CARE: Buffer zones are a disproportionate and unnecessary interference with civil liberties

Plans to enforce "buffer zones" around abortion clinics in England and Wales are an unjustified assault on civil liberties, campaigners say.

Last night, MPs voted for new measures to criminalise pro-life activity near settings where abortions take place. The amendment to the Government's Public Order Bill was approved by 297 votes to 110.

The bill still has several stages to clear before becoming law, including scrutiny in the House of Lords. If it passes as it stands, people guilty of breaching the 150-metre buffer zones will face a six month jail sentence.

CARE believes buffer zones - also dubbed "censorship zones" - are "unnecessary", and "disproportionate". Speaking this morning, Louise Davies, Director of Policy and Advocacy at CARE, commented:

"CARE condemns any genuine harassment outside clinics or hospitals. However, the censorship zones proposals debated yesterday have arisen from a desire to censor lawful expression, not out of any genuine need. They are symptomatic of a wider malaise in the public square, which sees people who campaign for the rights of unborn children locked out of debates and shut down. This is censorship.

"There is no need for new legislation to curb genuinely intimidating or upsetting behaviour outside medical settings, as such behaviour is already caught by existing public order laws. Indeed, the police have been monitoring pro-life vigils in the UK for decades, whilst upholding safety and democratic rights. People taking part in pro-life activity are generally in the older generation, sometimes engaged in silent prayer.

"Pro-life organisations stand peacefully and silently near hospitals or clinics with signs saying 'choose life' or ' we can help'. Over the years, many women have encountered such people voluntarily and made a decision to continue their pregnancies. They have been very thankful for this final offer of help years later, as their beautiful children grow up. In a democratic society, these exchanges ought to be allowed.

"Given the sufficiency of current laws, the peaceful nature of of pro-life activity, and the fact that some women do appreciate offers of help outside clinics, a blanket buffer zone law can only be seen as a disproportionate and unnecessary restriction of civil liberties. We hope Peers will appreciate the importance of free expression, including that which is uncomfortable, and strike these plans down."