US vice president JD Vance has caused quite a stir in the elite circles of Europe and Britain. His explosive speech in Munich may prove to be one of the most important political speeches for decades. He’s been accused of being everything from being a fascist to Trump’s stooge, but his speech deserves much more careful consideration than simple name calls and partisan abuse. .
I would like to look into and confirm one claim he made in his speech about my home country, Scotland. This was the relevant part of the speech:
“Last October, just a few months ago, the Scottish government began distributing letters to citizens whose homes are within the so-called safe access zones, breaking the law even with private prayers within their own homes. It warned that it might be. The government urged readers to report fellow citizens who suspected of thinking crimes in the UK and across Europe.”
Is this true? Journalist Neil Mackay doesn’t think so. He wrote in the Herald newspaper. “Vance spits out a bunch of culture wars about Scotland and claims that our abortion buffer zone laws prohibit praying in their homes. It’s not even worth exposing it to the details. We Everyone knows that it’s straightforward misinformation. We live in this country. Understand the truth.”
The House of Representatives newspapers of the Scottish government were equally hot. I’ve posted several articles and numerous tweets about X that denounced this “misinformation”.
But what is the truth? I wrote about this issue for Christians today, but the facts are not difficult. Exclusion zones are set up around Scottish abortion clinics that seek to prohibit any kind of existence that can be interpreted as trying to affect someone to avoid having an abortion.
A letter was sent to residents within the exclusion area of Edinburgh. General crime only applies in public places, but activities on private property (such as homes) within areas between protected facilities and the like are warning them. A zone can be seen and heard within the zone and can become an attack if it is intentionally or reckless. “The letter warned that regulatory breakers could be fined up to £10,000. Religious sermons, prayers, or quiet vigilance can be subject to prosecution if done with “intention or recklessness.”
When Gillian Mackay, a Scottish Green MSP, who proposes the law, was interviewed by the BBC about Vance’s claims, she pronounced it as misinformation. She told the BBC that quiet prayers were never mentioned while the letter was sent to a home within a secure access area. However, she destroyed her case by stating that “even the law does not mention any particular behavior.” In her case, if the specific behavior is not mentioned, and so is not illegal, then her actions are useless. Standing outside the abortion clinic is not specifically mentioned in the banner, so Ms Mackay said that isn’t illegal?
Everyone knows that it’s not true. And it’s not just protests. Standing within the exclusion zone and praying personally can result in arrest and being charged.
Also, as the letter sent to the household states, the same rules apply to individual homes within the exclusion zone for other areas within that zone. So logically, if private prayers are prohibited in exclusion zones, they must also be prohibited in private homes. Of course, if the curtains were closed and there was no one else there, then no one would know. You will not be arrested. But if you mention someone, or you wrote on social media that you are praying for people with abortions, you could be reported to break the law. The police have taught us that such behavior can be reported to them.
Therefore, Vance’s statement on Scotland was practically correct, regardless of the attempts that some politicians and journalists had made to accept us incorrectly.
It is also interesting to note that in the same interview, Gillian Mackay called the US government a “regulation that wants to misrepresent others who are trying to rewind women’s rights and promote women’s rights.” Ironically, considering that a woman is being charged with misunderstanding someone during her work on the NHS this week! The Scottish government cannot protect women’s rights when they cannot tell us what women are.
Vance was right to point out that this is all part of a general trend in which freedom of speech is at stake within Europe. Just above the clues, Scottish Greens leader Patrick Harvey stepped in to demand that Jordan Peterson’s appearance in Scottish Hydro be cancelled due to his controversial views. I’m here. The National did this as their headline story. Harvey said Peterson should be banned to promote “toxic politics.” Without traces of self-awareness. Another Glasgow Green mentioned that climate change should also be prohibited.
Hydro banned the controversial Franklin Graham and had to pay Graham the damages after he sued. Ironically, Vance says that it will be cancelled in Scotland and that you say you think Vance is right that it could easily end up being cancelled.
This authoritarian cancel culture is deeply ingrained in much of Scotland. I recall that one university asked me to send a copy of my sermon to a group of Christian students. On another occasion, another university speaker was asked to explain why he liked my social media posts. Someone else was asked by a university official to deny his father’s opinion. And I think of a journalist who said she wanted to report my opinion fairly, but that she would be in danger of losing her job (or not being promoted) if she did. She had to tow the party line.
My last example relates to this particular case. I was called to meet with a senior Scottish government official to discuss the gender recognition law. In particular, I asked that men would not be charged with saying they could not become women. They told me (over five years ago) that it could be very difficult as it could be perceived as a hate crime.
The justification for this kind of behavior is cold and Orwellian. Glasgow City Council leader Susan Aitken told the court in Franklin Graham’s case: It – Not only will the expression of views, but also the expectation that knowledge or views are fully expressed or may be expressed, will also have real consequences for people. Glasgow. ”
Writers, communicators, politicians, teachers, especially preachers of God’s Word, hope that their message will bring real results to those we speak. Ms. Aitken represents the new religion of the subway elite. They believe that they and them alone have the right to decide what constitutes a positive outcome of life and what constitutes “harm.” As a result, under the guise of “preventing harm,” they exclude everyone who disagrees in the name of inclusion. They prohibit people who are not like them in the name of diversity. And they do not tolerate the difference in opinion that everything is in the name of tolerance regarding their basic doctrine.
JD Vance spoke the truth to power. The fact that power doesn’t like it doesn’t make it false. Do other Christians have the courage to do so? And then he stops bowing his knees to the modern ideological Burles.
David Robertson, an exile in Newcastle, New South Wales;
