A $5000 fine for handing out a pamphlet to baby killers (or more correctly, coming within the 150 metre range of these creatures; and one of the dupes, a psychologist no less, calls it a “great result that enshrines respect for women's choices."

How can anyone respect abortionists? How can anyone respect women who use the abortionists’ service for reasons of convenience: women who are too thick to make use of contraception and abstinence, live more moral lives? More to the point, how can the people who have crushed freedom of speech in Australia demand 'respect’ from anyone.

While these 'enlightened’ women and their enablers are killing children, Muslim women are breeding for Allah.

Colonel Gadaffi once said that Muslims don't need terrorists to take over the world: that can be done from the maternity wards.

A foetus is not part of a woman's body to do as she pleases with; it is a new life.

If what the author says about the Queensland Civil Liberties Council is correct, what a bunch of bludgers and hypocrites they are; although, their attitude is par for the course nowadays in Australia, where socialist bigots and haters decide who is entitled to rights and freedoms and who is not.

There is not much left to respect about Australia and Australians any more.

Jim Dowling,
That very same Terry once cut me off on the phone saying "Mate, before you go any further, we're batting for the other team, can't help you" & hung up when I asked about how to get help for legal aid to do something about the break-ins I experienced in a remote community !

and people argue that the nature of man is good. Now those caught up in killing babies can't handle simple biology. Isis and feminist/secularist dogma go hand in hand. Both are death cults.

The guy is even ANTI-WAR http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jim_Dowling .

Has he no shame?

This is a complex conundrum.

We have laws made by our legislature that we're all
expected to abide by.

Jim Dowling - we're told is the first Australian to have
made a citizen's arrest on a federal Member of Parliament,
he did that to Peter Dutton in Dickson on charges of
war crimes. See the link below:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jim_Dowling

You've got to admire people who have the courage of their
convictions and are prepared to do something about it.
Who of us would even consider breaking the law for a cause
we believe in?

Foxy if you look at history you find that more than 50% of causes are rubbish, & totally wrong.

The people who become cause pushers are usually of obsessive compulsive personalities, & rarely actually understand what they are pushing.

Dear Hassie,

Few issues in recent years have so divided people
as has the morality of abortion. Not surprisingly
opinion polls show public confusion on the issue.

People seem to support abortion in
cases of rape, incest, or a threat to the mother's
health, but support for a mother's right to abortion
on demand fluctuates.

Some people wonder whether
their own position on abortion is right - regardless
of whether they oppose or approve it. In any event, the
high rate must be seen in the context of social changes
in premarital, marital, and family life - especially
the climate of sexual permissiveness and the sense of
individualism that leads people to make decisions
primarily in terms of their personal desires rather
than of traditional norms.

Hey Jim,
I support your right to stand against the industry of abortion.
I support your ethical stand of reminding people that abortion should not be used as a form of contraception.

But I'm sorry, I DO NOT support you approaching women that have made the decision to terminate a pregnancy in the carpark.

I had an acquaintance of mine crying her eyes out 2 months ago in my loungeroom because she had to make a difficult decision to end a pregnancy, because the long term relationship she was in didn't have much future.

Her partner at the time was not that good when it came to building a relationship and being there for her existing kid, and she didn't want another kid to have to go through that, especially when the relationship seemed to have run its course.

I don't envy her difficult choice, and it's not for me to say whether or not she made the right decision, or to influence her decision in any way.

Ultimately it's a choice she had to make, because she has to live with it.

The relationship ended a few weeks later.
She's made some changes in her life, and now seems much happier then she was several months ago.

I'm certain that aborting a child weighs heavily on her heart, though I also know that for some women, abortion is not as big a deal for them as it is for others.

I support your right to stand against abortion for all the right reasons.
I don't support you making a difficult choice harder.

"...made the decision to terminate a pregnancy in the carpark."

- I think I kind of messed that up -

Free speech is not dead but it definitely is not supported/approved of by the academic leftist elite !

If free speech dead?

We're asked this by the author - Jim Dowling.
And of course the answer will depend on our
values, our experiences, the way we view things,
even our religious beliefs, and our political leanings.
In other words - it will be subjective. We are after all
individuals with different outlooks. Our views will
reflect what influences us.

Regarding the right to protest - I believe that there
are certain laws in place where and how this can be
done, and I think that permission is required for
certain areas. I imagine that abortion clinics would
be one of those areas. So if people receive warnings
about their behaviour that goes against the law -
can they really claim that it violates their right of
"free speech?" What about the rights of those having
made a difficult decision who may already be traumatised
their right to privacy?

There are so many issues involved here. Including ones
concerning our laws. You cannot decide which laws you want
to obey and which ones you want to ignore for your cause.
Chaos would ensue.

We have laws against libel, inciting violence, public decency,
slander, and so on.

People who enjoy the rights of free speech have a duty to
respect other people's rights. A person's freedom of speech
is limited by the rights of others. All societies including
democratic ones, put various limitations on what people may
say. They prohibit certain types of speech that they
believe might harm. Of course drawing a line between
dangerous and harmless speech can be extremely difficult.
Hence the controversy and complexity involved.

"When they came for the pro-lifers, I was silent. When they came for…….you? "

That sort of bungles the quote. The partial quote is "Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a trade unionist."

The important point is the reason for not speaking out is that the suppression was against 'others'.

So more accurately ...then they came for the pro-lifers and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a pro-lifer.

I'm (reluctantly) in favour of abortion up to a certain point and opposed after that point. I'm also not really in favour of those who harass abortion clinics.

But that's beside the point. The point is that those who do protest abortion should have the right to do so.

The gold standard is "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it."

I don't agree with people protesting abortion clinics but they should have the right to do so protected.

The problem is that far too many people who profess to believe in democracy no longer accept that opposing views have to be heard and considered.

Free speech isn't dead. But it is on life support.

"The guy is even ANTI-WAR http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jim_Dowling .

Has he no shame?" by plantagenet

I presume this is facetious. I reckon all pro-lifers by definition should be anti-war. In fact everyone should be! Some people are just more likely to think we can stop war by going to war!

In reply to Armchair Critic and Foxy: It is illegal to stand within 150m of an abortion clinic I am not aware of anyone standing in a carpark with pro-life signs, usually people are on the footpath.
While your story is tragic, and I am sorry for your friend, there are many more stories of women being traumatized for life by their abortion. There are also many stories of women changing their minds after being offered help by pro-lifers. The point is the law is pro-abortion not pro-choice.
Also, it is the only issue where people have no right of protest near the relevant place. People can hold signs all day outside military bases where people are suffering PTSD, outside logging camps where people are totally stressed, and potentially violent, about possibly losing their jobs, outside abattoirs where people are called murderers.
But this is the thin edge of the wedge.
As I said at the end of my article, paraphrasing Martin Niemöller, now "they have come for the pro-lifers", why not all the others who they claim are causing anxiety?
Then when all are silenced, we can have the peace of the grave.

Standing outside abortion clinics harassing women is not free speech it is intimidation and very close to assault. It would be the same if Atheists stood outside your church every Sunday with signs accusing you and your god of terrorism and forcibly handing out leaflets explaining why your beliefs are insane.

You vile bigots need to get your noses out of other peoples lives

Hi Jim Dowling

1. Do you believe that Britain should have continued its anti-war appeasement policy throughout World War Two?

Did Chamberlain's negotiations of niceness with Hitler work?
____________________________________________

2. In the 1970s should Vietnam have allowed Pol Pot to continue his genocide of his own people [1]? Were Vietnamese Forces right in invading Cambodia [2] thereby stopping Pol Pot's mass killing?

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_Kampuchea#Explaining_the_violence (somewhat later) work?

[2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cambodian%E2%80%93Vietnamese_War

yep seems obvious that just like the Nazis were brainwashed into believing Jews were not human so the secularist/feminist have brainwashed many others into denying the humanity of the unborn. Atrocious biology and totally dishonest. These fools should be charged not those holding up actual pictures that highlight their lies.

Thankfully free speech is NOT dead, but it is under serious attack by those with closed minds and a propensity to reject reality in favour of a world of fantasy and childish ideology, driven by a lack of maturity and a lack of courage to face the 'real' world.
I have always explained that everyone should be allowed to speak freely without fear or favour.
The notion that the utterance of words in a particular fashion or order can be 'harmful', is an absolutely moronic concept, driven by absolute morons.
We must NOT be influenced by these 'sick' people.
If there are people out there who are offended by something someone said, whether at them or in general, too bad!
The problem is not the speaker but the listener, and that being the case it is obvious to me and other open minded, objective folk like myself, that the problem lies squarely at the feet of the listener.
If the speaker intended to offend, that is his right, for whatever reason.
If the listener is offended, one must ask the question, WHY? is he offended.
Either way, it matters not, on one hand someone is being offended for a reason, on the other hand someone 'feels' offended, for 'their' own reason.
As the speaker is not familiar with the person being offended, he is doing no wrong.
Where a person intentionally offends someone, he also is doing no wrong, because his intention was to offend them.

A High Court decision has stopped anti-abortion
activist protesters from harassing women
seeking medical treatment.

The law in all of our states (except for WA and SA)
bans protesters from communicating within the
"safe zone"
(150 metres)of a clinic that would reasonably cause
distress or anxiety.

The law plays an important role in protecting women
during a time when they are vulnerable and making
difficult decisions. Before "safe zones" access,
women accessing reproductive health care, including
abortion, were intimidated and harrassed. As were staff
who worked in the clinics.

The High Court has decided that no woman should have to
run a gauntlet of abuse and harrassment just to see
her doctor. The protests in the past have included
graphic signs and material, being handed around
(as well as a blood-spattered doll in a pram).

Australians do have a right to political communication
but that according to the High Court -
certainly is not a licence to harm others with impunity.

As stated earlier - people who enjoy the rights of
free speech have a duty to respect other people's
rights. A person's freedom of speech is limited by the
rights of others. All societies, including democratic
ones, put various limitations on what people may say
and do. They prohibit certain types of actions and speech
that they believe might harm.

We have laws covering libel and slander, public decency,
urging violence, inciting hatred, and so on. We even have
laws that forbid speech that invades the right of
people not to listen to it. For example, a local by-law
might limit the times when people may not use loudspeakers
to make announcements in the streets. In this country
our civil society is governed by the rule of law.

Of course we can try to change the laws that we consider
unfair. However in the case under discussion here, the
High Court made its decision.

I cannot let another naive statement go 'through to the keeper', without giving a reality check, which is based on the 'real world' and not fantasia.
The laws are only of use to those who abide by them.
It is incredibly naive and immature to simply quote the obvious, when we are forever witnessing the total disregard for the law.
Certain people wonder why I abuse them.
It's because I can't believe they will not accept the truth or even the facts.
I have first hand proof of govt's, even local, being corrupt and act in opposition to the laws and rules, only they find ways of making it look as though they are complying, most times by the use of political correctness, sometimes simply by stealth and pure arrogance.
Major departures from laws or by-laws are apparently justified by the words, 'for the greater good'.
Never-the-less something submitted by a company, was approved in direct contravention with the by-laws, but a ratepayer has to comply to the Nth degree or face prosecution and/or a fine.
And so it is that these childish poems and stories which appear to be direct quotes from children's books, must stop and try making real and novel opinions, comments or suggestions which actually tackle the problems being discussed.

Two people prosecuted in Victoria
and Tasmania told the High Court of Australia they had
been denied their right to freedom of political
communication.

The High Court dismissed the appeal saying the laws
served a legitimate purpose. All states and the Northern
Territory also intervened in the case pointing out that
even if the implied freedom had been affected it was
eclipsed by the necessity to protect women seeking a
termination. Three of the judges said the purpose of the
law outweighed any freedom of speech concerns.

The Human Rights Law Centre welcomed the High Court
decision saying it acknowledged the importance of
privacy, safety, and equality in access to Healthcare.

To be an Australian citizen one pledges loyalty first:
loyalty to Australia. One pledges to share certain
beliefs - democratic beliefs - to respect the rights and
liberties of others and to respect the rule of law.

There is a lot of sense in this pledge. Unless we have
a consensus to abide by its laws, none of us will be able
to enjoy our rights and liberties without being
threatened by others. We have a compact to live under
a democratic legislature and obey the laws it makes. In
doing this the rights and liberties of all are protected.

Those who are outside this compact threaten the rights and
liberties of others. There are countries that apply religious
law - Saudi Arabia and Iran come to mind. If a person
wants to live under religious law these are the countries
where they might feel at ease. But not in Australia.

A person who does not acknowledge the supremacy of civil
law laid down by democratic processes cannot truthfully
take the pledge of allegiance.
As such they do not meet the pre-condition for citizenship.

YAAAY, Finally, success, we have consensus.
I can now, sit back and feel there is hope in promoting the truth.
I am heartened to finally see one of the disbelievers accepting a very uncomfortable reality.
This is a first step, but a very important one, as it shows that the truth will always win, in the end.
I hope this trend will continue, as the truth must never be perverted or distorted, especially by vial things like PC.
The truth must ALWAYS be told.

Hi Jim Dowling,

I like it when the authors of articles are willing to respond to the comments on their articles, some do, whilst many don't.

I found some articles to get more of a background on the situation.

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/nation/inquirer/kathleen-clubb-defends-right-to-challenge-abortion/news-story/614b0a5a9593502d6d040f20606674fe

http://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2001/08/abor-a20.html

"There are also many stories of women changing their minds after being offered help by pro-lifers."

Sure, this is a reasonable argument that holds merit, but you're not seeing the bigger picture.

It's ethically wrong for you to impose YOUR beliefs on someone who ALREADY has to make that difficult decision for themselves;
- And live with that decision whatever it may be -

If I'd have told my friend what I believed they should do, then I'd be imparting my beliefs onto them;
- With the DANGER being that I might influence THEIR choice with MY beliefs -
They may listen to me and it turns out to be the right choice.
They may listen to me and it turns out to be the wrong choice.
They shouldn't listen to me AT ALL in the first place, it's not for me to influence their choice;
It's them that has to make that decision, it's them that has to live with that decision.

After reading the kinds of things the people you seem to be associated with having done I'm not even sure I support your right to protest anymore.
I support your right to 'advocate' to the greater community your opinions and stance on abortion.
I DO NOT SUPPORT any right you think you may have to influence an individual who has to make the best decision for herself and her life.
I understand that preventing you from protesting abortion clinics also prevents you from protesting abortionists.

But I think a womans right to make her own decisions free from direct influence outweighs any right you may have to protest the people and place associated with the practice of it.

[Cont.] I support Kathy Clubb being thrown in jail and her own children placed in care for the duration of her incarceration if her ex-husband is unable to look after them. It seems that a fine was not enough of a deterrent to prevent her unethical behavior, she knew what she was doing was against the law and she did it anyway, and also I suspect that any fine she had to pay would have come from taxpayers anyway if she isn't working, which is unlikely if she is raising and homeschooling 7 kids on her own.

I don't care what it costs, JAIL HER.

I support the High courts decision.
I do not believe this is genuinely about free speech, nor about the right to protest.
After reading more into the facts I think this is about you and those you associate with wanting to use 'whatever means necessary';
An 'end's justifies the means' attitude;
- To justify your need to do something about a practice you disagree with.

And using 'whatever means necessary' also means using making an issue of the right to free speech and right to protest as a path to continue the type of unethical behaviour that has not likely achieved anything tangible anyway.

So what you made women feel guilty.
What do you want them to do kill themselves?
You probably do, but do you realise that would kill an unborn child too?

I understand you are standing up for the rights of the unborn.
I understand that you may consider the deaths of these unborn kids 'murder' and wish to hold people accountable.
I ask what is the most realistic outcome you hope to achieve?

I'm not sure you have any realistic outcome in mind, and I don't think you are in any way going to achieve it in the manner you're putting your efforts into it.

[Cont.]
And finally, on a completely separate note;
I cannot but emphasise my disgust in your willingness to damage and deface an ANZAC war memorial, and I think you should be ashamed for trying to reach out to the Australian community on this present issue during ANZAC commemorations.

- SHAME ON YOU -

There's a right way and a wrong way to go about doing things.
Let me tell you something.

Religion holds NO MORAL AUTHORITY over ETHICS IN ITS OWN RIGHT.
End's DON'T justify the means.

- There's no excuse for bad or unethical behavior -

Dear Armchair Critic,

Absolutely well said.

I totally agree.

If "free speech" is indeed dead, then Good Riddance!

It is immoral to hit your neighbour with your arm (except in self-defence), so what makes it OK to hit them with your tongue?

The concept of "free speech" was originally introduced so that people can speak against the regime, not against one another. Speaking against the regime is still fine because it is a form of self-defence.

Hi Foxy,

So I thought to myself, 'What if these people got what they wanted and we shut the abortion clinics down tomorrow, what's the result?'

- Then we just have a whole lot of unwanted kids and pregnant women bearing them when they never really wanted them, right? -
They might change their mind but who knows, it may end up having a negative effect on all concerned rather than a positive one.

- Should we go back to black-market abortions?

That would be the realistic outcome for a small number;
Kids in foster homes don't always do so well and every kid deserves to have their real parents who wanted them, right?
(though I'm not arguing it's better to never have existed at all)

I'm not saying theses people don't have a right to express their opposition to abortion;
I think they do have that right, and I'm GLAD someone does.
- even just to remind us that those unborn kids are real lives that won't ever have a chance to be a part of this world -

But there's a right and wrong way to go about things, and they need to have a realistic outcome in mind.
And I just can't support them singling out individual women or interfering in those women's choices or decision making.

They should focus on the communities attitude towards abortions rather than on the individual.
And when I mean the 'communities attitude' I mean helping men and women to try to consider being a little more responsible to try to prevent unwanted pregnancies in the first place.
I'm not realistically sure there's much more you can do.

I have a hunch these people would have women handcuffed to beds for the entire duration of the pregnancy 'for the sake of the child';

I think these people may be prone to irrational opinions and behavior because of their own beliefs which might be unrealistic in a greater context.
- It's likely they're doing more harm than good.

AC, I guess one answer lies in the fact that the root cause of these abortions are seen as acts of selfishness and convenience, not as being health related.
Those women who HAVE to have an abortion because their very life is in danger if they don't, or something has happened to the unborn baby and the pregnancy must be terminated or it will again put the mother at risk, are probably overlooked because of the more sinister reasons.
I think what is raising the angst of those opposing abortions is the hypocrisy of todays women with un-disciplined or questionable lifestyles and actions, such as getting drunk or taking drugs, screwing around and then getting pregnant, only to be shocked to find out she is a few weeks later, and then seeking counseling for her 'trauma'.
Australia has demonstrated a lack of discipline in so many areas, it is not surprising that there are those who would get upset at these acts of absolute disregard for everything and everyone, and more so when they fall pregnant, out comes the 'it's my body' mantra.
I can't imagine them even thinking that when they're flat on their backs, 'pissed as neuts' with a complete stranger 'flat up em'.
That's what these anti abortion people are on about.
The sheer irresponsibility, arrogance and general immaturity is obvious when one intentionally engages in an act which carries a very real chance of mis-adventure, and then decrying their rights as if it was an accident and they were the innocent victims of this obvious act of nature as if it was some heinous crime bestowed upon them, because they 'did nothing wrong to deserve this'.
I cannot comment because I am neither a woman nor am I pregnant.
So I can only ask questions or make observations.
One observation I have witnessed personally as I grew up, 'chasing women', is that even though there were 'obliging' women around in my youth, the number and character of these women has changed dramatically, and for the worst.
The 'women are equal to men', mantra is to blame.

Dear Armchair Critic,

You put it so well. Harassing women from seeking
medical treatment needs to stop and I am pleased
that the High Court saw that and decided that there
is a public interest in protecting people trying to
attend a clinic from harm. The laws are necessary
for good government, making them valid under the
Constitution. The laws do play an important role
in protecting women during a time when they were
vulnerable and making difficult discussions.

Before "safe zones" women accessing Reproductive
Healthcare (including abortion) were intimidated
and harassed. No woman should have to run a gauntlet of
abuse and harassment just to see a doctor.

And we both agree that Australians do have a right
to political communication - but that certainly is not
a licence to harm others with impunity.

Those that choose to ignore our laws should be
prepared for the consequences that will follow.

PC is the cancer that attacks free speech & there is a cure !

Foxy,

This time I wholeheartedly agree with you. The rights of protesters need to be balanced against the rights of people to go about their lawful activities. Being restricted from protesting outside family planning clinics does not obviate their right to protest 150m away.

Perhaps this principle could also be applied to the pinheads that chain themselves to machinery etc?

Dear Shadow Minister,

I fully agree that people do have a right to protest
but we do need laws to protect others from harm - like
farmers and their properties, or people tying themselves
to machinery and causing havoc.

Being restricted from protesting outside family planning clinics does not obviate their right to protest 150m away.
Shadow Minister,
Nor does it restrict them to put their money where their mouth is & help mothers of babies whose fathers aren't helping because our Laws don't demand it !

Legal assistance is provided for those with criminal charges.

Exist obstructive, delaying, barriers on legal assistance to resolve identified, acknowledged, Constitutional legal issues.

Our governments obstruct resolution of Constitutional issues