Edmund Burke wrote: “I could be arrested for standing 149 metres from an abortion facility, silently praying and holding a sign saying "Jesus loves you and your baby".

Free speech is a noble thing. We can use it to say something worthwhile, something that challenges the powers-that-be, something that causes one to reflect, something that highlights a wrong or something else that make the world a little better or wiser. Even nonsense speech is protected as long as it does not harm person or property. However, the example you cite falls in none of those categories.

Invoking a deity who was a composite figure made of the pagan deities popular two millennia past is nonsense. Pagan deities such as Apollo or Dionysus among the Greeks, Hercules among the Romans, Mithra among the Persians, Adonis and Attis in Syria and Phrygia, Osiris and Isis and Horus in Egypt, Baal and Astarte among the Babylonians and Carthaginians, and so forth were born on or very near our Christmas Day of a Virgin-Mother in a Cave or Underground Chamber. They led a life of toil for Mankind and were called by the names of Light-bringer, Healer, Mediator, Saviour, Deliverer. They were however vanquished by the Powers of Darkness, descended into Hell or the Underworld, rose again from the dead, and became the pioneers of mankind to the Heavenly world. They founded Communions of Saints, and Churches into which disciples were received by Baptism and they were commemorated by Eucharistic meals.

Calling up such a deity and contending this deity expresses love toward a pregnant woman who does not have a baby but a foetus is nonsense speech and would ordinarily be protected. However, since that particular nonsense speech is used to harass a stressed woman who is going to get an abortion it is actionable under law. She probably doesn’t feel happy about it but has thought it over and decided it is the best course for her. She should be free from harassment. Don’t bug her. Why do you want to bug her? Are you a sadist?

She needs compassion not superstition.

In response to Susie, the fact that Babette Francis may or may not be a Catholic is irrelevant. In fact the first evidence that full-term pregnancy reduces breast cancer risk was available in the 16th century when it was noted that the incidence of breast cancer among Catholic nuns was high - much higher than among married women - because the nuns were childless.
Babette Francis has provided all the links to substantiate her information. The Journal of the American Medical Association is not a Catholic magazine, and the main researcher and Vice President of the Breast Cancer Prevention Institute www.bcpinstitute.org, Professor Joel Brind of Baruch College, New York, is Jewish. All the 50+ studies linking induced abortion with breast cancer are available on this site. The British Geriatric Society, sponsors of the Dubbo, NSW, study, is not a Catholic organisation. And here are the four recent studies from a range of countries, Turkey, China, USA, Armenia showing that induced abortion increases breast cancer risk.
References:
1. Ozmen V, Ozcinar B, Karanlik H, Cabioglu N, Tukenmez M, et al. Breast cancer risk
factors in Turkish women – a University Hospital based nested case control study. World J of Surg Oncol 2009;7:37.
2. Xing P, Li J, Jin F. A case-control study of reproductive factors associated with subtypes of breast cancer in Northeast China. Humana Press, e-publication online September 2009.
3. Dolle J, Daling J, White E, Brinton L, Doody D, et al. Risk factors for triple-negative
breast cancer in women under the age of 45 years. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev
2009;18(4)1157-1166. Available at:
http://www.abortionbreastcancer.com/download/Abortion_Breast_Cancer_Epid_Bio_Prev_2009.pdf
4. The study, “Influence of Diabetes Mellitus Type 2 and Prolonged Estrogen Exposure on
Risk of Breast Cancer Among Women in Armenia,” was led by Lilit Khachatryan of the
Department of Public Health at the American University of Armenia and included researchers from the Johns Hopkins School of Public Health (Robert Scharpf) and the University of Pennsylvania School of Nursing (Sarah Kagan). A 2.86 fold increased risk is statistical significant, not some mathematical artifice. Health Care for Women International Volume 32, Issue 11, 2011.

@Suseonline
"Linking abortion to breast cancer is a bit of a stretch, even for the pro life lot."
At present science still aren't certain that mobile phones can cause negative effects on your health. But if you happen to be a fan of mobile phones, do you simply disregard all the research that suggests there is a negative effect?

@crumpethead
"Well, there are already limitations on freedom of speech that I'm sure you are probably in favour of.."
Would you like it if someone decides to shut down your views, rights and actions, whatever they are?

@david f
"...something that highlights a wrong..."
Isn't it wrong to terminate an unborn baby? AFter all, there is official medical advice out there that tells pregnant women not to take alcohol to avoid harming the unborn baby. That presupposes the unborn baby is a life worth protecting.

"Invoking a deity who was a composite figure made of the pagan deities popular two millennia past is nonsense."
None at all, Jesus was/is real: http://www.tektonics.org/copycathub.html
By the way, isn't the Apollo moon landings a fictional event that was a composite of previous fictional tales of men going to the moon, such as Jules Verne's "From the Earth to the Moon", H.G. Wells' "First Men in the Moon", the Tom Swift story "Tom Swift in the Race to the Moon" and comic book heroes Tintin and Marvel's Fantastic Four, amongst others?

I'm not a big fan of restriction on freedom of speech but from what's been described by both sides in this debate the risk of having Babette "extradited and confined to the prisons of Port Arthur where previous generations of boat convicts were incarcerated" seems like poetic license rather than reality.

There does not appear to be any way that you can be in another jurisdiction and within 150 meters of a clinic located in Tasmania.

It's clear that anti-choice protesters have used the lack of such restrictions to hassle those who have chosen to have an abortion. Psychological bullying of people who may already be going through significant personal trauma.

Unless abortion clinics are really prolific in Tasmania I suspect that there are a significant number of locations where you can meet for a coffee and talk about the evils of abortion without incurring the wrath of the law or accidentally hassling passers by.

This isn't really about freedom of speech, I think most of you know that.

If you have a valid case to back the medical claims I'm open to hearing them. I've seen enough dodgy research and claims from feminists that I'm willing to consider the possibility that there might be a cover up of evidence that goes against their claims but I've not seen a credible case for Babette's claims yet.

I've seen how quickly the average feminist suggests that a males choice stops at the sex act to be less than convinced by their dedication to personal autonomy and choice but without a good case to support it I don't think the answer is further restriction on human choice.

R0bert

Dear RMW,

There is no such thing as an unborn baby. A foetus is not a baby. It is difficult to reason with or talk sense to one who insists on using emotive language. Sure, a foetus is worth taking care of. However, the interests of the woman who is a living independent person is more important than those of part of her body. As long as she is pregnant the foetus is part of her body. She has the right to decide to terminate her pregnancy. It’s that simple. It is not wrong to terminate a pregnancy. I think it’s a woman’s right to do so. Apparently you would deny her that right and think that it’s wrong for her to terminate a pregnancy. We differ.

Certainly a Christian site would deny that Jesus has anything to do with the pagan myths. However, it sure looks to me as though the Christian mumbojumbo incorporates a lot of the pre-Christian mumojumbo. It’s the stock in trade of people in many religions to say their wonder working figures are real and the myths aren’t myths. There are Muslims who believe in Muhammad working miracles, Jews who believe that Joshua stopped the sun, Buddhists who believe in Buddha working miracles etc. Why don’t you believe in Buddha and Muhammad and their miracles? Maybe you do. I see no reason to believe in the religious mumbojumbo of any religion. The religious beliefs of most people are simply those of their parents. You probably have Christian parents. If you haven’t I am mistaken. I don’t think anyone logically takes up a religion. They are born into it, or it fills a psychological need.

Jesus may have been a real person, but I think none of the accounts of miracles really happened. I also think that even if he existed we cannot be certain about the facts of his life. I don’t regard the Bible as a reliable source.

I think humans actually landed on the moon. If you don’t think so I see no point in arguing the subject.