Why does Jacinda Arden not offer sanctuary to Asia Bibi? We need an answer.

Why does Jacinda Arden not offer sanctuary to Asia Bibi? We need an answer.

https://www.heraldsun.com.au/blogs/andrew-bolt/we-cant-we-save-asia-bibi/news-story/0125acb2f055606a4a72d006d29e4c59

Our Prime Minister likes to present a compassionate and caring call for refugees, even when it come to giving the impression she knows better how to deal with Australia’s problems than does our big neighbour.  This is not a good look for her – and it would not be totally unfair to accuse her of a certain arrogance in taking this confrontational stand.

Moreover, although she denies this is the case, Miss Ardern’s activism in this area reportedly has brought New Zealand into focus as a very possible newer target for people smugglers.

Australian intelligence officials say monitored communications over the past few months have put New Zealand into focus as one of the main possible destinations for asylum seekers – see  The Australian reports. https://www.newshub.co.nz/home/politics/2018/01/jacinda-ardern-s-caused-people-smuggling-spike-aussie-intelligence.html

Intelligence sources have blamed this on her offer, without any consultation with New Zealanders, to resettle refugees from Australia’s offshore detention centres.

https://www.newshub.co.nz/home/politics/2018/09/jacinda-ardern-back-on-collision-course-over-refugee-numbers.html

Although Ardern keeps stirring the pot on this issue of opening our doors to more refugees, many New Zealanders would like to see better action on the problems this country already faces in relation to the acute housing shortage affecting so many – and in dealing with the problems of our own homeless people.

Moreover, it is all very well to say that women and children be given preference – and this may well be a more desirable option  for countries accepting young single males as refugees.  However, if a husband and father is part of a mother and children relationship, then any proposal to remove children from a caring, protective father and spouse obviously needs to be rethought.

The refugees that by implication Miss Ardern implicitly accuses the Australian government of mismanaging already have a place to be.

Why then isn’t our Prime Minister far more concerned about some of those individuals persecuted in their own countries, and in many cases facing the death penalty, not for having committed any crime, but particularly because they are Christians now being targeted worldwide by fundamental Islamic activists and terrorists – and by the China’s Communist government turning on its own people?

Why, for example,  do we have Jacinda Ardern’s extraordinary silence in relation to the very obviously deserving,  shockingly imprisoned and now greatly endangered Christian woman, Asia Bibi, mother of two little girls and supported by a devoted husband?

Although temporally freed from prison in Pakistan, she, her family and relatives are now in grave danger, and desperately need help.

I doubt if there is one New Zealander who would object to our country offering sanctuary to this brave, long persecuted Christian woman.

So why aren’t the media asking Jacinda why we are not extending this much needed offer to someone so obviously deserving?

 Why not, Jacinda?

© Amy Brooke _ Convener “The 100 Days-Claiming Back New Zealand” – http://www.100days.co.nz

 

Amy Brooke

Visit my homepage and children’s literature website: www.amybrooke.co.nz

www.100days.co.nz

www.summersounds.co.nz

http://brookeonline.livejournal.com

 

Jacinda Ardern’s priorities aren’t most New Zealanders.

Men count, too, Jacinda.  As do our littlest people.

There are two main areas in which Jacinda Arden’s shortfalls in thinking are potentially, when they’re not already, damaging to the country. One is with regard to her party’s socio-economic agenda, very much contributing to the fact that among the 35 countries in the OECD we have fallen to second worst, with business confidence understandably low. Her new tag of Taxinda Ardern is not unearned.  The other is her unsubtle push to enable even more babies to be killed before birth – an obvious consequence –  if what many New Zealanders rightly regard as a horrific procedure is removed from the Crimes Act.

In recent years, even hardened pro-abortion doctors have walked away from what they eventually found an accumulatively sickening procedure –See https://www.facebook.com/liveaction/videos/abortionist-who-performed-over-1200-abortions-becomes-pro-life/10155873761783728

Yet the attack continues against pro-life doctors for following their consequences.  https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/doctor-wins-landmark-pro-life-conscience-rights-case-in-norway

The unbalanced representation of the Abortion Supervisory Committee is highly questionable. That there are apparently no very much-needed conservative thinkers  there, among these government appointees, has doubtless contributed to our sad statistics of over 13,000 unborn children put to death last year. Shockingly, there are no males on the panel, although a man is as much involved in the creation of a new life as is a woman. Moreover, this all-women committee, especially a committee of liberally-inclined women, is more than unbalanced: Who is there on it to represent the rights of a child already conceived? And when a growing infant is now basically regarded as disposable by the usual extremist groups (always a stroppy minority, to whose radicalised demands our politicians so typically capitulate) what is disregarded are the consequences for a society which treats the unborn child so cavalierly as killing it – and disregards the emotional pain and guilt so many women, given no other real help or choices, will feel for the rest of their lives.

For all Ms Ardern’s claim that she simply wants abortion removed from the Crimes Act, where it resides for very good reason, abortion can never be a simple health issue, so she should stop fudging this fact. The law is now farcical when by far the majority of women wanting an abortion can simply advance a mental health issue, and end up in the obliging hands of those with no wish to disbelieve them. We’re all well aware that the widely-used excuse of the mental health of the mother provides a virtual state of abortion on demand. Moreover, no real help by any government funded agency is offered to desperate women who fundamentally do not want to take this step. Why not?  The government needs to be challenged on the fact that all it offers is death, death after one-sided “counselling”?

What very real help does come is from the voluntary, non-government funded pro-life organisations that work indefatigably to help both worried women and the babies that many of them long to keep. They deserve all our tangible support.

At least let’s have more intellectual honesty from those agitating for abortion to be removed from the Crimes Act, well knowing that the deliberate killing of an unborn child, already someone’s son or daughter, is involved. But then pro-abortionists have always been very evasive when dodging any question of moral or ethical liability.  We all know that the perennially pushed propaganda claiming  – “a woman’s right” – deliberately dodges the fact that the rights of another human being are now also very much at stake  – perhaps even that of another female child on her  own way now to eventual womanhood, with her own right to life.

And of course the rights of the father are also involved. Ignoring this has seen some fathers desperately asking for a son or daughter to be allowed to survive, broken-hearted that they may never see, nor get to hold their own child. So why is abortion wrongly represented as “a woman’s right“alone?  No woman conceives a child alone. And no-one (yet) advocates  “ a woman’s right “to kill her child after birth. So why pre-birth?

We are all very well acquainted with the untruths abortionists have always felt necessary to deal in. At what stage do they become lies? Certainly, using euphemisms to gloss over the actual facts  of what  happens to a tiny  child  both if it is dismembered to be removed  – or if it is born alive and then disposed of – should have alerted any Western society to  the intrinsic badness of this act.

We are all aware that initially there was a total denial of the reality of a human being now on its way after conception until science challenged this. I recall the outrage which greeted a very brave Dunedin MP  years ago when, an effort to illustrate to his colleagues the reality of the unborn child, he held  up a tiny, already perfectly formed unborn baby of about three months,  completely recognisable as such, in a test tube. The howls of outrage that ensued were a sobering reminder of the venom with which, even today, so many pro-abortionists attack those arguing for protection for these most vulnerable of all human beings. No doubt Brian MacDonnell’s proof that this unborn child was demonstrably not “ just a mass of red cells”- the most fashionably invoked phrase at the time, contributed to the outrage expressed. The truth of an issue is never palatable to those profiting from this to be withheld.

I was reminded of this recently when one of New Zealand’s practising abortionists had the gall to claim that the personhood of the unborn child is not recognised until birth. This nonsense is just playing with words. Its intrinsic untruth is shown by the fact that when a premature baby is born not at approximately the normal birth time, of 40 weeks – but even as early as around 23 – 24 weeks – the fact that this is a living child, a son  or daughter, is never disputed!  Extraordinary efforts  by dedicated staff  are then made  to save this baby  – while another  late term abortion may be performed on a child the same age  in a theatre next door  – a situation which one doctor has described as utterly barbaric.

So what is driving Ardern’s agenda – out of step as she is  with the tide of revulsion now growing overseas as the reality of the effect of an abortion on the living, intrauterine child has now bought been brought home to so many – not only through ultrasound scans? That abortion,  in the eyes of many,  is the act of murdering the most vulnerable human being of all is beyond dispute.  The damage this killing has done not only to individuals …to desperate now-mothers persuaded that this is a mere surgical procedure, but are later haunted with regret for the rest of their lives, is swept under the carpet.  It has extended consequences for all those involved in this act of deliberate killing. And as people have become  better informed with regard to  Family Planning’s shocking  practices, including the considerable money made out of selling of the results of abortions  –  the dismembered parts of an unborn child –  more horrific revelations have come to light. The facts of  Dr Gosnell’s practice has shocked the conscience of America.  They are now publicised in a film, Gosnell: The Trial of America’s Biggest Serial Killer, showing in theatres which pro-abortions are trying to have closed down. See: https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/gosnell-film-convinces-abortion-agnostic-to-recognize-murder-of-the

Given the compliance of the Law Commission, with its also highly contestable recommendation that  abortion should be removed from the Crimes Act, it is time for the all too silent majority – who too often leave an important fight to others – to now stand up to be counted. It has never been easier to ring Parliament (04 817 9999) to be asked to be passed through to the office of a party leader, your electorate MP -or any other of our supposed representatives. Nothing is simpler than to then ask for your  strong objections to leaving the unborn child even more defenceless than it is to be noted – and acted upon.

Alternatively, we can do nothing. But then we will ultimately have to face the consequences of this, too.

For next time.  She promised that taxes would not be raised… And does she really believe, after all these failed precedents that socialism can be taken seriously as a workable philosophy? 

© Amy Brooke.  Read my “The 100 Days – Claiming back New Zealand…what has gone wrong and how we can control our politicians. “Available through my BOOK Page at www.amybrooke.co.nz, or at Amazon’s Kindle.

 

 

 

On Armistice Day

On Armistice Day –  remembering those for whom it  came too late – and their families, for whom life was never the same…

 

Night Flight

 

Lord, I’m not yet twenty,

My brother only twenty-three;

if one of us must die tonight

let it not be he!

Or me…

 

Yet there the crescent moon

rising gold above the land

cradles the ghost of another;

one reborn, one dying

in the arms of a brother,

a sign of things to be..?

 

He led me by the hand

once when lost and small. I understand

the call for sons, while grieving mothers

listen to our planes climb high,

and fathers pace – and loving others;

my girl who kissed me, smiling still.

I promised to come back. Some day I will.

 

But not tonight. The woods below

are where my pup and I grew up. We owe

that old dog, whining in his sleep

our childhood days. Three pairs of eyes

on silver moving in the stream.

What does he dream?

Do owls still keep

the twilight watch below?

I see our fields are white with snow.

But dark shadows now streak by…

 

Keep them both safe, Lord;

let them go free.

If one must go, take me.

 

***                   Amy Brooke