Liam Gibson, Blogpost

The anger sparked by the news that the United States Supreme Court might be on the verge of overturning its 1973 ruling in Roe v Wade seems set to continue as more churches and crisis pregnancy centres are subjected to graffiti, vandalism and arson. Equally worrying is the danger that someone may follow through on the death threats and incitement of violence against judges, politicians and pro-lifers.

And the madness that has gripped the US has spread to the UK. This rage is most clearly seen in Scotland, where people taking part in peaceful pro-life vigils near abortion facilities have been demonised by the media and politicians. Claims of intimidation and harassment of the clients and staff at these facilities by participants in the vigils are entirely baseless. A compilation of the responses to freedom of information requests which can be seen at Abortion Vigils in Scotland proves that the accusations levelled at people participating in pro-life events are unfounded.

Despite a total absence of evidence, however, these baseless claims have been repeated so frequently by pro-abortion politicians, and parroted so eagerly by the press, that there is a real danger that someone may act on the hatred being incited against anyone wishing to bear witness against the evil of abortion. But this is not the only danger pro-life vigils face.

Attempt to outlaw pro-life activity in Scotland

On 19 May 2022, Gillian MacKay, Green Party MSP for the Central Scotland region, launched a consultation exercise on her proposals to criminalise all pro-life activity within 150 yards of an abortion facility in Scotland.

In making the case for criminalising pro-life vigils, Ms MacKay says her proposals would adopt a “precautionary” approach to pro-life activities. In her consultation document, she explains what she has in mind. Ms MacKay lists four pieces of legislation – in addition to the common law offence of Breach of the Peace – that are currently used to address threatening behaviour. These are:

• • Sections 201-204 of the Local Government (Scotland) Act 1973
  • Antisocial Behaviour etc. (Scotland) Act 2004
  • Section 14 of the Public Order Act 1986
  • Section 38 of the Criminal Justice and Licensing (Scotland) Act 2010

The notes that accompany this list reveal why the abortion lobby insisted that existing legislation cannot achieve what they are looking for. Referring to section 38 of the Criminal Justice and Licensing (Scotland) Act 2010, Ms MacKay complains that it “focuses on punishing intimidating behaviour after the harm has been done”, and that “the police may only arrest and charge individuals with this offence if a crime is reported to them and sufficient evidence is provided”.

Ms MacKay’s precautionary approach would allow participants in pro-life vigils to be punished without any harm being done. Existing legislation requires the police to have sufficient evidence before they have the power to arrest and charge individuals. The Abortion Services (Safe Access Zones) Bill would mean that members of the public could be arrested, fined and even imprisoned without the need for evidence linking them to a crime or even for a crime to be reported in the first place.

The fight for freedom of speech

For several years, the abortion lobby has sought to ban pro-life freedom of speech on social media, in advertising, in universities and at public demonstrations. The introduction of so-called buffer zones is a central objective of the campaign to make abortion available on-demand through its complete decriminalisation. However, attempts to prohibit pro-life vigils in the vicinity of abortion facilities have met with mixed results. In 2017, the Home Office considered the arguments for buffer zones but rejected them because they were a disproportionate response infringing on the fundamental human rights guaranteed in law, including freedom of expression and freedom of assembly.

While there is no evidence to suggest that pro-life vigils are anything but peaceful, the hatred being whipped up against them could easily turn into the kind of violence seen in the US. Ms MacKay says that her consultation exercise “is not about the moral right or wrong of abortion, it is about the right to access healthcare free from intimidation and harassment”.

However, it is not possible to discuss pro-life vigils outside the context of the violent deaths of more than 200,000 babies killed by abortion every year in the UK. Abortion is not healthcare; it is a lethal act of violence directed at an unborn child. It is not possible to be ethically neutral about the legal right to proclaim that message in public.