Court of appeal upholds censorship zone outside abortion centre criminalising speech, assembly and charitable support

The Court of Appeal has upheld a censorship zone outside of an abortion centre in Ealing, London. The appellant, Alina Dulgheriu, has said she will appeal to the Supreme Court.

The Court found that the appellant’s rights to assembly, religion, thought, expression and the reception of information were violated by the Ealing Public Space Protection Order (PSPO). Nevertheless they ruled that such violations were justified because of the right to privacy of Marie Stopes attendees not to be seen in public.

Alina Dulgheriu, a mother who herself had been helped by a local vigil, unsuccessfully challenged the order at the High Court last July after Ealing Council introduced a censorship zone around the Marie Stopes abortion centre.

Alina said:

“My little girl is here today because of the real practical and emotional support that I was given by a group outside a Marie Stopes centre, and I am going to appeal this decision to ensure that women in Ealing and all across the country do not have this vital support option removed.”

Alina has challenged the Ealing censorship zone because it prevents the help women need to escape an unwanted or coerced abortion. The broadly-worded Ealing PSPO criminalises, among other activities: any act whatsoever of approval or disapproval regarding abortion; prayer; handing out leaflets with an offer of practical support to women who wish to keep their child; ‘Interfering’ with a clinic user in any way whatsoever

Elizabeth Howard, Be Here For Me spokesperson said:

Eight years ago, Alina Dulgheriu found herself jobless, homeless and alone after an unplanned pregnancy. She’d been fired from her job as a live-in nanny and abandoned by her boyfriend. 

She went to Marie Stopes to get advice on her options, but all they could offer her was an abortion. She didn’t want that  but didn’t know where to turn.

Her life was changed when she met a pro-life volunteer at the gates of the abortion centre who told her that she did have options, that there was help available, and that she could keep her baby if she wanted.

She accepted the offer of help and her daughter Sarah was born. She is now seven years old, a beautiful, lively and beloved child.

Ealing Council has banned pro-lifers from helping women like Alina. Alina has challenged their decision in court, but twice the court have ignored her story.

In five years of the pro-life vigil’s work in Ealing, more than 500 women accepted an offer of help and chose to keep their baby rather than have an abortion. These women have tried again and again to have their voices heard, but they are ignored.

In today’s Appeal Court judgement, there is literally not a single sentence, not a single word, dedicated to the women who have been helped by the vigil, who are grateful for the vigil, and who have given the other side of the story.

This is a very sad day for vulnerable women.

Press Release: Commons Home Affairs Select Committee Shows Truth Of Pro-Life Abortion Vigils

This morning, the Commons Home Affairs Select Committee heard from Ealing Councillors, abortion industry representatives, and right-to-life campaigners, on the issue of alleged harassment taking place outside abortion facilities.

The proceedings illustrated that there is currently no probative evidence that has been presented of harassment taking place outside abortion facilities, whether in Ealing, Portsmouth, Birmingham, or elsewhere in the country. All that is presented is hearsay by abortion lobby groups who claim to speak on behalf of women going for abortions.

Last week at Birmingham City Council, a Councillor for Edgbaston in Birmingham, despite being in favour of legalised abortion, also complained about the lack of any evidence of public order disturbance outside the abortion facility in her area.

A series of individuals and groups who have either an ideological support of abortion, or a material interest in stopping pro-life vigils, have alleged women telling them of upsetting experiences outside abortion vigils, but have provided no hard evidence of any such activity going on.

When invited by Clare McCullough of Good Counsel Network to give details that could be checked and thereby proved or falsified, Marie Stopes UK representative John Hansen-Brevitti demurred, needing to be supported by pro-abortion Select Committee Chairperson Yvette Cooper MP, who throughout her own remarks considered reports of subjective upset by anyone to be evidence of harassment. This instead of more objective criteria and substantive proof of the truth of such allegations.

Despite this dearth of evidence, abortion advocates on the Committee and in front of it tried to twist it in their favour. Rather than a lack of prosecution evidencing a lack of prosecutable behaviour, it was taken by them as evidence that the police did not have the powers or confidence to arrest genuinely harassing behaviour. When McCullough pointed out that shouting outside abortion facilities was from aggressive pro-abortion protesters ‘Sister Supporter’, Cooper took this as evidence that no group at all should be allowed outside abortion facilities, rather than just those who cause disturb public order.

By contrast, right-to-lifers McCullough and Antonia Tully pointed to the burden of proof on abortion advocates to substantiate their claims, and also offered alternative testimony from hundreds of women who have been positively affected by Good Counsel Network. Cooper ruled such evidence irrelevant.

The Committee hearing excellently showed the substance-less attempts by the abortion lobby to justify their illiberal aim of using draconian ‘buffer zones’, whether through locally-imposed Public Space Protection Orders (PSPOs) or national legislation, to chill free speech and the right to free assembly, both of which are guaranteed under Common Law and the European Convention of Human Rights (ECHR). It also showed the dignity and seriousness with which pro-life vigil organiser McCullough answered the falsehoods and misinterpretations put before her.

RTL Executive Officer Peter D. Williams said:

“The Commons Home Affairs Select Committee hearing his morning was very illustrative of the truth of this issue.

On the one hand, it exposed the utter lack of probative evidence that the abortion lobby has to justify its campaign to shut down pro-life vigils through illiberal buffer zones, imposed either locally or nationally. The lengths to which abortion advocates will go to close down their opposition is astonishing in its mendacity.

On the other hand, we saw the real story of what abortion vigils intend, and do. So far from being hostile and angry, they are loving and peaceful. They almost always are about offering help and practical support for women who would often actually like to keep their babies, but feel they have no option to do so. Such vigil keepers do not attack or shame women. Allegations that they try to force women to accept leaflets, or block entrances, or shout at women, are without  meaningful foundation.

More generally, the hearing also showed the need for us to have a serious discussion in this country about the importance of free speech and assembly vs. the purported right of people not to be offended. On university campuses as now outside abortion facilities, some politicians and groups are tying to shut down certain forms of activism, even charitable ones, on the basis that others will perceive them to be upsetting or harassing. That is a ludicrous notion, and could undermine our status as a free and open society.

One excellent way to maintain our liberal and democratic traditions is to oppose buffer zones and any effort like them that uses evidence-bereft and slanderous hearsay to dishonestly justify the closing down of peaceful vigils that simply try to help women who feel abortion is their only ‘choice’”.