By TeKāhu

The National party has often touted their ‘broad church’ party, meaning that different opinions are acceptable. This is now in disarray as current leader, Christopher Luxon, has effectively ordered Tamaki MP Simon O’Connor to cease engaging in a difference of opinion.

The post from Luxon came yesterday:

In direct response to this, Bob McCoskrie, director of Family First responded with:

National MP Simon O’ Connor got slammed for being pro-life and for celebrating the rights of the unborn child yesterday.

Slammed by a couple of nasty activists in extremely offensive fashion.

Does the leader Christopher Luxon call out the offensive targeting of his MP.

Nope.

Loyalty means nothing in the Nats.

Free speech and conscience also mean nothing.

Luxon instructs him to pull the post down!!

Just sit and think about that for a minute – and you’ll realise how left wing our Parliament has become, and how much the right kowtow to the radical left.

We never will “

Bob McCoskrie included Far Left blogger’s David Farrier’s response.

The idea that the National party allows a range of diverse opinion is now in serious doubt as Mr Luxon suppresses his MP’s allowance to share diverse opinions.

What becomes even more concerning is whether the “acceptable opinion” is based on Mr O’Connor’s appearance and faith.

If a Muslim MP took a pro-life position, would that make the opinion more acceptable?

What if a woman took a pro-life position? Would it suddenly become unacceptable for Mr Luxon to suppress her pro-life opinion because she is female?

If mainstream media were less pro-abortion, would Mr O’Connor be allowed to give an opinion?

Identity politics, once the beacon of the Progressive Left, appears to now dictate National Party ideology. This may also be due to the ongoing schism within the party, regarding whether National is no longer a conservative party but now a party of liberals and libertarians. Nicola Willis, a very liberal politician who supported New Zealand’s radical abortion reforms that allow for termination up to and during birth is seen as the liberal faction’s spokesperson. Mr Luxon is seen as a celebrity-style politician, similar to John Key and Jacinda Ardern, and with the previous optics of a conservative.

As it stands, National now appear to be a Progressive-based party, pro-abortion in look if not in voting record. In attempting to remove itself from the current situation, National looks to be suppressing diversity of thought and therefore, simply appears to be a mere colour change with better economic policy than the current regime.

Other New Zealand politicians across the spectrum were allowed to offer their opinions on the Roe v Wade overturn, including Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern:

Luxon has stated that:

“It’s important to me that women in New Zealand can have certainty that if I am elected Prime Minister these issues will not be put back on the table for further debate.”

This statement utterly excludes women who hold life to be innately valuable, and battle to protect the lives of the unborn. Does the support for abortion by Labour, Greens, ACT and mainstream media mean that pro-life women are to be silenced with no representation? By action, it appears so.

And what happens to the religious, conservative and other pro-life voters?

National has now decided to abandon what is a vital topic for many: That life has inherent value and should be protected.

The political questions now at the forefront for many voters are:

“What is the difference between Labour and National beyond a colour change and economic policy? What makes them different from ACT as libertarians?”

“Where do the hundreds of thousands of National voters sit, with an ACT-ish, Labour-ish liberal/libertarian party that was once the conservative party of New Zealand?”

The abortion debate is about killing humans, and whether it is ok if they are unborn. Even though it was a conscience vote, it is clear that MPs were whipped into line. Comments by Nanaia Mahuta since the decision was revealed have also raised the question of how genuine their original vote was, given she now supports Roe vs Wade while voting against New Zealand’s abortion bill.

 Perhaps now that there has been a passage of time and much greater discussion of the topic, including the detail contained in the abortion legislation, it is appropriate for a carefully worded referendum on the issue to settle it for New Zealanders. Properly.

As for Simon O’Connor, we end with a message from a NZ pro-life organisation mostly populated and led by, Progressives-forbid, women.

| We are with you Simon!

Waiho rā kia tū takitahi ana ngā whetū o te rangi

(‘Let it be one alone that stands among the other stars in the sky’)