Our submission to Lambeth Council consultation on the introduction of a Public Space Protection Order around abortion centres in Lambeth

Our submission to Lambeth Council consultation on the introduction of a Public Space Protection Order around abortion centres in Lambeth

 In Be Here For Me
0

About Be Here For Me

We are mothers against the ban on help outside abortion clinics. There is currently pressure in the UK from abortion provider BPAS to introduce censorship zones around abortion centres. This would prevent people from offering help to women outside abortion centres in in the UK. Our campaign has been formed to oppose the introduction of censorship zones outside abortion centres. More information on our campaign can be found at www.behereforme.org.

We have put together this submission following the announcement that Lambeth Council is looking at the possibility of introducing a Public Space Protection Order zone around two abortion facilities: the BPAS clinic in Streatham and the Marie Stopes clinic in Brixton.

Extent of vigils in Lambeth

Vigils are very limited in the borough of Lambeth.

  • In the whole area covered by Lambeth Council, there are usually vigils of 1-3 people for between 6 – 12 hours a month in total.
    • BPAS Streatham – 1-3 people for an average of one hour per a week
    • Marie Stopes Brixton – 1-3 people for an average of a couple of hours per a week
  • Annual one-off vigils held by The Helpers of God’s Precious Infants sometimes attract up to 30 people and are agreed in advance with the police.
  • The 40 days for Life vigils have taken place once at each site. All members of events such as the 40 Days for Life vigil are required to abide by a statement of peace.

Purpose of vigils

The purpose of vigils is not primarily to ‘protest’. To call them such is a mischaracterisation. Vigils are peaceful, opportunities to pray for everybody involved and to offer help to those who might need it and cannot find it elsewhere.

Vigil members regularly offer practical support to pregnant women during their pregnancy and beyond which includes:

  • housing
  • financial support
  • legal advice
  • help to get a GP or to access medical services if she cannot at present
  • a safe-place to shelter
  • ongoing moral support and counselling
  • baby-sitting later on if desired

If a woman/couple decline help or do not wish to talk then there is no pressure to do so.

As far as we are aware, there have been no formal charges laid against members of the vigils and some of the vigil members in Lambeth have been involved, without ever witnessing an ‘incident’, for well over fifteen years. Not once have any of the vigil members in Lambeth been contacted by councilors or council officers to engage with the members due to complaints in those 15-20 years.

Anyone who attends the vigils abhors the very idea of harassment or intimidation – this would violate all that vigil members stand for, which is, on the contrary, to bring a spirit of love and compassion to these places. Vigil members would indeed act to prevent this on the street.

Many hundreds of women have kept their children as a result of the practical help offered outside clinics in London. We can introduce you to them. The vigils are there, near the clinic, because it is the place of need.

What vigils members at Lambeth do not do:

  • Call those entering or leaving the abortion centre “murderers”.
  • Tell them that God will never forgive them.
  • Tell them their babies will haunt them.
  • Prevent them from entering the BPAS or Marie Stopes abortion centres or in any way block the pavement or other access to the abortion centre.
  • Make physical contact with those entering the abortion centre, except for the occasional hug if a woman instigates that – this happens sometimes when a woman chooses not to have an abortion.
  • Harass or shout abusive names at women.
  • Chase women.
  • Throw holy water over people.
  • Have more than three people next to the entrance when the abortion centre is open.


Our specific concerns

Lack of consultation

We find the lack of proper consultation with vigil groups prior to the motion presented in council extraordinary, given the potential effects of a PSPO on vigil members, the mothers that receive our help, and other citizens in Lambeth.

We understand that a statutorily required ‘consultation’ is underway. However, the council has shown little or no desire to engage with Vigil members in any meaningful dialogue that should have preceded such formal, public, and costly action. The consultation underway appears to serve as a vehicle to verify a pre-conceived notion of what happens at pro-life vigils, mostly informed by a campaign run by the UK’s largest private abortion provider.

Dialogue with vigil members and other pro-life representatives prior to the ‘consultation’, alongside a proper review of any substantiated claims of harassment or other breach of the law should have preceded formal action.

Addressing ‘evidence’ supplied by groups with a vested interest to introduce a PSPO

Not only has the council proceeded formally without attempting to understand the reality of pro-life vigils, but it has done so on the back of evidence packs provided by abortion provider BPAS.

We find this unacceptable for two reasons. Firstly, BPAS has a financial stake in excluding pro-life vigils, as women who ultimately decide not to proceed with an abortion will affect their bottom-line. To rely solely on their evidence in justifying such a potentially draconian order is, quite frankly, incomprehensible. Secondly, the statements and allegations presented in such packs cannot be a justification for removing the rights of other citizens in the borough.

Looking at the three ‘evidence packs,’ we see that:

  • One evidence ‘pack’, pack 3 is a single allegation, not a pack.
  • Packs 1 and 2, duplicate the claims of the 5/6/16 and 13/10/15 in order to make it seem like there are more allegations than in reality.
  • In a two year period at the BPAS Streatham clinic, there have been 12 allegations of objectionable actions.
    • Four of those allegations are that people pray.
    • Four are that people hand out leaflets.
    • Two are that passers-by might be approached and one each for holding a sign or having an alleged conversation.
    • This leaves one allegation of a worker being called a murderer. We have spoken to the people that run the vigils outside the clinic over many years and none of them would personally call others murderers or have witnesses any other vigil holders using this language.
  • In the same two year period at the MSI Brixton clinic, there have been seven allegations of objectionable actions.
    • One allegation of people handing out leaflets.
    • One allegation of filming, which if true, is most likely the cameras that Abort 67 have during their annual appearance in Brixton – Abort 67 have outlined that these cameras are for self-protection only and are not used to capture or identify clinic users.
    • Three allegations that relate to the presence of Abort 67.
    • There is one allegation of shouting while waving a bible, which is against the statement of peace for Vigil members outside the clinic and is not something that any of the Vigil member have witnessed outside a clinic.
    • There is also one report of the police being called, but for what action or by whom is unclear.

As noted above, for most weeks of the year, there is an incredibly limited presence outside either clinic. Most weeks there are a couple of people outside a clinic for a couple of hours. The anomalies are the annual vigils organised by the Helpers of God’s Precious Infants (2 in Brixton, 1 in Streatham) which might attract around 15 people to pray peacefully nearby for a short period of time. Also, the 40 Days for Life vigil has taken place once at each clinic.

The other group, Abort 67, which uses graphic imagery displays of aborted unborn children, does not have a regular presence in Lambeth and uses a very different approach to the other groups near the centre (as seen in the BPAS evidence pack). They arrive from outside the Borough and inform police in advance.

The vigils noted in evidence pack 1 between the 26th September to the 30th October 2017 recently branded by Cllr Dickson online as ‘significant’, involved mostly a single lady standing near a clinic with leaflets while praying. The highest number of attendees was three. This is confirmed by the BPAS pack.

Given the lack of substantive evidence offered, and noting the above reality of what Vigil groups do and why, we find public comments published online that suggest there is regular ‘harassment’ of women outside clinics alarming. The council website says that ‘[for] several years, groups of people and individuals have harassed and intimidated women’. In addition, Cllr Dickson has written that ‘[f]or a number of years women seeking to access abortion services in Lambeth have been subject to intimidation and harassment’.

Such comments are inaccurate (and could be considered slanderous) and suggest that the council has a pre-conceived outcome in mind. As a result, we fear that the ‘consultation’ is merely a ‘box-ticking’ exercise. This concern is further supported by the extraordinarily short time gap between the motion at council being tabled, to the publication of a ready-made consultation online.

In short, the actions of Lambeth council so far appear to be based on hearsay and show an alarming willingness to tar a whole community and its civic activity, in public writing and oratory. We feel that this approach is unbefitting of members in elected office and officers employed by the council. The actions of the council thus far suggest that a genuine concern for substantiated evidence or for real engagement with all stakeholders has been lacking.

Specific concerns relating to the use of a Public Space Protection Order

A PSPO would be a draconian response to an issue that has been pushed through by a multi-million-pound organisation. Prior to the ‘Back-Off’ campaign pushed by the BPAS’ public relations team, a campaign that would benefit them financially, Vigil holders heard nothing of complaints about alleged harassment outside clinics in Lambeth.

There are several reasons that a PSPO would be a draconian, unreasonable and disproportionate response to the reality of pro-life vigils:

1) Removes help where it’s needed

Pro-life outreach helps hundreds of women at the gate of London clinics. Such assistance ranges from counselling to assistance with food, rent, housing and legal advice. Pro-life assistance is provided ‘at the gate’ because that is a proven point of need for women who have said themselves that they cannot find help elsewhere. So-called ‘buffer zones’ would remove that help where it is most relevant.

2)  Silences women

Anne Furedi, the Chief Executive of BPAS, stated in an interview on Sky News, October 2017, that 20% of women scheduled for an abortion do not go through with the procedure. Our experience at the gate confirms that many women are not sure about the procedure on the day of the appointment, and would choose to give birth if they thought they had that option. A PSPO ignores the voices of those women and erases them from the civic conversation. We find this unacceptable. A society that believes in respecting the experience of women should not erase the voice of a whole section of women.

3) Violates human rights

We call ‘buffer zones’ censorship zones because this more accurately describes their effect. As noted above, vigils are not so much protests as peaceful gatherings that offer help and prayer. A censorship zone as proposed would potentially prevent the otherwise legal expression of human rights such as freedom of conscience, religion, assembly, expression and the right to receive information. We note that the Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014 states that the council must “must have particular regard to the rights of freedom of expression and freedom of assembly set out in articles 10 and 11 of the Convention”.

The Human Rights Act 1998 guarantees the above rights. Many of the powers currently available to authorities have been subject to public campaigns against them, as groups such as Liberty felt existing powers already go too far in giving local authorities discretionary control over public behaviour.

4) Damages democracy

Preventing the free assembly of citizens on public land, the exchange of information of ideas and mutual interaction is deadly to a healthy democracy and violates the principles it is built on. It is profoundly illiberal. If the pavement ceases to be a place of free exchange of ideas and opinions, the foundations of our liberal, democratic way of life is killed at the root. Censorship of such civic activity should only be done in the cases of persistent, substantiated, actual harm; such is the importance of those freedoms.

In the recent case of Annen v. Germany, interference with the freedom of expression of pro-life advocate Klaus Annen by the German Government was struck down by the European Court of Human Rights. The court specifically recognised that a special degree of protection was afforded to expressions of opinion on abortion, which contributed to “a highly controversial debate of public interest”.

5) Draconian powers

Legal experts and civil liberty organisations have criticised buffer zones for criminalising behaviours that would otherwise be legal. The use of such powers is draconian and violates the principle of ‘minimal criminalisation’. Such use of public orders unnecessarily leads to the criminalisation of citizens as a first resort, rather than dealing with difference, or annoyance, through negotiation or other softer means. Using PSPOs as a tool of first resort sets a dangerous precedent, and risks pitching the people of a borough against its council unnecessarily and exacerbates apparent divisions in a community. Instead, the criminal sanctions of the state should be used when a specific, illegal action has taken place.

6) Current protections work

There are wide-ranging powers available to authorities to keep public order and protect the public from genuine harassment. There has been no call from police authorities to have increased power or discretion in their use to regulate the activities of pro-life groups.

Lambeth Council, if concerned about behaviours causing alarm or harassment, may issue:

  • An injunction to prevent nuisance or annoyance. The IPNA can be used to protect people from behaviour causing ‘nuisance or annoyance’ and could be used where the perpetrator is harassing his or her neighbours and other residents in the area. The injunction includes the power of arrest.
  • A Criminal Behaviour Order can be used if a victim was subject to behaviour causing harassment, alarm or distress, and the perpetrator had been convicted in court for an offence.

Enforcement authorities are aware that:

  • The public are protected under section 39 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988 against assault.
  • Harassment is governed under section 5 of the Public Order Act 1986, and more generally under the Protection from Harassment Act 1997, and these provisions already give the police wide powers to prevent any unlawful behaviour. Where harassment happens, the police may be called to investigate and press charges against anyone who has harassed another.

Police also have powers under section 14 of the Public Order Act, as well as under sections 34 and 35 of the Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014, both to place conditions on the location, duration or numbers attending a public assembly, or to remove or reduce the likelihood of members of the public being harassed, alarmed or distressed, or to prevent local crime or disorder. Dispersal powers are exercised when officers:

    • Have reasonable grounds to suspect that the behaviour of a person has contributed, or is likely to contribute, to members of the public in the locality being harassed, alarmed or distressed or crime and disorder occurring in the locality.
    • Consider that giving such a direction to the person is necessary for the purpose of removing or reducing the likelihood of anti-social behaviour, crime or disorder.

We are unaware of the Council or local enforcement agencies using the powers outlined above. We believe this is the case because the evidence required to charge does not exist for any genuine harassment outside clinics by our groups; this is despite vigils being constantly monitored by clinic staff and cameras outside clinics. In this context, a PSPO would be an unwarranted first action by the Council authorities.

7) Sets a ‘mob rule’ precedent

If the Council allows the criminalisation of otherwise legal and normal behaviours because some members of the community find them objectionable, it will have set a precedent that any pressure group can ban those they find annoying or disagreeable through public orders and the use of the criminal law. This cannot be good for our community politics and risks demonising pro-life vigils and inflaming the local reaction to them. We should target specific individuals if they break the law.

8) State and Council overreach

Although the ‘quality of life’ test in the legislation governing the PSPO is not drafted by the council, we believe that it is dangerous and should not be used by any council for two reasons. Firstly, as discussed above, criminalising the otherwise legal activities of all citizens on those grounds is draconian. Secondly, it is not the place of the state or any council to assess the quality of life gained by a mother who can keep her child as the result of a pro-life vigil against the reported distress caused by a pro-life presence.

9) Displacing the issue

Moreover, we note that despite the massive area outlined for the proposed PSPO, the introduction of such an order will only displace the vigil. As outlined above, what the vigil members do has a legitimate aim, and an aim that many clinic users appreciate immensely. It is likely that vigil members will not cease their legal, peaceful vigils and will continue at the edge of a PSPO if it is to be enforced.

Contact details

To get in contact with us with an inquiry please email [email protected] or phone 0771 360 9137.