In a unanimous ruling on the lawfulness of the Abortion Services (Safe Access Zones) (Northern Ireland) Bill passed by the Stormont Assembly earlier this year, the panel of seven judges said that the law aimed at ending pro-life vigils near abortion centres did not breach the terms of the Human Rights Act and Articles 9, 10 and 11 of the European Convention.
At the centre of the case was section 5 (2)(a) of the Bill that makes it an offence to do anything within the boundaries of a so-called “safe access zone” to influence — whether directly or indirectly — protected people such as women seeking an abortion, those accompanying them or employees of abortion facilities.
The Attorney General for Northern Ireland, Dame Brenda King, referred the legislation to the Supreme Court for a ruling on whether threatening peaceful demonstrators with arrest, fines and imprisonment would introduce a disproportionate restriction on the rights to expression and peaceful assembly.
Commenting on the ruling, Liam Gibson, the Policy and Legal Officer for the Society for the Protection of Unborn Children (SPUC), said:
“This is a watershed moment for civil rights in the United Kingdom. Freedom of assembly is not only necessary in a democratic society but legal restrictions on peaceful protests undermine democracy itself. This is not only a bad decision, the Supreme Court has set a precedent which has the potential to endanger everyone’s right to freedom of speech and the right to engage in peaceful protest.
“The abortion industry loathes the public expression of the pro-life message and our efforts to reach out to women considering abortion. The systematic campaign to restrict pro-life freedom of speech is already well advanced but this will make the censorship worse. Pro-life speakers at universities are routinely de-platformed while pro-life posts on social media are frequently shadow banned,” said Mr Gibson.
“The Supreme Court’s decision will almost certainly have implications far beyond Northern Ireland. Abortion advocates in the Scottish Parliament are also planning to introduce a Bill to criminalise pro-life vigils. Scotland’s Lord Advocate, who intervened in this case, claimed that silent prayer was more psychologically damaging than noisy protests. Without any evidence to back up such claims, the Supreme Court has agreed to criminalise silent prayer in the vicinity of abortion facilities,” said Mr Gibson.
Today’s ruling is also likely to influence the passage of the Public Order Bill which is currently before the House of Lords.
When an amendment introducing exclusion zones was debated in November, peers who described themselves as pro-choice joined with opponents of legalised abortion on the principle that silencing any group simply because others find their political or religious views objectionable will inevitably threaten civil rights.
Critics of today’s judgement say that it may make a lengthy succession of trials and legal challenges inevitable. And while uncertainty over the scope of the legislation could generate potentially unlawful convictions, they say it would also have a chilling effect. Fear of criminal prosecution resulting in hefty fines or imprisonment would deter people from exercising their legitimate right to peaceful protest. If they are correct then this issue may well be referred to the European Convention on Human Rights in Strasbourg.
