18 May 2016

Patient privacy zone at Civic clinic extended

| Michael Reid
Join the conversation
63
iStock_000007881322_Small

The privacy zone around a health clinic in Civic has been extended to provide further protection for women accessing legal medical treatments, including abortion.

ACT health minister Simon Corbell said the extension, effective from Thursday, will include any areas accessible by the public around the clinic at 1 Moore Street.

The protest-free zone was introduced in March to ensure women could access medical services without being harassed, intimidated or judged by others. Unfortunately, anti-abortion protests had continued on the fringes of the zone within the line of site of people accessing treatment, Corbell said.

The extended zone will include Rudd Street, West Row and the alley way of Odgers Lane, and surrounding roads, footpaths, gutters, outdoor areas and other areas underneath a building’s facade.

Protesting or behaviour that increases emotional distress or may prevent women from accessing legal and medically recognised health procedures is prohibited within the defined protest-free zone between 7am and 6pm on business days to align with the opening hours of the facility.

The extended protest-free zone had been developed in consultation with key stakeholders, including the ACT Human Rights Commission and police, to strike a balance between protecting women’s rights to safe and legal health care and the rights of protesters, Corbell said.

“From tomorrow, if an individual is found protesting within the new area, ACT Health’s security personnel will notify them about the extension of the protest-free zone and ask them to leave,” he added.

“If the person chooses to remain, ACT Policing will be notified and penalties may apply.”

Information about the extended protest-free zone, including a new map, is available on the ACT Health website at: www.health.act.gov.au/consumerinformation/protestfreezone.

protest zone

The Health (Patient Privacy) Amendment Act 2015 is available at: www.legislation.act.gov.au.

 

Join the conversation

63
All Comments
  • All Comments
  • Website Comments
LatestOldest

gooterz said :

Zan said :

Did you just tell us that it is his right to protest anywhere he feels like in public?

No I didn’t.
Google “strawman argument” if you want to understand your logical fallacy you just employed.

Zan said :

Hmm or could it be that a public foot path is much like a road? Make a nuisance of yourself and you will be moved on.

I’ve never seen the anti-abortion religionists obstructing the footpath – in fact they seemed to be being quite careful to not do so.

I wonder if you ever get sick of mis-representing reality to self-justify your beliefs?

From what JC posts, I don’t imagine so.

Zan said :

Did you just tell us that it is his right to protest anywhere he feels like in public?

No I didn’t.
Google “strawman argument” if you want to understand your logical fallacy you just employed.

Zan said :

Hmm or could it be that a public foot path is much like a road? Make a nuisance of yourself and you will be moved on.

I’ve never seen the anti-abortion religionists obstructing the footpath – in fact they seemed to be being quite careful to not do so.

I wonder if you ever get sick of mis-representing reality to self-justify your beliefs?

Maybe they can try this instead: http://fusion.net/story/307072/copley-geofencing-abortion-planned-parenthood/ – in the USA protesting outside abortion clinics has been banned in most places for a while now, so they’ve taken it to the next level, technologically speaking.

HenryBG said :

madelini said :

rommeldog56 said :

If you are anti-abortion, you are anti-women. If you are anti-abortion, you hate women.

A women’s body is hers, to do with as she pleases.

It should hardly come as a suprise that those who want to snuff out free speech have their very own irrational dogma, which they want to ram down everybody else’s throats…..

gooterz said :

Acton said :

But there is something fascinatingly Orwellian about banning a protest on the grounds of a perceived lack of….tolerance.
In their fury to defend their own intolerance, it seems many miss the irony.

They are not being banned. They are free to protest, just not right outside the health centre and surrounding areas.

These areas are public spaces, to which the freedom to protest applies.
Today they are banning christians from outside the healthcentre. Next time it might be you.

gooterz said :

I also don’t understand why they feel their beliefs are more important than everyone else’s.

Are you referring to the protesters here, or supporters of Corbell’s law to impose *their* beliefs on all of us?

gooterz said :

This is quite clearly just one minority group using it’s position of power to lay the boot into another minority group with whom they hold a grudge. The abortion issue is just a smoke screen for the punters.

And this is a good point – the ACT Labor party has been attacking the christians (and mostly losing) for years.
The ALP just can’t handle the fact that its values are not universal values and are not shared by large segments of the population.

steveu said :

The “protesters” were within the exclusion zone this morning and I was happy to inform them of that. Unlike a lot of people I put my money where my mouth is as well as passive-aggressively ranting about it on the internet. I’ll be doing the same thing next Friday if they violate the zone again.

Oh, good-oh, why don’t you and your mates all wear distinctive-coloured shirts – say black shirts – when you roam the public streets looking for christians to persecute?

There is no such thing as freedom to protest. Freedom of speech yes not freedom to protest where and when you like.

Take dungers for example and his anti light rail stance. He has every right to disagree and protest but watch what happens if he were to set up a tent on Northborne ave. he would be moved on pretty fast.

And again nothing unique what so ever about having the right to process controlled.

“Take dungers for example and his anti light rail stance. He has every right to disagree and protest but watch what happens if he were to set up a tent on Northborne ave. he would be moved on pretty fast.”

No one has ever moved on the “protesting” campers outside Old Parliament House yet so I think there is a precedent about the issue.
You and your toy tram colleagues may think you can walk all over us but don’t push your luck too far.

John Hargreaves said :

HenryBG said :

There is no such thing as freedom to protest. Freedom of speech yes not freedom to protest where and when you like.

Freedom of speech, freedom of free association and freedom of assembly are all recognised human rights which all add up to the freedom to protest in a public place.
Clearly, our comrade leaders are less concerned about Rights, and more concerned about enforcing political correctness.

HenryBG said :

Take dungers for example and his anti light rail stance. He has every right to disagree and protest but watch what happens if he were to set up a tent on Northborne ave. he would be moved on pretty fast.

You mean if Dungers broke a law and obstructed traffic, he would be moved on? True.
Funny thing is, these christians were breaking no law……which is why the ACT Supreme Soviet had to enact a new law to shut them up with.
Which is to say, your analogy was a bad one.

John Moulis said :

What I was saying nothing unique about protests being controlled in where they can and cannot protest or indeed where people may gather en-mass.

As for the odd location would have thought the main act health health clinic would have been the most sensible place for said clinic.

Agreed, there is nothing unique in this. Stalin used to control it pretty tightly, as one example.

I note you support the right of people to protest, so long as they do it where you would like them to do it. Maybe you could double-check your dictionary under “freedom” to see what it says?

So Dungers will get moved on for obstructing traffic if he were to protest on Northborne Ave? But isn’t that a public space? Did you just tell us that it is his right to protest anywhere he feels like in public?

Hmm or could it be that a public foot path is much like a road? Make a nuisance of yourself and you will be moved on.

chewy14 said :

Shart said :

If I stood outside a church every Sunday harassing parishioners and telling them they were pedo’s etc… how long before I would get carted off by the police huh?

It is ironic that your right to protest outside a church is the precise right that you are signing away with your support for this anti-democratic measure against the god-botherers.

Please give examples of this happening; especially on an ongoing basis, such as the anti-choice campaigners outside the clinic has been doing. Maybe if this was happening this would need to be addressed too, but it hasn’t been.

Shart said :

If I stood outside a church every Sunday harassing parishioners and telling them they were pedo’s etc… how long before I would get carted off by the police huh?

It is ironic that your right to protest outside a church is the precise right that you are signing away with your support for this anti-democratic measure against the god-botherers.

HenryBG said :

There is no such thing as freedom to protest. Freedom of speech yes not freedom to protest where and when you like.

Freedom of speech, freedom of free association and freedom of assembly are all recognised human rights which all add up to the freedom to protest in a public place.
Clearly, our comrade leaders are less concerned about Rights, and more concerned about enforcing political correctness.

HenryBG said :

Take dungers for example and his anti light rail stance. He has every right to disagree and protest but watch what happens if he were to set up a tent on Northborne ave. he would be moved on pretty fast.

You mean if Dungers broke a law and obstructed traffic, he would be moved on? True.
Funny thing is, these christians were breaking no law……which is why the ACT Supreme Soviet had to enact a new law to shut them up with.
Which is to say, your analogy was a bad one.

John Moulis said :

What I was saying nothing unique about protests being controlled in where they can and cannot protest or indeed where people may gather en-mass.

As for the odd location would have thought the main act health health clinic would have been the most sensible place for said clinic.

Agreed, there is nothing unique in this. Stalin used to control it pretty tightly, as one example.

I note you support the right of people to protest, so long as they do it where you would like them to do it. Maybe you could double-check your dictionary under “freedom” to see what it says?

HenryBG said :

madelini said :

rommeldog56 said :

If you are anti-abortion, you are anti-women. If you are anti-abortion, you hate women.

A women’s body is hers, to do with as she pleases.

It should hardly come as a suprise that those who want to snuff out free speech have their very own irrational dogma, which they want to ram down everybody else’s throats…..

gooterz said :

Acton said :

But there is something fascinatingly Orwellian about banning a protest on the grounds of a perceived lack of….tolerance.
In their fury to defend their own intolerance, it seems many miss the irony.

They are not being banned. They are free to protest, just not right outside the health centre and surrounding areas.

These areas are public spaces, to which the freedom to protest applies.
Today they are banning christians from outside the healthcentre. Next time it might be you.

gooterz said :

I also don’t understand why they feel their beliefs are more important than everyone else’s.

Are you referring to the protesters here, or supporters of Corbell’s law to impose *their* beliefs on all of us?

gooterz said :

This is quite clearly just one minority group using it’s position of power to lay the boot into another minority group with whom they hold a grudge. The abortion issue is just a smoke screen for the punters.

And this is a good point – the ACT Labor party has been attacking the christians (and mostly losing) for years.
The ALP just can’t handle the fact that its values are not universal values and are not shared by large segments of the population.

steveu said :

The “protesters” were within the exclusion zone this morning and I was happy to inform them of that. Unlike a lot of people I put my money where my mouth is as well as passive-aggressively ranting about it on the internet. I’ll be doing the same thing next Friday if they violate the zone again.

Oh, good-oh, why don’t you and your mates all wear distinctive-coloured shirts – say black shirts – when you roam the public streets looking for christians to persecute?

There is no such thing as freedom to protest. Freedom of speech yes not freedom to protest where and when you like.

Take dungers for example and his anti light rail stance. He has every right to disagree and protest but watch what happens if he were to set up a tent on Northborne ave. he would be moved on pretty fast.

And again nothing unique what so ever about having the right to process controlled.

The lake protest with the tent was there for months.

HenryBG said :

gazket said :

steveu said :

I’m surprised more people aren’t protesting their right to protest.

No one is being denied their right to protest. Just their location to do so is controlled. Nothing unique to Canberra, nothing unique to the abortion debate either.

Persons protested illegally the Barr had a problem with it and banned it as much as he could. I’m sure if he could get away with banning it completely he would.
Down the track this ban has been extended. What’s to say it doesn’t get increased. Lots of places do medical procedures.

Given its Canberra protesters protesting at a Canberra facility and a Canberra facility I would say there is some semblance of it being unique to Canberra.

I’m still of the opinion that humans are humans and sometimes screw up. A screwed up abortion is birth, and a premature birth at a facility not equipped to deal with it is manslaughter by negligence.

The centre of the CBD also seems like an odd place for an abortion clinic, could it be that this has something to do with the sale price of the new apartments next to it?

What I was saying nothing unique about protests being controlled in where they can and cannot protest or indeed where people may gather en-mass.

As for the odd location would have thought the main act health health clinic would have been the most sensible place for said clinic.

madelini said :

rommeldog56 said :

If you are anti-abortion, you are anti-women. If you are anti-abortion, you hate women.

A women’s body is hers, to do with as she pleases.

It should hardly come as a suprise that those who want to snuff out free speech have their very own irrational dogma, which they want to ram down everybody else’s throats…..

gooterz said :

Acton said :

But there is something fascinatingly Orwellian about banning a protest on the grounds of a perceived lack of….tolerance.
In their fury to defend their own intolerance, it seems many miss the irony.

They are not being banned. They are free to protest, just not right outside the health centre and surrounding areas.

These areas are public spaces, to which the freedom to protest applies.
Today they are banning christians from outside the healthcentre. Next time it might be you.

gooterz said :

I also don’t understand why they feel their beliefs are more important than everyone else’s.

Are you referring to the protesters here, or supporters of Corbell’s law to impose *their* beliefs on all of us?

gooterz said :

This is quite clearly just one minority group using it’s position of power to lay the boot into another minority group with whom they hold a grudge. The abortion issue is just a smoke screen for the punters.

And this is a good point – the ACT Labor party has been attacking the christians (and mostly losing) for years.
The ALP just can’t handle the fact that its values are not universal values and are not shared by large segments of the population.

steveu said :

The “protesters” were within the exclusion zone this morning and I was happy to inform them of that. Unlike a lot of people I put my money where my mouth is as well as passive-aggressively ranting about it on the internet. I’ll be doing the same thing next Friday if they violate the zone again.

Oh, good-oh, why don’t you and your mates all wear distinctive-coloured shirts – say black shirts – when you roam the public streets looking for christians to persecute?

There is no such thing as freedom to protest. Freedom of speech yes not freedom to protest where and when you like.

Take dungers for example and his anti light rail stance. He has every right to disagree and protest but watch what happens if he were to set up a tent on Northborne ave. he would be moved on pretty fast.

And again nothing unique what so ever about having the right to process controlled.

HenryBG said :

Acton said :

rommeldog56 said :

If you are anti-abortion, you are anti-women. If you are anti-abortion, you hate women.

There seems to be a fault in your logic there. Last time I saw this group, they were all women (and they weren’t ‘harassing’ anyone either)

I thought that a fault too, however, those protesting women are using their freedom to choose their viewpoint, but denying that freedom to other women to choose their (another) viewpoint.

These protesting women are not denying anyone anything. They aren’t stopping anyone from getting access to the abortion clinic. They aren’t exercising mind control on them.

To say they are denying anyone their freedom is purely absurd and nothing more than a failed attempt to legitimise an overreaching law that should never have been implemented in the first place.

gazket said :

steveu said :

I’m surprised more people aren’t protesting their right to protest.

No one is being denied their right to protest. Just their location to do so is controlled. Nothing unique to Canberra, nothing unique to the abortion debate either.

Persons protested illegally the Barr had a problem with it and banned it as much as he could. I’m sure if he could get away with banning it completely he would.
Down the track this ban has been extended. What’s to say it doesn’t get increased. Lots of places do medical procedures.

Given its Canberra protesters protesting at a Canberra facility and a Canberra facility I would say there is some semblance of it being unique to Canberra.

I’m still of the opinion that humans are humans and sometimes screw up. A screwed up abortion is birth, and a premature birth at a facility not equipped to deal with it is manslaughter by negligence.

The centre of the CBD also seems like an odd place for an abortion clinic, could it be that this has something to do with the sale price of the new apartments next to it?

rommeldog56 said :

If you are anti-abortion, you are anti-women. If you are anti-abortion, you hate women.

A women’s body is hers, to do with as she pleases.

It should hardly come as a suprise that those who want to snuff out free speech have their very own irrational dogma, which they want to ram down everybody else’s throats…..

gooterz said :

Acton said :

But there is something fascinatingly Orwellian about banning a protest on the grounds of a perceived lack of….tolerance.
In their fury to defend their own intolerance, it seems many miss the irony.

They are not being banned. They are free to protest, just not right outside the health centre and surrounding areas.

These areas are public spaces, to which the freedom to protest applies.
Today they are banning christians from outside the healthcentre. Next time it might be you.

gooterz said :

I also don’t understand why they feel their beliefs are more important than everyone else’s.

Are you referring to the protesters here, or supporters of Corbell’s law to impose *their* beliefs on all of us?

gooterz said :

This is quite clearly just one minority group using it’s position of power to lay the boot into another minority group with whom they hold a grudge. The abortion issue is just a smoke screen for the punters.

And this is a good point – the ACT Labor party has been attacking the christians (and mostly losing) for years.
The ALP just can’t handle the fact that its values are not universal values and are not shared by large segments of the population.

steveu said :

The “protesters” were within the exclusion zone this morning and I was happy to inform them of that. Unlike a lot of people I put my money where my mouth is as well as passive-aggressively ranting about it on the internet. I’ll be doing the same thing next Friday if they violate the zone again.

Oh, good-oh, why don’t you and your mates all wear distinctive-coloured shirts – say black shirts – when you roam the public streets looking for christians to persecute?

This is quite clearly just one minority group using it’s position of power to lay the boot into another minority group with whom they hold a grudge. The abortion issue is just a smoke screen for the punters.

I personally don’t know if I agree with the laws or not. I don’t think these people should be protesting or harassing/humiliating women who are making a tough decision but it would be nice if they did that of their own accord rather than a law telling them to do so.

I mostly don’t understand why they feel so strongly about the issue that they’ll sit around the clinic every day. Why not do something useful with that time? Help survivors of violence. Help raise funds for people to get out of domestic violence. Anything!

I also don’t understand why they feel their beliefs are more important than everyone else’s. I don’t agree with how they choose to live their lives or the beliefs of a non-existent entity but I don’t try to make it difficult for them to do and as such it would be nice for them to give everyone else the same courtesy.

I’d also love them to watch this video that was on Last Week Tonight a few months ago about how the restrictive laws in the US are affecting people trying to get abortion and ask them whether that is what they wish it were like here.

To quote:
“I told her you can come to San Antonio and we can see you here, she said I can’t, I don’t have the means, there is no way I can get to San Antonio. So, what if I tell you what I have in my kitchen cabinet and you tell me what I can do.”
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DRauXXz6t0Y

Some recent comments by author JK Rowlings on another matter caught my eye, because they are just as relevant to this issue.

Concerned for the growing “intolerance of alternative viewpoints” in “many developed countries”, Rowling said it was more important than ever to respect freedom of speech. “The tides of populism and nationalism currently sweeping many developed countries have been accompanied by demands that unwelcome and inconvenient voices be removed from public discourse,” she said.

“If you seek the removal of freedoms simply on the grounds that they have offended you, you have crossed the line to stand among tyrants who imprison, torture and kill on exactly the same justification.” http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-05-18/harry-potter-author-jk-rowling-defends-trump's-right-to-be-bigot/7425796

It matters not whether you support or oppose abortion. This is not even about abortion. Those people who support Simon Corbell’s anti-protest zone and fines for protesting abortion because they see and hear unwelcome and inconvenient voices, stand alongside “tyrants who imprison, torture and kill on exactly the same justification.”

You object to what they have to say, you object to them expressing their viewpoint, so you would stop them expressing their opinion because it offends you.

Those here now who somehow justify the removal of a freedom to openly protest a perceived wrong, a freedom gained by our ancestors over generations, suffering almost unimaginable persecutions, are of exactly the same nature and inclination as those people who throughout history, turned a blind eye to or sought to excuse the worst excesses of human nature. Every tyrant seeks an apathetic and compliant populace.

Acton said :

But there is something fascinatingly Orwellian about banning a protest on the grounds of a perceived lack of….tolerance.
In their fury to defend their own intolerance, it seems many miss the irony.

They are not being banned. They are free to protest, just not right outside the health centre and surrounding areas.

steveu said :

I’m surprised more people aren’t protesting their right to protest.

No one is being denied their right to protest. Just their location to do so is controlled. Nothing unique to Canberra, nothing unique to the abortion debate either.

Acton said :

rommeldog56 said :

If you are anti-abortion, you are anti-women. If you are anti-abortion, you hate women.

There seems to be a fault in your logic there. Last time I saw this group, they were all women (and they weren’t ‘harassing’ anyone either)

I thought that a fault too, however, those protesting women are using their freedom to choose their viewpoint, but denying that freedom to other women to choose their (another) viewpoint. Behind these protesting women though is a male organisation, making the rules for its members, and denying women the right to share in the rule making.

justin heywood9:53 am 21 May 16

rommeldog56 said :

If you are anti-abortion, you are anti-women. If you are anti-abortion, you hate women.

There seems to be a fault in your logic there. Last time I saw this group, they were all women (and they weren’t ‘harassing’ anyone either)

I don’t really have a dog in this fight, being non-religious and non-female.

But there is something fascinatingly Orwellian about banning a protest on the grounds of a perceived lack of….tolerance.
In their fury to defend their own intolerance, it seems many miss the irony.

CyberJam said :

I’m surprised there aren’t big protests outside churches and the Australian Christian Lobby’s offices considering their disgusting opposition to gay marriage.

+1

steveu said :

The “protesters” were within the exclusion zone this morning and I was happy to inform them of that. Unlike a lot of people I put my money where my mouth is as well as passive-aggressively ranting about it on the internet. I’ll be doing the same thing next Friday if they violate the zone again.

+1

XLTerMinator112:42 am 21 May 16

This has officially got my “grrr” on.

Going to paraphrase the ProopDog here.

If you are anti-abortion, you are anti-women. If you are anti-abortion, you hate women.

A women’s body is hers, to do with as she pleases. To deny her safe access to abortion doesn’t stop the abortion – it just pushes it into a back alley where the foetus is removed with a rusty coat hanger and puts the women’s life at risk.

Freedom of speech is a good thing. And as others have mentioned, the appropriate place to raise your concerns is with the ACT Legislative Assembly. But attacking women who want to maintain control over their own lives and bodies is completely out of place. You do not know their circumstances. Birth control isn’t 100% effective. Condoms can break. Rape happens.

A study in the US showed a correlation between the introduction of abortion and the reduction in crime approx 20-30 years later. The research showed that If a women is forced to have an unwanted child due to abortion unavailability, the child is more likely to engage in criminal activity due to lack of engagement from the mother (normally unwed – Daddy shot through as soon he found out about bub).

So those of you protesting, and calling young women murderers when going to a medical procedure that is extremely emotional? Don’t stop doing it because of legislation and restriction zones. Stop doing it because you are trying to impose your value system onto someone who has just had to make one of the most difficult decisions in their life.

An 18YO single mother cannot provide the same environment as a 30YO married mother.

But you seem to be hell bent on demonising them. Shame on you.

If you disagree with the concept of abortion, picket outside the assembly. Leave the patients (yest, they are patients who are looking for a medical treatment) alone.

Shart said :

Masquara said :

gooterz said :

Imagine the outcry from ‘progressives’ if the right-wingers got into government and started putting up ‘exclusion zones’ around churches.

I imagine if people were in the practice of harassing and abusing anyone who approached the church in the same way and at the same distance as has been happening with this clinic, many people, progressive or otherwise, would be fine with a bit of a safety zone.

Agreed. Have you ever actually stood there and watched what they say to women entering or how they actually act? It is disgusting to witness. Women should not have to run the gauntlet to get an abortion. If I stood outside a church every Sunday harassing parishioners and telling them they were pedo’s etc… how long before I would get carted off by the police huh?

Well Jehovah’s Witnesses go door to door. How many of those get arrested.

How come the government can protest people smoking by butting shocking images on every packet when people just want to smoke.
Can you buy smokes in this area with the protest labelling on it?

justin heywood9:55 pm 20 May 16

steveu said :

The “protesters” were within the exclusion zone this morning and I was happy to inform them of that. Unlike a lot of people I put my money where my mouth is as well as passive-aggressively ranting about it on the internet. I’ll be doing the same thing next Friday if they violate the zone again.

Well it takes a brave man to walk up to a few Christian women and give them the what for Evilomnap. I’ll certainly be giving you a wide berth next time I see you on the Internet.

I’m surprised more people aren’t protesting their right to protest.

The “protesters” were within the exclusion zone this morning and I was happy to inform them of that. Unlike a lot of people I put my money where my mouth is as well as passive-aggressively ranting about it on the internet. I’ll be doing the same thing next Friday if they violate the zone again.

CyberJam said :

JessP said :

Mordd said :

gooterz said :

Imagine the outcry from ‘progressives’ if the right-wingers got into government and started putting up ‘exclusion zones’ around churches.

Um, when was the last time you saw a group of people standing outside a church, protesting against people attending it? Really silly comment!

Hypothetical, Maya. That’s why I said ‘imagine’ and ‘if’ . Perhaps you missed it.

I’m surprised there aren’t big protests outside churches and the Australian Christian Lobby’s offices considering their disgusting opposition to gay marriage.

I don’t think the Left is content with peaceful protests, they prefer stronger measures:
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-05-18/who-is-burning-geelong-churches/7425416

rosscoact said :

BigRed30 said :

Masquara said :

switch said :

Nightshade said :

Does this apply to all medical places or just ones for abortions?

I guess it just applies to opinions that Stalin doesn’t like.

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/may/18/jk-rowling-free-speech-dissent-donald-trump

““If you seek the removal of freedoms from an opponent simply on the grounds that they have offended you, you have crossed the line to stand alongside tyrants who imprison, torture and kill on exactly the same justification.””

The people ‘protesting’ outside that place actively seek the ‘removal of freedoms’ young women have to attend the clinic to undergo treatment there, on the sole grounds that they are offended by the idea of abortion.

They aren’t offended by the idea of abortion, they believe that abortion is the murder of a human foetus whom they believe is a person with a fundamental right to life. At least debate what they’re actually protesting about.

That’s where the difference in opinions is. Those who don’t have the same views as the protesters don’t see it that way at all, so to them there is no use using that debate, because that is not what the debate is about at all. It is about personal beliefs and the freedom to choose, without being told that the ‘alien’ religious beliefs of others is what you have to believe too. They also don’t believe a foetus is a human yet; actually in many cases likely not even a foetus yet (at about 12 weeks, although that varies a bit according to which source), but still an embryo. “91% of abortions are performed in the first 14 weeks.”, according to the following link, so likely most would be embryos.
https://www.emilysvoice.com/get-informed/abortion-facts/

Hi Maya, long time no reply to one of your comments, sorry.

I have no problem with protests or what have you. My problem is young women being harassed who may or may not be even seeking an abortion at that place. These people can whimper about their beliefs whenever and wherever they like, they have no right to make anyone feel threatened or intimidated.

Masquara said :

switch said :

Nightshade said :

Does this apply to all medical places or just ones for abortions?

I guess it just applies to opinions that Stalin doesn’t like.

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/may/18/jk-rowling-free-speech-dissent-donald-trump

““If you seek the removal of freedoms from an opponent simply on the grounds that they have offended you, you have crossed the line to stand alongside tyrants who imprison, torture and kill on exactly the same justification.””

The people ‘protesting’ outside that place actively seek the ‘removal of freedoms’ young women have to attend the clinic to undergo treatment there, on the sole grounds that they are offended by the idea of abortion.

I am almost certain you are mis-characterising the reasons for their protest.
They may be making a point about the killing of unborn human foetuses on the basis of ethics, morality, or maybe because a sky-fairy has told them it is wrong.
Their motivation is irrelevant.
Their actions were not unlawful – hence accusations of “harassment and abuse” are clearly lies – which is why novel legislation had to be enacted to stamp out their freedom of expression in a public place.

JessP said :

Mordd said :

gooterz said :

Imagine the outcry from ‘progressives’ if the right-wingers got into government and started putting up ‘exclusion zones’ around churches.

Um, when was the last time you saw a group of people standing outside a church, protesting against people attending it? Really silly comment!

Hypothetical, Maya. That’s why I said ‘imagine’ and ‘if’ . Perhaps you missed it.

I’m surprised there aren’t big protests outside churches and the Australian Christian Lobby’s offices considering their disgusting opposition to gay marriage.

Shart said :

Masquara said :

gooterz said :

Imagine the outcry from ‘progressives’ if the right-wingers got into government and started putting up ‘exclusion zones’ around churches.

I imagine if people were in the practice of harassing and abusing anyone who approached the church in the same way and at the same distance as has been happening with this clinic, many people, progressive or otherwise, would be fine with a bit of a safety zone.

Agreed. Have you ever actually stood there and watched what they say to women entering or how they actually act? It is disgusting to witness. Women should not have to run the gauntlet to get an abortion. If I stood outside a church every Sunday harassing parishioners and telling them they were pedo’s etc… how long before I would get carted off by the police huh?

Yes, i’ve worked nearby and seen the protest many, many times over many years.

Not once have I seen them harrass anyone, the vast majority of the time they are standing around with leaflets praying. I’ve never seen them abusing people or following them.

Of course that’s only what I’ve seen and maybe other people have different experiences but i’ve never seen other evidence such as media reports that such abuse/harrassment was occuring.

justin heywood7:55 am 20 May 16

Masquara said :

It’s simply a gathering of religious freaks (usually Catholic)

“usually Catholic” you say? How do you know that? Do you regularly ask them?

Masquara said :

…. who harass everyone they see going into the clinic

Really? It’s a health clinic. They’d be pretty exhausted by the end of the day.

Masquara said :

…to the point of taking pictures and posting them on the internet.

Great. I have the internet too. Point me to the site where they post this stuff.

Masquara said :

The police would love nothing more to arrest these people….

How do you know this?

(I don’t know whether the protestors actually harass people or not. But I do know not to trust what people say on the internet. Hence my request for more details)

Masquara said :

gooterz said :

Imagine the outcry from ‘progressives’ if the right-wingers got into government and started putting up ‘exclusion zones’ around churches.

I imagine if people were in the practice of harassing and abusing anyone who approached the church in the same way and at the same distance as has been happening with this clinic, many people, progressive or otherwise, would be fine with a bit of a safety zone.

Agreed. Have you ever actually stood there and watched what they say to women entering or how they actually act? It is disgusting to witness. Women should not have to run the gauntlet to get an abortion. If I stood outside a church every Sunday harassing parishioners and telling them they were pedo’s etc… how long before I would get carted off by the police huh?

I am a Rabbit™12:55 am 20 May 16

Has anyone here even seen these so called “protests”? Here’s a hint – they’re not protests at all. It’s simply a gathering of religious freaks (usually Catholic) who harass everyone they see going into the clinic to the point of taking pictures and posting them on the internet. With that said, I would rather harassment laws be amended so the police are allowed to arrest these people without women having to submit a public complaint about them.

The police would love nothing more to arrest these people, but the fact that people getting abortions want to remain low-key is stopping them. The existing law should be amended to cater for these situations as opposed to adding a new special law for a particular issue.

If they have the power to ban protests here what’s to stop them from shopping protesting elsewhere. Oh wait they just extended the zone, so its self evident that they don’t care about the right to protest.

If they started protesting elsewhere what’s to stop them banning it there too?

Are the bin collections still happening in this zone as industrial action is a form of protest?
Can I get my bin emptied because I don’t agree with the protest and would like my house zoned as a protest free zone?

rosscoact said :

BigRed30 said :

Masquara said :

switch said :

Nightshade said :

Does this apply to all medical places or just ones for abortions?

I guess it just applies to opinions that Stalin doesn’t like.

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/may/18/jk-rowling-free-speech-dissent-donald-trump

““If you seek the removal of freedoms from an opponent simply on the grounds that they have offended you, you have crossed the line to stand alongside tyrants who imprison, torture and kill on exactly the same justification.””

The people ‘protesting’ outside that place actively seek the ‘removal of freedoms’ young women have to attend the clinic to undergo treatment there, on the sole grounds that they are offended by the idea of abortion.

They aren’t offended by the idea of abortion, they believe that abortion is the murder of a human foetus whom they believe is a person with a fundamental right to life. At least debate what they’re actually protesting about.

That’s where the difference in opinions is. Those who don’t have the same views as the protesters don’t see it that way at all, so to them there is no use using that debate, because that is not what the debate is about at all. It is about personal beliefs and the freedom to choose, without being told that the ‘alien’ religious beliefs of others is what you have to believe too. They also don’t believe a foetus is a human yet; actually in many cases likely not even a foetus yet (at about 12 weeks, although that varies a bit according to which source), but still an embryo. “91% of abortions are performed in the first 14 weeks.”, according to the following link, so likely most would be embryos.
https://www.emilysvoice.com/get-informed/abortion-facts/

I agree that there’s a fundamental disagreement here between people who will most likely never agree.
But surely all reasonable people should be able to see that no opinion on this issue is right or wrong, we’ve simply chosen an arbitrary point for where abortions are allowed up to and where the embryo/foetus/baby gains certain human rights. A point that could easily be earlier or later depending on your own viewpoint. People who see this as a black and white issue on both sides are part of the problem.

BigRed30 said :

Masquara said :

switch said :

Nightshade said :

Does this apply to all medical places or just ones for abortions?

I guess it just applies to opinions that Stalin doesn’t like.

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/may/18/jk-rowling-free-speech-dissent-donald-trump

““If you seek the removal of freedoms from an opponent simply on the grounds that they have offended you, you have crossed the line to stand alongside tyrants who imprison, torture and kill on exactly the same justification.””

The people ‘protesting’ outside that place actively seek the ‘removal of freedoms’ young women have to attend the clinic to undergo treatment there, on the sole grounds that they are offended by the idea of abortion.

They aren’t offended by the idea of abortion, they believe that abortion is the murder of a human foetus whom they believe is a person with a fundamental right to life. At least debate what they’re actually protesting about.

That’s where the difference in opinions is. Those who don’t have the same views as the protesters don’t see it that way at all, so to them there is no use using that debate, because that is not what the debate is about at all. It is about personal beliefs and the freedom to choose, without being told that the ‘alien’ religious beliefs of others is what you have to believe too. They also don’t believe a foetus is a human yet; actually in many cases likely not even a foetus yet (at about 12 weeks, although that varies a bit according to which source), but still an embryo. “91% of abortions are performed in the first 14 weeks.”, according to the following link, so likely most would be embryos.
https://www.emilysvoice.com/get-informed/abortion-facts/

justin heywood5:54 pm 19 May 16

Masquara said :

The people ‘protesting’ outside that place actively seek the ‘removal of freedoms’ young women have to attend the clinic….

They are? I doubt it. But that’s not we were arguing about here.

It’s a dangerous precedent this one. An unpopular group (Christians) are prevented from publicly speaking out.

I argue that the only reason this is happening (and being supported) is because many people don’t like Christians*.

People who selectively apply the concept of free speech are hypocrites.

*I am not a Christian, I stopped believing when I was about 12

Masquara said :

switch said :

Nightshade said :

Does this apply to all medical places or just ones for abortions?

I guess it just applies to opinions that Stalin doesn’t like.

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/may/18/jk-rowling-free-speech-dissent-donald-trump

““If you seek the removal of freedoms from an opponent simply on the grounds that they have offended you, you have crossed the line to stand alongside tyrants who imprison, torture and kill on exactly the same justification.””

The people ‘protesting’ outside that place actively seek the ‘removal of freedoms’ young women have to attend the clinic to undergo treatment there, on the sole grounds that they are offended by the idea of abortion.

They aren’t offended by the idea of abortion, they believe that abortion is the murder of a human foetus whom they believe is a person with a fundamental right to life. At least debate what they’re actually protesting about.

Rheity said :

gooterz said :

Oh, Voltaire is turning in his grave.
Stalin, on the other hand, is resting comfortably…

This is quite beyond the pale, in a democracy.

1. How much longer before Barr and the Greens start legislating against opinions that aren’t state-sanctioned?

gooterz said :

Imagine the outcry from ‘progressives’ if the right-wingers got into government and started putting up ‘exclusion zones’ around churches.

Agreed. Pathetic, discriminatory laws from the intolerant side of politics who hypocritically cry out for tolerance (but only of what they approve of!).

Nobody is banning them from protesting. They are being banned from protesting at a specific location.

I’m sure they are still free to protest their little cotton socks off outside the Legislative Assembly.

Wonder if Godwin’s Law has an amendment that covers references to Stalinism?

Masquara said :

gooterz said :

Imagine the outcry from ‘progressives’ if the right-wingers got into government and started putting up ‘exclusion zones’ around churches.

I imagine if people were in the practice of harassing and abusing anyone who approached the church in the same way and at the same distance as has been happening with this clinic, many people, progressive or otherwise, would be fine with a bit of a safety zone.

Ok, ive imagined it.

People standing around outside the church holding hands and praying, potentially giving leaflets to those who stopped to interact with them whilst passing. Is that the harrassment and abuse you’re talking about?

Wait a minute, sounds almost exactly what goes on inside the Church, they should get inside. I’m pretty sure very few people would care if that sort of protest was occurring outside of a church, nor almost anywhere else.

Anyone who supports this sort of restriction for these reasons hasn’t clearly thought the issue through. They simply want to ban people doing things that they don’t like.

I can’t possibly see any future problems with that sort of approach, there’s almost zero chance that it could ever possibly come back to bite you in the rear end………..

justin heywood3:12 pm 19 May 16

Mordd said :

gooterz said :

Imagine the outcry from ‘progressives’ if the right-wingers got into government and started putting up ‘exclusion zones’ around churches.

Um, when was the last time you saw a group of people standing outside a church, protesting against people attending it? Really silly comment!

Hypothetical, Maya. That’s why I said ‘imagine’ and ‘if’ . Perhaps you missed it.

justin heywood3:10 pm 19 May 16

Masquara said :

I imagine if people were in the practice of harassing and abusing anyone who approached the church in the same way and at the same distance as has been happening with this clinic,

Are they harassing and abusing people? That would be something different then. It’s been a while since I’ve seen it, but it was a fairly passive protest last time I looked.

switch said :

Nightshade said :

Does this apply to all medical places or just ones for abortions?

I guess it just applies to opinions that Stalin doesn’t like.

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/may/18/jk-rowling-free-speech-dissent-donald-trump

““If you seek the removal of freedoms from an opponent simply on the grounds that they have offended you, you have crossed the line to stand alongside tyrants who imprison, torture and kill on exactly the same justification.””

The people ‘protesting’ outside that place actively seek the ‘removal of freedoms’ young women have to attend the clinic to undergo treatment there, on the sole grounds that they are offended by the idea of abortion.

Simon Corbell said “From tomorrow, if an individual is found protesting within the new area, ACT Health’s security personnel will notify them about the extension of the protest-free zone and ask them to leave,” he added. “If the person chooses to remain, ACT Policing will be notified and penalties may apply.”

[[One of the two offences includes engaging in prohibited behaviour in a protected area. This will carry a maximum financial penalty of $3,750 and a maximum penalty of 25 penalty units. The other offence … will carry a maximum financial penalty of $7,500 and a maximum penalty of 50 penalty units and/or imprisonment of six months. http://www.health.act.gov.au/consumerinformation/protectedarea%5D%5D

Let’s see where this could take us. Why limit a “protest-free zone” to just around the abortion clinic because people will continue to protest on the fringes of the no-go area. The “protest-free zone” needs to be extended to keep protesters entirely out of sight and out of hearing. Include Northborne Avenue and Marcus Clarke Street. Make the “protest-free zone” all of Civic. No, all of the ACT.

What of people protesting in the “privacy zone” but about something quite different? Will they also be excluded?

A precedent has now been set. Lets build on this idea. If we don’t like people protesting about something, anything, anywhere we impose a “protest-free zone”. We must not allow ourselves to be offended by alternative – revisionist – heretical – xxxist views.

To stop protesters, impose a “protest-free zone” around the ACT Legislative Assembly. Around Parliament House. Around Simon Corbell when he is making Tram announcements. Protected areas will be mandatory round climate change conferences to shield participants from conflicting views.

Oh, what a utopia we could create by stopping anyone expressing views that are wrong because we don’t like them. Barr them!

I commend Mr Corbell and recommend he be awarded a hat like this guy, because he is of the same opinion and inclination:
http://www.azquotes.com/quote/728639

Shame on us for tolderating this. It’s almost worthwhile going along to protest against an anti-protest zone.

Masquara said :

gooterz said :

Imagine the outcry from ‘progressives’ if the right-wingers got into government and started putting up ‘exclusion zones’ around churches.

I imagine if people were in the practice of harassing and abusing anyone who approached the church in the same way and at the same distance as has been happening with this clinic, many people, progressive or otherwise, would be fine with a bit of a safety zone.

That would be a really good point if the anti-abortion protesters were actually “harassing and abusing anyone who approached”. But they weren’t.

Masquara said :

gooterz said :

Imagine the outcry from ‘progressives’ if the right-wingers got into government and started putting up ‘exclusion zones’ around churches.

I imagine if people were in the practice of harassing and abusing anyone who approached the church in the same way and at the same distance as has been happening with this clinic, many people, progressive or otherwise, would be fine with a bit of a safety zone.

+1.

blandone said :

Good.

+1.

gooterz said :

Imagine the outcry from ‘progressives’ if the right-wingers got into government and started putting up ‘exclusion zones’ around churches.

Um, when was the last time you saw a group of people standing outside a church, protesting against people attending it? Really silly comment!

Masquara said :

gooterz said :

Imagine the outcry from ‘progressives’ if the right-wingers got into government and started putting up ‘exclusion zones’ around churches.

I imagine if people were in the practice of harassing and abusing anyone who approached the church in the same way and at the same distance as has been happening with this clinic, many people, progressive or otherwise, would be fine with a bit of a safety zone.

I wasn’t aware that those nuns outside the abortion clinic were harassing or abusing anybody.

I *am* aware that those for whom the idea of free speech is a terrible challenge have been in the habit of making up stories of “abuse and harassment” as cover for their attack on free speech.

Just imagine if a coal company got the Liberals to enact legislation preventing people from protesting outside coal HQ?

Uh, hang on, the right-wingers are into the same kind of thing…
http://www.smh.com.au/comment/mike-bairds-anti-protest-laws-risk-turning-nsw-into-bjelke-petersens-queensland-20160315-gnj4to.html

Here’s what a Labor politician has to say about such laws,
“”They’re seeking to stifle dissent by passing these harsh and unnecessary new laws.””

“Greens MP Jeremy Buckingham described the laws as a “jack-boot police crackdown on democratic rights”.”

Here_and_Now12:20 pm 19 May 16

gooterz said :

Imagine the outcry from ‘progressives’ if the right-wingers got into government and started putting up ‘exclusion zones’ around churches.

I imagine if people were in the practice of harassing and abusing anyone who approached the church in the same way and at the same distance as has been happening with this clinic, many people, progressive or otherwise, would be fine with a bit of a safety zone.

Here_and_Now12:18 pm 19 May 16

Nightshade said :

Does this apply to all medical places or just ones for abortions?

Please peruse the piece. It says directly that it only applies to one particular clinic.

Blen_Carmichael11:59 am 19 May 16

“Unfortunately, anti-abortion protests had continued on the fringes of the zone within the line of site of people accessing treatment, Corbell said.”

Just to clarify: 1) Some people are protesting 2) Unlike many protests, these protestors are acting legally and within the Act 3) This is “unfortunate” and the government is taking action to expand the so-called ‘protest-free zone’.

justin heywood11:55 am 19 May 16

madelini said :

gooterz said :

blandone said :

Good.

+1

+1 here too. The protests outside that place had nothing to do with democracy or free speech.

madelini said :

gooterz said :

blandone said :

Good.

+1

+1 here too. The protests outside that place had nothing to do with democracy or free speech.

Correct. The protest itself has nothing to do with free speech, nobody said it did.
But the effective banning of the protest has everything to do with free speech.

A challenge for those who approve of shutting down this protest:

Outline the guidelines under a protest should be allowed, or not. Let’s see whether you can.

gooterz said :

blandone said :

Good.

+1

+1 here too. The protests outside that place had nothing to do with democracy or free speech.

gooterz said :

Oh, Voltaire is turning in his grave.
Stalin, on the other hand, is resting comfortably…

This is quite beyond the pale, in a democracy.

+1. How much longer before Barr and the Greens start legislating against opinions that aren’t state-sanctioned?

gooterz said :

Imagine the outcry from ‘progressives’ if the right-wingers got into government and started putting up ‘exclusion zones’ around churches.

Agreed. Pathetic, discriminatory laws from the intolerant side of politics who hypocritically cry out for tolerance (but only of what they approve of!).

Alexandra Craig9:38 am 19 May 16

blandone said :

Good.

+1

Nightshade said :

Does this apply to all medical places or just ones for abortions?

I guess it just applies to opinions that Stalin doesn’t like.

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/may/18/jk-rowling-free-speech-dissent-donald-trump

““If you seek the removal of freedoms from an opponent simply on the grounds that they have offended you, you have crossed the line to stand alongside tyrants who imprison, torture and kill on exactly the same justification.””

justin heywood8:12 am 19 May 16

Imagine the outcry from ‘progressives’ if the right-wingers got into government and started putting up ‘exclusion zones’ around churches.

Does this apply to all medical places or just ones for abortions?

Oh, Voltaire is turning in his grave.
Stalin, on the other hand, is resting comfortably…

This is quite beyond the pale, in a democracy.

Daily Digest

Want the best Canberra news delivered daily? Every day we package the most popular Riotact stories and send them straight to your inbox. Sign-up now for trusted local news that will never be behind a paywall.

By submitting your email address you are agreeing to Region Group's terms and conditions and privacy policy.