author: Tyler Durden
Written by Ciaran Kelly for DailySceptic.org,
If you want to see how far Britain has strayed from its liberal heritage, think of the spectacle of 78-year-old grandpa and retired pastor who are warned by the police that he is not allowed to preach the Bible in public space. His crime was not harassment, obstruction or intimidation. He recited and commented on a verse many learned as children: "For God loved the planet so much..."
Clive Johnston's alleged crime was a violation."buffer zone" around the hospital, which houses a sexual wellness clinic where abortions are carried out – even though it was Sunday afternoon erstwhile there were no abortions planned, and he did not mention abortions, neither maternity nor children.
State claims that he risked "impacting" on anyone who visits the clinic in connection with abortion or anyone working there – a crime threatened with fines. He was charged and found guilty this week.
At this point, it is worth saying clearly: This is no longer about cultural debate on the ethics of abortion.
The question is whether the state can decide which ideas are allowed in public space and which must stay confined to the private sphere. In the recordings from the first confrontation with the police, which are now circulating on X, the policeman virtually tells Johnston that his spiritual views should only be expressed in a "safe" place, specified as chaplainy – alternatively than on the street where anyone passing by could hear.
Johnston’s case is the latest example of a pattern that has been increasing for years: a slow but clear effort to narrow down the space in which Christians, in particular, can express their beliefs.
Take the school chaplain, Dr. Bernard Randall, who was commissioned to Prevent for discussing Christian teaching during the school appeal. Or many street ministers removed from public places just for speaking about Christ. Or a increasing list of people interrogated by police only in silent prayer in "buffer zones" – cases where no word has been given, no signs have been shown, no interactions have been initiated. The very anticipation of interior deviance of faith, it seems, is now adequate to rise authoritative concerns.
"buffer zones" were introduced for abortion with a legitimate objective: to defend women from harassment at a delicate moment. fewer would argue this nonsubjective (although it was already adequately protected by existing laws prohibiting harassment). But like many well-intended means, the law is stretched beyond its first purpose. If the "impact" can be inferred from the act of expressing the Christian religion itself – regardless of what is actually said and whether it concerns abortion – then we no longer control behavior, but the hypothetical influence of the idea. To put it plainly, we're the ones guarding our thinking.
When a flexible concept of "impact" becomes a crime, its implications are hard to control. If spoken words are suspicious, what about the presence of a certain person? If preaching from the Bible is considered besides influential, what about individual in the area wearing a Christian cross or even a hijab? Could it discourage a female from having an abortion due to the fact that she knows reservations about an abortion based on faith, so it's a crime? If influence is defined so subjectively, then almost all expression of religion becomes a possible crime in the eyes of someone.
Establishing a law prohibiting "impact" alternatively of "force" or "harassment" is absurd. This suggests that we are not all affected all day. It is not immoral to change your head about a given subject – and it is condescending to presume that members of society are so weak that the presence of a individual with a different view could origin real harm.
Britain has developed a habit of putting the avoidance of crimes above the protection of freedom. From the proliferation of "non-crime haters" to the control of speeches on university campuses, the direction of movement was unmistakable: little hazard of discomfort at the expense of little freedom.
Buffer zones are simply the latest and most disproportionate limit. Currently, not only the limit of acceptable behaviour is being tested, but the limit of acceptable conviction. You don't gotta share Clive Johnston's theology to see the danger.
A country that tells its citizens that their religion belongs only to designated "safe zones" does not defend pluralism but actively dismantles it.
Translated by Google Translator
source:https://www.zerohedge.com/
