The World Health Organisation (WHO) recommends that babies should be killed up until the moment they emerge from the birth canal, without delay, whenever a pregnant woman requests it. Through its updated abortion care guideline released in 2022, WHO expects all Member States to implement this policy.
This article is not about whether WHO’s policy is right or wrong, but the process used to reach its conclusions, and what this tells us about WHO as a legitimate global health advisory body.
Dealing with a difficult topic
It is important to say awkward things sometimes, when these things are true. When we become polarised, we can start to believe that stating something consistent with ‘the other party’ can be worse than telling lies to support our preferred stance. This demeans us and does not help anyone. There are few issues that polarise Western society more than abortion.
I am tied to neither side of the abortion debate. As a medical practitioner, I have taken part in surgical abortions, helping women to stop a pregnancy that they decided they did not want to continue. I have also assisted some hundreds of women to deliver babies.
I have been with tiny premature babies of just 20 weeks gestation when they died. I have gently cradled a very premature child of my own, fully human in my hands. He saw light and felt hunger, pain and fear, his outstretched hand the size of my thumbnail. He could have been killed in many places if he had not happened to be born early.
Many thousands of girls and women also die excruciating deaths each year from septic, unsafe abortions performed because safe abortion is outlawed or inaccessible. The introduction to the WHO guideline notes that three of 10 pregnancies end in abortion and nearly half of these are unsafe for the mother, nearly all these being in low-income countries. I have lived in a Southeast Asian country where several thousand women are thought to die from this each year. These young and agonising deaths mostly cease when abortion is legalised.
Philosophically, I believe in the equality of all human beings and in the concept of bodily autonomy – no one has the right to interfere and control another’s body. We own and must control our bodies, not because someone grants us this right, but because we are humans. This applies to medical procedures as it does to torture. As it applies to our own body, it applies to all others.
However, because there is good and bad in the world –nurture and harm – the interpretation of this fundamental truth is not simple. At times we may need to kill another’s body. We do this in war, for example, to stop a country being invaded and its people tortured, raped and killed. But we also uphold the right of conscientious objectors who decline to kill because of their religious or moral beliefs.
So there is no simple right and wrong when it comes to the act of abortion, only a right or wrong in the intent. As humans we need to face such truths fearlessly because truth is intrinsically better than lies, and simplifications of complex issues are frequently lies. In interpreting the same truths, we may reach different actions. We need to recognise that life is full of hard choices, always harder for some than others, and we all have different experiences to inform them.
A wise friend was once discussing the issue of abortion with people who, with good intentions, held vigils outside abortion clinics to dissuade women from entering. He recounted the words of a woman who had an abortion at a such a clinic: “What she needed was someone to be with her and support her after she had left by the back door, not someone accosting her on the way in.”
Like much that life throws at us, dealing with abortion primarily requires truth, understanding and compassion, not dogma.
The WHO position on abortion, and what it means
WHO released its Abortion care guideline in early 2022, updating previous publications on the social, ethical and medical aspects of abortion into one volume. As a ‘guideline’ rather than a recommendation, WHO expects the document to be followed by the 194 Member States that make up the World Health Assembly. WHO, of course, does not have power to enforce guidelines, but ‘guideline’ in the WHO lexicon is an instruction by which countries should abide.
To ensure an evidence-base, guideline development is supposed to involve a wide range of experts and stakeholders who gather to weigh evidence, using this to carefully formulate ‘best practice’. The process should be transparent and the data traceable. A department within WHO oversees this process, ensuring that the guideline reflects the Organisation’s principles and way of working.
WHO’s guideline recommends unequivocally that abortion be performed on request of a pregnant woman, at any time during pregnancy up until delivery, without any delay that may potentially cause the pregnant woman distress.
Recommend against laws and other regulations that restrict abortion by grounds… This requires that… abortion is available when carrying a pregnancy to term would cause the woman, girl or other pregnant person substantial pain or suffering…
iv. health grounds reflect WHO’s definitions of health and mental health (see Glossary) [A state of complete physical, mental and social well-being and not merely the absence of disease or infirmity];
[Mental health: A state of well-being in which every individual realises their own potential, can cope with the normal stresses of life, can work productively and fruitfully, and is able to make a contribution to their community]…Gestational age limits delayed access to abortion, especially among women seeking abortions at later gestational ages… Gestational age limits have been found to be associated with… increased rates of maternal mortality and poor health outcomes.
The evidence also showed that grounds-based approaches that require foetal impairments to be fatal for abortion to be lawful frustrate providers who wish to support patients and leave women no choice but to continue with pregnancy. Being required to continue with a pregnancy that causes significant distress violates numerous human rights. States are obligated [emphasis added] to revise these laws to make them compatible with international human rights law.
Put another way (but exactly the same meaning), WHO’s official position is that a woman may kill an unborn embryo or baby soon after conception, or when it is entering the birth canal during labour, and it is the health profession’s role to do this without delay upon request.
WHO’s logic in arriving at its conclusion is deeply flawed, and can only be reached by adopting a specific view of humanity that is inconsistent with that of most Member States. It is therefore an illegitimate position, if WHO works for all of its Member States and not for narrow, unrepresentative interests.
In its lack of inclusivity, the guideline demonstrates a growing culture within international health that is deeply troubling and dangerous. This culture relies on a denial of reality to achieve a pre-ordained result. It deliberately misuses human rights norms to force a particular world view on others – a form of cultural colonialism and quite the opposite of the community-driven and anti-colonialist ideals around which WHO was formed.
WHO’s human rights justification
WHO justifies its position on abortion by citing what it considers relevant human rights norms and law. It holds that there is no choice but to allow abortion, as refusing or delaying abortion, such as through a requirement for counselling, could potentially distress the pregnant woman.
When offering and providing counselling, it is essential to apply the following guiding principles: …ensure that the individual is requesting the counselling and make it clear that counselling is not required;
In causing distress, her human right to be free from ill-health (in this case psychological pain) has been infringed, based on the definition of health – physical, mental and social wellbeing – in WHO’s Constitution. This weak argument requires disagreement with another person’s views to constitute a violation of that person’s rights. Society could not function on this basis.
In establishing the required evidence-base for maintaining its incongruous position, WHO has to consider only risk and no benefit.
The studies also showed that where women requested an abortion and were denied care due to gestational age this could result in the unwanted continuation of pregnancy… those who presented at 20 weeks’ gestation or later. This outcome can be viewed as incompatible with the requirement in international human rights law to make abortion available when carrying a pregnancy to term would cause the woman substantial pain or suffering, regardless of pregnancy viability.
The studies used by WHO do not however only record negative outcomes of delays through required counselling, but note that women also considered that legally-required delays and counselling could be positive, with some opting not to have an abortion as a result.
If WHO recognised any requirement for counselling, it would have to recognise that practitioners withholding counselling would be putting informed consent in jeopardy, and in some cases babies (“pregnancy tissue”) would be lost when an informed woman, on reflection, may have preferred to keep it. Informed consent is at the basis of modern medical ethics and an internationally-accepted human right. WHO recognises in the document that: “States must ensure that informed consent is provided freely, safeguarded effectively, and based on complete provision of high-quality, accurate and accessible information.” Incongruously, it then considers that the rights of that woman are violated if the abortion is delayed in order to ensure that information, and time for reflection, are provided.
The human in ‘human rights’
At no place in the document is the definition of ‘human’ discussed. WHO’s argument for abortion requires absolute acceptance that human rights do not apply in any form prior to birth. The only human rights acknowledged in the document are those of the pregnant woman, with disputable subsidiary rights of providers. Discussion of foetal (unborn baby) rights is absent. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights does not specify a time that dividing cells become human, creating uncertainty for the Guideline’s argument.
Defining ‘human’ is difficult. It may be argued that the lack of independence, or ability to express thoughts to others, prevent the application of human rights to a foetus. This claim would require dependent adults or children who cannot articulate their thoughts to be considered sub-human, such as people severely mentally or even physically disabled, and those who are comatose. This is a position previously adopted by fascist and eugenic regimes that believed in a hierarchy of human worth. It would be unfitting for WHO.
The only intrinsic difference between the baby within and without the womb apart from geography is the umbilical cord. Suggesting the functioning of this foetal organ, comprised solely of fetal tissue, somehow prevents the rest of the foetus from being a sentient being would require redefinition of ‘sentient’. For the last few months within the uterus, when it could readily survive outside, it has its own unique and complete human DNA, a beating heart and independent movement. Some mothers will say it responds to familiar sounds. If removed from the uterus, it displays sensations of pain and distress, hunger, an ability to cry, respond to stimuli, recognise light, shapes and sounds, and drink milk. If this sentient being is not human, what is it?
Any recognition of humanness of WHO’s “pregnancy tissue” requires an acceptance of two persons in the woman-foetal relationship (i.e., two potential victims). The human rights basis of WHO’s guidelines would then require one to be considered subservient to the other. This would require a rewriting of the human rights agreements on which the panel based its determination (a hierarchy of human worth).
Alternatively, it can be decided that the rights to life of one can be infringed to benefit the other. We do this in war, we may do it in triage at the scene of an accident. We also do this sometimes in pregnancy. It involves recognising hard and unpleasant choices, as it involves putting value on potential harm to the woman versus harm to the second person in the equation. This approach would fit with human rights conventions, but would disallow an approach that relies solely on a dogma that claims the pregnant woman’s welfare is the only relevant concern. The failure of WHO to recognise the potential of two humans with attendant rights in a pregnancy smells like cowardice. Its argument is flawed.
Pregnancy tissue or person?
The Guideline manages the definition of the unborn by avoiding the use of the term ‘baby’ anywhere in its 120 pages – itself quite a feat of drafting for an abortion guideline. The term ‘pregnancy tissue’ is used most frequently to describe the growing mass within the uterus:
Pregnancy tissue should be treated in the same way as other biological material unless the individual expresses a desire for it to be managed otherwise.
However, if the foetus happens to be born at 28 weeks, WHO considers it a fully-fledged human. It is recorded in human death statistics, and WHO produces guidance on how to support its health and welfare elsewhere. WHO’s 2022 Recommendations for care of the pre-term or low-birth-weight (LBW) infant state: “The care of preterm and LBW infants is a global priority.” To kill it once out of the birth canal is murder in most countries – an ultimate violation of human rights.
For WHO’s entire human rights argument to be valid, the definition of a human must therefore rely entirely on geography – inside or outside the uterus. WHO must hold that at some moment during the final stage of labour, the ‘pregnancy tissue’ is suddenly transformed into an entirely different entity – from irrelevant tissue to a full person with the rights and immeasurable worth that this implies.
If this guideline is followed, my 28 week baby became human not through any intrinsic value or worth, but because the drugs suppressing labour became ineffective. If these drugs had worked, WHO holds that my child could have been subsequently killed as one might excise an annoying tumour. From pregnancy tissue to “global priority” depends, in WHO’s eyes, on a matter of seconds and centimetres. Whether a live abortion ‘product’ is a global priority or pregnancy tissue is not discussed – the assumption is that the intent to abort changes the status of the erstwhile human to irrelevance.
Conscientious objection and health providers
The Guideline considers removing the right to conscientious objection of the provider (this “may” be necessary), where this will delay an abortion. This is a fascinating contrast to the emphasis on avoiding any risk of emotional harm or stress to the pregnant woman. Rights apply here to the pregnant woman, but not to other involved humans.
Recommend that access to and continuity of comprehensive abortion care be protected against barriers created by conscientious objection.
Rights of the provider to follow their own cultural or religious belief may be overridden “if no alternative provider is available”.
If it proves impossible to regulate conscientious objection in a way that respects, protects and fulfils abortion seekers’ rights, conscientious objection in abortion provision may become indefensible.
Providers are not classed as equal humans; their rights are subservient. If we are to believe that ‘stress’ is a legitimate harm from which the pregnant woman must be protected as a human right, then this must also apply to stress caused to a provider who is forced to act against his or her conscience. We are faced with at least two beings whose rights must be weighed together. WHO’s simplistic human interpretation again seems to fall apart.
The guideline committee did appear aware of this dilemma, and resorted to EU human rights law to support its case (though legal arguments may question its fit with the Universal Declaration on Human Rights). The right to conscientious objection in other instances is strongly protected in international law. Whilst the Guideline quotes sections of this EU law, it fails to elucidate contrary arguments. French human rights law takes a contrary view and upholds the rights of such a medical or nursing practitioner to object; recognising the issue of forcing a practitioner to act in a way he or she considers wrong. It explicitly notes the inherent moral difficulty of setting rules in this area.
The rights of parents and minors
The rights of parents or guardians are recognised in regard to decisions on medical procedures for minors in most WHO Member States, whilst being more widely questioned in some Western cultures. The Guideline considers only one view throughout, that young age is no limit to consent. Practitioners therefore have a duty to maintain confidentiality for a pregnant girl who requests an abortion and prefers her parents to be unaware.
Recommend that abortion be available on the request of the woman, girl or other pregnant person without the authorisation of any other individual, body or institution.
This is a complicated area, and there are strong arguments for protecting confidentiality, as there are for parental involvement in consenting to medical procedures for children under their protection. WHO considers only one specific Western view to be legitimate and therefore superior, and holding that contrary views (e.g. in Islamic, South Asian, East Asian or most Christian communities) to be illegitimate and inappropriate.
WHO, inclusivity and cultural colonialism
In formulating a guideline on an issue critical to human rights and values, the world might expect WHO to consider the rich diversity of its cultural, religious and societal life. This is not evidenced within the document’s 150 pages. The drafting committee generically noted such opinions and cultures are important in the introduction:
The needs of all individuals with respect to abortion are recognised and acknowledged in this guidance… WHO guidelines systematically incorporate consideration of the values and preferences of end-users of the recommended or suggested interventions into the process of developing the guidance.
Those formulating the guidelines were seemingly unaware that such values and preferences may lead to differing opinions regarding the killing of an unborn baby.
WHO states that a global survey was conducted, followed by a meeting with participants from 15 (of 194) Member States. Either no one in this ‘inclusivity’-driven process raised any objection, or those in charge of the process considered such opinions so inferior to their own as to be unworthy of record. If cultural colonialism needs definition, this act of imposing one’s values on others through an apparent belief in the superiority of one’s own views seems an excellent example.
The world does not need to return to colonialism
WHO, heavily sponsored by private vested interests, is not the population-oriented organisation it was 75 years ago. Along with the COVID-19 response, this guideline demonstrates the extent to which WHO has regressed to a narrow Western-derived world view that even many in the West would find appalling. It seeks to impose this on others, considering alternate approaches unworthy of serious discussion.
Whatever one’s views on abortion, the flaws in WHO’s human rights arguments, and its clear avoidance of diversity of opinion, suggest an organisation focused on dogma rather than evidence. Abortion is a morally complicated area. Policy must be based on compassion and respect for all of humanity. To impose one’s views on others irrespective of evidence and without respect for alternate opinion is a form of fascism. WHO may have a place in advising on safety of a medical procedure, but not in pontificating over moral rights and wrongs. It is not there to tell people how to live their lives, but to support them with the tools to do so.
Countries currently considering whether to grant greater powers to WHO would do well to question whether the organisation is compatible with their culture, ethics and beliefs. The abortion guideline is a reflection of WHO’s growing unfitness to lead global health.
Dr. David Bell is a clinical and public health physician with a PhD in population health and background in internal medicine, modelling and epidemiology of infectious disease. Previously, he was Director of the Global Health Technologies at Intellectual Ventures Global Good Fund in the USA, Programme Head for Malaria and Acute Febrile Disease at FIND in Geneva, and coordinating malaria diagnostics strategy with the World Health Organisation. He is a member of the Executive Committee of PANDA.
To join in with the discussion please make a donation to The Daily Sceptic.
Profanity and abuse will be removed and may lead to a permanent ban.
I would certainly support a great deal more transparency on the sources of funding for many of these groups.
Some of them may very well be funded by Iran: ‘In 2020, the State Department estimated that Iran gave Hezbollah $700 million a year. In the past, Tehran had historically given $100 million annually to Palestinian groups, including Hamas and Palestinian Islamic Jihad.
I would also support Lord Frost’s call for marches to be banned on key dates: Remembrance Day in particular.
“I would also support Lord Frost’s call for marches to be banned on key dates”
Could that not be used to prevent an anti-lockdown march if it was held on “Covid Memorial Day”?
That would depend on which dates are defined as ‘key dates’.
In fact it is a ‘National Day of Reflection’ that is mooted.
If an ‘anti lockdown’ march was organised as a march for freedom, to ‘reflect’ on those killed by lockdowns, it is unlikely that it would be deemed provocative.
Marching through London on Remembrance Day shouting “Khayber Khayber ya yaud jadish al Mohammed sauf yaud” through a megaphone is quite clearly provocative, intimidatory; fascist.
You make a good point and I think, on reflection, that I probably agree with you.
Nevertheless, the provocative ‘pro-palestinian’ march at the weekend was very expensive to police so the country at large may very well take a different view….
Thanks for your thoughts.
“it is unlikely that it would be deemed provocative” I thought it was unlikely that a UK government would force people to stay in their homes, stop them seeing their loved ones, suspend normal life for an extended period, and force people into getting an experimental “medical treatment”.
I haven’t really followed the “pro Palestine” marches but my guess is that various strands of opinion were represented, from well-meaning people who genuinely care about stopping suffering, have thought at length about the Israel situation and have considered views on it, right through to the kind of thing you describe. I tend to think that the issue is that it may appear to many that we have in our midst large numbers of people who don’t share our values and we have enough problems of our own without importing a lot more. If the Muslim population of the UK was tiny then I think the whole debate around the protests would be much less heated and less prominent.
If there were large numbers of people wanting to march calling for a humanitarian ceasefire without appearing to support Hamas, calls for jihad or the destruction of Israel they should organise their own march and make it clear that Palestinian flags, pictures of hang gliding terrorists or extremist chants aren’t welcome. If people are happy to march with people calling for jihad or whatever vile things they do then these people are stating they agree with the ethos of the march which was clearly antisemitic and therefore a hate demo.
Well I’ve not seen anything first-hand but would be inclined agree with you if what you say is accurate. I get the impression others here might take issue with what you’ve said.
I’m still wary of using the word “hate” as a criteria for banning something (though I appreciate you are not advocating this).
It isn’t accurate. He’s guessing cos he wasn’t there. MSM picks a few sound bites and fans the flames as they want a race war. They hate all things static – it’s why they thrive on conflict – as Jon Stewart says ‘it’s where careers are made’. Nobody who can actually JOIN THE DOTS gets promoted in the mainstream.
Did you fall for all the propaganda for the past 3 years Matt? No? then why fall for it now? Or do you think that suddenly, overnight, the mainstream media is now telling the truth? There were no calls for the destruction of Israel (jihad means ‘struggle BTW) which would have been awkward being as how there were so many Jewish people on the march. And why aren’t Palestinian flags allowed Matt? Oh, so you don’t recognise a state of Palestine? Maybe you’re the racist.
Nobody chanted that Ian – you weren’t there. So unless you have a recording then it’s just propaganda, along with 40 beheaded babies which CNN has already admitted was garbage. You lot are so gullible.
@sarasidnerCNN
‘I would argue we were mislead. I am going to report on what heads of governments say. That is what new orgs do. It doesn’t mean it’s true but it’s news’.
No love, it’s propaganda.
So much for the Free Speech Union aye Ian? Hypocrites. Maybe change the Daily Sceptic to The Daily. Or just call it Telegraph II and have done with it.
Problem, reaction solution.
Stop falling for this divisive rhetoric.
This issue is being used to ban the right to protest, all protests not just causes one disagrees with!
It’s being used to distract us whilst other aspects of the control grid are being implemented whilst we look away.
We already live in an authoritarian, tyrannical country despite the illusion of democracy. No further tyrannical measures are wanted nor desirable.
https://www.conservativewoman.co.uk/how-the-west-was-lost-part-2/
An excellent second in a series of four from Dr Campbell Campbell-Jack at TCW which highlights the myths of multiculturalism and diversity.
“There is a danger of growing ill will among native Britons at unequal treatment. In 2020 more than 150 people were arrested at an anti-lockdown protest in London; in 2023 protesters called for jihad against Israel and clambered on the Cenotaph waving Palestinian flags, and the police stood by. Christians can be arrested for silently praying in the vicinity of an abortion clinic, yet hundreds of Muslims can kneel and pray at the gates of 10 Downing Street without hindrance. These disparities of treatment can only stoke up already existing community resentment.”
Just so there is no misunderstanding – I am sick to the back teeth of multiculturalism and diversity.
I’m with you on the inconsistencies of policing & the ongoing push to silence the views & culture of indigenous population.
Allowing those valid concerns to be conflated, used & abused by the MSM to further the evil agenda is a different matter.
We need to keep cool heads, be alert to their evil tactics & call out the evil actions.
https://off-guardian.org/2023/11/12/watch-3000-jews-and-muslims-sing-together-just-five-years-ago/
Just found this BB.
I was going to write a post to say exactly this, but you express it perfectly.
We’re being railroaded into a de facto elimination of free speech and the freedom to protest.
Thank you Stewart.
By the Free Speech Union. Couldn’t make it up.
Incitement to hatred and violence.
“Incitement to hatred and violence.” does not exist except when it suits the authorities or special interest groups. People choose their own course of action whether through weakness or a destructive nature.
Yes, indeed. The issue also serves as a honeypot of opportunity to distract attention away from Ukraine proxy war going badly for Uncle Sam and his lackeys, Russia prospering despite sanctions, the ‘safe and effective’ vax narrative being seen as a lie, cross Channel illegal, migration, climate crisis scepticism growing and ULEZ fightback are but a few of the issues the MSM/Government feel uncomfortable with.
The pro-Israel stance of many UK politicians on all sides who have been in a position to influence policy over the years, and also within the legal profession, is without doubt.
It therefore seems fair to question whether, amongst other detrimental policies, the inaction over illegal immigration is the consequence of their relationship with the Israeli regime?
Thanks downvoters, a convincing argument well presented.
Question asked.
Answer: no.
Like the pro Israel stance of Jeremy Corbyn and all those who supported (and still support) him? There’s votes in them there mosques and madressas!
Supprised at downvotes? Promote Sharia Law and see how many you get!
The Jeremy Corbyn smeared out of his leadership for not being pro-Israel. It’s the power of special interest groups that matters.
Daily Sceptic, words fail me!
Are you really suggesting that the Palestinians do not have a valid point of view?
Can you not see where this bigoted stance leads?
Celebration of slaughter and butchery, hatred a valid point of view.
Great point well made by Grant Shapps here ( 2mins );
”Extraordinary moral clarity from the British Defense Secretary here:
“If that terrorist attack a month ago had been on Britain and 1,400 Brits had lost their lives, the idea that we wouldn’t pursue the terrorist organization when we knew where they were and that anyone would tell Britain that we shouldn’t do that, I think would be rather improbable and extraordinary, and therefore Israel do have a right to do that.”
He added “Israel are going out of their way to try and protect civilians [in Gaza].”
https://twitter.com/Ostrov_A/status/1723663396166357287
Actually what I would like to see banned across the board is face coverings in public. Nobody has any valid reason whatsoever to cover their faces, but isn’t it always the crazy nutjob extremists in any type of protest that do this? What are they afraid of? Revealing their identity as a certifiable lunatic?
Nobody should serve anyone in a shop who has their face covered either, for instance. But I feel this is something else which has been almost normalized due to the Plandemonium years. When in 2019 did anyone see people covering their faces outside of a dentist’s or hospital theatre? Now nobody bats an eyelid at a muzzled muppet, and seemingly we can now add the Hamas fanclub, wearing their tea towels across their faces, to the list of loony f*ckwits.
Parliament gifted government agencies the authority to engage in illegal activities when it suits their own ends. When agitators are present whose actions may offer the government an opportunity, the default position should be to assume they may be working directly or unwittingly on behalf of the authorities.
Do you ever listen to the increasingly trashy racist junk you spout?
Its embarrassing.
And yet here you are. Triggered enough to react. Again…🤷♀️🤡
I don’t sweat deranged people.
These comments do seem increasingly extremist. If you had grown-up on the other side of this, do you think you would now be one of the more radical Hamas supporters?
Why would those who have the power to influence these conflicts and have such a disregard for their fellow humans not look to another unworthy group to dispose of once their first objective has been met? Careful what you support.
Define ”extremist”. Funnily enough, call me a weirdo but never in a month of Sundays would I ever support a terrorist organization made up of barbarian, sadistic, death-obsessed Jihadis. Perhaps you need to see a shrink if that’s your bag though.
You do – it’s called Israel.
Seconded.
That’s over a month since the Butchery and Barbarism in Context mob have been promising to flounce off and yet, here they are still paying their subs and treating us to their anti-zionist conspiracy theories.
Let’s hear it for Dresden eh Moggers?
They have previously banned or restricted EDL protests, therefore no new powers are required.
Liberty have a detailed explanation with links to the relevant statutes of the many new powers given the police. See https://www.libertyhumanrights.org.uk/advice_information/pcsc-policing-act-protest-rights/
We may conclude that the hand-wringing pantomime indulged in by Mark Rowley and Sunak ( and indeed as suggested in this article, Walney ) is simply to enable the planned confrontation and intimidation to go ahead
Rowley and Sunak pantomime indeed. There are already more than enough powers on the statute books to have stopped the marches this weekend.
Name them.
They are not protests, they are gleeful celebration of the slaughter and butchery of Jews, and support and encouragement for more.
They incite hatred and violence – those involved them should be deported.
Don’t think the Jewish people on the march saw it that way. But you know better especially as you weren’t even there.
Well I’m fairly pro-Israel in this but I think we should be very careful when calling for “banning” of protests or speech. Who decides, and how? Based on what criteria?
The right to protest in this country is older than the State of Israel. Remove it at your peril.