DAILY MAIL COMMENT: A fine balance of rights and freedoms
Proper news from Britain - News from Britain you won’t find anywhere else. Not the tosh the big media force-feed you every day!
The decision to abort a child is seldom, if ever, taken lightly. It can be emotionally painful to the point of trauma and, once completed, a termination often results in profound feelings of loss.
So, the idea that, after making such a difficult choice, a woman should be challenged or harassed by a stranger outside the abortion clinic is cruel and wrong.
But what if that person is silently holding a sign saying: 'Here to talk if you want'? Is that harassment or an expression of genuine concern that the woman may be doing something she will later regret?
At Poole Magistrates' Court yesterday, Livia Tossici-Bolt, 64, a retired medical scientist, was convicted of holding such a sign within 150 metres of a Bournemouth Abortion Clinic in breach of a Public Spaces Protection Order.
She was given a conditional discharge and ordered to pay £20,000 in costs.
Judge Orla Austin noted the defendant's 'sincerely motivated desire' to encourage conversation about abortion but said her rights to free expression had to be balanced against the upset caused to women and staff at the clinic.
But is that balance in the right place? Outside court Dr Tossici-Bolt said: 'All I did was offer consensual conversation in a public place, as is my basic right, and yet the court found me guilty. What has happened to this country?'
Many will worry that free speech seems to be in retreat in Britain.
Cancel culture, deplatforming, the vigilantism of critical race theorists and trans rights extremists have all contributed to a new climate of censorship.
Whatever one's view on abortion, it's hard to imagine many other circumstances in which holding up a non-confrontational sign in a public place could cost you £20,000.
Yet new legislation under Section 9 of the Public Order Act widens the scope of existing law and increases the severity of punishment.
Engaging in 'silent prayer' anywhere near a clinic may be punishable by unlimited fines, as would trying to 'influence' women accessing the service.
Ministers frame the legislation in terms of female empowerment, safe spaces and the right to choose, and all those things are, of course, hugely important. Women must be protected from potential harm.
But shouldn't the criminalisation of prayer and attempts by a polite 64-year-old woman to strike up a consensual conversation make us all feel a little queasy?
The storm gathers
So, the counter-offensive begins. China imposed a swingeing 34 per cent on all US imports yesterday. This weekend, the EU is poised to take similar action in retaliation against Donald Trump's orgy of tariffs.
Global markets have tanked, with the US among the worst hit. Pensions, savings and investment returns are in freefall.
Whether this is the start of a fully-fledged and prolonged trade war, or Mr Trump will suddenly change direction (as he is wont to do), remains to be seen. But either way, Britain must do everything possible to dodge the worst of the pain to come.
Thanks to Brexit, Sir Keir Starmer has a chance to make a separate free trade deal with the US, which would clearly be in our interests, with the proviso that Mr Trump doesn't demand too much in return.
This must be the PM's focus. Joining Europe in a campaign of tit-for-tat tariffs at this stage would be a dangerous error. Diplomacy, rather than confrontation, must be his watchword.
.jpg)
