Retired Scientist Prosecuted For Holding a Kind Sign Outside an Abortion Mill

P. Gardner Goldsmith | March 12, 2024
Text Audio
00:00 00:00
Font Size

Many readers who sensed the bleakness, the grayness, and the sheer uniformity of George Orwell’s dystopian London (renamed Airstrip One) in his novel “1984” might recall its protagonist, Winston Smith, realizing that the state had invaded so many facets of the private world of formerly free people that Smith thinks:

“Nothing was your own except the few cubic centimetres inside your skull.”

Given the numerous examples of UK politicians, cops, and courts crushing the freedom of speech (including the infamous Scottish government attempt to jail comedian and YouTube host Count Dankula (real name Mark Meechan) for recording his dog in a spoof of Adolf Hitler, and police twice arresting a woman merely for SILENTLY PRAYING on a sidewalk outside a Birmingham abortion mill) one might suspect that politicians and bureaucrats in Britain couldn’t have brought their realm closer to Orwell’s dystopian vision.

They have.

According to the Telegraph’s Charles Hymas, a 62-year-old, retired medical scientist is being prosecuted for holding up a sign outside an abortion mill in the seacoast town of Bournemouth.

Was it a sign displaying a direct threat of bodily harm or property harm against a specific person in the region? Of course not. It simply read, “Here to talk if you want to…”

“Livia Tossici-Bolt, 62, who worked at Southampton’s University Hospital Trust as a medical researcher, has been accused of breaching a ‘buffer zone’ when she attended the abortion clinic in Bournemouth.

She faces trial after refusing to pay a fixed penalty notice issued by the local council for the alleged breach of a public space protection order (PSPO), which was applied to create the buffer zone.”

Ahh, yes. “Buffer zone.” People blithely swallow that term, but rarely ask what it means.

How big is it? What can and can’t be done in it? Why is it that a place the government runs by taking everyone’s tax cash suddenly can be constrained and fitted with “rules” and “buffers” that the government defines, thus forcing people to pay, but not allowing them to use it as they might want?

Collectivism, in all its unworkable glory.

In its tyrannical glory, across the ever grayer, bleaker UK.

“The trial at Poole magistrates is a test case over clauses within the legislation that allow women to engage in consensual conversations with protesters and protect the rights of pro-life campaigners for silent prayer.”

You know, that silent prayer for which police twice arrested a woman in Birmingham.

It’s always reassuring to have the agents of the state define the terms that will restrict their own actions.

Trust them. Everything will be fine.

“Ms Tossici-Bolt refused to pay the fine on the basis that she claims she did not breach the PSPO and had the right to freedom of expression, protected under Article 10 of the Human Rights, to offer consensual conversations. She said several women approached her to discuss issues they were facing in their lives.”

It wouldn’t matter if no one approached her or a million people lined up. She has a right to her earnings and a right to express herself on the sidewalk her taxes fund.

But perhaps this double insult to her rights is paradoxically acknowledged by the Orwellian term, “Double-Plus Good!”

Related: UK Civilian Arrested For Praying Outside Abortion Clinic … AGAIN | MRCTV

It sure is reassuring to know that the US and UK are so similar. In a manner akin to American politicians, bureaucrats, and the policing system disregarding many of the clear constraints built into the US Constitution, these tyrants in the UK turn blind eyes to their 1998 “Human Rights Act.

And this isn’t the first time they have gone after Ms. Tossici-Bolt for doing something that is SUPPOSED to be protected by that act. In fact, that “Human Rights Act" stands in conflict with… another legal move, specifically tailored to insulate abortion mills from protesters.

Writes Hymas:

“It is the second test case in which Ms Tossici-Bolt has been involved after losing a legal challenge in December last year to an order banning prayers outside a clinic run by the British Pregnancy Advisory Service (BPAS) in Bournemouth.”

In other words, Ms. Tossici-Bolt might have THOUGHT she was protected by the Human Rights Act of 1998, but the people currently in government power disagree, and, of course, they have the government power.

“In a High Court ruling, two judges Lord Justice Warby and Mrs Justice Thornton said there was evidence the protests had caused harm. ‘It is, in our judgment, naïve and simplistic to suggest that activities of this kind in this context cannot be considered ‘detrimental’ ... just because they are silent,’ they said.”

Tossici-Bolt has persisted, and despite another moment of conflict about which the coppers apologized, she’s once more a target.

“The prosecution is being taken by Bournemouth, Christchurch and Poole Council which recently apologised for causing Ms Tossici-Bolt to feel ‘distressed and harassed’ when officers wrongfully attempted to move her from a public street on another occasion.

She was holding a sign reading ‘Pregnant? Need help?’ with a helpline number for women in crisis pregnancies. In a moment captured on video, officers confronted Tossici-Bolt, accusing her of standing inside Bournemouth’s censorial ‘buffer zone’, which criminalises ‘expressions of approval or disapproval of abortion’.

The authorities have since acknowledged that she was not within the censored ‘buffer zone’ on this occasion but claim the map she brought with her to indicate her position was ‘confusing’. The map was a replica of the map found on the council’s website.”

Yes. Confusing.

One could be excused for being CONFUSED over the stark reality that cops are arresting and the courts are harassing and, again, attempting to prosecute, a woman who is forced to pay for that sidewalk, while they PROTECT the people in the building who reasonably can be assumed to be taking human lives on a daily basis.

Perhaps one could be excused for thinking he or she does not need an EXCUSE to feel rage over this.

Of course, in the bland, sanitized, fake-protection, protection-for-murderers, Orwellian systopia-dystopia that is England and in the tattered-raiment remnants of its “United Kingdom,” rage is far, far too energetic, far too colorful.

The grayness of death seems to be much more apropos.