WHAT’S THE VERDICT?

Last week’s verdict shows that the police and our legal system are unable to protect women who are trying to access a legal, medical sevice from Abort67’s disgraceful intimidation tactics.

Image

Abort 67’s weekly graphic ‘displays’ are also the bane of the lives of many children, clinic workers, students and local residents. The majority of people in Brighton do not agree that Wistons’ clinic is the appropriate place for Abort67 to air their views. If as they say, they want to change public opinion they should protest in a more general public area.

By standing outside the clinic they are clearly trying to intimidate women and scare them out of considering a termination. This is not freedom of expression, it is oppression. The number of women having terminations in Brighton has not changed, but women are having them later than they did before the protests began.

Abort67 laughably refer to themselves as an ‘educational group’, who are ‘motivated by their concern for women’, when in fact they lie about abortion, saying it causes cancer, mental health problems, infertility, and lifelong guilt. They say that BPAS do not tell people the whole truth about abortion. There is absolutely no evidence to support any of these claims.

Brighton Pro Choice is a group of local people dedicated to stopping this harassment on our streets. Today’s verdict changes nothing.

 

6 thoughts on “WHAT’S THE VERDICT?

  1. LB says:

    Sigh, they are back in full swing outside, with posters. Is there anything normal members of the public and local residents can do in terms of complaints? I live nearby and am sick of tired of seeing them every day. I have no idea who to complain to anymore. Thanks for your help!

  2. JW says:

    These guys need to be called out on their real agendas and also their connections to other pro life groups who flaunt truth and logic eg SPUC, loveline, priests for life etc.

    Having met many of the abort67s main protesters and organisers I can honestly say that they show very little regard for facts and also are very religious (something they claim they are not).

    A few members from their church have confessed they find there constant drivel exhausting and do not fully agree with their methods which is sort of heartening to hear.

    They also need to be called out on their morbid fetus fetish. Nothing quite says pro-life like tears for the fetus and complete distress and bloodlust for living, breathing, sentient women.

  3. Jacqueline says:

    They’re not stopping anyone entering the clinic, nor are they engaging in threatening or abusive behaviour. I get upset by pictures of dead Iraqi children, and consider their use in a fixed political protest outside Parliament to be in bad taste, but I don’t want such protests banned. Fact is, in a civilized democracy respect for the right to protest will mean that one occasionally has to see/hear things one may abhor. Get over it.

  4. Karen says:

    But Jacqueline, it is not a protest so much as a campaign targeted solely at women entering that clinic. They are clearly further upsetting, judging and intimidating women who are already in a vulnerable situation and have had to make a very difficult choice. The use of revolting and shocking images as part of any campaign, whether I agree with it or not, I find repellent and low. Anyone using such images doesn’t give a damn about deeply upsetting people of all ages including children, who should be protected from this sort of thing. Surely we all agree about that, otherwise why would there be age certificates to cinema films or parental controls online? Displaying images is not a untrammelled right.

    What were these people prosecuted for? It seems to me that S5 of the Public Order Act has surely been breached : (1) A person is guilty of an offence if he:
    (a) uses threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour, or disorderly behaviour, or
    (b) displays any writing, sign or other visible representation which is threatening, abusive or insulting,

    within the hearing or sight of a person likely to be caused harassment, alarm or distress thereby.”

    Perhaps you would like to face one of the women seeking to enter that clinic and tell her to ‘get over it’.

  5. chillzero says:

    I know of some voluntary groups in America where they set up ‘clinic escorts’ to help women enter the clinics – see http://everysaturdaymorning.net/ for example. Do we have anything similar over here? Should we be thinking of setting some up, if not? It can help them feel less intimidated, and is not about confronting the protestors, but assisting vulnerable people.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

%d bloggers like this: