Would the Scottish buffer zones law pass with Donald Trump in power?
Earlier this year, Vice President JD Vance used a speech to argue Europe was seeing a shift away from democratic values and cited the buffer zones law as way in which the 'basic liberties of religious Britons' were under threat.
In an extraordinary intervention, he falsely claimed the Scottish Government distributed letters to people who live within a zone warning them that private prayer 'may amount to breaking the law'.
In a separate incident, the US state department said it would be monitoring the case of a woman being prosecuted for the alleged breach of a zone outside a Bournemouth clinic, adding it was concerned about freedom of expression in the UK.
It was even reported after this that there were concerns UK protections for abortion clinics could impact a potential trade deal with the US.
All of this has led to a big question: would the buffer zones law in Scotland pass now, given the influence and power of the Trump administration?
READ MORE: Scottish Government urged to extend Glasgow hospital buffer zone
Lucy Grieve and Alice Murray were possibly more astounded than anyone when Vance began talking about a law that came about partly thanks to a campaign called Back Off Scotland that they started from their university bedrooms in 2020.
When The National asked them whether they thought the law would pass through Parliament so easily now, they both felt it still would have got the green light but would have faced stronger pushback.
Murray said: 'I think it would still pass but there may have been more challenge.
'I think there is a slight ethos that probably does come from Trump that things were going too far for a while in terms of inclusivity and progressiveness.
JD Vance used a speech to criticise the buffer zones law in Scotland (Image: Kirsty Wigglesworth)
'At the moment, there is a bit of sense things were getting out of hand and now we need to pull it back and since that [attitude] does exist [maybe there would be push back], but it just depends whether or not people tied this up with that.'
Grieve highlighted that given a huge number of people have come off Twitter/X because of the behaviour and comments of owner Elon Musk – who until the last few weeks was a special US government employee – they may also have struggled to raise awareness of their campaign if the law was going through Parliament now.
Grieve said: 'I think it would be maybe more difficult [the passage of the law]. Lots of people have come off Twitter and that was a big way we rallied support.
'That's Elon Musk and his extremism that has made a lot of our supporters go off Twitter, so it could have affected things.
'But I think people are very pro-buffer zones because it's such a precise mechanism of balancing [rights].'
(Image: PA) And that's why both Grieve and Murray don't feel people in Scotland should be overly worried about abortion rights going backwards as both of them have confidence that society here is in an entirely different place on abortion compared to the US.
Murray said: 'There is a bit more of a basic societal response that abortion is healthcare in the UK and it's not an extra add-on.'
There is no doubt certain anti-abortion groups such as 40 Days for Life – which has been regularly staging protests outside the Queen Elizabeth University Hospital in Glasgow – have felt emboldened by the interventions of the likes of JD Vance. More than 100 people turned out to a protest just outside the hospital's zone last month.
But Grieve and Murray are firmly of the belief that a move like the overturning of Roe v Wade in the US – which meant millions of women lost the right to have an abortion – is never going to occur in these islands.
READ MORE: Patrick Harvie: It's time for ministers to stop politicking and investigate Trump
Grieve said rights have advanced so much now – with Westminster set to consider decriminalising abortion in England and Wales this summer – anti-abortionists are actually defending the 1967 Abortion Act so as to stop them going any further.
'I think people understand America is so far gone in terms of their abortion rights that they never want to end up like that,' Grieve said.
'I think having buffer zones wrapped up in a conversation about trade deals, as it was reported, I think the very large majority would think that is absolutely crazy, and that there is no place for it.
'I think we're in a place where we are winning in terms of strengthening our reproductive rights in Scotland and the UK and they're [anti-abortionists] in a position where instead of saying they want to revoke them, they are now starting to defend the 1967 Act as the basis of our abortion law because they think decriminalisation is too radical.
'Because the vast majority of abortions are provided or funded by the NHS across the UK, you couldn't turn that off overnight like you could with Roe vs Wade. It is seen as vital here, it's not this random outlier.'
Murray added: 'We should have a reasonable amount of worry about Donald Trump's power and influence, but when you look at the work that is done on the ground by abortion activists and when you look at all the positive things that are happening, we shouldn't be too scared about a turn in that direction.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Powys County Times
6 minutes ago
- Powys County Times
Human rights ‘worsened' in UK over the past year, says US
A Trump administration report has accused the UK of backsliding on human rights over the past year, citing increased antisemitic violence and growing restrictions on free speech. The annual US State Department assessment, which analyses human rights conditions worldwide, flagged what it described as 'serious restrictions' on freedom of expression in the UK. 'The government sometimes took credible steps to identify and punish officials who committed human rights abuses, but prosecution and punishment for such abuses was inconsistent,' the report read. The report specifically said laws limiting speech around abortion clinics, pointing to 'safe access zones' curbed expression, including silent protests and prayer. 'These restrictions on freedom of speech could include prohibitions on efforts to influence others when inside a restricted area, even through prayer or silent protests,' the report read. In the wake of the 2024 Southport attack, the report said government officials 'repeatedly intervened to chill speech'. Criticism over the handling of free speech was also directed at the governments of Germany and France. A UK government spokesperson told the BBC: 'Free speech is vital for democracy around the world, including here in the UK and we are proud to uphold freedoms whilst keeping our citizens safe.' Sentiments echoed those previously made by vice president JD Vance. In February, Mr Vance criticised the UK over a legal case in which a former serviceman who silently prayed outside an abortion clinic was convicted of breaching the safe zone around the centre. In a wider attack on what he suggested is a shift away from democratic values across Europe, Mr Vance claimed the 'basic liberties of religious Britons, in particular' are under threat. He referred to the conviction of Adam Smith-Connor, 51, who had denied doing so but was found guilty last year of failing to comply with a public space protection order at the centre in Bournemouth in November 2022. Speaking at the Munich Security Conference, Mr Vance said that the US' 'very dear friends the United Kingdom' appeared to have seen a 'backslide in conscience rights'. 'A little over two years ago, the British government charged Adam Smith-Connor, a 51-year-old physiotherapist and an Army veteran, with the heinous crime of standing 50 metres from an abortion clinic and silently praying for three minutes, not obstructing anyone, not interacting with anyone, just silently praying on his own,' he said. The report also said the Government 'effectively' enforced laws around freedom of association and the rights of workers.
The National
13 minutes ago
- The National
Police to release ethnicity and nationality of suspects
The guidance comes in the wake of riots following the Southport murders which were partly fuelled by social media disinformation. The interim guidance by the National Police Chiefs' Council (NPCC) and the College of Policing comes after mounting pressure on police over the details they make public. Asked on BBC Breakfast whether not revealing nationality and ethnicity until a suspect is charged, rather than when they are arrested, means disinformation could still spread in the community as it did following Axel Rudakabana's murders in Southport, policing minister Dame Diana Johnson agreed. READ MORE: Fire crews tackle huge blaze at derelict hotel in Scottish city '(Disinformation) is a bigger problem for society, I think, but in terms of particular individuals, what normally happens is at charge, information is released,' Dame Diana said. 'That's what's happened before.' The new guidance says forces should consider disclosing the extra details about suspects charged in particularly high-profile and sensitive investigations. But decisions on whether to release such information will remain with forces themselves, the NPCC said. It is hoped the change could combat the spread of misinformation on social media, after Merseyside Police was criticised for not revealing the ethnicity of Rudakabana when he was arrested on suspicion of murder when he attacked a Taylor Swift-themed dance class in Southport last July. Within hours of the attack, posts spread on the internet which claimed the suspect was a 17-year-old asylum seeker, who had come to the country by boat last year. In the first press conference after the event, at 6.30pm that day, Merseyside Police Chief Constable Serena Kennedy told journalists the suspect was originally from Cardiff. But the police statement did little to quell the misinformation spreading online, and the next day riots began across the country. In a separate incident in May, to suppress rumours that an incident involving a car being ploughed into a crowd of people during Liverpool's Premier League victory parade was a terror attack, the force promptly revealed the ethnicity and nationality of a man they had arrested, who was white and British. Dame Diana said: 'We were very supportive of being as open and as transparent as possible and this interim guidance will set out that on charge, usually name and addresses are given. 'We also, in most cases, will want to see nationality or ethnicity given as well. This goes back to last year and what happened, that appalling atrocity in Southport.' She said the Government has asked the Law Commission to look into the guidance to make sure any future trial is not prejudiced by information released by police. Deputy Chief Constable Sam de Reya said: 'We saw during last summer's disorder, as well as in several recent high-profile cases, what the major, real-world consequences can be from what information police release into the public domain. 'We have to make sure our processes are fit for purpose in an age of social media speculation and where information can travel incredibly quickly across a wide range of channels. 'Disinformation and incorrect narratives can take hold in a vacuum. It is good police work for us to fill this vacuum with the facts about issues of wider public interest.' Earlier this month, Warwickshire police and crime commissioner Philip Seccombe pressed the Home Secretary for an urgent update on the issue after the charging of two men – reported to be Afghan asylum seekers – prompted accusations that the force withheld information about their immigration status. The force denied a 'cover-up' after being criticised by Reform UK. Asked if information about a suspect's asylum status will be shared in new guidance, Dame Diana said: 'To date, it's not something that the Home Office comment on in terms of asylum applications that are made by individuals.' The new guidance, which comes into force immediately, was welcomed by police and crime commissioners. READ MORE: Seamus Logan: We need new bold independence strategy instead of focusing on the past Emily Spurrell of the Association of Police and Crime Commissioners said: 'I am pleased the NPCC and College of Policing have recognised the need to update guidance for forces in the light of recent high-profile cases. 'PCCs and Deputy Mayors act on behalf of the public and it is clear there was a need to review the guidance to address growing public concern. 'We have seen the speed with which mis- or disinformation can spread online and the danger to public safety that can cause, so it is right police keep the public informed as far as is possible whilst preserving a suspect's right to a fair trial.'
The National
23 minutes ago
- The National
We need new bold independence strategy instead of focusing on the past
Readers may or may not be pleased to learn that I'm not planning to add to that. Frankly, to use the word of the moment, the future we all say we want for Scotland won't be won as long as effort and energy which should be spent on persuading more of our fellow voters to back independence is wasted slugging it out over which former FM's version of recent history we prefer. Scotland needs to move on. And for those of us who want to see independence delivered in our lifetimes, we need the case for it to move on as well. To get back to the substance of that, as John Swinney rightly said in his interview with this newspaper this week, 'You can't deliver independence unless your country has domestic and international legitimacy'. To which I'll add that the only way to get that legitimacy is to have clear majority support, and the only way to get that majority support is to persuade more people of the arguments. Simple, really. READ MORE: Is Gordon Brown's call to ditch the two-child benefit cap genuine? The actions we take and arguments we make in order to achieve that have to be at the core of any strategy for independence worth talking about. But while arguments over process might excite some of the already persuaded, only political arguments have any chance of convincing the yet to be persuaded. I touched last week on lessons which appeared to have gone unlearned from 2014. Being seen to be running the country well post-2007 was a key element in the SNP's almost unnatural political strength at the time. And while Holyrood remains far more trusted than Westminster, the narrowing of that gap is a problem right now for the Scottish Government and therefore, by extension, the independence cause. Using the powers we have successfully was always going to be a key element in giving people the confidence to go further. Like it or not – and I certainly don't – it's also the route our fellow Scots chose to keep us on when they decided not to back the version of independence Alex Salmond and Nicola Sturgeon placed before them in 2014. (Image: PA) Dismiss it as 'managing devolution' if you like. But without governing well and being seen to do so, the chances of voters ever giving much of a hearing to why they should install the next-generation upgrade that is independence are always going to be much reduced. And it's here that there's another lesson to be learned. If you're a reader of The National, you don't need me to tell you how slanted much of the coverage of the Scottish Government and politics is. No government should expect to go unscrutinised and uncriticised but the way in which clickbait sensationalism drives so much broadcast content rather than just what appears in online bubbles, is something the SNP have struggled to deal with over several years now. Westminster gets a free pass but not Holyrood. Take this week's announcement that the UK Government is considering reducing the drink-drive limit in England and Wales to match that in Scotland. The proposal has landed reasonably well, as well it might. However, it's worth casting minds back to 2014 when the drink-drive limit was reduced in Scotland. Whingers of a Unionist bent went into abject meltdown, croaking that it would mean the 'end of the rural pub!'(Spoiler: it wasn't). 'There will be complete confusion!' (There wasn't). 'You could be driving legally in England and then get arrested as soon as you drive across the border!' (Well, don't do it, then.) Holyrood pushed on regardless. And despite the great wailing and gnashing of teeth, attitudes and behaviours changed. And there were few – if any – cases of 'accidental' cross-border drink-driving, just like there were no traffic jams at Berwick involving white vans on a 'booze cruise' to avoid Minimum Unit Pricing. But there's the thing – practically all of the coverage at the time was predicated on the notion that Scotland by cutting the limit was somehow the outlier, when, in reality, that was the norm across the rest of Europe, leaving England and Wales as the outliers. And don't get me started on how the Deposit Return Scheme of the kind taken for granted all over Europe was deliberately sabotaged in Scotland and Wales by a malevolent UK government years behind in its own preparations but determined to spin it otherwise. Rebuttal units are all well and good, but as Ronald Reagan once said: 'If you're explaining, you're losing.' The Scottish Government needs to tell its stories up front and once again build up a narrative of success – of how it is making lives better and, crucially, how much better it is doing in comparison to yet another UK Government determined to pick thoroughly dishonest fights for the sake of it. Gillian Martin showed the way a couple of weeks ago, hitting back at a useless Labour minister who thought it was more important to try to score a point off the SNP than it was to defend the principle of having water in public ownership. More of that, please.
