At Christmas, Christians across Scotland gathered around the crib to contemplate the life of a vulnerable child; God entering our world as a baby in need of care, protection and love. Christmas places fragile human life at the centre of everything.
It is therefore unsettling that this season saw the first person in Scotland charged under the new so-called “buffer zone” law in Scotland; a law the Church believes curtails Scotland’s commitment to freedom of expression and conscience, and restricts critical voices from democratic debate in the public square.
The Abortion Services (Safe Access Zones) (Scotland) Act 2024 establishes “buffer zones” of up to 200 metres around abortion facilities — currently around 30 locations across Scotland. Within those zones, any conduct deemed to “influence” a decision about abortion may be criminalised. That vague description should trouble anyone who values legal clarity or free expression.
The Catholic Church does not condone harassment or intimidation, but that was not the intention of this law. The Church has been clear: harassment, intimidation and obstruction are wrong and unacceptable. But Scotland already has robust laws to deal with harassment, public disorder and threatening behaviour and it is telling that, when consulted on the proposed new law, Police Scotland did not ask for more powers, and went as far to state in written evidence to Parliament that, “existing powers and offences are sufficient to address any unlawful behaviour in the vicinity of healthcare premises.” When parliaments introduce criminal offences where existing law is already sufficient, questions should be raised and alarm bells ring.
We oppose this law because it is disproportionate and undemocratic. It represents state overreach and curtails basic freedoms. The Church would similarly oppose legislation mandating buffer zones outside nuclear weapons facilities or refugee detention centres. This should concern every Scottish citizen, regardless of their views on abortion.
As the Parliamentary Officer for the Catholic Church in Scotland pointed out, women experiencing crisis pregnancies may be “denied the opportunity to freely speak to people and organisations who may be able to help them.” A law supposedly designed to protect choice risks doing the opposite — eliminating one side of a conversation and one set of choices altogether.
Even more troubling is what the legislation anticipates. Official documentation accompanying the Act acknowledges that the law envisages criminalising “praying audibly” and “silent vigils.”
This is unprecedented in modern Scotland, and it is no wonder it has raised eyebrows around the world, with concerns raised around Scotland’s commitment to human rights and freedom of expression and religion.
The implications go further. The Act extends to private homes within designated zones. A pro-life poster displayed in a window, a conversation overheard, a prayer said by a window; all could, in principle, fall within the scope of criminal sanction. When asked directly whether praying by a window in your own home could constitute an offence, Gillian Mackay, the Scottish Green Party MSP, who spearheaded the legislation, replied: “That depends on who’s passing the window.” That sends a chill down the spine of anyone who cares about civil liberties. Criminal law that depends on the perception of a passer-by is certainly not the hallmark of a free Scottish society.
The law also potentially criminalises a person standing alone in a buffer zone without any visible expression of protest, but who is deemed by others to be offering a silent pro-life inspired prayer. Even Police Scotland expressed unease. Superintendent Gerry Corrigan told Parliament that policing thought is an area they “would stay clear of,” adding: “I do not think we could go down the road of asking people what they are thinking or what their thoughts are. That feels really uncomfortable.” Yet, this is the territory into which Scottish law now ventures.
Bishop John Keenan, President of the Bishops’ Conference, noted that “none of the arguments made were able to get around the basic premise that Police Scotland had never asked for more powers.” and that the law is “draconian” and “unnecessary,” particularly considering its impact on people of faith.
Some parliamentarians attempted to mitigate the effects of the law— proposing a reasonableness defence, or exemptions for chaplains who might be criminalised for pastoral conversations. All amendments were rejected or withdrawn.
We support all those who, motivated by conscience and compassion, stand up for the right to life. It cannot be a crime to give our voice and our prayers to the unborn.
Christmas is the message that every human life has infinite dignity from its beginning. That truth is not confined to private thoughts. A society confident in its values does not fear opposing voices. It does not criminalise silent prayer. It does not ask its police or judges to peer into the minds of its citizens.
Scotland’s buffer zones law represents a profound shift in the relationship between the State and the individual — one that restricts free speech, free expression and freedom of religion in ways that should concern us all.
As we look to the child in the manger this Christmas and Epiphany, we are reminded that babies do not have a voice of their own. It is a shame that the State has now also curtailed the voices of ordinary citizens who advocate for them within its borders.
The Catholic Bishops of Scotland
Public reaction:
Edward McGarvey – A pluralistic society depends on the protection of peaceful moral disagreement. By criminalising even non-expressive presence or silent prayer, the Act narrows the permissible space for dissent and weakens the public square’s deliberative character. This should concern anyone committed to the health of democratic culture, irrespective of their stance on abortion.
The criminalisation of silent prayer or perceived intention under recent legislation raises profound concerns about the limits of state power and the preservation of fundamental democratic rights. At its core, the issue is not confined to the contentious subject of abortion but extends to the broader principles that underpin a liberal democracy. When legal frameworks begin to police not only outward conduct but also inward thought or intention, they risk undermining the essential distinction between public order and individual conscience.
This blurring of boundaries marks a departure from established democratic norms, where freedom of thought and peaceful moral disagreement are protected as vital components of a pluralistic society.
Moreover, introducing offences that penalise non-expressive presence or silent acts, particularly when existing statutes already address harassment and disorder, suggests an overreach that is difficult to justify on grounds of proportionality and necessity. By narrowing the scope of permissible dissent, such legislation threatens the robust deliberative character of the public square, which is indispensable for the health of democratic culture. In a society committed to civil liberties, the protection of both women and freedom of conscience should not be seen as mutually exclusive imperatives. Rather, safeguarding space for peaceful disagreement is crucial to ensuring that democracy remains resilient in the face of polarising issues. We must all pray for these blind politicians.
Andy Leven – There will always be two sides in any argument and limiting dialogue by criminalising those who express differing views and in so doing offer care is wrong. The problem is that if we shy away from expressing our views we are giving in to oppression.
Michael Hagan Brady – This Act is the product of an insidious and malignant “anti life”ideology that is now enshrined in law. A terrible indictment on this Nation that such a deeply immoral legal reality may come to pass. In addition those who defend the “sanctity of life” in a sense are considered enemies of this “anti life” State. The hypocrisy and double standards of Scottish politicians who speak about Eastern bloc countries and how they suppress freedom of speech, assembly, have people reporting to the authorities etc. whilst engaging in the same tactics in Scotland is incredulous at the least. A Nation obsessed with environmental and animal rights issues but considers it entirely acceptable to destroy the most precious reality in our society ie “an unborn human being”. The cry of the Innocents will not go unheeded and in Heaven’s own time there shall be a reckoning.