Free Speech UNDER ATTACK? Pastor Convicted Despite Saying NOTHING About Abortion | Simon Calvert

Added: 2026-05-31

[00:00:00]I literally don't know what I'm doing.

[00:00:01]But how about this? Right, this is the story that I've got. A British pastor backed by the White House is appealing against his conviction for praying near an abortion clinic. Clive Johnson, 77y old pastor from Straban in Northern Ireland, was accused of breaching buffer zone laws by carrying out a sermon in the vicinity of the Causeway Hospital in London Derry in July 2024. So I think that's what Simon's going to talk to us about. Simon, very good morning to you.

[00:00:25]>> Good morning.

[00:00:26]>> Is that what you're going to talk to us about? About this guy in Ireland?

[00:00:28]>> Yes, it is. Yes. Yeah, the story is >> I got a bit confused there because we we've got we've got too many too many clips of too many pastors, it has to be said. Uh so anyway, tell us about >> tell us about Clive Johnston and what's going on.

[00:00:41]>> So Clive Johnston, he's 78. He's a retired pastor. He used to be the president of the Irish Baptist Association. uh he held an open air service uh outside Causeway Hospital uh near in Corrain >> and uh he has been prosecuted and convicted for breaching abortion buffer zone legislation. Now that legislation is meant to be uh we were told about stopping women being harassed on their way to abortion claims but has never been accused of harassing anybody. In fact, there's no evidence that any woman going for an abortion saw or heard anything that he did. In fact, the open air service he held was on a Sunday >> uh when he understood that the clinic was closed. Sunday is a normal day for church services. And I just I can't emphasize this enough. He didn't say a single solitary syllable about abortion.

[00:01:28]There were no parks. There was no hidden messages. He just I I I don't know if you went to Sunday school, Mike, but there's a very famous Bible verse.

[00:01:35]You've seen it at sporting venues, John 3:16, which says, "For God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten son that whoever believes in him should not perish, but have everlasting life."

[00:01:44]That's his message, >> right?

[00:01:46]>> Uh but yet the the the police and prosecutors and now the the lower court have decided that that is a breach of abortion buffer zone legislation.

[00:01:55]>> Right. So is there argument that he was in the wrong place saying what he said or is there argument that he shouldn't be saying what he said in any place?

[00:02:04]>> Yeah, excellent question. Wrong place is what they're saying. But wait, there are eight of these all across Northern Ireland and of course many more across the rest of of the of the UK. And if we decide that a law designed to stop abortion protest can stop other kinds of speech, then well, what other kinds of speech? Is it just the Christian message >> or and I mean, you have one of these buffer zones, for example, in the central Belfast. So, it covers pedestrian streets, streets where street preachers are well used to being able to to speak and address members of the public. Are they going to start enforcing the buffer zone legislation against them? I mean, I hope not. But you can see why we would be concerned and why, you know, whatever view you take about the Christian faith, whatever view you take about the issue of abortion. If you care about free speech, you should be worried about the state taking a law designed to stop one particular kind of speech. And by the way, I'm not in favor of those laws in the first place, but they're taking a law designed to stop this, and they're using it to stop something very different. I think I think everyone should be concerned about that.

[00:03:05]>> Yeah. And and as far as the the circumstances go, were were the police alerted to his presence? Was did somebody complain about it? Is that why they were there?

[00:03:14]>> So he contacted them in advance, >> right?

[00:03:18]>> So uh he he had communication with the police in the weeks running up to this Sunday service, this open air service.

[00:03:25]So they knew he was going to be there.

[00:03:27]>> Yeah. They knew he was going to be there. So, um, and the there was, uh, a complaint from, uh, somebody in the hospital, uh, and there was a complaint from somebody, uh, driving by in in his car, uh, who saw them and, uh, didn't think they should be there. But that guy gave evidence in court and actually his evidence rather fell apart because he couldn't remember which thing he'd seen on which day. But uh but you know just to be clear there was no complaints from any women who were going uh into the hospital on that day. Uh there was no suggestion as I say that any woman going to the abortion facilities in the hospital heard or saw anything that Clive said or did. Uh and and that's one of the strange things about this ruling.

[00:04:13]So he was convicted of being reckless about whether he was influencing uh a a a person accessing the the hospital.

[00:04:21]Yeah, >> without any evidence that that any person accessing the hospital heard him or saw him. Uh and without any evidence that he his message had anything to do with accessing abortion. It's it I mean look these are bad laws. I don't agree with laws in principle. I also think the laws are very badly drafted. Um but whether you agree with me about those two propositions or not, I still think that everybody should be concerned about this this bizarre overlication of the law.

[00:04:50]>> Yes. No, I I'm I'm totally with you. I think that the reason I asked about whether he somebody complained was just I'm I'm sort of interested in in the process, if you like, because I don't think in many cases the police understand the law because I've known of cases where police have have stopped people from saying things on the streets, for example, at um pro Palestinian marches where they've gone up to uh to people holding up, you know, Hamasa terrorists um um placards and said, "Well, you can't do that here."

[00:05:19]And you go, "Well, why not?" You know, it's a perfectly rational thing to say.

[00:05:22]It's perfectly true thing to say, but oh, well, it might cause a breach of the peace. Well, yeah, but that's not your job. Your job is is is not to remove people from a place where there where they're offering an opinion on something. Um, as long as it's not going to cause um a breach of the peace actually, you know, um you know, for somebody to say they don't like it, well, tough, you know, sorry, don't like it, but you know, people have got the right to say what they want to say. And I just wonder whether the police cuz it's quite a complex legal issue this I imagine. I imagine the police probably are not the best experts at at at telling you what you can and can't say because they probably don't know.

[00:06:00]>> I mean I wish we had been able to play the the video of Clive's open air service because what you would see there uh is how far away he is from the hospital but what you'd also see there is he's a very gentle auncular kind of figure. Um the police to be fair to them are are perfectly civilized with him, but he's incredibly sort of friendly towards them. After they tell him that he's going to be prosecuted, he shakes their hand. Um but one of the things that one of these police officers says to Clive Johnston, uh is he says, "I know you're not saying anything about abortion, but somebody might see you and think that you're talking about abortion." that was the the police officer on site. That kind of >> and and you you think well what's what have how has that officer been trained?

[00:06:53]>> Yeah.

[00:06:54]>> In order to think >> that that's an appropriate way to police a clear example of free speech, an example of religious free speech. Why does he think that uh he can speak like that to to to this man and uh take what really is a rather >> say let's say say jaundist sort of view of religious speech that people might think you mean something bad by even though you haven't said anything bad.

[00:07:19]>> Yes. And they also think that like in many cases that we see them now sort of administrating if you like they they worry more about those people who might be offended by something without realizing that actually well nobody really is offended you know and they're going yeah but but but it might offend that person over there and then you wave at that person over there and go are you okay? And they go yeah I'm fine. Um and the police go well we're still going to arrest you. I mean it's kind of insane isn't it?

[00:07:45]>> Yeah. And I mean to be clear, as I've said, I think the law I I don't agree with the laws in principle. I also think the laws are very badly drafted and that they could have been better drafted. But but we do think that the court has got the application of the law wrong in this case, which is why the Christian Institute is backing Clive Johnston in his appeal. He's taking the matter to the court of appeal. And uh we're quite confident that eventually uh and especially if you uh as the courts are obliged to do currently uh look at this case through the lens of human rights, his article 10 right to freedom of speech, his article 9 right to freedom of religion. Uh I think that eventually uh the courts will will come down in his favor and say that this is not a breach of the abortion buff sale legislation.

[00:08:29]>> Yeah, indeed. Well, it's an interesting area and and one that obviously you need to keep an eye on. guest Simon, thank you very much indeed for talking to us and sorry we couldn't get the right clip. We'll see if we can find it at some point. This a lot of clips flying around today, but thank you Simon Calbert there from the Christian Institute. Um it is mad, isn't it? That um and whether whatever your view is and and you know I'm I'm I don't want to you don't want to sound um too weird, but it's it's hard to you when you make these statements. I believe in the woman's right to choose. I do. I think uh if you know a woman wants to have an abortion um she should be allowed to have one. Um obviously within certain regulations and within certain rules I don't like the idea that they've now passed a law in this country which allows for a woman to have an abortion right up to the term of the actual pregnancy um at 9 months. That's wrong in my view. But I think that the the previous rule which I think used to be 16 weeks um was fine. I didn't think it needed to be changed. Um, but I'd rather that than than to have it banned alto together. And we can have an argument about that for another day, I guess. Um coming up the