> In its decision, the court reasoned that his prayer amounted to “disapproval of abortion” because at one point his head was seen slightly bowed and his hands were clasped.
I'm all for women's rights, but that's not how to do it
> The safe zone, introduced in October 2022, bans activity in favour or against abortion services, including protests, harassment and vigils.
> During the case, brought by BCP Council, the court heard Smith-Connor had emailed the council the day before to inform it about his silent vigil, as he had done on previous occasions.
> On the day, he was asked to leave the area by a community officer who spoke to him for an hour and 40 minutes - but he refused.
So he told the council he was going to have a silent vigil against abortion, and then it had to take place within the buffer area to protect women from anti-abortion activism.
He was totally free to walk a few yards away and do whatever he wanted, but he refused.
Sounds like he wanted to stir the pot to preserve the right to menace women seeking medical care.
It tells a lot about echo chambers that the first article google showed me for "man charged for praying abortion" is the adf one and you presumably got the bbc one. Anyway, there's nothing to see here, the UK banned vigils in front of abortion clinics, he got charged for keeping a vigil somewhere not allowed, so no thoughtcrime involved.
Freedom of speech and banning vigils/demonstration is a different debate that we already have all the time...
