One of the boundaries I set myself for these Blogs was to restrict my comment to religious matters, and certainly not to stray into politics. There are more than enough ‘inanities’ in religion alone to feed a regular blog. But when a politician, and in this case a very senior one, chooses to stray onto my patch, I feel that all bets are off. The Vice President of the United States no less, Mr J.D. Vance, has upset a lot of Brits and Europeans lately with his comments about us reneging on the western values of free speech that, apparently, his ‘new sheriff in town’ values highly. Like many, I felt affronted by those comments. I am proud of my country’s democracy and its long traditions of tolerance. We are far from perfect, but to be lectured on these matters by the representative of a country that has a long history of intolerance towards people of colour, indigenous and imported, and is currently pursuing policies of imperialism, isolationism and racism seems, to me at least, a little rich. What I do want to comment on is Mr Vance’s reference to the Scottish case of a man who was prosecuted and fined for praying outside an abortion clinic. If he was right about these matters, it would be a case for considerable concern. To prosecute prayer is to prosecute thoughts and I had thought that that particular dystopia was still some way off, in this green and pleasant land. Sir ‘Oinky’ Starmer seems intent on invading many freedoms in pursuit of his socialist utopia, but even for him, I would have thought that was a step too far. [See – that is why I avoid politics here; one step in those waters and I am soon splashing away with abandon.] But Mr Vance was not right. In fact, his whole attack is based on complete fabrication.
The facts are these. The law in question is the Public Space Protection Order [PSPO]. This seeks to prevent protests, including prayers and vigils, within a designated safe zone around an abortion clinic. The justification for this was is that, while protesting to influence government is a precious freedom in our democracy, protesingt with the aim of shaming, insulting and psychologically harming individuals who are going about their entirely legal business of supplying or procuring abortion services, is not to be tolerated. Mr Vance and others of the ‘pro-life’ persuasion may not like this, and of course, anything to do with abortion involves serious and sensitive moral issues, but the key thing here is that in our democracy, we empower Parliament to weigh these things up and reach decisions. In this case, it did so under conditions of a Free Vote which means that MPs were not directed to follow any particular party line but to do what we elect them for – follow their own consciences. In the actual case in question, the defendant was standing, allegedly in prayer, outside an abortion clinic. He was asked by a Community Officer to move out of the PSPO zone. He refused and the Officer then engaged with him for an hour and forty minutes. Despite his claim to the contrary, this was clearly, as the Judge said, a ‘deliberate’ act of defiance of the law. Mr Vance also alleged that the government had leafleted homes within the zone to the effect that even prayer within those homes could be illegal. The Scottish Government has said unequivocally that no such leaflet was sent. And only a moment’s thought should be enough to convince they are not lying: protesters travel from all over for this sort of activity, and people living in the zone are no more likely to protest on the issue than anyone else. And in any case, how do you prove someone has been praying, rather than, say, dreaming about anticipated sinfulness? The PSPO does not outlaw prayer, it outlaws intimidation.
It is a matter of huge concern that senior members of the government of a superpower choose to make public remarks about other democracies that are demonstrably untrue and deeply offensive. Whatever town Mr Trump is ‘sheriff’ of, it isn’t this one, and we should thank God for it daily, if we believed for a moment that he cares or even exists.