Information
Opinion
On Wednesday in Parliament, there was some shocking racist abuse hurled at a Maori ACT member. It was covered by TV3 news (and others), causing a predictable uproar due to the double standard involved. All well and good. But ACT missed the boat on another question and needs be questioned about whose side Mr Seymour and the ACT party are actually on. As nobody else is doing so, it falls to me to undertake the questioning.
Question 3 saw a Socialist list MP I hadn’t heard of asking a seemingly innocuous question to Sepuloni about ACC. Currently fashionable leftist terms were used, such as “birthing parent“. Not only that, but Sepuloni was making ludicrous like “trannies and non binary [whatever that means] people can give birth”. Just watch the video to see what I mean.
The video isn’t open to interpretation, but the claims were allowed to stand without challenge by the ACT party. No attempt was made by David Seymour or his team to jump to their feet and ask the Minister what a “birthing parent” actually is, or how someone other than a female can give birth, and does she think men can get pregnant and give birth?
This was a monstrous “fail” – a 1/10 – by the ACT party, arguably far more important than whether Karen Chhor is a ‘real’ Maori.
When you allow terms like “birthing parent” to go unanswered it can only mean you’re fully on board and some sort of charlatan running a con game on those of us who are freedom warriors.
Birthing parent implies anybody – not just women – can give birth, but they tossed a coin and decided “oh you can give birth this time“. It is utterly ridiculous and needs to be constantly called out for the twaddle it is, and I would have expected the ACT party to do so.
Or did I expect that? Did I really? Am I that naive?
Some questions for Mr Seymour:
1. Can men get pregnant and give birth?
2. Can anybody other than a woman get pregnant and give birth?
3. Does ACT believe parents can toss a coin and decide which of them will give birth?
4. Has this happened between any ACT MP and his wife?
5. Or husband for the ACT womenfolk?
6. Isn’t this just another case of caving to the woke mob? (Who now apparently run the ACT party).
7. And if you try and deny the “premise of my question” will you give BFD readers, say, 10 reasons for each point proving the exact opposite? (didn’t think so! haha!)
Earlier in the year Jacinda Ardern told David Seymour to ignore the protesters outside – or you’re a very naughty boy! and he dutifully sank to his knees, “Yes miss, sorry miss”, to comply.
Is compliance with leftist terminology and thought yet another example of this? Or is there some other explanation for the ACT party’s forelock tugging agreement that men can give birth?
These and other questions need to be asked and, more importantly, answered because this stinks to high heaven and has the whiff of Bridgecorp debentures about it as we enter ‘election year’. You can’t have it both ways, David.
Oh, and one final question – is David Seymour intending to give birth next year? If not, is it because men can’t, or because he’ll be too busy on the campaign trail?
