Business Secretary Jonathan Reynolds has pushed back against criticism from US Vice President JD Vance, who accused the UK of suppressing religious freedoms following the conviction of a former serviceman who prayed silently outside an abortion clinic.
Speaking on Sunday, Mr Reynolds, a prominent Christian member of the Government, defended the UK’s laws, stating that protecting access to healthcare services is “an important British value too”.
Vance’s criticism of the UK
In a speech in Munich on Friday, Vice President JD Vance claimed that fundamental rights were under threat across Europe, pointing specifically to the conviction of Adam Smith-Connor, a 51-year-old Army veteran and physiotherapist, who was found guilty of breaching a public space protection order (PSPO) outside an abortion centre in Bournemouth in November 2022.
“The greatest danger facing Europe today is the threat from within – a retreat from fundamental values.” – JD Vance
Referring to Smith-Connor’s case, Vance suggested that the UK had criminalised silent prayer, arguing that British law enforcement had penalised a man for merely standing outside a clinic and praying for his unborn son, whom he and his former partner had aborted years earlier.
“Now, the officers were not moved – Adam was found guilty of (breaking) the Government’s new buffer zones law, which criminalises silent prayer and other actions that could influence a person’s decision within 200 metres of an abortion facility.”
Vance accused the UK government of suppressing free speech and freedom of religion, warning that such policies reflected a broader decline in democratic values across Europe.
Reynolds’ strong defence of UK laws
Responding to Vance’s comments, Business Secretary Jonathan Reynolds dismissed the claims, emphasising that no-one in the UK is arrested for their prayers.
“Let’s be clear, we don’t have blasphemy laws in the UK. That’s the right thing. I say that as a Christian: no-one is arrested for what they are praying about.”
Speaking on BBC’s Sunday With Laura Kuenssberg, Mr Reynolds rejected Vance’s characterisation of the case, stressing that the real issue was ensuring women’s access to healthcare without intimidation.
“The example he gave was about people being able to access healthcare, in this case, abortions, free of intimidation or harassment. I think that’s an important British value, too.”
During an appearance on Sky News, Mr Reynolds reiterated that prayer itself was not illegal, but activities that breached designated safe zones could be subject to legal action.
Sir John Major labels Vance’s comments “odd”
Former Prime Minister Sir John Major also criticised JD Vance’s speech, suggesting that his remarks about democracy were misplaced given America’s shifting foreign policy stance.
“It’s extremely odd to lecture Europe on the subject of free speech and democracy at the same time as they’re cuddling Mr Putin.”
Sir John pointed to Russia’s history of suppressing dissent, highlighting the mysterious deaths of opposition figures, including those who have “fallen out of high windows”. He suggested that Vance should direct his concerns about democracy towards Russia and China, rather than the UK.
The facts behind the smith-Connor case
Smith-Connor’s conviction did not fall under the Public Order Act 2023, which introduced new safe access zones around all abortion clinics following a free vote in Parliament.
Instead, he was charged under a public space protection order (PSPO) established in 2014 under the Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act.
The PSPO prohibited protests, harassment, and vigils in designated areas outside clinics to ensure that women could access abortion services without distress.
More Read
Although Smith-Connor did not verbally engage with anyone, proponents of safe access zones argue that even silent presence near clinics can cause distress or intimidation for individuals seeking medical care.
“Women using a clinic can feel intimidated and distressed by the presence of someone standing in the area praying, even if they are not speaking.” – Supporters of Safe Access Zones
Critics, including religious freedom advocates, argue that the ruling undermines free speech and the right to religious expression.
Legal and political fallout
Smith-Connor received a two-year conditional discharge and was ordered to pay over £9,000 in court costs and victim surcharge following legal proceedings brought by Bournemouth, Christchurch and Poole Council.
The case has sparked renewed debate in the UK over the balance between free expression and the right to access medical care without interference.
While conservative religious groups continue to challenge the buffer zone laws, the Government has firmly defended its position, arguing that public spaces must be protected for those seeking essential healthcare services.
With the US and UK maintaining a close alliance, it remains to be seen whether JD Vance’s criticism of British policy will have any diplomatic repercussions or whether the UK Government will take further steps to reinforce its stance on free speech and public safety.
