Twenty-two years ago, Adam Smith-Connor drove his ex-girlfriend to an abortion facility.
“It was a pivotal moment in my life”, says Mr Smith-Connor. “The consequences of my actions that day came back to grieve me years later, when I realized I had lost my son Jacob to an abortion I had paid for…
“Recently, I stood outside a similar facility and prayed to God for my son Jacob, for other babies who have lost their lives to abortion, for their grieving families, and for abortion clinic staff.”
Mr Smith-Connor prayed silently near the abortion facility in Bournemouth until, a few minutes later, he was addressed by council officers. He was asked what he was doing. He replied: “Praying for my son, who is deceased.”
An officer replied: “I’m sorry for your loss. But ultimately, I have to go along with the guidelines of the Public Space Protection Order, to say that we are in the belief that therefore you are in breach of clause 4a, which says about prayer, and also acts of disapproval.”
“I’m just standing praying”, said Mr Smith-Connor in reply, to which the officer responded: “I do understand that. But the PSPO is in place for a reason and we have to follow through on those regulations.”
The subsequent fine stated that it was based on Mr Smith-Connor’s admission that he was, in his own words, “praying for his son, who is deceased”.
“Thoughtcrime” becomes reality
Last year, in a similar case, pro-lifer Isabel Vaughan-Spruce was arrested and charged for praying silently outside an abortion facility in Birmingham, as arrested for the crime of silent prayer by SPUC.
Following her arrest, Ms Vaughan-Spruce said: “It’s abhorrently wrong that I was arrested, brought into cells, searched and humiliated by police simply for praying in the privacy of my own mind…
“Nobody should be criminalised for thinking, for praying, in a public space in the UK.”
SPUC condemned the arrest and charging of Ms Vaughan-Spruce as “a clear violation of freedom of speech, including the right to religious expression”.
Other commentators voiced similar shock and outrage, including GB News’ Rev. Calvin Robinson, who said: “This is terrifying. What have we become?! Under a Conservative government, too.”
Imposition of “cruel” buffer zones
Last October, New Clause 11 to the Public Order Bill, was “outrageous assault on civil liberties”, making it illegal to interfere “with any person’s decision to access, provide, or facilitate the provision of abortion services in that buffer zone” – an offence punishable by up to 2 years in prison.
Such Public Spaces Protection Orders (PSPOs) also outlaw silent prayer, including the making of the sign of the cross.
At the time, a senior Home Office minister was forced to admit that the Government was “unable” to say that the imposition of buffer zones in England and Wales is “presently compatible” with the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR).
An the ECHR memorandum also stated that buffer zones may violate various ECHR articles, including the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion (article 9), the right to freedom of expression (article 10) and the right to freedom of peaceful assembly and to freedom of association with others (article 11).
SPUC has vowed to “continue to fight against this cruel and draconian policy”.
“There is nothing normal about criminalising grief”
SPUC’s Michael Robinson, Executive Director (Public Affairs and Legal Services), said: “So-called ‘Public Spaces Protection Orders’ protect only the abortion industry and not its victims, many of whom are grieving fathers who have lost children to abortion ideology.
“Fining a father for the ‘offence’ of praying for his dead son, Jacob, shows how far we have degraded as a society – a shocking state of affairs that exposes the extent to which apologists for abortion are prepared to go to normalise the killing of unborn children.
“There is, of course, nothing ‘normal’ about abortion, just as there is nothing normal about outlawing prayer as a ‘thoughtcrime’, which has now become a terrifying reality.
“There is nothing normal about criminalising grief and regret, which is what these hideous PSPO’s do. Where is the law to protect Mr Smith-Connor’s right to express his grief and regret? Where, indeed, was the law to protect Jacob twenty years ago?”
