Written evidence from the Society for the Protection of Unborn Children (FOE0010)

About SPUC

1. The Society for the Protection of Unborn Children (SPUC) is the oldest pro-life campaigning and educational organisation in the world. The aim of the Society is to affirm, defend and promote the existence and value of human life from the moment of conception until natural death.
2. SPUC is at the forefront of the pro-life campaign in the UK. We speak out against abortion in all the legitimate ways available to any citizen.
3. Abortion is a controversial issue and pro-life citizens in the UK value the freedom we have had to express our views. We present the facts that:
1. Human life starts at conception
2. Each new unborn child is genetically unique
3. The life of the unborn child is worthy of legal protection
4. Abortion poses risks to the mental and physical health of women
4. All our statements are substantiated by research and science.
5. The freedom for members of the pro-life community in the UK to express and promote opposition to abortion is under threat.

Summary

6. SPUC is responding to two questions raised in this enquiry:
1. Is there a need to review the wording and application of Public Space Protection Order (PSPO) legislation?
2. Does everyone have equal protection of their right to freedom of expression?
7. SPUC has two recommendations arising from these questions:

Recommendation 1

8. We recommend that PSPO legislation should be reviewed and that it should include requirements for:
1. More rigorous scrutiny of claims that unreasonable behaviour is taking place.
2. CCTV evidence of unacceptable behaviours at pro-life vigils.
3. Unbiased consultation.

Recommendation 2

9. There should be no national measure to outlaw peaceful pro-life vigils outside abortion clinics. Such a measure would set a dangerous precedent for the right to freedom of expression for all pro-life citizens in Britain.

Is there a need to review the wording and application of Public Space Protection Order (PSPO) legislation?

10. There is a need to review the application of PSPO legislation.
11. This legislation has been used to impose PSPOs around abortion clinics in Ealing, Twickenham and Manchester.
12. We consider that this legislation was misused in these places because:
1. The consultation process was biased and started from the false premise that harassment and intimidation were taking place.
2. The evidence on record that harassment and intimidation were taking place at the pro-life vigils outside the abortion clinics has often come from organisations ideologically opposed to our position on abortion[1].
3. The police have existing powers to deal with any anti-social behaviour which may take place. For example in the case of a 77 year old  woman in Manchester[2].
13. Implementing a PSPO to stop pro-life citizens holding a peaceful vigil is a disproportionate response to the problems allegedly caused by pro-lifers outside abortion clinics. This was the conclusion in 2018 of the then Home Secretary, Sajid Javid MP[3].
14. Those implementing PSPO legislation are required to consider whether the alleged activities taking place have a “detrimental effect on the quality of life of those in the locality” and whether the activities are “unreasonable”[4].
15. We believe that the following activities should not be categorised as either detrimental or unreasonable, even if others consider them to be so:
1. Praying quietly in public.
2. Displaying a non-threatening message such as “Love them both”.
3. Offering leaflets with information about help available for women who wish to take them.
16. The freedom of the pro-life community to display their opposition to abortion should not be curtailed or outlawed because others think differently.
17. Pro-life vigils have offered help to many women. Children are alive today because their mothers were helped by a caring person at a pro-life vigil.
18. There is a disproportionate emphasis on the rights and privacy of women entering an abortion clinic. By contrast there is little focus on the women who arrive at the clinic, either uncertain or opposed to going ahead with the abortion, and who find a pro-lifer offering help which they have found nowhere else. In the 168-page report from the Communities and Equalities Scrutiny Committee of Manchester City Council authorising the implementation of a PSPO[5], only five lines on page 15 record the rationale of the pro-life vigil organisers, 40 Days for Life.

Does everyone have equal protection of their right to freedom of expression?

19. Members and supporters of SPUC feel increasingly that they are treated unequally when exercising their right to freedom of expression.
20. Where a PSPO has been imposed around an abortion clinic, SPUC members who participate in pro-life vigils are denied their rights to freedom of expression and freedom of assembly as set out in articles 10 and 11 of the European Convention on Human Rights.
21. These rights cannot be exercised anywhere else, because a key purpose of gathering as close as possible to the entrance to the abortion clinic is so that desperate and vulnerable women can receive the last minute help which no one else has offered them.
22. Pressure is building up in Parliament to legislate to outlaw all pro-life vigils. On 9 November 2020 the Home Secretary described abortion clinics as providing “important services and advice” and she has assured “the whole House that we are reviewing our work and policies on this important issue, and I think that that is absolutely right and proper”.[6] 
23. The Home Secretary’s words are an illustration of the bias in favour of abortion. For SPUC members, abortion is the deliberate killing of an unborn child and can never be described as an important service
24. Members and supporters of SPUC feel that their freedom of expression is threatened by the dominance of abortion propaganda in our culture.
25. Incidents such as the unfounded accusations that participants at a peaceful SPUC act of witness in Bath were “throwing stones” and causing other disruption, are likely to become more common.[7]
26. It is within the context of a society which is prejudiced in favour of abortion that the rights of those who express opposition to abortion appear increasingly fragile.

16/11/2020