Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Abortion poster arrests applauded(U.K.)
BBC ^ | Wednesday, 3 September, 2003

Posted on 09/04/2003 4:09:36 PM PDT by nickcarraway

A 30-strong crowd applauded as two anti-abortion protestors were led away from a shopping centre by police, a court has heard.

Joseph Biddulph, 52, and Fiona Pinto, 23, were arrested after refusing to take down their "distressing" poster of an aborted foetus during their campaign to be elected to the Welsh assembly for the ProLife Alliance.

Abergavenny magistrates heard that the 4ft by 2ft colour poster, which showed a dismembered 21-week-old foetus, was displayed to shoppers in Newport city centre on 24 April.

The pair are each facing a charge of a public order offence in connection with the incident.

One of the arresting officers, Pc Raymond Meachell, said a crowd of shoppers had gathered around Ms Pinto and Mr Biddulph outside a branch of Boots.

He told the court: "The group seemed hostile to the persons displaying the poster.

"The general public demanded the poster be taken down and some ladies were in tears and visibly upset.

'Round of applause'

"Having seen the poster, I told Mr Biddulph to take it down as it was causing distress to people in the street."

Mr Meachell took the poster from Mr Biddulph, rolled it up and then arrested the pair to applause from bystanders.

He added: "I can honestly say in 30 years of policing it is the first time I have ever received a round of applause for making an arrest in the street."

Fellow police officer Pc Martin Crackett told the court he saw 20 to 30 people gathered around Ms Pinto and Mr Biddulph and said he saw two women crying.

But defending counsel Stuart Hutton said the pair were only "standing and holding a poster".

He argued that the arrival of police had caused people to "stop and stare" and take an interest in what was taking place.

Mr Hutton added that Ms Pinto cried all the way to the police station following her arrest.

Ms Pinto, an Oxford University graduate and former parliamentary researcher, told magistrates: "I was extremely upset when people clapped. I couldn't understand why they were clapping.

Controversial issue

"I believe in democracy, I don't understand why people would cheer election candidates being arrested.

"I don't understand why people would not want to know about a controversial issue."

She added that she believed the poster was the most effective way of communicating the ProLife party's message.

"I believe that people will understand why we are against abortion if they see the picture," she said.

Ms Pinto said that the poster was intended to target adults but said some children had approached the pair to ask questions.

'Free speech'

"Two 10-year-olds asked us why the baby looked like that," Ms Pinto said.

"They said this is awful and they would never have an abortion."

She denied the poster deliberately exposed children to the image and did not give them a choice over seeing it.

But she admitted seeing one woman shielding her child's eyes from the picture on CCTV footage played to the court.

Prosecutor Heath Edwards said the image had "distressed" passers-by - both children and adults.

"Their behaviour was insulting and caused harassment to members of the public present - the poster was the cause of the insult," he added.

"The Crown recognises the need for free speech but that free speech comes with a responsibility not to insult others."

Mr Biddulph, from Pontypridd, and Ms Pinto, from Hertfordshire, deny that the poster was insulting.

After legal argument, the charges of disorderly behaviour against the pair were dropped.

The case continues.


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Crime/Corruption; Culture/Society; Foreign Affairs; Front Page News; Government; Miscellaneous; News/Current Events; Politics/Elections; United Kingdom
KEYWORDS: abortion; crime; england; freespeech; politics; prolife; unitedkingdom; wales
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-45 next last

The poster was exhibited during campaigning in south Wales
1 posted on 09/04/2003 4:09:36 PM PDT by nickcarraway
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Canticle_of_Deborah; cpforlife.org; MHGinTN; Mr. Silverback
ping
2 posted on 09/04/2003 4:12:36 PM PDT by nickcarraway
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: nickcarraway
Should gay rights protesters be able to stage demonstrations of sodomy on the streetcorner? Or merely to wave about pornographic pictures? If it's for political reasons, it should be legal, right?

Oh, that's right. The same people who want it to be legal to wave around anti-abortion pictures want the police to enforce a double-standard and not allow any causes they disagree with to put up graphic posters (for the children, mmmkay?)

3 posted on 09/04/2003 4:15:29 PM PDT by xm177e2 (Stalinists, Maoists, Ba'athists, Pacifists: Why are they always on the same side?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: xm177e2
I just see words on that poster.

What if gay rights activists are</I. allowed to protest like that on the streets. Should ``unpopular'' protesters have less rights than protesters that espouse the establishment cause?

4 posted on 09/04/2003 4:21:47 PM PDT by nickcarraway
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: xm177e2
I think the parallel you are drawing is incorrect. I think a better one would be a graphic picture of a car accident. If they would have been arrested for showing a picture of a horrific car accident (in order to show the horror of speeding), then there is no double standard.
5 posted on 09/04/2003 4:22:30 PM PDT by fini
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: nickcarraway
I just see words on that poster.

That's obviously not the poster that caused the uproar (if you read the article, the poster(s) in question contained pictures of aborted fetuses). It was disingenous of that poster to post a picture of that poster on this post.

I absolutely do not think there should be a double standard, I am pointing out that the very same people who want to allow these disgusting posters in public space are the ones who want a double standard.

6 posted on 09/04/2003 4:33:24 PM PDT by xm177e2 (Stalinists, Maoists, Ba'athists, Pacifists: Why are they always on the same side?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: xm177e2
The point is that the whole position of the pro-abortionists is based on misleading people about what happens when an abortion is performed. That is why they wish to prohibit others from reminding them.

Why are people so upset by the accurate portrayal of a procedure they approve of?

Could it be in their hearts they know it is wrong?

7 posted on 09/04/2003 4:40:49 PM PDT by Restorer (Never let schooling interfere with your education.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: xm177e2
If abortion is a cause worth promoting, why is a picture of a dead bleeding baby offensive? Do most people think the kids swim out and fly away? Abortion is murder! Showing pictures of the victim is reasonable if minds are to be changed. If people find it horrifying I have no empathy for them if they are pro abortion, the rest of us understand the battle. Children can only benefit from knowing what this is about, the killing of babies. It may shape thier views. Children are treated regularly to gays acting out in public and on tv. They are even taught how to do it in school. Double Standard? Not! It is only a shootin' offense when the right does it.
8 posted on 09/04/2003 4:54:24 PM PDT by wingnuts'nbolts (I agree with Dick Morris. Off with their heads! Let's start with the Clintons, all three of them.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: nickcarraway
I believe in democracy, I don't understand why people would cheer election candidates being arrested.

People often suppress democracy and free speech unless it conforms to their agenda. It is a myopic view that considers democracy and free speech to be settled issues. The battle is constantly joined to defend those rights.

9 posted on 09/04/2003 4:57:05 PM PDT by af_vet_1981
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: nickcarraway
"The Crown recognises the need for free speech but that free speech comes with a responsibility not to insult others." An Orwellian definition of free speech if there ever was one. Not unexpected coming from a govt official.
10 posted on 09/04/2003 4:57:41 PM PDT by Deathmonger
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: xm177e2
Should gay rights protesters be able to stage demonstrations of sodomy on the streetcorner? Or merely to wave about pornographic pictures? If it's for political reasons, it should be legal, right?

Okay, you've convinced me. No protesters can display pornography. Anyone who breaks the rule can be imprisoned and fined.

Deal ?

11 posted on 09/04/2003 4:59:27 PM PDT by af_vet_1981
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: nickcarraway
..."the poster was the cause of the insult,"

They got it wrong. The subject of what the poster depicted is what caused the insult

"The general public demanded the poster be taken down and some ladies were in tears and visibly upset"

There is yet hope. Could it be that these two women have a heart for children.

12 posted on 09/04/2003 5:18:11 PM PDT by semaj ("....by their fruit you will know them.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: nickcarraway
In the post-Christian world (Europe, Canada, and increasingly, the USA), the only remaining sin, evil or wrong (I'm fishing for a neutral word for this) is OFFENDING others. The posters were "distressing" - therefore, it was a crime to show them. Would posters depicting sodomy meet the same fate? Check the ads in the San Francisco subway. (True, such stuff might be "distressing" to Christians, but they do not count because they are by definition hate-mongers.)
13 posted on 09/04/2003 5:25:39 PM PDT by madprof98
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: nickcarraway
Isn't it amazing how people react when they are reminded visually what they are doing when they have an abortion?

It's murder!!

Those who promote this appalling procedure will have to answer to God. By the way, he LOVES children.
14 posted on 09/04/2003 5:28:53 PM PDT by dmanLA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: madprof98; xm177e2
Good point. I used to live in England, and if you go into virtually any phone booth, you can see all kinds of pornographic ads. It seems very weaird for them to claim that nothing offensive can be in public, given the offensive stuff they already allow.
15 posted on 09/04/2003 5:29:07 PM PDT by nickcarraway
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: dmanLA
Sorry, "...He LOVES children."
16 posted on 09/04/2003 5:30:28 PM PDT by dmanLA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: fini
If they would have been arrested for showing a picture of a horrific car accident (in order to show the horror of speeding), then there is no double standard.

And you know what's interesting here? In British movie theatres, before the show and during the upcoming movie trailers, they routinely show public service commercials that I find disturbing. Usually, they're about drink-driving or kids running into the road but they always depict death or hideous injury- quite graphic at times. Like I said, I personally find these adverts disturbing and I suppose that's the intent the gov't wants to instill. So, it's ok to disturb people in the theatre but not on the street for a protest...

17 posted on 09/04/2003 6:57:33 PM PDT by Prodigal Son
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: nickcarraway
Well gee, if the poster is "disturbing", just think how much MORE "disturbing" is the "procedure" which it portrays. The baby killers can't handle the truth.
18 posted on 09/04/2003 7:00:01 PM PDT by sweetliberty ("Having the right to do a thing is not at all the same thing as being right in doing it.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: madprof98
"the only remaining sin, evil or wrong (I'm fishing for a neutral word for this) is OFFENDING others"

Only certain "others." It makes absolutely no difference how badly offended or heartbroken Christians, conservatives and others who still believe in decency might be as long as those who are defending evil are not offended. It is perfectly acceptable to offend those who defend what is good. The new commandment of the day is "thou shalt not offend a liar with the truth."

19 posted on 09/04/2003 7:08:23 PM PDT by sweetliberty ("Having the right to do a thing is not at all the same thing as being right in doing it.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: xm177e2
...I am pointing out that the very same people who want to allow these disgusting posters in public space are the ones who want a double standard.

Well that's a totally uneducated, unjustified statement.

20 posted on 09/04/2003 7:16:29 PM PDT by mtg
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-45 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson