there is no freedom of speech in the UK. Its the most Liberal country there is. More than USA or Canada. Which means less freedom of speech
20 Reply- 1.2K opinions shared on Society & Politics topic.
+1 yNope, only those with a right to keep and bear arms have any rights at all. Otherwise you have permissions from your government that they will feel free to revoke when it's convenient for them.
10 Reply 27.2K opinions shared on Society & Politics topic. It does appear that the whole world has lost it;s marbles.
10 Reply
+1 yI live here and unless you are incredibly woke no you don't
318 Reply- +1 y
How old do you think I am dickhead? 😅 Miss something from before I was born lmao
- +1 y
I'm vaguely aware of him couldn't tell you the American version couldn't care less
- +1 y
Transgender people being allowed to go to a women's prison even though is a convicted rapist for a start anything to do with LGBTQ and woe betide you if you even mention illegal immigration I could go on but I've got things to do
- +1 y
That one person got removed. You can say anything you like about how LGBTQ people make you feel, you just can't offer up "solutions", as that's encouraging violence against them. The whole government is talking shit about illegal immigration, they're hardly likely to pull you out of a pub and arrest you for saying something similar.
- +1 y
There's more than one you only know about the most high profile case recently in Scotland and you clearly don't live here or you would know your last statement was bollox
- +1 y
How long have you lived away?
- +1 y
How old is your daughter which part of the UK does she live in? No doubt a sjw as long as it's not in her neighbourhood
- +1 y
North London Southwest London?
- +1 y
I don't need you to narrow it down I damn sure know where it isn't
- +1 y
Anywhere the postcode starts with a E
- 1.8K opinions shared on Society & Politics topic.
+1 yDont know much about that bust so far as I know it seems pretty similar to how things are here. I'd guess it isn't taken as far.
07 Reply- +1 y
@Mamasanma as an American, I don't know what that means. There's a lot of slight comments that have gotten people's lives ruined here.
- +1 y
@Mamasanma oh my God, I'm so sorry
- +1 y
@Mamasanma they must be going after people every time you even think about disagreeing with something the BBC says. Over here the liberals will get you fired from your job for supporting the wrong person in politics
450 opinions shared on Society & Politics topic. I have a feeling she wasn't just praying there and more likely harassing people who were going in or coming out of the place.
05 Reply- +1 y
Well then I'll let facts speak instead of my feelings. I read up on the case and it said she was standing within the buffer zone, area that is part of the hospital, meaning she can be removed from there and be charged. Under the Birmingham's Public Space Protection Order, the terms of the order include prayer under “protest,” which is banned within the “buffer zone” around the clinic. For standing still and praying silently inside a buffer zone, she was accused of “protesting and engaging in an act that is intimidating to service users.”
And to add on, her own words, “It’s important to me that I can continue my vital work in supporting women who’d like to avoid abortion if they only had some help,” She accepts that if there was a woman who going to be walking past her into the facility, she would very try and stop them in the name of this "vital work", that can constitute to harrassment. The women walking into that centre are consenting to being given some religious moral lecture by this woman. - +1 y
I don't care if they have a buffer zone, that is ridiculous. Even if the woman goes up to people that talk to them, so what? If someone goes to proselytize to me when I go to buy condoms or whatever I'm going to ignore them. It's not harassment and in the USA you can protest right outside abortion clinics.
It's sick how the United Kingdom tries to justify their stifling of freedom. - +1 y
First i wanna correct a type in my reply
I meant to write, women aren't consenting to being lectured by this lady.
Considering that you seem to completely disregard the point of buffer zones, I take it any argument I make hence forth is going to fall on deaf ears so I'm not gonna waste my energy on this.
Farewell random user. Good luck on whatever it is that you're trying to accomplish with this post.
1.2K opinions shared on Society & Politics topic. It has some freedom of speech. It allows its citizens to freely say what the government permits them to say.
00 Reply18.6K opinions shared on Society & Politics topic. There’s no first amendment in UK. True. It’s 99% there…but there are certain anti-politician and anti-church of England protections.
03 Reply- 704 opinions shared on Society & Politics topic.
+1 y"Bong woman" just sounds like a reject DC supervillian.
00 Reply 
+1 yI have no idea. I'm not familiar with the UK's laws.
04 Reply- +1 y
I think legal system in general all over the world is unfair.
- +1 y
True. But really, some places are much worse than others. - +1 y
Yea and those are neither the uk or america.
- 6.9K opinions shared on Society & Politics topic.
+1 yThe uk recognises peoples freedom to go about their legal business outward your right to harass them.
She could easily pray at home215 Reply- +1 y
Who is she hurting by praying in public? She’s talking to God. How heinous! Clearly harmful to everyone else to talk to God in public.
I understand though. Vile and abject sinners don’t want to be reminded of the same God who will judge them, and condemn them. In as much as the same people hate God, they hate his followers also as they are representatives of him.
Must be more of that Christian privilege I’ve heard so much about. Which is exactly what? The privilege to have your head chopped off by ISIS before you’ve even reached adolescence? - +1 y
That's like saying Gary Glitter was just hanging around a kiddies playground to have a think.
- +1 y
Gary Glitter would have nefarious plans more than likely. What harm is a woman praying?
Oh I know. You Brits just love Muslims so. She was praying to the wrong god. That’s the problem.
We both know if she was a Muslim not one word would have been said, and if one was the outcry about oppression would be heard across the North Sea. But if it’s a Christian…that’s too heinous to permit.
Seriously. Who is she harming or doing wrong to by praying in public? - +1 y
@jux
Left wingers are the most tyrannical people around, the funny part is they don’t even think they are. Silence the Christians, and Conservatives, and whites, and men…. discriminate against them also, but they don’t see that as tyranny. - +1 y
This is really fucked up. George Orwell was right. I have to say this generation is the most receptive to subjugation and totalitarianism than any other generation I have known.
- +1 y
Women have the right to abortions without being intimidated.
- +1 y
@purple
So how is someone praying intimidating someone from getting an abortion.
I’m a Christian. I work with a bunch of Muslims. Each day at designated times they get their prayer rugs and kneel down in the lunch room and pray. Their prayers to what I perceive to be a false god in no way intimidate me from being able to pray or doing anything else.
May I suggest to you that if someone is standing around and praying they are no threat to anyone and there is no reasonable cause to be intimidated?
What if she was praying to Zorcon the Space God. I bet no one would have a problem. Muslims too are against abortion. I bet if she was Muslim not a word would have been said. This is persecution of Christians.
It is also the stifling of free speech. - +1 y
She is perfectly entitled to express her opinion but why does she need to hang around abortion clinics? The obvious answer is she believes her presence will have an effect.
- +1 y
That’s a fair answer. It is certainly true that one can pray against abortion at home, in a park or anywhere. It need not be in front of the abortion clinic for God to hear.
That said it also makes me think: is one woman who is unarmed and not threatening anyone and not making a ruckus really intimidating?
I don’t think so, but I do acknowledge you do make a fair point. Thank you for your response. - +1 y
This might be of interest to you. It's the public space protection order that stops her praying outside that specific clinic. www.birmingham.gov.uk/.../robert_clinic_station_road_b30
- +1 y
It is of interest. Thank you for the link. As far as I can see, she did in fact break the law. No dispute there.
The law is the law for everyone, regardless of their feelings on it. So I can’t say she was arrested on trumped up charges, nor is she not guilty of having broken the law.
That all said, I feel like this is maybe a little extreme. We are all not the same. I wouldn’t be intimidated by one woman praying against a building I was about to enter, but maybe not so of everyone. Different things bother different people.
I just think that it seems a bit extreme given the circumstances. - +1 y
@Juxtapose. Yes, precisely! And they are authoritarian.
- 1.7K opinions shared on Society & Politics topic.
+1 yYes, so long as you don't work for the BBC in any capacity.
00 Reply - 541 opinions shared on Society & Politics topic.
+1 yIt seems not, or at least in one of the UK countries.
00 Reply - 4.5K opinions shared on Society & Politics topic.
+1 yWhich laws like this I don't know how we can see the UK as an ally of the US.
00 Reply - 1.1K opinions shared on Society & Politics topic.
+1 yThat is correct.
23 Reply- +1 y
I think the government is a bit like that anoyong teacher you get at school whome is a bit of a bully is wrong about a lot of thins and has the power to punish you. The student know that he is wrong that everything he says is against their values but they have to agree with him because he has power and is respected.
- +1 y
@JustMeL120 That's where the U. S. is headed. Group think.
- +1 y
Yea that true everyone agrees that goverments actualy damaging but they are scared of being prosecuted. I leave in uk and here the majority of people believe that goverment is perfect the legal system is perfect. I am an immigrant in uk i am from another european country. But there is no way of telling the majority of British people thst their goverment is wrong. If they are polite the might change the subject or find a polite excuse to not have anything to do with. If they rude they just tell me to go back to where i am from. The uk goverment is really good at hiding the bad stuff. For exemple thereare so many homeless British people due to benefit cut yet the just agree to give half a billion to france to keep iligal emigrants from coming in the uk. Or they have told all the european people that they can't immigrate there due to brexit then 5 year later they realise noone can work as a builder so they change the law for europans to retun to work.
487 opinions shared on Society & Politics topic. Hate speech is a crime but other than that u can say what u like
00 Reply8K opinions shared on Society & Politics topic. To a significant extent it does not
00 Reply2.8K opinions shared on Society & Politics topic. I guess it wasn’t a Muslim prayer.
00 Reply
Show More(26)
Click "Show More" for your mentions
Continue reading
Do the British have free speech?
Anonymous
Add your reply For "{0}"
Most Helpful Opinion(mho) Rate.
Learn more
Learn more
We're glad to see you liked this post.
You can also add your opinion below!
