GLASGOW, Scotland — At the Munich Security Conference on Feb. 14, U.S. Vice President JD Vance startled European leaders with a stark warning about the erosion of free speech in the West — singling out the United Kingdom for particular concern.
“Perhaps most concerningly, I look to our very dear friends, the United Kingdom, where the backslide away from conscience rights has placed the basic liberties of religious Britons in the crosshairs,” he said.
Vance highlighted the case of Adam Smith-Conner, a 51-year-old Army veteran who prayed silently for three minutes on behalf of his unborn son, lost to abortion. Subsequently arrested by police, he was later found guilty of breaking the new “buffer zones” law, which criminalizes silent prayer within 200 meters (about 660 feet) of an abortion facility. Smith-Conner was sentenced to pay thousands of pounds in legal costs to the prosecution.
Vance hoped this incident “was a fluke, a one-off, crazy example of a badly written law being enacted against a single person. But no,” he continued, “This last October [2024], just a few months ago, the Scottish government began distributing letters to citizens whose houses lay within so-called safe access zones, warning them that even private prayer within their own homes may amount to breaking the law. Naturally, the government urged readers to report any fellow citizens suspected guilty of thought crime in Britain. … Free speech, I fear, is in retreat.”
Needless to say, the vice president’s comments caused consternation among the political elites in Europe — particularly in Britain.
But how bad is the situation in Scotland for pro-lifers today? The Register traveled to Glasgow to interview John Deighan, CEO of the Society for the Protection of Unborn Children (SPUC). Founded in 1967, SPUC is the world’s oldest pro-life campaigning and educational organization.
So, what did he think on hearing the U.K. — and Scotland in particular — called out by the U.S. vice president?
“I was delighted!” Deighan says, “[Because] sometimes you feel that no one is aware of what is going on. There is a staggering lack of awareness with the political class or those who classify themselves as an intellectual elite. It is their ideologies and emotions that have clouded their intellect.”
Deighan may have been “delighted” by what Vance said, but the SPUC CEO was also awaiting the all-too-predictable response from British politicians — namely, that Vance’s comments were just plain wrong. Yet in reference to Vance’s claim that the Scottish government warned people about praying in their own homes, Deighan cites a letter sent to SPUC by a pro-lifer living in a Scottish buffer zone who was indeed warned about such behavior in his own home.
Deighan finds it telling that the media and politicians were quick to label Vance a “liar” rather than engage with the concerns he raised. He believes this is because critics of Vance are incapable of “seeing their own blind spots” when it comes to the issue of abortion.
“‘Milestone for women’s rights’ as abortion buffer zones law gets Royal Assent”: Such was the headline on one of Scotland’s main television channels when the Abortion Services (Safe Access Zones) (Scotland) Act 2024 received Royal Assent and became law in July 2024. Proposed amendments — such as a provision to allow individual silent prayer within buffer zones — were rejected before the final vote.
This vote in the Scottish Parliament, Deighan contends, shows just how deeply embedded the culture of death is in Scottish politics. “Only one Member of the Scottish Parliament — out of 129 members — voted against the buffer zone legislation,” he observes.
Yet, worryingly, Deighan senses there is currently a fresh “momentum” within the pro-abortion lobby at the Scottish Parliament, one that aims to expand abortion services further through a complete decriminalization of the procedure.
In that case, one wonders: for groups like SPUC, is the Scottish Parliament a lost cause?
“It is about mobilizing the voters rather than working solely with Scottish parliamentarians,” Deighan explains, accepting that working with politicians whose minds are already made up is largely futile. Instead, he suggests that the focus should be on Scottish voters, who are not so closed-minded.
Take the issue of assisted suicide, which he sees as a good example where public opinion could be — and in the past has been — mobilized to prevent legislative change.
However, on the subject of life in the womb, the abortion industry has not only the political and media establishment “on its side,” but is also a formidable lobbying entity in its own right.
“The lengths that the abortion industry will go to crush anyone who disagrees with them …” reflects Deighan. For example, he explains, the language used today by the abortion lobby deliberately labels pro-lifers as “disgusting” — and in so doing, such a designation effectively shuts down any debate on the subject.
None of this surprises Deighan, who first got involved as a volunteer with SPUC in 1993. “Vilification of pro-lifers is not new,” he maintains. Nevertheless, he has watched as tactics used by other pressure groups have been weaponized against the pro-life movement.
Often, this entails conflating opposition to a group’s aims with so-called “hate speech”; thereafter, any disagreement with that view is no longer tolerated by wider society. This is exactly the approach being used against pro-lifers in Scotland, he feels.
In turn, Deighan senses that this strategy shapes the way society approaches those who hold pro-life views. He cites the contrast between the treatment of ongoing pro-life witness and, for example, recent protests in Scotland against nuclear weapons, where overt and disruptive public demonstrations appeared to be tolerated.
The difference in how pro-lifers are treated is stark, says Deighan: “You can’t have six mild-mannered people saying the Rosary quietly more than 150 yards from an abortion facility without an eruption of horror.”
“It is a culture war,” says Deighan, “and as always, truth is the first victim of war.” He goes on to describe what he considers a massive manipulation of information — one that now makes it impossible to have a rational discussion with those who view abortion as anything other than “health care,” a concept, he says, that is never questioned by the British media.
For all that, while continuing with SPUC’s long-standing work in the fields of law, medicine and education, Deighan is conscious of the need to engage more directly in the ongoing culture war. In light of this, SPUC has deployed a new strategy: building a “critical mass of the creative minority in the culture-shaping areas of society.”
This refers to the idea of a creative minority that shapes the cultural tone and ultimately guides society in the direction it wants to go. To that end, SPUC is now working in the areas of film and social media — for example, recently producing the award-winning feature film An Irish Angel (2024), and establishing the Write for Life Academy, which is dedicated to equipping a community of pro-life creatives who support one another in achieving their creative goals and, in so doing, reaching the wider culture.
In all this, Vance’s words have helped — to some extent at least — says Deighan. But what they have done, he adds, is “made the elites think there is someone watching.” That said, he is under no illusions: Abortion remains “politically difficult” to address across the U.K., he says.
Vance’s linking of abortion to freedom of speech may have been a “shock” to the British political establishment, but little more, says Deighan. However, regardless of what a visiting U.S. vice president says — or the reaction it garners — one Scot’s resolve to witness to the child in the womb has never been stronger, despite his country’s increasing dalliance with the Culture of Death.
“We have been dealt a difficult hand,” he says. “But in the end, truth and justice will win.”