Controversial abortion buffer zone laws have already been used to criminalise religious activity that makes no mention of abortion. Now, police in Northern Ireland have gone so far as to suggest that hospital chaplains openly carrying a Bible may fall foul of the law.
Pastor Clive Johnston was convicted in May of breaching buffer zone laws after conducting an open-air service. During the service Johnston made no mention of abortion but spoke of God’s love for the world as outlined in John 3:16.
Johnston is appealing the conviction with support from The Christian Institute.
In the latest development, Jon Boutcher, Chief Constable of the Police Service of Northern Ireland (PSNI), has attempted to clarify the scope of the controversial laws, particularly in how they impact upon the ministry of hospital chaplains.
Boutcher explained that chaplains visiting a patient who has requested prayer would be able to pray with them if “the patient is not attending for abortion services” and that the lawfulness of that activity “will depend on whether it could reasonably influence, cause distress to, or impede a protected person nearby”.
When it comes to taking their Bible with them, the guidance states that carrying religious materials through public areas of the hospital that fall outside a Safe Access Zone is not an offence under the Act.
“However, carrying or visibly displaying religious materials within a Safe Access Zone may constitute an offence where doing so is capable of indirectly or directly influencing a protected person attending for abortion services, or causing them harassment, alarm or distress,” Boutcher said.
“The location, manner and context in which the materials are carried or displayed will all be relevant to any assessment by officers.”
The guidance clarifies that Scripture reading conducted at the express request of a patient who is not in hospital for an abortion is outside the scope of the legislation.
“However, the same principle applies – if such activity takes place within a Safe Access Zone and a reasonable person would recognise it as capable of indirectly influencing or distressing a protected person, an offence may be committed, regardless of the consensual nature of the activity between the clergy member and their patient,” he said.
This reading of the current legislation suggests that a woman visiting hospital for an abortion may not be able to receive a pastoral visit from a chaplain even if she requested one. If such a visit were to take place within a Safe Access Zone, the chaplain would be vulnerable to criminal charges.
There is more. Boutcher said that providing pastoral ministry “within wards or hospital grounds” could also fall foul of the buffer zone laws.
“Pastoral ministry that takes place within a Safe Access Zone, even where fully consensual between the clergy member and their patient, may still constitute an offence if it is capable of influencing, impeding, or causing distress to a protected person in that zone,” he said.
The PSNI sought to reassure hospital chaplains: “The PSNI wishes to make clear that the vast majority of hospital chaplaincy and pastoral ministry is entirely unaffected by this legislation.
“Clergy and religious visitors going about their normal day-to-day work in hospitals will not be impacted by the Act unless their activities bring them in a Safe Access Zone in connection with abortion services.
“Most hospital wards and clinical areas fall entirely out of the scope of the Act and ministry within those areas continues without restriction.”
Following his conviction, Johnston said the ruling against him represented a “deeply troubling precedent”.
“I was peacefully preaching the Gospel, reading from the Bible, and pointing people to the hope found in Jesus Christ,” he said.
“If this conviction is allowed to stand, it will signal that basic Christian witness and public expressions of faith can be criminalised simply because they take place in the ‘wrong’ location.
“That should concern every person who values freedom of religion and freedom of expression, regardless of their views on abortion.”
