There is a troubling report out of Ireland that raises many of the concerns that we have discussed earlier about the erosion of free speech in the West. Bernadette “Bernie” Smyth is one of Northern Ireland’s most prominent anti-abortion activists and the founder of Precious Life, a pro-life group. She was convicted this week of two counts of harassment that stem from her picketing of the country’s only abortion clinic. The charges were brought by the clinic’s director, Dawn Purvis, who runs the Belfast branch of Marie Stopes. However, the line drawn in the case could create a chilling effect on political and religious speech in the future.
She had been picketing the site since its opening in 2012. Purvis however said that Smyth crossed the line in an exchange that they had outside of the clinic when Purvis asked them to stop harassing her. Smyth reportedly replied in what was described as an exaggerated Ballymena/American drawl: “You ain’t seen harassment yet, darling.” Smyth was also accused in court of “laughing menacingly” at Purvis.
Smyth reportedly denied the exchange at first, but even if it occurred, this hardly seems the stuff for a criminal charge. The concern is not just the curtailment of free speech activities but the selection prosecution over such encounters. It seems hard to believe that such exchanges do not occur regularly without making them into criminal matters.
The prosecutor also alleged that Smyth had been “moving around in front of the window, cackling in a witchy manner.” Criminal cackling?
The defense questioned whether there was real fear in the two separate incidents. It is hard to see how one distinguishes between normal laughter and laughing in an “intimidating and menacing way”.
The judge added to the discomfort over free speech by accusing Smyth of “deliberately and maliciously” slandering a police officer during the trial when she suggested that police officials had questioned professional conduct of the arresting officer. In light of that statement, the judge that “the range of possible sentencing may go from community service to imprisonment.”
That all seems incredibly heavy handed and reinforces the view that Smyth’s political and religious views may have influenced her treatment.
For many years, I have been writing about the threat of an international blasphemy standard and the continuing rollback on free speech in the West. For recent columns, click here and here and here.
The Smyth case creates a highly uncertain and troubling line for free speech in Ireland, particularly on one of the most divisive issues of religious and political speech.
P C Schulte – good, I am glad they are enjoying it. It is a beautiful country and the people have charm. Re the North – the “Brits” would love to leave. It was written into the Constitution of NI, that if the majority in the North voted to secede from the UK, they can. But every referendum on the subject the Republicans have boycotted. The fact is everyone in the North is better off in UK than they would be in Ireland, heavily subsidised by the English taxpayer.
Hillary Clinton’s thesis on Saul Alinsky, “There is Only the Fight” plus a link to buy Rules for Radicals:
http://www.economicpolicyjournal.com/2013/04/hillary-clintons-1969-thesis-on-saul.html
Will all the Irish paparazzi be imprisoned for harassing stars?
Atheist Curmudgeon:
If you want anti-abortion protestors to “mind their own business” I suppose you apply that theory to all groups? You disagree with all protests, or anyone who doesn’t mind their own business? People who complain about Monsanto (damn their eyes) should mind their own business?
Or do you think that only those you disagree with have no right to free speech?
SWM:
Saul Alinsky said that you either have money, or you had people. They (the Liberals) had people. So they had to use what they had, and clothe it in a moral argument. Target the middle class, because they have the real power. Make them believe they are not living according to their values by any means necessary.
His Rules for Radicals discusses lying, demonizing your opponent, and deliberately trying to topple the capitalist economy. He trained with the #2 guy to Al Capone on how to apply the tactics of The Mob.
I suggest you read it before you defend him.
Or perhaps you already have?
What you have described IS Irish culture. 20th century classical liberalism never landed in the place. If you’re not a bigot they think you must be a communist. If you want to experience a non-Western culture, try living there for about 6months. You’ll feel so much better when you leave.
prayerwarrior – I think we are talking Northern Ireland here. The culture is very different than the Republic of Ireland.
The politics of Ireland North and South is very right wing. The liberal ground is virtually non-existent. Bigotry is the norm. The culture of freedom and respect for individualism and a great deal of what we call Western culture, does not apply. In some ways the South is better – the people are kinder, more generous hearted, but in other ways worse. The Magdelen Laundries only closed in the 1990’s. Ireland is a peasant society. Some peasant societies are nice. Many are hell for women. So they finally got a Stopes clinic in 2012? That indicates where they are on the historical time frame.
prayerwarrior – I have two former students who work in the Republic of Ireland and other than the weather, they love it. Ireland is far from a peasant society, it is very modern. Northern Ireland is a battlezone and will be until the British and Scots leave.
Many don’t realize that the US has the greatest protections of free speech in the world, bar none. There are those trying to degrade that right with anti-blasphemy law proposals, etc.
But we can see above what it’s like in a country where you are not free to say what you think.
I am curious, how many arrests will there be at the next football match? Soccer hooligans by the tens of thousands will fill those jails. Fair is fair.
Speech that “creeps you out” or is irritating should not be criminalized. Creepy laughter and even making silly faces are not criminal acts. Threatening violence or harm to someone can be.
Ireland is still a very Catholic and religious country. Lots of tension in the North between the Protestants (English) and Catholics still exists.
So many people have revealed my real name here I might has well start using it, so from here on in I will be using my real first name, Inga.
Who cares???? How do we know that is your real name anyway?
And again. Who cares???
How about sticking to the topic of the post, which really is not about YOU.
on 1, November 21, 2014 at 9:36 amNick Spinelli
“SWM, Embrace all the goodness, integrity and honesty that is Saul Alinsky. Your girl, Hillary, does. Where the hell is she? Hopefully @ a fat farm. She needs to drop 40 if she wants to run for prez.”
*********************
on 1, November 21, 2014 at 10:00 amNick Spinelli
“Turley Middle School.”
********************
Yes indeed.
Free speech is dead. Long live tolerance of only one point of view.
Turley Middle School.
Paul, I’ve denied being someone named Inga? I’ve denied that Annie was a pseudonym? No that isn’t true and I think perhaps you are a bit too interested in who I am and it’s creeping me out, so I suggest you back off.
Inga/Annie – you are waaaaaay too sensitive. You can dish it out, but you can’t take it. Could it be that you are over compensating?
Inga – I know this will sound strange to you, but there can (statistically speaking) be more than one Inga Dietrich. It does raise an issue of identity since you have never used it on this blog, in fact you have denied it. If you are coming out of the closet, come all the way, don’t just crack the door open. And, as Inga, I think you are honor bound to get a new avatar. 🙂
SWM, Embrace all the goodness, integrity and honesty that is Saul Alinsky. Your girl, Hillary, does. Where the hell is she? Hopefully @ a fat farm. She needs to drop 40 if she wants to run for prez.
To get back to JT’s point in this piece, there is a problem in criminalizing speech when that speech merely offends other people. In this case, the issue appears to be the proof required for a claim of harassment under the local law. In fact, harassment is tough to define if there is an element that depends on the fear-factor generated in the alleged victim. News reports are notoriously poor is explaining the context of a legal proceeding, but it appears the judge agreed that Ms. Smyth’s actions caused real fear of physical harm. But this is very subjective, and I agree with JT that courts must tread carefully in making such findings. Although I do not agree with Ms. Smyth’s point of view, I do accept and will defend her right to express that view in public. But as a true libertarian, I also agree that Ms. Smyth should mind her own business. However, free speech should take precedence. Certainly mocking the police should not be a crime.
The abortion debate in Ireland is maybe even more incendiary than it is here.
I have investigated a couple firefighters who set arson fires.
I really don’t care if anyone knows who I am, except that in the past my daughter who is an attorney has had her full real name published because someone wanted to shut me up. Chilling, no?
Maybe she was doing the laugh from Goldmember, MWHHAAAAAAAAAA. I can see why they would be frightened.