Right to Life has just been made aware of an attack on the highly respected LifeSiteNews website, one of the world’s most informative and visited websites on life issues. We received this information today 28th October 2018. Right to Life relies on websites like this one, to inform of important life issues such as abortion, euthanasia and the attack on traditional values. Along with FB and Twitter shutting down a number of Pro-Life pages recently, we are beginning to see the sort of attack on free speech which is described below. Here is the email we received from LifeSite. Make your own mind up about whether censorship of those who express a view inconsistent with the current liberal paradigm has gone up a notch. So much for Tolerance eh? Right to Life believes we are going to see more and more of this sort of determined attempt to suppress the truth. Reads… [Read more…]
Media Release 14th July 2018
Right to Life is disappointed that the Ministry of Health in its submission to the Law Commission on its review of the abortion laws, supports the government’s proposal “that abortion be a reproductive health choice for women”. The Ministry claims; “Legal termination of pregnancy is much safer for women than giving birth.” This is simply nonsense and the fact that it is coming from the Ministry is nothing less than abominable.
The submission signed by Ashley Bloomfield, CEO of the Ministry of Health [pictured here] sadly supports a culture of death in place of a culture of life which should pervade health services in New Zealand. The submission presents a sad reflection on an increasing culture of death which pervades the Ministry. Since 1977 the Ministry has classified the killing of children before birth as a core health service. It has established killing centres in 20 Public Hospitals where more than 500,000 unborn children have been violently killed.
The unborn child is a patient who is entitled to special care and protection. The Ministry refuses to acknowledge that when they are caring for a woman with child, that they have the privilege and duty to care for two patients, the mother and the child.
The submission denies the stark reality that abortion kills an innocent and defenceless unborn child. It seeks to dehumanise the unborn child. It states that the child should be called a fetus and never a child and it denies that the unborn child has right to life. The Ministry insists that we do not use the term abortion and instead use the term termination of pregnancy service. The submission advises that staff at District Health Boards have been instructed to use these terms. Right to Life believes that this is to hide the reality that abortion kills an innocent human being and to attempt to remove the stigma that is associated with killing children in the womb.
The submission claims that abortion is safer than allowing a child to be born, ignoring the stark reality that in every abortion a child is violently killed; It claims that complications are very rare and that there is no link between abortion and breast cancer. International research debunks these assertions.
The Ministry is opposed to health professionals having a legal right to exercise their conscience in refusing to facilitate or participate in the killing of an unborn patient. The Ministry calls this exercise of conscience, “gender based discrimination.” Conscience rights are at the heart of the right to freedom of speech and the practice of ethical medicine and we remove them at our peril.
Right to Life fully supports the continued legal protection of the conscience rights of doctors and nurses, anything less means we are moving towards tyranny. Right to Life believes that the removal of conscience rights would ultimately result in doctors and nurses who refuse to be involved with the killing of unborn patients being driven from their professions.
Right to Life requests that the Minister of Health, the Hon Dr. David Clark, take urgent steps to take action against an executive that is not just anti-life but which seeks to remove our most cherished and basic freedoms. We seek this action to ensure that our health services have the utmost respect for our health professionals and the right to life of all patients, both born and unborn.
Right to Life.
Media Release 10th October 2017
The Auckland University Students Association (AUSA) has backed down from its initial decision to disaffiliate ProLife Auckland from the Association. The decision to pull a ‘U Turn’, seems to have been as a result of the Association seeking legal advice which suggested that the initial referendum question on which the students voted, could be considered biased or leading. It asked not one but two questions. The question voted on was “Should AUSA disaffiliate the ProLife Club and ban any clubs with similar ideology from affiliating in the future?”
A university should be a place of academic freedom and debate, not a place where ideology dictates what ideas may be expressed. Are we beginning to see evidence in a New Zealand university, of rule by Ochlocracy? Free speech only for those whose views the majority agree with? If so then New Zealand might be heading towards a dangerous new low as exemplefied by events recenlty occurring in certain liberal universities in the United States. Here the ‘lunatics are attempting to run the asylum’. Students there have at times taken over and threatened violence and thrown tantrums, because they do not agree with the views of (even progressive leaning) staff and in other cases attacking and injuring staff because they opposed the views of a visiting guest speaker.
A good background to this issue can be gained by viewing this video from the Stuff website. It features interviews with Jelena Middleton the ProLife Auckland co-president and Auckland Students for Choice spokeswoman Justine Rose, who is also a member of Campus Feminist Collective.
Right to Life deplores the decision of the Auckland Students Association to disaffiliate a student’s group called Prolife Auckland. This is a serious violation of human rights. Our right to free speech is sacrosanct. It is what makes us truly human.
The graphic to the left shows the picture that was so offensive to the students. Right to Life asks what on earth is happening in our culture when a picture of an innocent and defenceless child in the womb is so offensive?
The Universal Declaration of Human Rights states; Article 19,
“Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.”
Free speech is necessary for a democracy. It prevents government oppression and tyranny while permitting ideas to flow freely and uninhibited. It is important to keep free speech, from whatever source, unencumbered. The suppression of free speech could ultimately result in speech against the killing of the unborn being made unlawful and punished with a prison sentence.
The Human Rights Act 1990 section 14 protects freedom of speech, it reads; Freedom of expression
Everyone has the right to freedom of expression, including the freedom to seek, receive, and impart information and opinions of any kind in any form.
It is only those who feel threatened by the truth who resort to the suppression of free speech.
Right to Life asks why there is a deafening silence from the media? They who have the privilege of serving our community should be the champions of freedom of speech. [Read more…]
The idea that the only thing liberals wanted was tolerance was a lie. What liberals want is not to be tolerated but to totally control and dominate the culture. They are doing this through governmental legislation, through the judiciary and through taking over our educational institutions. The aim is to destroy freedom of speech and indeed religious freedom. While New Zealand may seem to be a long way behind the ‘progressivism’ of Europe and the United States, that does not mean we are not going to face the same restrictions of freedoms of speech and religion. In most western countries liberals are winning the culture wars and this is only the very start. Legislatures all over the world are bowing to the LGBTQABZ agenda.
We have been asked what does this have to do with a Pro Life organisation such as Right to Life? In fact this is pivotal. We believe that many people who hold a conservative worldview, are simply not aware of the threat that the ‘fruit’ of the sexual and moral revolution is to our very way of life. Those who refuse to bow the knee to the ruling orthodoxy will soon face the full force of new laws. No dissent will be tolerated. Unless we are willing to stand up our very freedoms are at stake.
This article is a re-post from LifeSiteNews and goes a long way to expand on why the liberal mindset is so dangerous to a civil society.
June 29, 2017 (LifeSiteNews) — I was asked recently why, in spite of the fact that I’m more of a traditionalist than a conservative, I spend so much time detailing the dangers of progressivism in my writing. As I considered the answer to that question, I realized that I’d have to write a book to give an even remotely adequate response. In lieu of a project of that size (at least for now), I’d like to offer seven reasons that I believe progressivism is well on its way to destroying Western Civilization — if it has not already.
They don’t believe in freedom of speech.
This should be obvious to anyone who reads the news. When progressives are faced with speech they don’t like, they utilize every tool at their disposal to shut it down, up to and including violence — and usually while simultaneously playing the victim card. Conservative speakers on campus generally need a cadre of bodyguards for protection. Pro-life displays are frequently attacked and torn down. Some controversial speakers actually face riots, vandalism, and violence prior to having arrived and prior to having actually said anything—and even feminist icons like Germaine Greer are having their speaking engagements targeted for refusing to embrace the current transgender craze. One Pew Research Poll in 2015 even reported that 40 percent of millennials supported limited speech that offended minorities — and the categories of those who qualify as “minorities,” of course, are growing by the week.
They don’t believe in freedom of religion.
For years, gay rights activists insisted that they had no intention of forcing their views on anyone, and claimed that those Christians warning that the LGBT movement intended to attack religious freedom after the legalization of gay marriage were lying. As it turns out, the gay activists were lying brazenly — in one pro-gay documentary prior to Obergefell, 8: The Mormon Proposition, a number of LGBT campaigners bristled in righteous indignation, accusing their critics of deceitful fearmongering. A few years on, every single warning delivered by Christian activists interviewed for the documentary had already come to pass. With a few notable exceptions such as Andrew Sullivan and Jonathan Rauch, most gay activists and their progressive counterparts reject the idea of religious liberty entirely. President Obama and his liberal comrades took to using the phrase “freedom of worship” instead—“worship,” of course, being an activity that can be kept safely within the walls of a church and out of the public square.
They are willing to coerce you into saying words you do not want to say in order to enforce their ideological agenda.
From cosmopolitan centres like New York City to nations like Canada, trans activists are attempting to pass legislation that redefines human rights, freedom of speech, and the very definition of violence. Recent legislation in Canada, for example, can be used to prosecute people for refusing to refer to trans people by their “preferred pronouns,” an ever-expanding category that includes nonsensical words like “ze” and “zir.” This is no longer even restricting what people can and cannot say — no, trans activists want to take a totalitarian step forward and dictate what people must say. Their right to be called whatever they want — and they continue to make things up as we speak — is now, progressives insist, a “human right.” Not referring to a person by the specific pronoun of their choice, on the other hand, can actually be classified as “violence,” a word that will, in the hands of progressive activists, soon be rendered as meaningless as the world “justice.”
They are willing to take your children away — and certainly willing to threaten this.
Progressives believe it is a fun family day out to take your children to the Pride Parade, where they will be exposed to the genitalia of adults, half-naked drag queens, and simulated sex acts, but they also believe that they would be far better at raising your children than you are, because they are far more open-minded. Thus, legislation recently passed in Ontario indicates that if parents appeared insufficiently enthusiastic about the potential desire of their children to obtain a sex change courtesy of the trendy transgender delusion, those children could be removed from your care and placed in a haven run by adults who are more than willing to allow children not yet old enough to buy alcohol undergo genital surgery that will irreversibly alter their bodies. Progressives are not bluffing in their rhetoric — they’re all in, and your children just might end up being the stakes.
They only use science when it is convenient for them.
As I’ve written before, progressives claim to be obsessed with scientific data, but promptly abandon it when it no longer suits their agenda. Academics who point out that there is no scientific basis for the current transgender craze are thus shunned as hateful transphobes. Climate change models are thus impeccable evidence that we must restructure the global economy, but the ironclad scientific consensus indicating when life begins in the womb must be ignored. Even ultrasounds, embryoscopy footage, and medical textbooks are not enough to make progressives consider the ethics of abortion — although ironically, any effective abortionist could tell you all about the pre-born child in the womb. After all, he’s the one that has to crush the head and twist off the little arms and legs with forceps.
They see Christianity as more of a threat than Islam.
Ever wonder why progressives won’t refer to “Islamic terror”? Easy. They see the world in Marxist terms, and in their world, Western Civilization as founded by white Christians is always the oppressor and those with a bone to pick with the West are always the oppressed, responding to some injustice. That is why you will see more rage from California officials about states protecting the religious freedom of Christian bakers than you will in response to a mass shooting committed by a Muslim. That’s why the progressive response to another round of ISIS butchery somewhere in Europe is always “live like this never happened (unless you’re one of the dead ones, of course) because that’s how we win!” On the other hand, someone who expresses suspicion over the veracity of the claims made by transgender activists will immediately become the target of a left-wing holy war. Progressives have no time to get angry at Islamic terrorists who toss gay people off buildings. They’re far too busy being furious at a pizza parlor that declined to serve a gay wedding.
They are completely willing to destroy your life if you disagree with them.
Perhaps one of the key differences between progressivism and Christianity is that Christians believe in forgiveness, while progressives will happily destroy your entire life for the slightest of secular heresies. Anyone who says something that is now considered homophobic will have to either deliver maudlin apologies on the confessional talk show circuit or be shunned. Academics who cannot keep track of this week’s white privilege cisgender trans activist purity code and bump into the tolerance buzz saw are likely to be gutted like a fish — student mobs now enjoy using their reputation for physical violence to demand that professors they dislike be fired, immediately. Christian businesspeople who have struggled most of their adult lives to create a little bakery or other establishment can be a victim of the rainbow blitzkrieg in the blink of an eye. Real people are being destroyed by the #lovewins crowd, and they don’t care.
Progressivism is poisonous. They want the State to co-parent your children, and believe they know better than you do. They use science as a cudgel to further their ideology, and abandon it when it is no longer useful. They believe in the violent destruction of little human beings in the womb, but claim that not using made-up words like “ze” or “zir” is “violence.” In short: If you’re a Christian who still clings stubbornly to the orthodoxies that have defined Christianity for 2,000 years, they hate you — and they don’t have any problem saying that. There are many other reasons progressivism is dangerous, of course. But those few, I think, highlight why we must fight them tooth and nail for what remains of our countries and our cultures.
In response to a media release on our website concerning Labour Deputy Leader Jacinda Ardern sent to Chris Hipkins (pictured), the Labour Party MP for Rimutaka.
Hipkins sent us this reply:
Please take me off your email list. I don’t need to see your hate-filled propaganda.
Right to Life sent Mr Hipkins the following letter in response;
Dear Mr Hipkins,
I am responding to your communication of 29th April. you advise;” Please take me off your email list. I don’t need to see your hate-filled propaganda.
It is a sad day when truth becomes the enemy and is denigrated as hate speech and propaganda.
It is disappointing when a Member of our Parliament seeks to silence an organisation from exercising its right to freedom of speech which is protected under the United Nations Declaration of Human Rights, the New Zealand Bill of Rights and the Human Rights Act.
Your accusation that Right to Life’s recent media release was “hate filled propaganda” is untrue, deeply offensive and libellous. The Oxford Dictionary describes hate speech as:
Media Release Sunday 1st January 2017
In defence of Bishop Brian Tamaki and freedom of speech Right to Life makes the following comments.
Metiria Turei (pictured), co- leader of the Greens and presumed spokesperson for the LGBTQI movement, used speaking time at Parliament to accuse the leader of the Destiny Church of undermining human rights and of hate speech.
In doing so she appears totally unaware of the total hypocrisy of her statements for this is a prime example of intolerance in the name of tolerance.
Brian Tamaki in a Sunday sermon the day before the Kaikoura earthquake, had preached that “certain human sin” was responsible for natural disasters. The issue is not whether he is correct in attributing the earthquakes to God, but rather does he have the right of free speech and religious freedom to preach. It would appear that Metiria Turei does not believe he does and her attitude here seem to suggest that she would like to see freedom of speech and religion in New Zealand curtailed. [Read more…]
The following article is a re-post from the MercatorNet website and is by Chiara Bertoglio published Dec 6 2016
Can you be neither “pro-life” nor “pro-choice”? So it seems, at least in France, where the idea that a “choice” should involve at least two options is becoming increasingly controversial. A recent article on MercatorNet discussed the absurd censorship of a heart-warming video which shows the many abilities of people with Down syndrome and their possibility of giving and receiving love and living happy and fulfilled lives.
“Oh là là”, says the French TV: to broadcast the smiles of people with Down syndrome is intolerable, as it might create remorse and feelings of guilt in the women who decided to abort their children with Down syndrome.
Now it’s the turn of pro-life websites, which are under threat of being shut down by State laws. On December 1, a majority of the French Assemblée nationale voted in favour of a bill which would extend the definition of the criminal offence of “hindrance to abortion” to include pro-life websites. The draft will be examined by the Senate tomorrow, and might be finally approved by the end of February. [Read more…]
19 August 2016
Ms Jan Logie MP,
Dear Ms Logie
Proposal to Restrict Right to Free Speech and Assembly
You are reported in the NZ Herald on 16 August as saying that it is worth debating whether New Zealand should introduce a no-protest zone around abortion clinics, similar to those enforced in some Australian states.
Right to Life is concerned at this disturbing proposal which is an attack on our human rights of free speech and assembly. Concerned citizens should also be concerned as an attack on the human rights of those who peacefully assemble outside the Thames Hospital is an attack on the human rights of every citizen. These are fundamental human rights that are upheld in the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which states, that our rights are universal and inalienable. Being universal, they are rights that we all have and being inalienable they are rights that may not be taken from us, nor may we give them up. These rights are also upheld in the New Zealand Bill of Rights.
The following article is a re-post from the conjugality section of the MercatorNet website and is by editor Michael Cook 20th Nov 2015
A transgender activist is trying to silence the Catholic Church in the Australian state of Tasmania on the issues of homosexuality, transgender, and same-sex marriage.
Martine Delaney, who will be a Greens candidate for the next Federal election, has lodged a complaint with the Tasmanian Anti-Discrimination Commission over a booklet produced by Australia’s Catholic bishops, “Don’t Mess with Marriage”. It was distributed in Tasmania by the Archbishop of Hobart, Julian Porteous, to the parents of students in Catholic schools. The two parties have just announced that they wil attend a conciliation conference.
In a lengthy press release Ms Delaney said that the booklet only pays lip service to respect for same-sex-attracted Australians by insisting that they should be treated with “respect, sensitivity, and love”. But she interprets these as weasel words. She says:
“Despite the assertion it’s respectful, this booklet says same-sex partners don’t deserve equal recognition, same-sex-attracted people are not ‘whole’ people and the children of same-sex partners are not ‘healthy’.
“By spreading this message, the Church does immeasurable harm to the wellbeing of same-sex couples and their families across Tasmania and the nation – particularly those who are students, teachers or parents within the Catholic education system.”