Peers warn against tyranny of ‘state censorship zones’

Outlawing peaceful protest outside abortion clinics in England and Wales smacks of state censorship, free speech advocates have warned.

Baroness Fox of Buckley and Lord Farmer, in separate opinion pieces, opposed plans to criminalise people for the “mere expression” of a pro-life opinion near to an abortion clinic.

Under Clause 9 — an amendment to the Government’s Public Order Bill tabled by Labour MP Stella Creasey — people who pray or offer advice to pregnant women within a 150m radius of an abortion centre face possible imprisonment.

Unwelcome precedent

Writing in The Spectator, Lady Fox — a non-affiliated life-peer — asked: “how can we justify targeting an individual who ‘expresses opinion’ within a designated area, at risk of being thrown in prison for six months for a first offence?”

She feared that such a law “could set a precedent that leads to attempts to prevent speech, expression or information-sharing and assembly in relation to other controversial and unpopular causes”.

“In practice,” she continued, “the Bill’s whole approach seeks to establish in law that the state can regulate how people behave on streets and public footpaths close to medical centres. This shrinking of free, public space troubles me; where will this go next?”

The Peer concluded: “We must support the right to protest for all – not just the protesters we admire”.

Authoritarian

Lord Farmer, raising similar concerns in an article for the Conservative Home website, said the Bill represented a move towards “authoritarian censorship of minority views”.

He stated: “Harassment is completely inappropriate and unacceptable and no woman – or man – should be harassed at any stage of life. But this Bill now bans the mere expression of opinion.”

authoritarian censorship of minority views

The Conservative Peer argued: “Pro-life opinions might not be widespread today but that’s no reason to target those who hold them with disproportionate bans. Indeed, it’s unpopular speech that needs most protection.”

He finished by saying: “This is not a totalitarian state which locks up dissenting voice: we must get the balance right.”

Further opposition

Earlier this month peers, including Lady Fox and Lord Farmer, expressed alarm at the threat to free speech posed by Clause 9 during a House of Lords debate on the Public Order Bill.

This is not a totalitarian state which locks up dissenting voice

Crossbench peer Lord Hope of Craighead argued: “given the powers that the police already have—that is, the existing laws—these provisions are disproportionate and amount to an unjustified threat to the right to peaceful protest”.

And Baroness O’Loan feared the zones could prove harmful to vulnerable women, depriving them of “practical, emotional and other forms of support of which they may previously have been unaware or were unable to access”.

In proposed amendments to Clause 9, Lady Fox hopes to limit some of its “most egregious harms” and Lord Farmer has called for the Home Secretary to carry out a full review of activities outside abortion clinics.