Is Facebook interfering again?

Can the reaction to the Gossnell film can be regarded as a victory against the very truth of what happens in abortion?  https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/facebook-blocks-gosnell-ads-labels-film-about-serial-killer-abortionist-pol

Gosnell: The Trial of America’s Biggest Serial Killer is currently playing in theatres nationwide, but one of the film’s producers says that Facebook is doing its part to keep Americans from knowing about it. Why?

Was the great Times columnist, Bernard Levin right or wrong when he said,  “the atrophy of moral judgment is the characteristic disease of our times – the inability to see evil and a willingness to condone it”? 

Is there in fact a great badness underpinning the attack on the truth of what happens in abortion? Is our own Prime Minister dodging this, in her wish to “liberalise” the law?

Why do so many American women – and women elsewhere  – they  who know the reality of a dependent little life growing inside them –  so very desperately repudiate  what is actually true? Why do they fight against taking on board the fact that much more is involved than the highly specious mantra of “a woman’s right to her own body”?

It’s not her own body she’s having killed, is it…

So what about the fudging of the fact that the deliberate killing of a boy or girl child instead is what actually happens?

What if it is no accident that we have progressed – or rather – regressed – to the point where people have become embarrassed about actually using their judgment about what is good or  evil – even about the existence of actual forces of good and evil – because it is now unfashionable to do so? 

Has “evil” simply become an embarrassing word?

But what if there is both good and evil in the world and we are constantly faced with choices between these?  And what if these choices carry consequences?

What is the effect on us – and on our society – if we just don’t want to know – if we pretend it doesn’t matter whether or not we actually try to get to the truth of issues – rather than simply justify to ourselves and others the choices that are “more convenient”, more palatable?

But what if to be human carries an obligation that we must evaluate what we’re doing – what we support and what we don’t support?

What if we are expected to think with our heads as well as our hearts – to make moral choices – to even think about the meaning of the word moral?

What if it is time to stop ignoring or glossing over the damage this dreadful practice has done to so many women, victims of a massive con – many in pain for the rest of their lives… let alone the dead babies resulting?

Is part of the problem with Western civilisation today that basically, individuals have been long propagandised against the necessity for moral and spiritual and spiritual choices in our lives?

What if it is actually true that …”Our struggle is not against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the powers of this dark world and against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly realms.” Ephesians. 

Is it time we faced up to being far less conflicted about talking about  the very real possibility of moral and spiritual evil  – and of the act of abortion being very much part of this? 

And shouldn’t we wonder why those who legitimately raise these issues are subjected to such vilification and abuse?

 © Amy Brooke

 

 

 

Does Susan Devoy favour censorship by prosecution?

Does Susan Devoy favour censorship by prosecution? Apparently so – with her suggestion of involving the police to charge those she fancies have committed “hate speech”.

While in every society  there are undoubtedly individuals whose form of expression is extreme, unfair, or thoroughly objectionable, there is very good reason why we have not in the past moved towards a more totalitarian society –  by removing the right to free speech.

What our Race Relations Conciliator does not seem able to take on board is the fact that  New Zealand can no longer claim to be a free society if she achieves her apparent wish – to have individuals charged with the crime of using speech she and others may find offensive.

This is a horrifically dangerous move for any government to embark upon – a new form of censorship which would have been completely unthinkable to our parents and grandparents. Only in times of war,  when loose tongues could cost lives, has any Western society risked the damage done to one of the most important of human freedoms – people’s very basic rights to speak the truth as they see it.

But there is no doubt now that individuals are under threat today, even vilified, or virulently attacked for speaking the truth as they see this – for pointing out the growing dangers threatening our society.  The form of Muslim extremism, for example, sweeping across Europe, tolerates no opposition, the least form of which is name-calling and disparaging its opponents – those with the courage still to try to warn about what is actually happening to this now troubled continent.

 It has always been recognised that whether individual opinions are considered right or wrong – an open society is the only one compatible with Western freedoms – and the underpinning of democracy. Open debate and free comment are the best remedies to counter extremism. And we should be questioning why, if Devoy has any real knowledge of what happened to those societies in the 20th century (and today) in which the climate of intimidation allowed dictatorships to flourish, she has not taken the lessons on board.

It’s happening again. From one of the best informed website journals, The Gatestone Institute, comes this reminder of what happens when the State begins to censor speech. It contains a reminder by Spiked Online editor, Brendan O’Neill, that “politically correct speech does not need protecting. The United States first Amendment exists precisely to protect the minority from the majority – and to protect unpopular opinions from those who would silence them.”  https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/12008/france-le-pen-free-speech#.WrNlggLKBas.gmail

There seems little doubt that Susan Devoy, with her aim of having suppressed speech or opinions which she finds unpalatable, thinks these should be silenced.

 This is not only an aim incompatible with democratic freedoms – (regardless of the creeping activism we have seen for some time, in relation to even our court decisions). It flies in the face of that most important reminder from The United Nations Declaration of Human Rights.

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.”

We have already in this country seen the rise of bullying and name-calling whereby radical activism uses the tactics of badmouthing thoughtful critics by targeting them as racist, or homophobic, for example. As it works by silencing all too many worried about the repercussions ensuing from standing up for their beliefs, we have started on the first step of a very slippery slope.

Ms Devoy arguably needs to think much more deeply of the consequences of her wish to involve the police to target individuals whose utterances she disapproves of. This will undoubtedly take us even further down the road of a virtual Police State that some maintain, with reason, we are already embarked upon.

©  Amy Brooke, Convener. See my book “100 Days – Claiming Back New Zealand …what has gone wrong, and how we can control our politicians.” Available through www.amybrooke.co.nz, Kindle, or HATM Publishers.