,
16 tweets,
3 min read
Read on Twitter
A question about abortion exclusion zones: How can they be enforced without the Government also providing a public list of abortion providers? "You can't stand in these places, but we won't tell you where they are" is somewhat unenforceable, I would have thought.
Are protest exclusion zones going to be limited to protests on one subject, or will it be a blanket ban on all protests? Because no court would uphold a ban that targeted the expression of just one opinion while allowing others to protest at will.
I mean, we all know what they're supposed to do in theory: Prevent some people from airing some opinions in some places. How do you do that without specifying the people, the opinions, and the places? And if you do, how is it remotely constitutional?
These and more are reasons why this legislation has such a vague timetable. Because it's not possible to do away with rights for some people without doing away with them for all people.
The most likely outcome will be the Irish solution whereby we pass the law but nobody is ever prosecuted under it because securing a conviction would take years and endless appeals.
This is a very fair question. And it goes to the heart of the issue: They don't want to ban protests, they want to ban a protest on one topic. And there's no way that's ever going to stand up in court:
EU law (God, I love Brussels) explicitly bans discrimination in law on grounds of religion or belief. You cannot ban one group from protesting in a particular spot on the basis of their beliefs, unless you ban everyone from that spot.
The other option is to write an exhaustive law banning a very long list of specific behaviours, the wording of which will be full of loopholes not even imagined by its drafters. Thankfully, the good people at Louth County Council have provided a helpful example:
Look at this, and let's count all the things wrong with it: 
Start with "prohibited behaviour shall include but not limited to". Okay, so they're banning you from certain things, but *they're not telling you what those things are*. That'll stand up in court, alright!
Clause (i) and (ii) makes it illegal to "repeatedly observe" an abortion facility or provider. Fine, I'll avert my eyes as I drive past... where, exactly?
Clauses (iii) and (iv) cover behaviour (threats, intimidation, that sort of thing) that are already illegal. Good work.
Clause (v) bans secret recordings, and publishing secret recordings. Gerry McCabe is criminalised under this section, which is at variance with EU and Irish precedent requiring only single party consent for the recording of conversations.
The remaining clauses ban, amongst other things, putting up stickers, or posters, or "holding public meetings" near abortion facilities. Without ever telling us where these facilities are! And, it's a blanket ban. On ALL public meetings, stickers, and posters.
As written, the absurd Louth "by-law" makes it illegal for a shop to give you a leaflet about a sale if an abortion facility is nearby.
Anyway, this thread has gone on long enough, I hope, for you to see how absurd one of these things is, even when written by the pro choice people themselves. No wonder it's taking so long.
