Praying silently in front of an abortion facility can now put you at legal risk in the United Kingdom — and even stricter rules are on the way.
Praying silently in front of an abortion facility can now put you at legal risk in the United Kingdom — and even stricter rules are on the way.
T he criminal conviction of Adam Smith-Connor, the Englishman found guilty of silent prayer on the public street near an abortion facility, marks a watershed moment for fundamental freedoms in the United Kingdom. With the criminalization of Smith-Connor’s innermost thoughts, the country has unceremoniously ushered in a new era of “thought-crime” prosecution under the guise of protecting access to abortion.
And on October 31, England and Wales are set to roll out “buffer zones” similar to that under which Smith-Connor was prosecuted for all abortion facilities, prompting well-founded fears that countless other prayers and thoughts soon could be the subject of criminal sanction.
Smith-Connor, a military veteran and father of two, was convicted on October 16 for praying silently about abortion, in his mind, for three minutes, on the street near a Bournemouth, England, abortion facility.
Since October 2022, Bournemouth has had in place a “buffer zone” ordinance, creating a zone of censorship in which “expressions of approval or disapproval” about abortion are banned on several streets. The ordinance lists prayer, the recitation of scripture, genuflecting, sprinkling holy water, and crossing oneself as prohibited activities. Smith-Connor’s conviction confirms that prayer in the silence of one’s mind is understood as a violation of the zone insofar as someone entering the abortion facility could have perceived it.
On November 24, 2022, Smith-Connor stood still and silent on the public street by the abortion facility for a few minutes before being approached by “community safety accredited officers.” He had his back to the facility to be mindful of the privacy of those entering or leaving. Video footage shows the council officers asking what he was doing. Smith-Connor informed them that he was “praying for my son, who is deceased.”
Twenty-two years ago, Smith-Connor had driven his ex-girlfriend to a facility and paid for her to have an abortion. Further, he had assisted with abortions as part of his army medical training. It was this background that informed his desire to pray, in silence, near the facility, and he was cautious to in no way breach the zone by way of showing “approval or disapproval” about abortion.
Upon learning that Smith-Connor was praying for his late son, the council officer tasked with patroling the “buffer zone,” responded, “I’m sorry for your loss. But ultimately, I have to go along with the guidelines of the Public Space Protection Order, to say that we are in the belief that therefore you are in breach of clause 4a, which says about prayer, and also acts of disapproval. . . .”
What followed was nearly a two-year legal ordeal, culminating in three full days of trial this September. Smith-Connor’s prayer might have been one of the most expensive three minutes of silence in history. This hardworking family man has now been saddled with a criminal record and ordered to pay £9,000 for the costs of his prosecution. Further, the local council spent over £110,000 of taxpayer money on his prosecution, hiring top lawyers — a vastly disproportionate and unusual spend for a case at a magistrates’ court.
Even though he was engaged only in silent thought, the judge ruled that Smith-Connor’s presence within the “buffer zone” could have had a “detrimental effect” on those attending or working at the clinic. Leaning on the fact that his hands were clasped, and that he said his head might have been “slightly bowed,” she concluded that members of the public may have been able to perceive that he was praying — thus rendering his silent prayer worthy of a guilty verdict.
The case marks the first known thought conviction in modern British history. Freedom of thought is a fundamental human right, enshrined in international law without restriction. The judge may have relied on a perception of Smith-Connor as having his “hands clasped,” but the root of the matter is that this innocent man is now a convicted criminal for the simple act of raising his thoughts to God.
Moreover, if, for example, Smith-Connor had prayed for world peace or for an ill family member while standing in the same zone, he would not have been found guilty. His verdict was based on the content of his thoughts (abortion), which the judge deemed to be unacceptable in the place in which he stood (the “buffer zone”).
Few could have imagined, even a decade ago, that Britain would have come so far with regard to the suppression of basic human rights. The rights to hold religious beliefs in public and in private, and the right to think freely without the interference of the state, belong to every person. Yet these “buffer zones” have been drafted so vaguely so as to allow for the insidious creep into the criminalization of thought.
In August, in a victory against censorship, Isabel Vaughan-Spruce, the Christian charitable volunteer who was arrested twice for praying silently in a similar zone in Birmingham, England, received a payout of £13,000 from police in acknowledgement of her unjust treatment. Juxtaposed against Smith-Connor’s conviction, this shows the enormous inconsistency surrounding abortion-facility censorship zones, highly dependent on individual interpretation. Such ambiguity does not bode well for the future of U.K. citizens with the national rollout of these zones.
As the country introduces national censorship zones, it is incumbent on the government to clarify, as a baseline, that the new law does not target silent thought. The preservation of freedom of thought is a prerequisite for a society that holds itself out to be free, without which all other freedoms are imperiled.