Act is the Pro-Abortion Party that Punishes Pro-Life Free Speech

Five days ago, something truly bizarre happened in the world of New Zealand politics. David Seymour announced that the Act party would be targeting the electorate of Tāmaki - the National stronghold currently represented by MP Simon O’Connor.

People on all sides of the political aisle were left scratching their heads in disbelief as to why a political party supposedly committed to changing the government at the next election would be trying to oust a fellow opposition MP.

It didn’t take long for the answer to present itself, when Seymour made it clear to the media that O’Connor’s pro-life views on abortion and euthanasia were the reasons he was being targeted for ousting by the Act party.

It is highly unlikely that Act can win the Tāmaki seat, but that either doesn’t seem to have registered with Seymour, or he is so obsessed with punishing O’Connor for his pro-life views that he’s willing to play egomaniacal games targeting already safe opposition seats.

The message from Seymour couldn’t be any clearer; the Act party is the pro-abortion party where pro-life free speech is not tolerated and must be punished with nothing less than removal from office.

As others have pointed out, if David Seymour is really as committed to free speech as he claims to be, then why would he be targeting a fellow opposition MP for holding views he disagrees with?

The sad truth is that Seymour has already proven himself something of a grifter when it comes to free speech. He likes to talk a good game, but he is also more than happy to vote for anti-free speech legislation like the so-called ‘Safe Areas’ Act.

That piece of legislation allows 300m plus diameter anti-free speech zones to be established around New Zealand abortion facilities, in which it is a punishable criminal offence to engage in acts of free speech about abortion, even silent expression.

This exact same type of legislation recently resulted in the arrest of a UK woman for silently praying in her head, while alone, with zero visible or verbal messaging, near an abortion facility.

Like we’ve been trying to warn for some time now, David Seymour isn’t a principled defender of free speech, he’s simply using the fundamentally important issue of free speech as a political marketing tool to keep himself in the spotlight.

How else can you explain the fact that he voted for legislation which will create censorship zones in public spaces where even silence can be considered a criminal offence?

No principled defender of freedom of expression could ever legitimately vote for such a law - only someone who wants free speech for himself, but not for those he disagrees with.

Which explains exactly why he is targeting Simon O’Connor for his pro-life beliefs.

Just think about the practical reality of what Seymour is doing here.

Instead of targeting a marginal Government held seat, in order to try and secure a desperately needed new electorate for the opposition, he is instead trying to unseat an ally MP from a safe opposition electorate to satisfy a petty vendetta against views that he considers verboten.

O’Connor has also been one of the staunchest defenders of free speech in the current Parliament, yet this seems to mean absolutely nothing to a supposed champion of free speech. I guess it’s only the right kind of speech that prevents you from being punished by Seymour?

This has to raise serous questions for any commonsense voter about how committed the Act party really is to free speech and a change of Government, or whether Seymour is actually more obsessed with establishing some sort of authoritarian, cross-party, pro-abortion anti-free speech regime for NZ.

What makes this all the more troubling is the fact that, while it is highly unlikely that Act can win the Tāmaki electorate, they could still end up savaging the opposition vote in such a way that they allow the Labour candidate to sneak through the middle and win the electorate.

Why would any political party truly committed to Governmental change be acting this way?

Because, it turns out, they are actually more committed to punishing a pro-life MP for daring to hold views they disdain.

The message to potential voters couldn’t be any clearer: a vote for Act is a vote for a pro-abortion party which wants to punish pro-life views.

Kate Cormack