There’s no such thing as fish and chips without fish, and also chips. Likewise, there’s no such thing as a crime without two things: some sort of act, or actus reus, and some sort of blameworthy mindset, or mens rea. At least, that’s the classic account. Things have gotten a bit messy around mens rea, but actus reus still holds up well. Why? What goes on entirely inside people’s heads—no matter how violent, depraved, or destructive—is their own business. In olden times, people referred to the “internal forum,” a place where God and conscience judge, but earthly law cannot reach. There’s no such thing as thought crime. Not even conspiracies and attempts can be criminally punished until someone has done something—undertaken some verifiable, observable act that could raise someone else’s concern. Actus reus remains (just a bit more Latin) the sine qua non for a crime in the Anglo-American legal tradition.
It still holds pride of place in the American tradition, anyway. Merry olde England appears to have decided Thoughtcrime isn’t such a bad thing after all.
Isabel Vaughn-Spruce is currently under investigation for standing silently with her eyes closed on a Birmingham street corner—the third time she has drawn police attention for doing so, despite being acquitted of any wrongdoing in 2023 and even receiving a £13,000 settlement from the police. The reason the Crown simply will not let her be: Ms. Vaughn-Spruce is, in fact, silently praying, and she is doing so within a (US) football field and a half of an abortion facility. The police would hardly know that was what she was doing, except that she acknowledges it when they ask her. England is now deciding whether her prayerful loafing about “interfered with access to or provision of abortion services.”
Apparently, England is so zealous about choice that it sees alternatives as a threat to it. Earlier this year, Livia Tossici-Bolt was convicted for silently standing near an abortion facility while holding a sign reading, “Here to talk, if you want.” (The comma is as perfect an example of English politeness as one could imagine.) But at least there was some sort of act in that case. Unlike in the army veteran Adam Smith-Connor’s. He was convicted of “breaching” a “safe zone” by silently praying “as a vigil for his unborn son following an abortion procedure 22 years ago.” (Incredibly, commenting on that case, the British newspaper The Independent sniffed that religious freedom still exists in England because, you see, Parliament still opens with prayers.)
On overseas visits this year, Vice President JD Vance has criticized Europe’s censoriousness. He is a blooming hypocrite. But he has a point. England has gone disregarding the freedom of speech—it’s attacking the freedom of silence.