safe zones around abortion providers

judeboy101 · 10-07-2018 07:55AM #1

How constitutional is it to ban peaceful protest in public places. I think anyone who stands outside an abortion clinic has a right to do so, so long as they do not get violent or impede movement. I also think it's a scumbag move, but that's a personal opinion. My worry is gov could expend this 'safe zone' idea to a lot of areas, shutting down legit protests.

ELM327 · 10-07-2018 08:04AM

It's over.
You and your ilk lost by a country mile.

Get over it.

TheValeyard · 10-07-2018 08:04AM

I can see it been trialed at the clinics. Then expanded once accepted to no protesting outside the US or Israeli embassy. Or places where government officials are meeting. They would probably end up create protest zones, areas where you are allowed to protest, but it's out of the way and seen as a minor inconvenience.

judeboy101 · 10-07-2018 08:08AM

ELM327 wrote: »

It's over.
You and your ilk lost by a country mile.

Get over it.

Didn't know we had a vote to recind the right to protest? TiL.

amcalester · 10-07-2018 08:08AM

Not all rights are absolute, 1 persons right to safe medical treatment should trump another's right to protest.

seamus · 10-07-2018 08:08AM

Murray TheDemonic TalkingSkull wrote: »

I can see it been trialed at the clinics. Then expanded once accepted to no protesting outside the US or Israeli embassy. Or places where government officials are meeting. They would probably end up create protest zones, areas where you are allowed to protest, but it's out of the way and seen as a minor inconvenience.

Given that the proposed exclusion zone legislation will be contained in a health bill, this is paranoid nonsense.

Any expansion of the idea to non-health contexts would require entirely separate legislation and the public debates and discussions around it.

HydroTendonMan · 10-07-2018 08:11AM

In this case it makes sense. It is there to allow people some privacy and dignity while dealing with a sensitive medical procedure.

ELM327 · 10-07-2018 08:14AM

judeboy101 wrote: »

Didn't know we had a vote to recind the right to protest? TiL.

No, we had a vote to allow abortion on demand.

erica74 · 10-07-2018 08:18AM

Anyone accessing abortion services should be able to do so without the added stress of idiots screaming "baby murderer" or seeing those horrendous posters the ICBR like to hold outside our maternity hospitals. I think these safe zones are an excellent idea. Idiots will continue to protest about abortion for many years to come so safe zones are a way of protecting our women.

VinLieger · 10-07-2018 08:20AM

judeboy101 wrote: »

Didn't know we had a vote to recind the right to protest? TiL.

Ahh but this isnt about protesting is it? Its about embarrassing and demeaning the women who may be attending these facilities for numerous and varied reasons.

ELM327 · 10-07-2018 08:21AM

And those idiots at the various hospitals already have shown that they cannot be trusted to be respectful. Bringing crap like foetus pictures to a maternity hospital where a woman could be having a traumatic pregnancy, a miscarriage, etc , is BS and should not be allowed.

I know if it were my wife/partner/daughter/friend in that situation and we were confronted by those idiots (usually old men) I wouldnt trust myself not to react.

judeboy101 · 10-07-2018 08:24AM

seamus wrote: »

Given that the proposed exclusion zone legislation will be contained in a health bill, this is paranoid nonsense.

Any expansion of the idea to non-health contexts would require entirely separate legislation and the public debates and discussions around it.

A precedent will be set.

seamus · 10-07-2018 08:26AM

judeboy101 wrote: »

A precedent will be set.

What precedent would that be then?

Like I say, paranoid nonsense.

I guess you'd be fully supportive of me if I were to stand outside a Catholic church with pictures of the pope suggestively caressing some children while dressed up as a devil, and calling everyone who entered a paedophile and a rapist then?

judeboy101 · 10-07-2018 08:28AM

amcalester wrote: »

Not all rights are absolute, 1 persons right to safe medical treatment should trump another's right to protest.

How does peaceful non violent protest infringe on safety. By all means throw the book at someone who blocks or impedes but its scary to think one cannot even stand in a public place and silently "voice" an opinion.

judeboy101 · 10-07-2018 08:31AM

seamus wrote: »

What precedent would that be then?

Like I say, paranoid nonsense.

I guess you'd be fully supportive of me if I were to stand outside a Catholic church with pictures of the pope dressed up as a devil, suggestively caressing some children and calling everyone who entered a paedophile and a rapist then?

So long as you do not impede movement or incite violence, you can stand outside and church, chapel, temple, synagogue or mosque.

joe swanson · 10-07-2018 08:32AM

If someone wants to murder a baby, why should it be made easy for them ?

amcalester · 10-07-2018 08:32AM

judeboy101 wrote: »

How does peaceful non violent protest infringe on safety. By all means throw the book at someone who blocks or impedes but its scary to think one cannot even stand in a public place and silently "voice" an opinion.

Because it wouldn't really be a protest, it would be an attempt to shame and embarrass women into not having treatment.

By all means protest if you want, but do it in appropriate places. Outside the Dail for example, that's where the legislation in passed.

amcalester · 10-07-2018 08:33AM

joe swanson wrote: »

If someone wants to murder a baby, why should it be made easy for them ?

There's always one...

Surprised it took that long.

judeboy101 · 10-07-2018 08:35AM

amcalester wrote: »

Because it wouldn't really be a protest, it would be an attempt to shame and embarrass women into not having treatment.

By all means protest if you want, but do it in appropriate places. Outside the Dail for example, that's where the legislation in passed.

Treatment?

Annasopra · 10-07-2018 08:37AM

judeboy101 wrote: »

How does peaceful non violent protest infringe on safety. By all means throw the book at someone who blocks or impedes but its scary to think one cannot even stand in a public place and silently "voice" an opinion.

Its not peaceful or non violent. Shoving nasty images in peoples faces. Calling them baby murderers etc.

Annasopra · 10-07-2018 08:39AM

judeboy101 wrote: »

Treatment?

Medical treatment yes

ELM327 · 10-07-2018 08:39AM

joe swanson wrote: »

If someone wants to murder a baby, why should it be made easy for them ?

We voted 2:1 to allow abortion on demand for whatever reason.

suicide_circus · 10-07-2018 08:39AM

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

Its not peaceful or non violent. Shoving nasty images in peoples faces. Calling them baby murderers etc.

hurt feelings and being made uncomfortable is not violence. violence is violence.

amcalester · 10-07-2018 08:39AM

judeboy101 wrote: »

Treatment?

Yes.

noun
the application of medicines, surgery, psychotherapy, etc, to a patient or to a disease or symptom

ELM327 · 10-07-2018 08:40AM

seamus wrote: »

What precedent would that be then?

Like I say, paranoid nonsense.

I guess you'd be fully supportive of me if I were to stand outside a Catholic church with pictures of the pope dressed up as a devil, suggestively caressing some children and calling everyone who entered a paedophile and a rapist then?

I'd be fully supportive of that.

#saynopetothepope

Annasopra · 10-07-2018 08:41AM

suicide_circus wrote: »

hurt feelings and being made uncomfortable is not violence. violence is violence.

Psychological violence

smokingman · 10-07-2018 08:42AM

I reckon if these people want to act like we're in the 1600s, the punishment should suit.. get caught doing that vile **** and you get put in stocks for the rest of us to throw rotten veg at.
Simples

BattleCorp · 10-07-2018 08:44AM

joe swanson wrote: »

If someone wants to murder a baby, why should it be made easy for them ?

It's quite clear that the State and the majority of voters in this Country don't consider a lawful termination of pregnancy to be murder.

suicide_circus · 10-07-2018 08:45AM

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

Psychological violence

possibly but unless words are a direct incitement to violence then I'm not going to call them non peaceful or "violence". they can be horrible and downright awful but I'm afraid we have to allow people to be hurtful.

purpleisafruit · 10-07-2018 08:46AM

judeboy101 wrote: »

So long as you do not impede movement or incite violence, you can stand outside and church, chapel, temple, synagogue or mosque.

So the ICBR aren't looking to incite violence? Their wearing of body cameras isn't to record the happy, supportive reactions of those passing their banners I'm pretty sure.

the_pen_turner · 10-07-2018 08:50AM

I agree with the OP . It's sets a dangerous precedent that the government can decide when and where you can peacefully protest.

As much as I disagree with this procedure ,anyone doing anything that could screw up any operation should be stopped.
Sitting there peacefully doesn't do that in my opinion

safe zones around abortion providers

Comments