This week, the arrest of a British Catholic woman for “praying” outside an abortion clinic attracted international attention. But the imprisonment of Isabel Vaughan-Spruce, director of the anti-abortion group March for Life UK, is neither surprising nor particularly rare as a denial of free speech in Britain.
It’s also a cautionary tale for the people of the United States, which is facing perhaps the largest movement against free speech in its history.
Images from Birmingham show Vaughan-Spruce, 45, simply standing near an abortion clinic and praying in silence as she is confronted by an officer. It didn’t block access or display any protest signs or materials. Despite this, she was arrested, jailed, questioned and eventually charged with 4 counts of violating the “buffer zone” of an abortion clinic.
A West Midlands Police officer is reported to have asked her, “Do you pray?” She replied, “I can pray mentally, but not out loud.”
that was it. She was arrested for praying “in her head” near an abortion clinic.
![Vaughan-Spruce has long been opposed to abortion.](https://nypost.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2022/12/turley-silent-prayer-arrest-720-1.jpg?w=1024)
“Extreme Views”
A recent ordinance on September 7 clarified that praying near an abortion clinic is now a criminal offense in the country. A Birmingham City Council ordinance says prohibited activities include “amongst other things, graphic, oral or written means, prayer or counseling”.
Various people announced the arrest. Dr. John Michael Leslie went on Twitter to declare“No, you violate [the law] in case you repeatedly harass women going to a Family Planning Clinic who may ask for abortion advice. “Prayer in her head” is the spin of her followers.
Nonetheless, from a legal point of view, this alone is dangerous. She wasn’t arrested for past behavior, but present behavior that was praying in her head.
One other poster objected that: “It is so obvious that she struggles in the eyes of the public to make her beliefs public, she knowingly went there to be arrested. You most likely think we’re all crackers.
Indeed, although “crackers” doesn’t quite reflect the crisis of free speech in Great Britain. This just isn’t the first thought of a criminal offense prosecuted in the country.
Last 12 months, 52-year-old Nicholas Brock was convicted of a thought crime in Maindhead, Berkshire. A neo-Nazi has been sentenced to 4 years in prison for what a court called his “toxic ideology” based on the contents of the house he shared along with his mother in Maidenhead, Berkshire. While most of us find Brock’s views disgusting and hateful, they were limited to his head and room. Nonetheless, Justice Peter Lodder, QC, dismissed concerns about freedom of speech and thought with a really Orwellian statement: “I’m not convicting you to your political beliefs, but the extreme of these views affects the assessment of danger.”
![A Birmingham City Council ordinance says prohibited activities include](https://nypost.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2022/12/turley-silent-prayer-arrest-727.jpg?w=1024)
Lodder criticized Brock for espousing Nazi and other hateful values: “It’s clear you are a right-wing extremist, your enthusiasm for this disgusting and toxic ideology is shown in the graphic and racist iconography you studied and looked as if it would share with others.”
Although Lodder agreed that the defendant was older, had limited mobility, and “there was no evidence of dissemination to others”, he sent him to prison anyway for holding extremist views.
Following the sentencing, Detective Superintendent Kath Barnes, head of the Southeast Counter Terrorism Police (CTPSE), warned others that Brock was going to prison because he “has shown clear right-wing ideology with evidence confiscated from his property during the investigation.” . . We’re committed to fighting all forms of toxic ideology that has the potential to threaten public safety.”
Slippery slope
“Toxic ideology” also appears to be a goal in Ireland, with the recently proposed Criminal Justice (Incitement to Violence or Hate and Hate Crimes) Bill. It could criminalize the possession of material deemed hateful.
The law is a nightmare of free speech, making it a criminal offense to “possess harmful material” in addition to “accepting, denying or grossly trivializing genocide, war crimes, crimes against humanity and crimes against peace.” It expressly states its intention to combat “forms and expressions of racism and xenophobia through criminal law”.
What’s striking about this law is that it allows residents to be prosecuted for “preparing or possessing material that will incite violence or hatred against individuals because of their protected characteristics.” This will penetrate deeply not only into political but in addition literary expression.
The extension of such proceedings to incorporate thought offenses is a natural extension of the movement against freedom of speech that swept most of Europe a long time ago. The decline in free speech in the UK has long been a priority for free speech advocates.
A person has been convicted of posting a drunken tweet referring to dead soldiers. One other was arrested for an anti-police T-shirt. One other was arrested for calling his ex-girlfriend’s Irish boyfriend “a leprechaun”. One more was arrested for singing “Kung Fu Fighting”. A young person was arrested for protesting outside a Scientology center with an indication calling the religion a “cult”.
![These cases should be a wake-up call for all who value freedom of speech. If such accusations persist, free speech has literally no prayer in the Western world.](https://nypost.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2022/12/turley-silent-prayer-arrest-725-1.jpg?w=1024)
Once you begin criminalizing speech as a government, you find yourself on a slippery slope of censorship. What constitutes hate speech or “malicious communication” stays a highly subjective issue and we see a relentless expansion of prohibited terms, words and gestures.
It is simple for Americans to dismiss such European accusations by pointing to our First Amendment. Nonetheless, there may be a growing movement in the United States to duplicate such European laws. Indeed, Democratic leaders like Hillary Clinton recruited European governments to force Twitter to censor fellow residents. Similarly, Democratic members pushed for a latest law that may very well be used to specifically crack down on right-wing groups based on their ideology.
Great Britain is an example of the slippery slope of the criminalization of speech, which inevitably led them to “thought crimes” and even criminal prayers. These cases needs to be a wake-up call for all who value freedom of speech. If such accusations persist, free speech has literally no prayer in the Western world.
Jonathan Turley is an attorney and professor at the George Washington University School of Law.