This week, international attention has been drawn to the arrest of a British Catholic woman for “praying” outside an abortion facility. The imprisonment of Isabel Vaughan-Spruce, director of the anti-abortion organization March for Life UK, is neither shocking nor particularly rare as a violation of free expression in the United Kingdom. It serves as a cautionary tale for individuals in the United States, which is perhaps seeing the largest anti-free speech campaign in its history.
Images from Birmingham depict 45-year-old Vaughan-Spruce simply praying in silence beside an abortion facility when she is confronted by a police officer. She was not obstructing entrance or exhibiting protest materials or banners. She was nevertheless detained, held, questioned, and finally charged with four charges of breaking the “buffer zone” of an abortion facility.
The West Midlands Police officer reportedly questioned her, “Are you praying?” She replied, “I may pray in my brain, but not aloud.”
That’s the end. She was arrested outside an abortion clinic for praying in her head.
The imprisonment of Isabel Vaughan-Spruce, director of the anti-abortion organisation March for Life UK, as a deprivation of free speech in the United Kingdom is neither shocking nor particularly exceptional.
ADF UK Extremism of opinion
A recent order issued on September 7 made it plain that praying near an abortion facility is now illegal in the United States. The order issued by the Birmingham City Council prohibits acts including, but not limited to, graphic, verbal, or written means, prayer, and counseling.
Multiple individuals announced the arrest. On Twitter, Dr. John Michael Leslie stated, “No, you are in breach of the law if you continuously harass ladies going to a Family Planning Clinic who may be seeking Abortion Advice. “Praying in her brain” is her fans’ spin.”
However, legally speaking, this is a risky slant. She was detained for her current behavior, which was praying in her brain, and not for her past actions.
Another poster argued, “It’s so evident she’s martyring herself in the public eye as a means of promoting her ideals; she purposefully entered that location to be detained. You must believe we’re all nuts.”
In fact, “crackers” does not completely represent the UK’s free speech dilemma. This is not the nation’s first prosecution for a thought crime.
Nicholas Brock, 52, was found guilty of a thought crime in Maindhead, Berkshire, in 2017. The neo-Nazi was given a four-year term for his “poison worldview” based on the contents of the Maidenhead, Berkshire home he lived with his mother. Although the majority of us find Brock’s beliefs repulsive and unpleasant, they were contained to his mind and chamber. Yet, Judge Peter Lodder QC disregarded concerns about free speech and thought with a really Orwellian statement: “I do not sentence you based on your political ideas, but the extreme of those views affects the determination of dangerousness.”
A recent order issued on September 7 made it plain that praying near an abortion facility is now illegal in the United States.
Lodder criticized Brock for embracing Nazi and other vile beliefs, stating, “It is evident that you are a right-wing fanatic, as seen by the gory and racist iconography that you have studied and shared with others.”
Even though Lodder recognized that the defendant was older, had restricted mobility, and “there was no evidence of promoting” his extremist ideas, he still put him to prison.
Detective Chief Superintendent Kath Barnes, Head of Counter Terrorism Policing South East (CTPSE), warned others that Brock was going to prison because he “displayed a clear right-wing ideology with the evidence seized from his possessions during the investigation. We are committed to combating all forms of toxic ideology that have the potential to threaten public safety and security.”
The recently proposed Criminal Justice (Incitement to Violence or Hatred and Hate Offenses) bill in Ireland seeks to target “toxic ideologies” as well. It would make it illegal to possess hateful materials.
The law is a nightmare for free expression because it criminalizes “possession of damaging content” and “condoning, denying, or severely trivializing genocide, war crimes, crimes against humanity, and crimes against peace.” It specifically proclaims the intent to combat racism and xenophobia through criminal law.
The most remarkable aspect of the law is that it allows citizens to be prosecuted for “preparing or holding material intended to provoke violence or hatred against individuals based on their protected characteristics.” This could profoundly affect not only political but even literary expression.
The broadening of these trials to include thought crimes is a natural outgrowth of the decades-long anti-free speech crusade that has gripped much of Europe. The deterioration of free speech in the United Kingdom has been a concern of free-speech supporters for quite some time.
A guy was convicted for tweeting a tweet about deceased soldiers while intoxicated. Another individual was arrested for wearing an anti-police T-shirt. Another was arrested for referring to his ex-Irish girlfriend’s lover as a “leprechaun.” Another individual was arrested for performing “Kung Fu Fighting.” A youngster was detained for holding a placard calling Scientology a “cult” while protesting outside a Scientology location.
The United Kingdom is an example of how the slippery slope of criminalizing speech led to “thought crimes” and even criminal prayers.
Once a government begins criminalizing speech, it ends up on a slippery slope toward censorship. What constitutes hate speech or “malicious communications” remains a very subjective topic, and the number of prohibited terms, words, and gestures has steadily increased.
Americans can easily avoid such trials in Europe by using the First Amendment. In the United States, however, there is a rising movement to duplicate these European legislation. Indeed, Democratic leaders such as Hillary Clinton have recruited the aid of European countries to compel Twitter to control its users. Similarly, Democratic legislators have advocated for a new rule that may be used to target right-wing organizations based on their ideology.
The United Kingdom is an example of how the slippery slope of criminalizing speech led to “thought crimes” and even criminal prayers. These instances should serve as a wake-up call for all advocates of free expression. If such prosecutions are allowed to continue, Western free speech has no chance.
Jonathan Turley is an attorney and professor at the law school at George Washington University.
»The EU’s anti-hate laws and arrests are a warning for US free speech«