Why pro-abortion campaigners failed to convince the Home Secretary
In a celebrated scene from Ayn Rand’s novel The Fountainhead, the dissident John Galt makes a ludicrous but eloquent speech about the pioneers of human history. “The great creators – the thinkers, the artists, the scientists, the inventors – stood alone against the men of their time,” Galt claims.
The speech is individualistic and anti-Christian: Rand’s idealised creator serves “nothing and no one” and pursues “his own truth”, putting “selfishness” over the “orgy of self-sacrificing”. But it does at least assert that crowds can be mistaken.
Sajid Javid, the Home Secretary, loves this speech: last year he told the Spectator that he re-reads it twice a year. “It’s about the power of the individual,” he said. “About sticking up for your beliefs, against popular opinion.”
This sympathy for outsiders may help to explain why Javid has just taken an unusually common-sense decision for a senior minister. Last Thursday, Javid announced that there would be no ban on pro-life vigils – despite requests from more than 100 MPs and concerted pressure from pro-abortion organisations.
Those lobbying for a ban claimed that pro-life vigils were “targeting individual women who have come to a difficult decision”, “harassing” those wanting an abortion with “daily abuse”. These are quotations from a letter signed by 113 MPs, Jeremy Corbyn among them, asking Javid’s predecessor Amber Rudd to impose “buffer zones”, effectively barring vigils from the area near abortion clinics.
But from the start, those who attend the vigils have queried these allegations. They asked, for instance, where the evidence was for “harassment”. The vigil organisers were trying to show women that there is a better, more caring way than abortion – not to yell at them. One group which organises vigils, 40 Days for Life, asks all participants to sign a “statement of peace”. So where were pro-abortion campaigners getting the idea of “harassment”?
In Lambeth, for instance, where the council was considering bringing in a local ban, evidence of pro-lifers behaving badly was brought forward by BPAS, Britain’s biggest abortion provider. But a close look at BPAS’s “evidence packs”, assembled over two years, suggests that the evidence is thin. One typical complaint was about pro-lifers “Handing out leaflets & approaching people coming out of the clinic” – which is all the vigils have ever claimed to do, and is plainly not illegal. The complainant added that this made them “Very angry at their ignorance” – which is a difference of opinion rather than evidence of harassment.
Javid’s statement sat on the fence: he said the Government’s review had found “examples of harassment” (these were not set out in detail). But he said it was “clear” that abusive or threatening behaviour was “not the norm, and predominantly, anti-abortion activities are more passive in nature.”
As well as pointing to the dearth of evidence, pro-lifers argued that vigils were offering an important service. A fifth of women who visit a BPAS clinic to discuss abortion end up deciding not to have one: pro-lifers pointed out that they helped women to make an informed choice. The Be Here For Me campaign has told the stories of women such as Alina Dulgheriu (pictured), who thought she would have to choose between an abortion and destitution, but was helped by a pro-lifers at a vigil to find accommodation and a weekly income.
Another point which may have influenced Javid’s decision is that banning pro-life vigils would have implications for other forms of debate and protest. If feelings of “anger” are enough to justify stopping pro-life vigils, then no public event which annoys people is safe.
Javid was always likely to err on the side of free expression. In a 2014 speech to the Union of Jewish Students, he made a notably strong statement against censorship. “We can all question whether Tracey Emin’s bed is truly a work of artistic genius,” Javid argued. “But none of us should be allowed to ban it from a gallery, or tell others that they must not, cannot, see it and decide for themselves.”
Javid added: “I believe the free press is an absolute concept. Something you support 100 per cent or not at all … you just can’t say ‘I believe in media freedom, but …’ ” Whatever the merits of this view, it makes him unlikely to come down on the side of banning all pro-life vigils.
That said, Javid’s official statement was couched in pragmatic language. It said that national buffer zones would not be “proportionate” based on the evidence, and that there was already legislation against public disorder, intimidation or harassment.
The statement also mentioned that Ealing Council has introduced a buffer zone outside an abortion clinic. Javid did not say whether he approves or disapproves – understandably, as the Ealing ban has major implications for free expression.
Alina Dulgheriu, who says she owes her baby’s life to a pro-life vigil, is challenging the Ealing ban at the Court of Appeal: her fundraising appeal (at uk.gofundme.com/alinalegalfund), which was aiming for £50,000, has just passed £48,000. Javid’s decision has not ended the debate, but it has added some welcome sanity.
This page is available to subscribers. Click here to sign in or get access.
Areas of Catholic Herald business are still recovering post-pandemic.
However, we are reaching out to the Catholic community and readership, that has been so loyal to the Catholic Herald. Please join us on our 135 year mission by supporting us.
We are raising £250,000 to safeguard the Herald as a world-leading voice in Catholic journalism and teaching.
We have been a bold and influential voice in the church since 1888, standing up for traditional Catholic culture and values. Please consider donating.