A freedom we must be careful to use properly

Free speech is a precious commodity that we constrain at our peril. But when its exercise hurts or intimidates others, what then? And who should set the boundaries? In Ealing, west London, confrontations have taken place outside an abortion clinic between so-called pro-life protesters and women attending for advice or terminations.

The local council has responded by imposing a “safe space” buffer zone, within which no protests are permitted. It is using a Public Space Protection Order (PSPO) to stop vigils being held outside the building. This is a contentious use of powers introduced to curb anti-social behaviour. The concept of “safe spaces” is associated with shutting down debate in universities where speakers whose views some do not share are denied a platform.

There is always a danger when powers granted for one purpose are used for another. It would, for instance, be tempting for councils fearing protests against controversial decisions to use PSPOS to prevent legitimate debate. In this case, however, women attending the clinic say they feel harassed and intimidated by anti-abortion protesters who seek to persuade them not to proceed with the terminations. For their part, the pro-lifers say they are there to offer advice on alternatives and complain that their rights are being taken away. Efforts to broker a compromise have failed.

Freedom of speech is not an absolute right. It should provide latitude for expression, but not a licence to be obnoxious, rude, boorish or menacing. There are already laws against harassment and intimidation that perhaps could be used here; but the council has a point in saying that deploying police to such an event is both heavy-handed and a waste of resources.

There have been too many instances in recent years of the expression of legitimate political and religious opinion being circumscribed under the guise of curbing “hate crime”. Invariably in a clash between equality and faith the former wins.

So we need to be careful to avoid sacrificing our centuries-old commitment to freedom of speech in order to protect people from hearing views they do not like. In this instance, however, the anti-abortionists are not being stopped from having their say or from holding their views, just prevented from forcing them directly upon others who do not want to hear them at a vulnerable time in their lives.