Global Religious Freedom Homepage

Ed. Note: The following piece, written by Legal Communications Director for ADF International, Elyssa Koren, originally appeared at The Daily Wire

‘Buffer Zones’: U.K. Parliament Affirms Ban On Silent Prayer Around All Abortion Facilities

By Elyssa Koren — March 10, 2023

Fundamental freedoms have been dealt an extreme blow by the Parliament of the United Kingdom with the passage of a new bill on Tuesday rolling out so-called “buffer zones” around every abortion facility in England and Wales. The Public Order Bill puts into force 150-meter censorship zones banning any form of “influence,” including silent prayer and consensual conversations, wherever abortions are performed. The U.K., the birthplace of the Magna Carta and many of the foundational freedoms we enjoy in the West, is now leading the charge on a new era of thought-crime prosecution.

One need only look to recent arrests to understand the immense human rights ramifications of the new law. Where censorship zones are already in force, they have engendered severe violations of the right to free expression.

Take for example the viral arrest of Isabel Vaughan-Spruce, whose case reveals the state of legal chaos that censorship zones generate. Isabel was first arrested in December for the “crime” of standing in peaceful silence, praying, on a public sidewalk classified as a censorship zone near a Birmingham, England abortion facility. In February, she was acquitted fully in court, only to be arrested once again for the imperceptible act of silent prayer on Monday of this week.

At the time of the second incident, the arresting officer commented: “You’ve said you’re engaging in prayer, which is the offense”. To which Isabel counters: “Silent prayer”. His response says it all — “You were still engaging in prayer, which is the offense”. Censorship zones empower authorities to arrest peaceful individuals on the basis of their thoughts alone. This is a catastrophic failure for a democratic society where every person should have the right to peaceful expression, not to mention, their own thoughts, in the place of their choosing.

And Isabel was not alone in what befell her. Catholic priest Father Sean Gough was criminally charged, and likewise found “not guilty,” for standing in silent prayer in the same zone as Isabel. Absurdly, he was also charged for having an “unborn lives matter” bumper sticker affixed to his car, which was parked in the zone. Army veteran Adam Smith-Connor was fined for silent prayer in Bournemouth, England. Bournemouth offers a particularly outrageous example of censorship zone lunacy. The city has in place an eerily specific ordinance, ominously posted on signposts listing prohibited activities. These include sprinkling holy water, kneeling, reading scripture, and prayer considered to be an “act of approval/disapproval” toward abortion.

Most egregiously, the debate over the new nationwide law revealed that pro-censorship Members of Parliament deem the specific targeting of silent prayer acceptable. It is no accident that prayer, in all of its forms, is captured by the new prohibitions. This triggered a Parliamentary vote on an amendment to exclude both prayer and consensual conversation from the bill, which failed with 116 votes in favor and 299 against. 299 British Members of Parliament think prayer should be an offense under the law in certain public places. Let that sink in.

No doubt the new law will give rise to countless more abuses similar to that of Isabel, Father Sean, and Adam. Peaceful citizens throughout the country are now under real risk of legal sanction for exercising their most basic right to pray, think, and act in accordance with their convictions. At the same time, parts of the U.K. are experiencing rapidly escalating violent crimes without adequate response from law enforcement. What happens when already stretched police resources are redirected to patrol for prayer?

Censorship zone afficionados are quick to cite harassment as justification for these draconian measures. But this is a severe distortion of their real, and intended, impact. Censorship zones don’t “buffer” women from harassment. Harassment is always wrong, which is why it is already fully criminalized under U.K. law. It is clear that these zones are not about the protection of women. What they do is give the state the power to stifle views that are deemed disagreeable—in this case the view that both women and their unborn children are worthy of protection.

Today, the silencing power of the state in the U.K. is being leveraged full-throttle against the pro-life view. Tomorrow, censorship zones could be deployed to target another issue altogether. Parliament has opened the door to ever-proliferating state censorship in the U.K. Who’s to say that the next push won’t be for censorship zones around schools, government buildings, or any other public spaces deemed to require a protective bubble of this sort?

Let this be a clear warning to all concerned with the protection of fundamental freedoms. In the U.S., we must robustly defend our First Amendment protections. The thought police are real and standing by across the pond. Prayer can never be a crime, and nobody should be punished for peacefully living, and thinking, according to what they believe.


Ed. Note: The following piece, written by Director of ADF UK, Ryan Christopher, originally appeared at Newsweek

Policing Thought Crime Should Have No Place in the U.K.

By Ryan Christopher — January 24, 2023

Parts of the United Kingdom are now policing thought crimes. This is happening under a series of local ordinances that ban prayer, including silent prayer, in the vicinity of abortion facilities. Don't believe it? Recent cases have confirmed that you can be interrogated, arrested, fined, and even face a prison sentence for the act of praying in the privacy of your own mind.

First came the arrest of Isabel Vaughan-Spruce. On December 15, she was charged with failing to comply with an ordinance that set up a "buffer zone" in an area comprising of several streets around an abortion facility in Birmingham, England. Prayer is listed as a "prohibited activity" under the ordinance. Isabel was free to stand where she was, and free to think about anything else—but for directing her thoughts to God on the issue of abortion, she was arrested, and now could be tried and convicted of a crime.

Video footage of Isabel's arrest went viral on Twitter. When probed by the police, she made clear that she was not there to protest. In response to questioning, she stated that she "might be" praying inside her head. For this, she was searched, including through her hair, and placed under arrest.

Now, Adam Smith-Connor similarly has been fined for breaching a Bournemouth, England, "buffer zone" order. Adam stood within the zone, on the public street, praying in silence for the baby—a son—he had lost to abortion years ago. He prayed too for the men and women facing similar difficult decisions today. He stood with his back to the facility, mindful of the privacy of staff and attendees. After a few minutes, he was approached by "community safety accredited officers," tasked with enforcing the censorship zone.

As in Isabel's case, video footage of Adam's interaction with the officers dispels any possibility that this is about something other than prayer. As one officer states, "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." Adam interjects, "I'm just standing praying," only for her to respond, "I understand that. But the PSPO [ordinance] is in place for a reason and we have to follow through on those regulations."

It must be emphasized that Adam's only transgression was prayer, and he was fined literally for the contents of his mind. If he had been thinking about anything else, he would have faced no penalty. Bizarrely, the order that he is accused of violating also prohibits genuflecting, sprinkling holy water on the ground, or the crossing of oneself, among other activities.

What we are seeing in the U.K. is a rapidly escalating effort to criminalize the basic exercise of fundamental freedoms. Isabel and Adam are but the first in a potentially very long line of similar cases. The U.K. Parliament is now debating legislation that would establish censorship zones around abortion facilities nationwide. These zones are fundamentally incompatible with a free society. They directly violate myriad fundamental freedoms, including freedom of expression and religion, and as evidenced by what has already transpired, easily slide into the policing of people's thoughts.

"Buffer zone" proponents cite harassment as justification for this kind of infringement. Let's be unmistakably clear in our response—harassment is a crime. The harassment of any person, including a woman facing a difficult situation, is an abomination already covered under U.K. law. These zones are drastically distinct from any legitimate means to protect women. No democratic state should be in the business of criminalizing thought.

Nobody benefits when a free state voluntarily relinquishes the essential attributes of freedom. And every person, regardless of their stance on abortion, should be horrified by what is happening to fundamental freedoms in the U.K. Even if we disagree, let us not lose sight of the fact that all people have the right to peacefully pray, act, and yes, even think, in accordance with their beliefs.


Ed. Note: The following piece, written by ADF International legal counsel, Julio Pohl, originally appeared at National Review

A Mexican Politician Called a Man a Man. Now, He May Be Barred from Office

By Julio Pohl — December 21, 2022

For noting that biological males were taking advantage of a law meant to help females, Gabriel Quadri’s political career is now in danger.

Talk of Twitter free speech may be all the rage right now in the United States, but a look around the world begs the question: What good is ostensible social-media freedom if governments can silence and sanction you with the harshest of penalties for what you post online? The international landscape for state censorship of online speech is bleak. There exists a dangerous and mounting global trend to criminalize expression, including online speech, blurring the line between dictatorship and democracy, and wreaking havoc on human rights.

In Mexico, a sitting congressman, Gabriel Quadri, may lose the right to run for office ever again because of what he posted on Twitter — a grave violation of his civil and political rights that should attract international attention. Quadri, an avowed liberal, took issue when seats reserved for women in Mexico’s congress were claimed by men who identify as transgender. Now, for the mere act of tweeting, he’s a tried and convicted “gender-based violator” under Mexican law. His case makes clear that while Twitter HQ may be galvanizing in defense of free speech, for so long as repressive governments wield censorship power, the Internet is no safe space for free expression.

Mexico’s gender-parity law requires equal representation of men and women in Congress. In a series of eleven respectful, yet impassioned tweets, posted in February 2022, Quadri voiced his concern about the devaluing of women’s opportunities. For this, he was dragged into litigation and charged, under the whim of Mexico’s National Electoral Institute court system as a “violent political offender.” Found guilty by the electoral court, the congressman currently lives under the threat of becoming ineligible to run for any public office in the future. At any point, the Institute could bar him from future candidacy. To add insult to injury, he has been forced to issue a public apology drafted for him by the court and to post a summary of his conviction on Twitter for 15 days at two set times per day.

An environmentalist who has based his career off of eschewing violence, the former presidential candidate and longstanding politician has run out of avenues for justice in Mexico. Last Friday, Quadri appealed for his case to be heard by the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights. As a party to the American Convention on Human Rights, Mexico may be sanctioned by the Inter-American system’s human-rights procedures. As Quadri states, “In standing up for my right to free speech, I am fighting for the free speech rights of my constituents, and those of every Mexican.” Freedom of speech is a fundamental human right belonging to every person, and the silencing of political leaders creates a culture of fear throughout society. If elected representatives aren’t free to debate the issues of our time, what hope is there for everyone else?

Like many a concerned citizen the world over, in taking to Twitter, what Quadri did was seek open conversation on a highly relevant matter of serious societal importance. He committed no crime and endorsed no violence. His case mirrors that of Finnish member of Parliament, Päivi Räsänen, charged with the “crime” of hate speech that carried with it a two-year prison sentence. A longstanding civil servant, medical doctor, and grandmother, Räsänen has been subjected to three years of onerous legal proceedings for a 2019 tweet expressing her views on marriage and sexuality.

Let us not forget that in some parts of the world, you can be sentenced to death for what you post online. In Nigeria, Rhoda Ya’u Jatau is on trial for blasphemy charges after sharing a message condemning the brutal killing of Deborah Yakubu, who was stoned to death for her Christian faith last May. Blasphemy carries with it a potential sentence of death in Nigeria. Also, upcoming at the Supreme Court of Nigeria is the appeal of Sufi musician Yahaya Sharif-Aminu, who is currently on death row for a blasphemy conviction after sharing song lyrics on the messaging platform WhatsApp.

While the consequences may vary, what these cases have in common is the dark underlying thread of totalitarian repression. Governments are weaponizing the law to stamp out speech that fails to comport with their “approved” worldview. It is imperative that we shine a spotlight on the repressive regimes under which you can be deprived of your most basic human rights for what you say online. Without free speech there can be no freedom, and everyone should be free to voice their opinions without fear of punishment.


Ed. Note: The following piece, written by ADF International's Legal Communications Director, Elyssa Koren, originally appeared at National Review

The U.K. May Soon Restrict Pro-Life Speech

By Elyssa Koren — December 5, 2022

The ‘buffer zone’ law currently being debated in Parliament is an assault on Britons’ fundamental freedoms. It should scare pro-lifers the world over.

Abortion activists abroad are pressing forward into a foreboding new frontier: weaponizing the law to limit what you can do, say, or even think on public streets surrounding abortion clinics. Their efforts represent a kind of censorship that violates not only the right to free expression, but also the innermost sanctum of free thought.

Despite the American movement’s historic victory in the Dobbs case, in many parts of the world, it is growing more difficult, and sometimes even dangerous, to hold pro-life views. In the United Kingdom, praying in front of an abortion clinic could soon land you in jail for up to two years. Parliament is currently debating a sweeping “buffer zone” law that would restrict speech within a certain distance of the country’s abortion clinics. In a frantic effort to shore up abortion access at the expense of basic human rights, the law would impose a broad ban on “informing,” “advising,” “influencing,” “persuading,” and even “expressing an opinion” around places where women can obtain an abortion.

One need only look to the places where buffer zones already have taken root in the U.K. to understand what’s at stake. Five local councils have set up these zones, with street signs eerily demarcating the areas where free speech is restricted, listing illegal activities ranging from outright protesting to quiet prayer. Per the signs, if you have the audacity to kneel, sprinkle holy water, or cross yourself while praying too close to an abortion clinic, you’ll soon find yourself a criminal under the law.

Lest so-called buffer zones be confused with rightful means of keeping women safe, it should be pointed out that existing U.K. law includes very clear protections for women. Harassment is obviously illegal in the U.K., and authorities have the full power to protect women from it, including when they are near an abortion facility. The reality is that buffer zones have nothing to do with harassment, and are entirely disconnected from valid and welcome efforts to protect women from harm. What buffer zones do is crush civil liberties, and prevent pro-lifers from making genuine offers of help to women entering abortion clinics.

As debate over the new law mounts in Parliament, the U.K. has seen a surge of pro-life censorship in places with existing buffer zones. On November 24, 2022, women in Bournemouth, England, were confronted by local authorities for praying quietly together on a public street near an abortion clinic. Livia Tossici and her friend were urged to move on by “community safety officers” tasked with patrolling for violations of Bournemouth’s buffer-zone law. While the women were well outside the 150-meter zone in which prayer is legally prohibited, the officers deemed the women precariously close to the zone, and also noted concerns about their proximity to a local school.

This is but one example of a disturbing trend: the criminalization of public prayer in the U.K. Just last year, grandmother Rosa Lalor was arrested under Covid-lockdown laws for praying silently while out for a walk near an abortion facility. What’s happening in the U.K. provides irrefutable real-time evidence of the dangers of government censorship. It is a warning for us all.

Buffer zones, while absurd in and of themselves (as evidenced by the experience of the Bournemouth women), give rise to even greater legal absurdities, because they lack a logical end point. In Bournemouth, it’s now suspect to join together in quiet prayer beyond the perimeter of a restricted zone. What’s to stop that zone from being expanded to cover the entire town? Today, it’s an abortion facility, but tomorrow, it could be municipal buildings or shopping centers.

The freedoms of thought and expression are foundational to a free society, and buffer zones violate them. Moreover, they inevitably give rise to a culture of silencing and surveillance. Tell people when, where, and how they are allowed to express themselves and you’re well on your way to a robust dictatorship.

Should the U.K. move to roll out national buffer zones by passing the proposed new law, the societal cost will be immense. For those committed to praying for and showing a better path to women considering abortion, violating the law would constitute a crime, carrying with it a penalty of up to two years in prison. Many pregnant women would be deprived of the diverse offers of substantive assistance the pro-life community provides. And society at large would suffer a devastating blow to the fundamental freedoms inalienable to us all. As aptly put by Lord Michael Farmer of the House of Lords, “presented as a small and necessary step to protect women outside abortion centers, [this proposal] is, in fact, a giant and unnecessary leap away from our hard-fought civil liberties”.

While this fight is an ocean away for now, Americans should not complacently assume that our First Amendment safeguards against this happening here next. In fact, if the U.K. leads the charge in the policing of thought crimes, we can be sure abortion activists will try something similar here in the U.S. As we navigate the storm of post-Roe America, we must be unyielding in our defense of all human rights, vigilantly safeguarding the fundamental freedoms that allow us to debate and discuss abortion — and to pray for a pro-life future.


Ed. Note: The following piece, written by ADF International legal counsel Sean Nelson, originally appeared at National Review

Song Lyrics Shouldn’t Get You the Death Penalty

By Sean Nelson — November 19, 2022

A Nigerian musician sentenced to death for musical ‘blasphemy’ is challenging his country’s law.

In March 2020, a Nigerian Sufi musician named Yahaya Sharif-Aminu was arrested in Kano State, in northwest Nigeria, for allegedly committing blasphemy against the Prophet Mohammed. His crime? He had shared on social media song lyrics expressing the beliefs of his branch of Sufism. A mob assembled in response and burned down his house. He had no legal representation for his trial. Five months later, the local sharia judge found him guilty and declared, “I hereby sentence him to death by hanging.”

But now, Sharif-Aminu is challenging the blasphemy law under which he was convicted in what could be a groundbreaking case for freedom of expression and freedom of religion. Last week, he filed an appeal with the Nigerian supreme court, calling for the blasphemy law enshrined in Section 382(b) of the Kano State Sharia Penal Code to be ruled unconstitutional under Nigerian law. It is the first time such a blasphemy law has been challenged at the highest court in Nigeria. If he is successful, the case could have worldwide repercussions.

Nigeria is one of seven countries in the world — including Pakistan, Iran, Afghanistan, Brunei, Mauritania, and Saudi Arabia — with criminal-blasphemy laws for which you can be sentenced to death. These laws exist in the twelve northern Nigerian states, which incorporated sharia into their criminal codes 20 years ago. These are majority-Muslim states, in contrast to the largely Christian south. Kano State’s law requires the death penalty for any Muslim who “publicly insults” or “demonstrates any form of contempt or abuse against the Holy Qur’an or any prophet.”

Northern Nigeria’s blasphemy laws violate not only international law, but also the Nigerian constitution, and should be deemed unlawful by the country’s supreme court. The Nigerian constitution protects the freedoms of thought, conscience, religion, and expression, including the ability to “receive and impart ideas and information without interference.” Notably, while the constitution permits sharia, it only allows for its use in personal-law matters, such as marriage. Kano State’s blasphemy law, by contrast, allows for no theological diversity among Muslims and could be used to target converts to other religions, such as Christianity, or those who have become atheists.

Sharif-Aminu’s lawyer, Kola Alapinni, spoke to me after filing the notice of appeal to the supreme court: “How in the world did it take twenty-two years for this law to be challenged, for us to get where we are? But now, Yahaya is in high spirits.”

The law also flies in the face of Nigeria’s commitments to upholding international treaties, such as the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. As stated by six United Nations human-rights experts and bodies who wrote to the Nigerian government on Sharif-Aminu’s case, “No one should be prosecuted for the mere peaceful manifestation or expression of his or her opinions or belief,” and international law prohibits “any form of criminalization of blasphemy.”

Furthermore, 17 country-members of the International Religious Freedom or Belief Alliance recently called for the end of the death penalty for any activity labeled as “blasphemy.” And the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom has cited Nigeria’s blasphemy laws as one of the reasons it lists Nigeria among the worst countries for violations of religious freedom.

Sharif-Aminu’s supreme-court appeal comes at a precipitous time in Nigeria’s history. The upcoming 2023 elections have seen controversy over the selection by one of the major political parties of a “Muslim-Muslim” ticket, in contrast to the far more common Muslim–Christian tickets, where the presidential candidate is of one faith, and the vice-presidential candidate of another. The lynching of a Christian student, Deborah Yakubu, in Sokoto State in May of this year after accusations of blasphemy made both national and international headlines, revealing the state of religious tensions in the country.

The Nigerian Supreme Court now has the chance to take a significant step toward easing these tensions and pave the way for other jurisdictions that criminalize blasphemy with death. Nigeria is a highly religiously and ethnically diverse country of over 200 million individuals, with the largest GDP in Africa. Blasphemy laws only lead to greater sectarianism and violence, stymieing development and progress — sadly what is happening in Nigeria. But respect for the rule of law, constitutionalism, and diversity of faith, belief, and opinion instead encourages the mutual understanding and peaceful resolution of conflict necessary for a country to thrive.

The Nigerian supreme court now has a choice it must make. No one should be punished, much less killed, for the peaceful expression of their opinions and their faith. By overturning these harsh blasphemy laws, Nigeria can show that it is an international leader in working to bring different faiths together, rather than a nation trapped in a cycle of violence.


Global Religious Freedom is a campaign of Alliance Defending Freedom to raise funds for the work of ADF International.