Northern Ireland is finally safe. Clive Johnston has been convicted and can no longer menace the public.
Johnson, 78, is a retired pastor who committed the heinous offense of preaching near the Causeway Hospital in Coleraine. That was considered within the “safe access zone” under Northern Ireland’s Abortion Services (Safe Access Zones) Act.
The Act prohibits “influencing,” “preventing or impeding access,” or “causing harassment, alarm or distress” to a protected person within 100 meters (about 328 feet) of facilities where abortions are performed.
So Johnson was found guilty of “influencing” inside the protected zone and fined 450 pounds (about $614).
Northern Ireland’s Public Prosecution Service told Fox News Digital, “The defendant was found guilty and convicted by the court of doing an act in a safe access zone with the intent of or being reckless as to whether it had the effect of influencing a protected person attending the premises; and failing to comply with a direction to leave a safe access zone.”
The language of the law is absurdly vague and abusively broad. What constitutes an “influence” is undefined and could include any religious, political, or social exchange. Would it include encouragements to have abortions?
It is equally perverse to treat praying or preaching the same as blocking or impeding access to a clinic. Finally, a hospital engages in a wide array of activities that raise religious or political issues that can be the subject of free speech.
We previously saw several cases in the United Kingdom where people were arrested for silently praying near abortion clinics.
For its part, The Irish Republic has been a leader in censorship and the criminalization of speech. As the leader of the Irish Green Party proclaimed, “We are restricting freedom for the public good.”
By the way, his offense was reading John 3:16, including “For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes him shall not perish but have eternal life.”
What could perish in Ireland and the United Kingdom is free expression as speech regulators target bad influences under time, place, and manner laws.
The UK government prosecuting people for preaching John 3:16. That’s a crime against humanity, quite literally.
Turley Writes:
Johnson, 78, is a retired pastor who committed the heinous offense of preaching near the Causeway Hospital in Coleraine. That was considered within the “safe access zone” under Northern Ireland’s Abortion Services (Safe Access Zones) Act.
………………………………
Turley goes on to tell us that that safe access zone is defined as 328 feet from the facility’s main entrance.
QUESTION:
Will God not hear prayers spoken more than 328 feet feet from the entrance?
If one truly believes in God, the prayer is still effective at home, church or a nature trails miles away. This idea that the prayer has to be said within the exclusion zone is just stupid tripe for really stupid people.
Though one old man praying isn’t likely to hurt anyone. 50 people kneeling around the main entrance is clearly a blockade to disrupt and intimidate. And that’s precisely what the exclusion zone is intended to prevent. Turley knows that, of course. He’s just being coy with this charade about an old, retired pastor.
We’re Just Praying Here
Let’s say, for the sake of argument, that a group of 30 White Christian Nationalist men (in military fatigues) congregate around the main entrance of a synagogue to ‘pray’ for the members of that temple.
You see, these men are greatly concerned that Jews don’t accept Jesus Christ as their lord and savior. So these men come out every Saturday to pray for the souls of Jews. And some of them carry rifles to demonstrate their commitment to second amendment rights.
QUESTION:
Should we presume these men are truly Christians praying for Jews? Or are they really there to intimidate Jews and disrupt temple services?
Abortion Bans Are DEADLY
The husband of a pregnant woman who died in an Irish hospital has said he has no doubt she would be alive if she had been allowed an abortion.
Savita Halappanavar’s family said she asked several times for her pregnancy to be terminated because she had severe back pain and was miscarrying.
Her husband told the BBC that it was refused because there was a foetal heartbeat.
Ms Halappanavar’s death, on 28 October, is the subject of two investigations.
An autopsy carried out two days after her death found she had died from septicaemia, according to the Irish Times.
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-northern-ireland-20321741
…………………………………………
The above tragedy occurred in November of 2012. Savita Halappanavar was a 32 year old dentist with her whole life ahead of her. But because she suffered a pregnancy complication in Catholic Ireland, the hospital staff stood down to let her die.
And since the Dobbs decision, in 2022, these tragedies have been repeated in the U.S. Women suffering pregnancy complications in southern red states face a very real chance of dying. What’s more Republicans seek to make these tragedies more common with mindless abortion bans.
Every abortion is a homicide. By definiton.
QUESTION: Will God not hear prayers spoken more than 328 feet feet from the entrance?
That question has nothing to do with anything. He was preaching on John 3:16, not praying. He was criminally prosecuted for speech that the government disagreed with. Read the article again, this time for comprehension.
OTOH, perhaps you favor Nazi-like restricxtions on speech. It seems that is where you are coming from. Any speech that doesn’t align with the government orthodoxy should be criminally prosecuted. That is what you’re saying. You’re morally equivalent to a Nazi.
foetal heartbeat.???? ha ha ha ha ha
Let’s say, for the sake of argument, that a group of 30 White Christian Nationalist men (in military fatigues) congregate around the main entrance of a synagogue to ‘pray’ for the members of that temple.
So long as they are far enough away that people can enter and exit freely, they are absolutely free to do that. No government has the right to stop them. And in the USA that universal law is enforced by the courts. In the rest of the world it isn’t, to their shame.
This isn’t even a hypothetical. There’s a synagogue in Ann Arbor that for years has been picketed every Saturday by “anti-zionist” neo-nazis (there is no difference), and there’s nothing they can do about it. They’ve tried, but the courts have said nothing doing.
So said “Anonymous” whose great expression and logic could not bear the wait of his or her name.
What a triumph of courage for this person of honor.
He wasn’t praying, he was preaching, and the purpose of preaching is to influence people. That is a fundamental human right that every person in the world has. The UK government is violating that right.
In the USA a 100-metre buffer zone is unconstituitonal. Buffer zones must be no larger than is strictly necessary to protect people coming in and out from being physically blocked or harmed, but may NOT be so large as to “protect” them from hearing a message they might prefer not to hear. There is no such thing as a right not to be spoken to. There is no such thing as a right not to be preached to.
Johnston was not blocking the hospital entrance. He was across the road, where it was impossible for him to interfere with anyone’s rights. Anyone who wanted to enter could do so freely — but they would have to hear his preaching, his attempt to convince them not to commit the terrible crime they were planning to commit. The UK Parliament had no right to make a law against that, any more than the Third Reich had a right to make the Nuremberg laws.
ugh
Res Res Est sez:
England has no Constitution. Besides, the real problem with England is that it has too many jihadists. And don’t act like you haven’t been warned for years.
“Slavery is freedom” – The Pigs of Animal Farm
Amo 8:11 Behold, the days come, saith the Lord GOD, that I will send a famine in the land, not a famine of bread, nor a thirst for water, but of hearing the words of the LORD:
We are entering those days.
If liberty means anything at all, it means the right to tell people what they do not want to hear – George Orwell
It’s not new. It repeats.
It also says “And this gospel of the kingdom shall be preached in all the world for a witness unto all nations; and then shall the end come.”
Matthew 24:14 KJV
But that’s Jewish evangelists during the tribulation.
Right before the rapture, it appears most people won’t be experiencing enough pain to get their attention back on Gods Word.
Send the preacher a laser measuring device and have him preach at 101 meters. Prove it to the gestapo police if they appear. Have a copy of the ordinance.
The point is “There is NO FREESPEECH” in the UK including Ireland … Vice pres JD Vance scolded our worthless NATO allies by asking the simple question “What do we have in common”? If we’re not bound by the basic most important right “Free Speech” which is listed first in our constitution, then let’s get the hell out of NATO …
Great idea. I love it!
Being free means sometimes having to hear opinions that you disagree with.
Some people, like those in the UK, would rather be enslaved just so they don’t have to hear that kind of speech. Although I’m an anglophile at heart, I thank heaven I’m an American and not a resident of the UK. The First Amendment has never looked so good as it does when we hear about these absurd criminal prosecutions.
The point is “There is NO FREESPEECH” in the UK including Ireland … Vice pres JD Vance scolded our worthless NATO allies by asking the simple question “What do we have in common”? If we’re not bound by the basic most important right “Free Speech” which is listed first in our constitution, then let’s get the hell out of NATO …
Please do make a distinction between Ireland and Northern Ireland – they are oil and water, and we are talking about Northern Ireland. Northern Ireland Britain (The Troubles were not troubles for nothing), we all already know Britain is a dumpster fire waiting to explode, and no, in that context, this is not the least surprising. This is what happens when you put an equivalent teenage Labour party in power. I’d say good luck, but I don’t think that downward spiral can be reversed without total collapse. They can hopefully rebuild on the inevitable ashes.
Western Europe is burnt toast. It’ll be the height of irony if Eastern Europe ends up saving the day, and regardless – Western Europe can get bent. We rejected their ways of doing things 250 years ago, we reject them today.
Eastern Europe has very recent experience with tyranny. Many people alive today remember being ruled by a totalitarian government. That is why they have taken the red pill, while Western Europe is asleep at the wheel, committing civilizational suicide.
P.S. One minor nit-pick: the UK stands for the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. So Northern Ireland is not Britain, but it is UK.
Northern Ireland is Britain. It is in the British Isles, so it’s Britain. It is not Great Britain, which is the big island.
The republic of Ireland is no better with respect to free speech. It equally woke.
Maybe priests should be concerned about abusing young boys and keep their noses out of abortion issues.
Congratulations, Robert, on the stupidest comment of the day.
BURN all the catholic church’s, BURN the catholic priests, there is that little passage in the Bible about tying a millstone around your neck and throw yourself in the sea if you harm or molest kids. No mercy, NO forgiveness.
So do you say burn all Blacks if you find one Black person who molests a kid? Yeah, you probably do. You’re seriously stupid.
Typical totalitarian leftist – perfectly OK with imprisoning people for quoting the Bible while they slaughter babies. Mass murder has always been a leftist specialty.
He was a pastor not a priest.
Maybe you should be concerned with your hypocrisy in believing that your belief and rights supercedes his.
AI Overview
Under standard Western and U.S. protocol, the President does not greet a visiting head of state at the airport. Instead, the President waits to receive them at the official host residence (such as the White House).
Trump arrived in Beijing today.
Xi Jinping couldn’t be bothered to meet him at the airport. He sent his vice president.
Xi couldn’t be bothered to meet Trump at the airport because he understands as well as Trump does that humiliating your underlings is a great way to keep them in check.
Oh, I see what that has to do with a preaher in Northern Ireland getting prosecuted for preaching on John 3:16.
TDS is real, people. Those suffering from it go insane.
The point is “There is NO FREESPEECH” in the UK including Ireland … Vice pres JD Vance scolded our worthless NATO allies by asking the simple question “What do we have in common”? If we’re not bound by the basic most important right “Free Speech” which is listed first in our constitution, then let’s get the hell out of NATO …
“TDS is real, people. Those suffering from it go insane.”
I must respectfully disagree. Those people were already insane. TDS is just another symptom of their more fundamental disease.
The president of China doesn’t meet anyone at the airport as part of their protocol. Typically it’s the VP.
“The Battle of Religions”
Abortion vs. Christianity
Christianity contains free will. Education, commonsense, reason leads people to morality. Duh. If there’s a mistake then stop doing it. Vice is like drugs. People become addicted to anger, rage. True
There were reasons my Anabaptist ancestors left Europe and came to America.
I wonder if they have similar laws, barring jihadist demonstrators from coming within 100 meters of a synagogue? Or how about barring them from burning cathedrals? Nope and don’t hold your breath.
Good point, and no, it only goes one way. Preaching about God’s love from the New Testament? A criminal offense, and the government will come down on you like a tons of bricks. Jihadist violence and rape gangs? A wink and a nod.
Underneath it all is a culture of death. Precahing about God’s love might, heaven forbid, cause people to value life. In the UK, and in much of Europe, darkness has descended. Our task is to try and prevent that from happening in America, despite the best efforts of the Left here.
Yep, any act of terrorism should be an automatic hate crime.
The Islam of Muslims is unconstitutional with its Sharia Law, as it is a governmental and legal system and not a religion, in direct opposition to and nullifying the U.S. Constitution.
Don’t you just love the founders forbid sharia. 😂. They did.
The Constitution is American fundamental law, which Islam and its Sharia Law presume to replace, that being unconstitutional.
Turley left out an important fact. The retired preacher is a known anti-abortion activist who was using a bullhorn intent in harassing patients. Cops asked him several times to stop using the bullhorn and move outside the zone. He refused. That’s conduct, not speech. He was arrested for his conduct. Not his speech.
The irony of Turley’s omission of facts speaks volumes about his hypocrisy. He’s big on punishing conduct. Not speech. This preacher was arrested because of his conduct.
None of the news accounts of the preaching say anything about using a bullhorn. That would make a difference.
So . . . can you provide evidence of that, or are you just making it up, or perhaps pulling it off some left-wing website with little fidelity to the truth?
I suspect that, true to form, you are spouting lies. That is the only way you cutlish leftists can make a point. Telling lies is what you do here all day every day. I have yet to see you say one true thing.
The court records from Coleraine Magistrates’ Court explicitly state that Clive Johnston was using a standard microphone and loudspeaker setup as part of an open-air church service, accompanied by a large crucifix and hymn singing.
He was using amplified speech. Bullhorn and speaker with a microphone, there’s no difference. He was still using a device to make himself louder.
“Mr Johnston argued that he was not protesting, but holding a religious service. However, the prosecution argued that, in context, the activity amounted to an anti-abortion protest inside a legally protected area. The court heard that he was near a large crucifix, using a microphone, and quoting from the Bible.”
https://humanists.uk/2026/05/11/pastor-fined-for-breaching-northern-ireland-abortion-safe-access-zone/
Potato, potáto.
According to the article you linked:
The court heard that he was near a large crucifix, using a microphone, and quoting from the Bible.
A bullhorn is vastly different. It makes very loud, disruptive sounds. It is typically used in protest demonstrations. You, sir, are a liar, and saying “potato, potáto” will not cover up your guilt.
The prosecution’s case was not based on any BS “bullhorn” garbage but on their argument that he was holding an anti-abortion protest. Re-read the article you linked and you’ll see that’s true. To characterize preaching about God’s love from John 3:16 as an “anti-abortion protest” is patently ridiculous.
This absurd prosecution is a smelly pig, and you’re trying to put lipstick on it. Hint: you’re failing.
It’s an amplification device. Either way it makes no difference whether it was a bullhorn or not.
Amplified speech whether it’s a bullhorn or a microphone and a speaker is still the same offense. You’re just upset that it’s literally not what I said. Bummer for you.
At this point it’s just sealioning. Aplifying one’s speech a little is different than a bullhorn. Even when you’re caught with your pants down, you never admit maybe you misspoke. That’s what marks you out as a troll rather than a good-faith commenter.
A bullhorn and a microphone with a speaker are both used to amplify speech. It makes no difference what was used. What matters is amplified speech was used.
You just want to argue over pointless literal definitions. The point remains that the preacher broke the law.
I’ve been at outdoor events where the person used a microphone and it was nothing at all like a bullhorn. It amplified the person’s voice a little bit, enough for the people fairly nearby, but bore no resemblance at all to the sound coming out of a bullhorn. Just admit that you misspoke. You specifically said bullhorn, but you could not provide any evidence a bullhorn was used. You’ll gain lots of credibility here by just admitting that, okay, maybe you misspoke. By just digging in, you’re not doing yourself any favors.
Again, it doesn’t matter whether a bullhorn or speaker were used. The point is still that speech was amplified by a device. It was still illegal. Whether I misspoke or not a smart reader would understand the point. Anonymous chose to argue over literal meanings. It’s irrelevant.
Again, totally full of shit. You have no evidence of how loud the microphone was turned up. Bullhorns are unique, and you have no evidence to support your comparison with a bullhorn. Give it up. Of course you won’t because lying is what you do every day, all day. And when caught, when it’s right there in black and white, you gaslight. GFY
Daddy baddy, nope. It’s still irrelevant. Bullhorn or speaker. Both are used to amplify speech. You’re just upset because you don’t have an argument.
Both are used to amplify speech.
You continue in that stupid position that has already been discredited. Just saying they both “amplify speech,” without knowing exacxtly how loud the microphone was, is meaningless. Again, you’re in the position of saying a Mazerati traveling 175 mph is the same thing as a car going some speed, but we don’t know how fast.
You’re cooked. Everyone can see it. You can see it, but you stubbornly refuse to admit you were wrong. That’s what makes you a troll, rather than a person worth conversing with.
You’re a total idiot if you it won’t happen to you … Just like an intolerant leftist: If they don’t fully comply put him in jail
You’re a total idiot if you it won’t happen to you … Just like an intolerant leftist: If they don’t fully comply put him in jail
X, as prosecutor: Your honor, the defendant was doing 175 miles per hour in his Mazerati in a 55 zone.
Defendant: Your honor, I was doing 55 mph in my Ford Escort.
X, as prosecutor: Your honor, okay, maybe he’s right, but his point is irrelevant. A Ford Escort and a Mazerati are both motor vehicles, and they both move along the road. Potato, potáto. Therefore, the defendant is guilty doing 175 in his Mazerati.
Wrong analogy omfk. It would be both can go 155 mph. It doesn’t matter what brand of car it is. If both go over 55 mph both are still breaking the law.
You have zero evidence the use of the speaker and microphone was not as loud as a bullhorn would have been. Clearly the preacher needed it to be loud enough to be heard through the full distance of the zone. That’s pretty loud.
He was within a zone where it is illegal to try to influence a patient. It’s the intent that got him in trouble. Remember speech can be limited by time, place, and manner. He broke two of those restrictions.
X at 10:53: The retired preacher was using a bullhorn.
X now: The retired preacher was not using a bullhorn. But what I said was not wrong.
Everyone but you can see why you have zero credibility here.
It would be both can go 155 mph
Complete and total BS. Bullhorns are vastly different than ordinary microphones. Unless you have evidence that the volume was turned up so high as to mimic a bullhorn, you have no leg to stand on. As usual, you are completely and totally full of shit.
“Bullhorns are vastly different than ordinary microphones.”
They are the same thing. A bullhorn is just a microphone attached to a speaker directly. A microphone attached to a speaker thru a wire. Does the same thing. It amplifies sound. Whether the volume was raised or not is irrelevant. Both devices are used for the same purpose. To amplify speech.
You’re a total idiot if you it won’t happen to you … Just like an intolerant leftist: If they don’t fully comply put him in jail
How certain of you? Did you read it in the controlled press, or was it truly reported fact. Even the police report could have been fraudulent, to protect the government
Trust no one
You’re a total idiot if you it won’t happen to you … Just like an intolerant leftist: If they don’t fully comply put him in jail
The retired preacher is a known anti-abortion activist
So what?
who was using a bullhorn intent in harassing patients.
He was preaching, not harassing. You seem to have no idea what “harassment” means. Communicating ones opinion to someone who doesn’t want to hear it is not harassment, it’s the freedom of speech.
Cops asked him several times to stop using the bullhorn and move outside the zone. He refused. That’s conduct, not speech.
No, it is not conduct. It is pure speech, and the law against it abridges the freedom of speech. In the USA such a law would not be tolerated. It would be struck down immediately. The freedom of speech is universal, but only in the USA is it legally protected. The UK abridges it with impunity, to its shame.
Satanism is normalized. Steven Hawking Physicist said mankind would not last a hundred years.
Steve is dead.
He was on a patch of grass across the street from the hospital, delivering a sermon that had nothing at all to do with abortion, pro-life, or pro-choice. It only pertained to “God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten son . . .” He was not impeding anyone’s entrance or exit from the hospital. Do abortion-minded women and the UK government now really consider that harrassment? Wow.
This brings to mind another saying in the New Testament, also quoting Jesus: “Blessed are you when men revile you, persecute you, and say all manner of evil against you falsely because of me. Rejoice in that day and be exceedingly glad, because your reward in heavin is great, for in the same way they persecuted the prophets.” I have little doubt Mr. Johnston is quite familiar with that verse, and so even though his legal team is going to appeal, he must realize that he is blessed.
P.S. I know someone pointed this out below, but the article’s references to Ireland are in error. This took place in Northern Ireland, a different country from Ireland.
Under the Abortion Services (Safe Access Zones) Act (Northern Ireland) 2023, a person does not need to engage in “harassment, alarm, or distress” to break the law. The statute explicitly makes it an offense to do an act within the 100-meter zone with the intent—or being reckless as to whether it has the effect—of “influencing” a protected person.
The prosecution did not have to prove Mr. Johnston was harassing anyone. They only had to prove he was intentionally or recklessly attempting to influence the minds or emotional states of patients or staff entering a medical facility.
According to the Public Prosecution Service, Mr. Johnston was not instantly arrested for speaking. He was first given a direction by police officers to leave the designated safe access zone.
He was ultimately convicted of two specific things: doing an act with the intent/recklessness of influencing a protected person, and failing to comply with a lawful police direction to leave the zone. Choosing to remain inside a legally restricted zone after being ordered out by law enforcement shifts the issue from pure religious speech to a refusal to comply with public order laws.
The law does not ban Mr. Johnston from preaching his sermon, reading John 3:16, or expressing his religious beliefs. It only bans him from doing so within a specific 328-foot radius of an abortion clinic.
influence the minds or emotional states of patients
It is a particularly sad day for freedom when “recklessly infulencing someone’s emotional state” is a criminal offense. That would include “recklessly” cheering them up, for example, by telling them about how much God loved the world and how they can have everlasting life. How absurd.
He was first given a direction by police officers to leave the designated safe access zone.
That makes no difference legally. If he was not committing a crime, the police orders were invalid. If the police tell me to leave my house for no valid reason, and I refuse, then they arrest me for refusing their directive, does that make me guilty just because they told me to leave my own home before arresting me? No.
Choosing to remain inside a legally restricted zone after being ordered out by law enforcement shifts the issue from pure religious speech to a refusal to comply with public order laws
It was only “legally restricted” in the sense that people were not allowed to “recklessly influence someone’s emotional state” in that area. It wasn’t “legally restricted” for people to talk about their favorite coffee, or their plans for Aunt Martha’s birthday. This brings us back to your first point, that he was recklessly trying to cheer people up by telling them of God’s love.
You title yourself “Esquire” but your comment does not reveal an ability to think legally. I call BS on your “esquire.”
“He was first given a direction by police officers to leave the designated safe access zone.
That makes no difference legally. If he was not committing a crime, the police orders were invalid.”
It makes a big difference legally. He was inside the zone and a police officer was issuing lawful orders to leave. Ignoring them is a crime.
“It was only “legally restricted” in the sense that people were not allowed to “recklessly influence someone’s emotional state” in that area.”
He was trying to influence patients using Bible verses. He was properly legally restricted because he was within the zone. Speech can be restricted by time, place, and manner. The preached was in violation of the zone’s legal restrictions.
police officer was issuing lawful orders to leave
You’re loading the rabbit in the hat. You’re assuming he’s guilty, then working backword from that to characterize the order as lawful. You’re assuming the very ground you’re supposedly trying to prove. That’s illogical because it’s circular.
Speech can be restricted by time, place, and manner.
You’re just repeating the concept that the speech was suppressible by the government because it was “recklessly” cheering people up with a Bible verse. If that’s what counts as criminal conduct in the UK, then the UK has fallen.
Let’s wait for the appeal. Mr. Johnston might be vindicated based on the conclusion that the government’s entire premise was false: that he was somehow harassing or influencing abortion-minded women by simply preaching on a Bible verse that says nothing at all about abortion.
“You’re loading the rabbit in the hat. You’re assuming he’s guilty, then working backword from that to characterize the order as lawful.”
You don’t have do assume he’s guilty to issue lawful order. The preacher was already in a zone restricting speech. It’s the law. I am not assuming anything. Being within the zone and asked by a police officer to leave. It’s a lawful order. He can be trespassed if the preacher ignores a lawful order. That’s a crime.
“You’re just repeating the concept that the speech was suppressible by the government because it was “recklessly” cheering people up with a Bible verse. If that’s what counts as criminal conduct in the UK, then the UK has fallen.”
It doesn’t matter if he was “cheering” them. He is a well known anti-abortion protester. His intentions are already well known. The law may not be to your liking but it’s the law. Let the courts decide.
He was harassing women by preaching a Bible verse over a loudspeaker. That is a crime.
Being within the zone and asked by a police officer to leave. It’s a lawful order.
So if someone is just standing there saying nothing, and the police tell them to leave, then it’s a lawful order even though the person is not saying anything? If that’s true, then it’s even more unfortunate, because then the UK has become a totalitarian state with no liberty. If that’s lawful, then the UK has fallen into tyranny, and the law itself is invalid.
It doesn’t matter if he was “cheering” them. He is a well known anti-abortion protester.
So the law includes text saying that if a person is “well known” a different standard applies to their speech than a person who is not well known? I call BS on that.
He was harassing women by preaching a Bible verse over a loudspeaker.
I have heard people before say that they feel harassed by a Bible verse on God’s love. Because that is facially illogical, the only correct conclusion is that the person is feeling harassed by their own guilty conscience, and they delight in seeing someone else unjustly punished for pricking their conscience with the truth. Romans 1 even talks about this very psychological phenomenon.
“So if someone is just standing there saying nothing, and the police tell them to leave, then it’s a lawful order even though the person is not saying anything?”
Of course he was not just standing there saying nothing. If he was doing that he wouldn’t be in violation of the law. A police officer wouldn’t have reason to ask him to leave. That would seem obvious. But that’s not what happened. Wishful thinking is not an argument.
“So the law includes text saying that if a person is “well known” a different standard applies to their speech than a person who is not well known? I call BS on that.”
No, that’s not the point. He’s greasy known and his intents. It’s called priors on your side of the pond.
Here’s what I’m trying to explain to you. When you characterize the order as “lawful,” you’re already making the assumption that he was breaking the law. But then when you explain why he was breaking the law, you phrase it as disobeying a lawful order. That is circular.
It’s called priors on your side of the pond.
Priors are not an element of a new crime. Whether or not *this* conduct is criminal has nothing to do with whether or not a person has a criminal record from the past.
“ Here’s what I’m trying to explain to you. When you characterize the order as “lawful,” you’re already making the assumption that he was breaking the law. But then when you explain why he was breaking the law, you phrase it as disobeying a lawful order. That is circular.”
It’s not circular. No assumption of breaking the law is required to order someone to move. When in a restricted zone and the preacher is first asked to move. He either moves or not. Then a second time it’s an order it’s disobeying a lawful order. He clearly refused. So he got arrested.
“ Priors are not an element of a new crime. Whether or not *this* conduct is criminal has nothing to do with whether or not a person has a criminal record from the past.”
I never said it was a new crime. But his prior behavior is reason enough to believe his intent is clear. Judges always look at criminal records to assertain the character and intent of the accused.
No assumption of breaking the law is required to order someone to move.
Then that’s even worse. Someone can be obeying the law, in a public space, where they have every right to be, and if the police decide on a whim they have to move, the police can tell them to move, and they have to on pain of being charged with a criminal offense? Holy f–k! Wait, are you talking Nazi Germany, the Soviet Union, or the UK?
Plus Mr. Johnston has no priors. But I was assuming you were using that term metaphorically to mean he has previously spoken about abortion.
As an aside: and on a personal note, do you folks in the UK ever wish you had a First Amendment? From your tone it seems almost like you are basking in the lack of freedom of speech. That’s a really odd thing about human nature, that sometimes it prefers not to be free.
Free? We are free to express our views and exercise free speech just as you do. The only exception is we deem certain kinds of speech as conduct.
My tone has nothing to do with anything. You assume too much. By the way I am not from the UK.
We are free to express our views and exercise free speech just as you do.
Really? In your country, people get charged with a crime for praying silently. They get charged with a crime for tweeting on X if someone finds their tweet offensive. They get charged with a crime if they preach on God’s love in John 3:16. The First Amendment would prohibit those types of criminal charges. Anyone charged with such a ridiculous crime would have a successful First Amendment defense.
So, no, you’re lying. You are not free just like us. You are slaves of the Gestapo-like government, and you are gleeful about it.
By the way I am not from the UK.
Then who in the world are you talking about when you say “we”?
Free? We are free to express our views and exercise free speech just as you do. The only exception is we deem certain kinds of speech as conduct.
Then you are NOT free to express your views or exercise the freedom of speech. Freedom to say only those things the government likes is not freedom. You can’t “deem” speech to be conduct; it either is or it isn’t, and “deeming” one thing to be another is like “deeming” a dog’s tail to be a leg.
The plain fact is that speaking is not conduct. Amplified speaking is not conduct. Blocking someone from going about his lawful business IS conduct, and the law may properly forbid that. Putting someone in reasonable fear of physical harm if he goes about his lawful business is also conduct, and may be forbidden by law. But merely communicating from across the street is NOT conduct; it’s pure communication, i.e. speech, and it may only be regulated on a strictly content-neutral and value-neutral basis.
The law may forbid speaking on a residential street, at 2 in the morning, at a volume above so many decibels; but only if it applies that equally no matter what is being said.
No doubt you feel the same when an evangelical shows up at lgbt funerals to taunt the dead and those mourning?
No that is completely different, not even remotely related.
Yes, actually. It is exactly the same, and in the USA their right to do that is absolutely protected.
Except that they’re not evangelicals. The Phelps family are paid operatives for the Democrat Party. They get paid through a cut-out, but they’re paid nonetheless and the money is coming from Democrat funders.
The statute explicitly makes it an offense to do an act within the 100-meter zone with the intent—or being reckless as to whether it has the effect—of “influencing” a protected person.
And that statute is just as illegitimate as the Nuremberg Laws. We are right to condemn the UK parliament for enacting it, and the UK police and courts for enforcing it.
How sad, one of the most loving and truth verses in all sixty-six books of GOD’s word. It will be a very sad day at The Great White Throne Judgement for many! Pastor Clive Johnston’s reward will be great in Heaven!
what a great day that will be. soaked in that blood that came pouring out of his wrists, feet, back, face and skull. no forgiveness without it.
his visage was marred more than any man’s. they who gazed upon him were sickened. tell us big boy, who just punched you in the face? who plucked out your beard, SON OF GOD? HOT SHOT! come on down, fool on the hill. kinda stuck up there, ain’t cha?
and the sky turned black as a storm kicked in and them boys got sceered. hey, fellas, he twere the son of god, after-all
Northern Ireland birth rate is 1.71 and is probably on a downward trend. Just to maintain a steady population it should be 2.1. Won’t be long before abortions will be considered in a completely different light especially when you factor in migrants who have no intention on assimilation
Congress isn’t going to remove judges. They don’t want the most powerful mafia bosses turning loose on their corrupt money making schemes, isn’t that right Nancy?