Thoughtcrime: UK Veteran Convicted for Praying SILENTLY Near Abortion Mill

By Selwyn Duke

Not long ago, France made abortion a “constitutional right.” Britain hasn’t followed suit, but it can’t because it doesn’t have a constitution. In a way, however, it’s going France one better (read: worse).

Its government has just convicted a veteran and father of two for praying silently near an abortion “clinic.”

The kicker: The court finding him guilty reasoned that his prayer constituted “disapproval of abortion.”

Apparently, prenatal infanticide is now considered a sacrament in Britain — while praying is a sin.

1984 in 2024

Reason reports on the story, writing:

In Britain, it can be a crime to think the wrong thoughts in the wrong place. It sounds absurd—not to mention Orwellian—but a handful of people have been arrested or charged in the country simply for praying silently near abortion clinics.

This month, a British man was convicted of criminal charges for praying silently near an abortion clinic. The man, Adam Smith-Connor did not attempt to harass, intimidate, or interact in any way with those entering the clinic. Instead, he wordlessly prayed with his head bowed slightly. He wasn’t even on clinic property—he was outside the sightline of the clinic itself, according to the Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF), a religious freedom group.

As a result, Smith-Connor was questioned by police and later charged with violating a Public Spaces Protection Order (PSPO), a broad censorship order enabled by the 2014 Anti-Social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act. Under this law, local authorities can obtain special status for some public places, allowing them to ban a huge range of conduct. In the name of limiting “anti-social behavior,” British towns have obtained PSPOs to ban the homeless from sleeping outside or to ban swearing.

Several cities have used this law to place “buffer zones” around local abortion clinics. The PSPO in Smith-Connor’s case not only banned “intimidating or harassing” those working at or seeking services from the clinic but also barred individuals from engaging in “prayer,” “[sprinkling] holy water on the ground,” and “[crossing] themselves.”

Double Standards

It’s hard to imagine any left-wing protesters, of which there are many, being thus treated for engaging in silent demonstration. (Though “silent left-wing protest” is an oxymoron.) Mainstream media such as CNN have complained this year about U.K. Just Stop Oil protesters being given “harsh” prison sentences for, quote, “non-violent” or “peaceful” demonstrations. But in this they demonstrate warped judgment. The greentopian activists were convicted because they brought a major highway’s “traffic to a standstill in parts over four days in November 2022,” as CNN admits. And they have no right to block traffic — no more than government has a right to try to block thoughts.

Truth Stranger Than Fiction

Smith-Connor’s case gets more bizarre still, though. Just consider that, as the Daily Caller writes, he

was interrogated about “the nature of his prayers,” the legal group [ADF] stated in its press release. Now, Smith-Connor has been sentenced to a “conditional discharge” and must pay prosecution fees of 9,000 euros. The court concluded that Smith-Connor’s prayer constituted a “disapproval of abortion.”

He was charged by the Christchurch & Poole Council under the Public Spaces Protection Order, which prohibits acts of “approval/disapproval” relating to abortion services, including “prayer or counseling.”

The 2023 Public Order created “buffer zones” around abortion facilities in England and Wales, according to the ADF.

The oppression will get worse, too, starting October 31. It then will become “illegal for anyone to do anything that intentionally … influences” someone’s abortion decision, the U.K. government’s website informs. Also prohibited is causing “distress to someone using or working at these premises.”

“The law will apply within a 150 metre radius of the abortion service provider,” the government adds.

So now, apparently, even saying “Have your baby; you’ll love him more than you know” could be illegal. It’s “influence,” right? And “distress”? That’s completely subjective. “He was wearing a cross around his neck, judge, and looked at me with pity — I felt distressed.”

And the consequences?

“Anyone found guilty of breaking the law will face an unlimited fine,” the government adds.

Yes, well, it’s always convenient if you can impoverish (defund) your political opponents while “enforcing the law.”

The Issue Behind the Issue

Abortuary buffer-zone laws exist in the U.S., too. (The Supreme Court may soon consider their constitutionality.) But why the uber-sensitivity about prenatal-infanticide mills? Why the special carve-out for them? Could it be that those procuring abortions generally know in their hearts that the act is profoundly evil? Could it be that because of this, even the slightest questioning of their decision brings these feelings to the surface? That certainly would be “distress.”

Interestingly, commentator Olivia Murray, whom I quoted just yesterday, wrote about women’s “feelings” on abortion this week. Even “though pro-abortion women vote for abortion, when faced with their own pregnancy, they face serious doubts about procuring the procedure for themselves,” she stated. “They want to keep their baby.”

Oh, they may end up making the “rash, self-destructive decision” to “murder their own child(ren),” Murray later adds. They are, however, “totally screwed up by it.” The point is that, without a doubt, intense inner conflict is operative here.

Add to this that “women are emotional creatures,” as Murray also puts it, and it makes sense. First, the aforementioned U.K. government website page was created by two left-wing female ministers (Britain has many women officeholders). Moreover, perhaps exhibiting a perversion of chivalry, many men want to protect abortion-seeking women’s “feelings.” The fairer sex is sensitive, you know. So you don’t tell them they’re fat — and you don’t say aborting their child is wrong.

You don’t even intimate it.

And you don’t pray about it, either.

Of course, though, there’s one thing none of this can change — the Truth.

                    This article was originally published at The New American.