Take the case of Andy Stephenson and Kathryn Sloane. They feel fairly strongly about abortion. So strongly, that they decided to mount a (peaceful) public protest outside an abortion clinic in Brighton. Their method of making their case was to display a large (7ft by 5 ft) graphic banner which showed a picture of an aborted human embryo. Police were called by a member of staff concerned that patients entering the clinic felt traumatised and upset. The Police arrived and told Mr Stephenson and Miss Sloane to take down their banner. They did so, replacing it with another similar banner. The police then arrested the pair, and took them to the police station. And there they held them for 14 hours before finally releasing them at 3 o’clock in the morning.
Mr Stephenson and Miss Sloane were released on police bail, and are due to return to court tomorrow to hear if they will be prosecuted under section 5 of the Public Order Act 1986.
The issue, of course, is freedom of speech. I was somewhat amused by the comments of Ann Furedi, the head of the British Pregnancy Advisory Service, who said she fully supported the right of pro-life activists to demonstrate against abortion clinics - but who then added: "There is a distinction between freedom of expression and actions that are designed to distress people who are accessing legal, medical services."
Actually, Ms. Furedi, there isn’t. And it’s not as if Mr Stephenson and Miss Sloane simply wanted to distress people for the fun of it. They were trying to make the point that what abortion does to an embryo is something very distressing.
Actually, Ms. Furedi, there isn’t. And it’s not as if Mr Stephenson and Miss Sloane simply wanted to distress people for the fun of it. They were trying to make the point that what abortion does to an embryo is something very distressing.
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.
Section 5 was also the legislation under which Dale McAlpine was arrested.
It seems to me that Section 5 is a piece of legislation in need of repealing. I’ve asked before, but I’ll ask again: “Why do we have a law on our statute book which means that someone can be guilty of a crime simply for using "insulting" words within the hearing or sight of a person likely to be caused "distress"?” The words “abusive or insulting” must go. In fact, the whole section should go - since the matter of threatening behaviour is covered by Section 4 of the Act.
Now, to be honest, I don’t like the pictures that Mr Stephenson and Miss Sloane displayed. But that’s not the point, is it?
So let’s hope that Section 5 is included in Mr. Clegg’s Great Repeal Act.
7 comments:
I wont comment on the case as I know nothing about it.
However, section 5 seems to be a catch all offence that police can quote when don't have anything solid to arrest you for. If you haven't committed an offence but they want to arrest you anyway because the don't like you, section 5 will do it.
I've heard people threatened with section 5 for swearing or for filming coppers.
I agree. It has to go. As it's often said on the blogs, there is no "right not to be offended".
"section 5 seems to be a catch all offence that police can quote when don't have anything solid to arrest you for."
Exactly. In itself, that's a good reason why it should go.
The word "threatening" is the fig leaf for the other terms.
Bit of gold plating later...larveleee.
There has been rather too much 'catch all' legislation over the last twenty years.
I know I have just spent yesterday in Court arguing the same, and arguing successfully that a catch all phrase in the case I am involved with appears to extend the right of British Courts to approve who can act as a director wherever the company is registered or what jurisdiction it is in.
British Politicians still seem to think they rule the world.
There is a major difference between legislation on one hand and the Law on the other.
In happier times, the concept was that the Law was discovered, not created or legislated, and an unjust law was seen as a contradiction in terms. If it was unjust it was no law.
I recognise that this in no way means that the common people were guaranteed justice.
NEVERTHELESS, THE CIVIL LAW is and must be neutral about who has a more noble or rewarding faith. The breakaway parishes ought to win every Office 2010facet of the lawsuit not becauseMicrosoft Office 2010 their beliefs or their politics are better, Microsoft wordbut because both lawOffice 2007and equity, along with common sense, are on Microsoft Officetheir side.Microsoft Office 2007 Not only does Virginia state law (the Division Statute)Office 2007 keyexplicitly apply to just such a Office 2007 downloadsituation as now exists, but the history Office 2007 Professionalespecially of The Falls Church argues against the claims of Outlook 2010the Virginia Diocese with which theyMicrosoft outlookhave disassociated.Microsoft outlook 2010First, The Falls Church wasWindows 7 founded, formed, and developed long before the diocese, or the national Episcopal Church, even existed.
NEVERTHELESS, THE CIVIL LAW is and must be neutral about who has a more noble or rewarding faith. The breakaway parishes ought to win every Office 2010facet of the lawsuit not becauseMicrosoft Office 2010 their beliefs or their politics are better, Microsoft wordbut because both lawOffice 2007and equity, along with common sense, are on Microsoft Officetheir side.Microsoft Office 2007 Not only does Virginia state law (the Division Statute)Office 2007 keyexplicitly apply to just such a Office 2007 downloadsituation as now exists, but the history Office 2007 Professionalespecially of The Falls Church argues against the claims of Outlook 2010the Virginia Diocese with which theyMicrosoft outlookhave disassociated.Microsoft outlook 2010First, The Falls Church wasWindows 7 founded, formed, and developed long before the diocese, or the national Episcopal Church, even existed.
Post a Comment