Thank you very much to constituents for getting in touch with me
with the above titled email.
I recognise abortion is an emotive topic, and I thank them for
their measured approach to the debate.
No woman should face harassment or assault in any circumstances.
This is why I support section 5 of the Public Order Act 1986 (which makes
harassment illegal), and the Protection from Harassment Act 1997. Where
harassment or assault happens, there are wide powers to prosecute under these
laws, as well as the Criminal Justice Act 1998.
Regarding some of the specific examples you referenced regrading accosting women, of note in 2018, the former Home Secretary Sajid Javid
completed a large review on the matter and found that, in 2017 and found that
of the “363 hospitals and clinics in England and Wales that carried out
abortions”, “36 hospitals and clinics have experienced anti-abortion
demonstrations,” and while “ the review gathered upsetting examples
of harassment and the damaging impact this behaviour has had on individuals,”
it also found that it was “clear from the evidence we gathered is that these
activities are not the norm, and predominantly, anti-abortion activities are
more passive in nature. The main activities reported to us that take place
during protests include praying, displaying banners and handing out leaflets. There
were relatively few reports of the more aggressive activities described above.”
The former Home Secretary went on, stating: “Nevertheless,
I recognise that all anti-abortion activities can have an adverse effect, and I
would like to extend my sympathies to those going through this extremely
difficult and personal process. … Having considered the evidence of the review,
I have therefore reached the conclusion that introducing national buffer zones
would not be a proportionate response, considering the experiences of the
majority of hospitals and clinics, and considering that the majority of
activities are more passive in nature.
In making my decision, I am also aware that legislation already
exists to restrict protest activities that cause harm to others…”
I agree with him and would extend my sincerest sympathies to women
going through a difficult choice. I also believe it is important to note that
if ensuring women avoid ‘distress’ is the reasoning behind buffer zones, this
must be weighed against the women saved from distress, who would have deeply
regretted their abortion, or the joy that being enabled to keep a wanted child
brings. Indeed, many women have received great support from people outside
abortion clinics, something which may not happen if buffer zones were
introduced. The website “BeHereForMe” (https://behereforme.org/#stories) has many testimonies from individual women explaining how
the support they received outside the abortion clinic changed their life for
the better.
Finally, referring back to the Statement by the former Home
Secretary: He concludes noting that “In this country, it is a long-standing
tradition that people are free to gather together and to demonstrate their
views. This is something to be rightly proud of. However, it is vital that how
views are demonstrated is carried out within the law, and never more so than on
such an issue that can have such a personal impact on individuals...and I am
adamant that where a crime is committed, the police have the powers to act so
that people feel protected”. (see https://www.parliament.uk/business/publications/written-questions-answers-statements/written-statement/Commons/2018-09-13/HCWS958)
I agree that we should be proud of our” long-standing tradition
that people are free to gather together and to demonstrate their views,” and
also believe the introduction of buffer zones would also be an infringement on
this, and our human rights. Indeed, the right to freedom of assembly, freedom
of conscience, freedom of expression, the right to liberty, and the right to
receive information is established in international and domestic law and is in
part why individuals such as Peter Tatchall, and groups such as the
Manifesto Club, Big Brother Watch, Index on Censorship, and the Freedom
Association all oppose the introduction of buffer zones.
I hope this clearly explains my position in regard to buffer
zones, and though constituents I may have differing views, nevertheless I would
like to thank them once again for getting in touch.
