Forum Topic

Anti-abortion campaingers lose appeal.

The Court of Appeal has upheld a landmark ruling allowing a protest-free zone outside an abortion clinic in Ealing, London.The master of the rolls, Sir Terence Etherton, Lady Justice King and Lady Justice Nicola Davies unanimously dismissed the appeal by the Good Counsel Network. Those whose beliefs preclude abortion are still allowed to protest outside the exclusion zone but remain bared from directly harassing vulnerable woman at the entrance to the Marie Stopes Clinic on Mattock Lane.A victory for justice and common sense.Doubtless the Good Counsel Network will force Ealing to spend more taxpayer's money by appealing to the Supreme Court.Thankfully, with Brexit looming, the door to the right of appeal to the ECHR will slam firmly shut.

N V Brooks ● 2267d16 Comments

There have been more documented cases of women saying they were helped by those holding the vigil than those who say they have been actively harassed.

Christine Mulligan ● 2066d

Like you and I they believe that a woman's right to choose ends when the foetus becomes a person, they just think this happens much earlier. I don't agree with the vigils but they are raising some uncomfortable questions about the abortion industry.

Tricia Arbuthnot ● 2072d

I see these idiots have now moved to the corner just before Pitzhanger Manor, by Filmworks development. It's a shame they can't be moved on further tbh. God knows what business a woman's right to choose is of theirs.

Kevin Wilson ● 2072d

Likewise if I'd still been a councillor. This is not a debate about abortion but about the extent to which people may engage in campaigning. Contrary to what one may conclude from the generic smears put out by messrs Bell, Huq et all, the anti abortion campaigners have always conducted themselves within the law, with no arrests let alone convictions for any offense in the course of their activities. The Court of Appeal judgment is truly bizarre and frightening for those who value civil liberties. It found that the campaigners' rights to assembly, religion, thought, expression and the reception of information were violated by the Ealing Public Space Protection Order. Nevertheless the judges ruled that such violations were justified because of the right to privacy of Marie Stopes attendees not to be seen in public. The right not to be seen in public does not exist in the ECHR and makes no sense when one is in a public place. The enthusiasm of Ealing Council to crack down on campaigners with views they disapprove of is in stark contrast to the sloth with which they acted against travellers causing damage on public spaces in the borough. Their priorities could not be clearer.

Vlod Barchuk ● 2265d

Feel free, it's not copyright  :-)

N V Brooks ● 2265d

'Do loosen your Lycra'. LOL.  (I must use that in future.)

Tony Heath ● 2265d

The ECJ deals with European legislation. The CJEU is a subordinate body with whom I have worked since 1996.Appeal cases would normally go to the ECtHR but the consideration of any verdict would have to pay full cognisence to the legitimacy under EU legislation. Although administratively separate EU case law is routinely quoted in the decision laid down by the ECtHR.Hence the involvement of the CJEU and, ultimately the ECJ.Clear enough for you?Do post again when you know what you are talking about, cycling perhaps.

N V Brooks ● 2265d

It's clear you totally don't understand what the ECJ is either! :D

Paul James ● 2265d

While I think on balance the restrictions on the pro-life campaigners may be a good thing they are raising some legitimate issues. The revenues that the Marie Stopes Clinic gains is dependent on how many abortions they carry out. A suggestion was made earlier on this forum that there should be onsite independent counselling for women. Most women entering the clinic will have no other option but some may be unaware of support they can receive if they kep their child or may be under pressure from family or a partner to have the procedure.Abortion is a medical procedure which can have a major mental health impact and it probably isn't wise that advice is only available from an organisation which has a vested interest in it being carried out.

Tricia Arbuthnot ● 2265d

Excellent news.

Elizabeth Price ● 2265d

If they appeal to the Supreme Court and are unsuccessful, they can appeal to the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR). There have been over 500 cases heard there concerning the UK since 1975 and over half of these have found a violation of the European Convention on Human Rights.

Terry Freestone ● 2265d

Sorry, I should have said ECJ.Once cannot appeal to a convention only a court and when this ignorant voter leaves the EU on 31st October (along with you Mr. James) there will be no right of appeal to the ECJ.Hope that is clear enough for you Paul, if not, loosen the Lycra!

N V Brooks ● 2266d

(more leave voter ignorance, as if there wasn't enough already!)

Paul James ● 2266d

The ECHR is not an EU institution...

Paul James ● 2266d

I dissent. If I had still been a councillor this ban would not have been by unanimous vote.

Graham Weeks ● 2266d

This is excellent news.However, the ECHR protects the human rights of people in countries that belong to the Council of Europe, which is a completely different organisation to the EU. The UK will still be signed up to the ECHR if it leaves the EU.

Paul Scullion ● 2266d