For daring to stand up for the unborn, a Queensland man has been arrested – again. One of the most committed pro-lifers in Australia, Graham Preston, was again behind bars, awaiting his fate. He has spent plenty of time in jail already, having been arrested multiple times for seeking to defend the unborn.
His latest arrest occurred in Hobart where the state’s new abortion laws were put to a test. As one news report says, “A Brisbane man has become the first person charged under a new Tasmanian law which bans protests close to abortion clinics.
“The lone protestor, Graham Preston, was arrested after holding two placards and handing out leaflets while standing outside an abortion clinic in central Hobart. The 58-year-old says he has been arrested for similar action in Brisbane and came to Hobart to promote the right-to-life message.
“Preston said he was aware of the new Tasmanian law which prohibits such protests within 150 metres of an abortion clinic. ‘It would seem to me to be incredible if somebody could get arrested for promoting the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Australia is a signatory to it,’ he said. Police charged Preston under the Reproductive Health Act. He was released on bail and will appear in court at a later date.”
The draconian Tasmanian abortion bill, along with the 2008 Victorian bill, are amongst the most liberal in the world in terms of allowing open slather on baby killing, but amongst the more stringent in terms of preventing pro-lifers from being allowed to raise their voices.
The Tassie law was amended somewhat from its original version when it was first introduced, but it is still an incredible piece of legislation in the way it sides with baby killers while deterring by force of law peaceful protestors. Aspects of the new law which went through late last year are now being fully tested by Preston.
He is no stranger to paying the price for seeking to rescue the innocent from slaughter. He has spent many long months behind bars, away from friends and family, all because he is committed to rescuing babies from their gruesome fate. Because of his dedication and zeal, I have penned a number of pieces about him over the years:
Graham Preston released a press statement today, explaining his actions:
Man arrested in Hobart while promoting the Universal Declaration of Human Rights This morning Graham Preston was arrested in Hobart at the corner of Victoria and Macquarie Streets. At the time of his arrest he was holding a placard which, on one side, read, “Every one has the right to life, Article 3, Universal Declaration of Human Rights,” and on the other side read, “Every child has the right to life, Article 6, Convention on the Rights of the Child.” He was also holding an enlarged photograph of an 8-week-old preborn baby. He was standing at the corner of Victoria and Macquarie Streets in the city. He has been charged with failure to comply with a direction of a police officer, granted bail and will appear in the Magistrates Court on Friday March 7. Mr Preston’s wife, Liz Preston asked, “What is the problem with promoting these two UN documents on the streets of Tasmania? After all, Australia is a signatory to both documents. “Who would say that they don’t support human rights? So what is wrong with quoting these human rights documents in any public place? How could this be illegal? “These quotes simply state that every one/every child has the right to life. “Moreover, the Convention on the Rights of the Child states that the child needs legal protection before birth. It also defines ‘child’ in Article 1 as meaning ‘every human being below the age of eighteen years.’ “Are the authorities in Tasmania going to try and claim that the preborn child is not a human being? “This is outrageous that my husband has been arrested for this. The charge should be dropped at once. “Where do those running for political office in the current elections stand on this?” Does the Premier, Lara Giddings, along with the Labor Party support these documents? Does the Leader of the Opposition, Will Hodgman, along with the Liberal Party? Does the Palmer United Party? Do the Greens? Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights states: 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 need to do several things here. Obviously we need to pray for Graham and his family. We also need to support him in public, by any means available (letters to the editor, talk-back radio, petitions, letters to MPs, etc). And we need to continue to work against unjust and evil laws which decriminalise baby killing while criminalising peaceful protest.
25 Replies to “Stand Up For Babies? You Will Be Arrested”
One is reminded of the haunting words of Martin Niemoeller:
…
Then they came for me–and there was no one left to speak for me.
Pray that his case is a test case and is thrown out and any charges dismissed, thereby making this law unworkable.
Dear Bill, Mr. Preston is showing the people what Tasmanian Law thinks of human rights. I wish him and his family all the best.
Regards, Franklin
I was aware that Graham would be there holding his protest, and he knew that it was and is my usual practice to say a Rosary outside that ‘Specialist Medical Centre’ every Tuesday at around 2pm. It is the only time I am in town.
I wrote some time ago to every politician in Tasmania telling them that I would. I have even been observed there by Nick McKim who took no notice despite being party to getting that awful, anti-baby, anti-Free Speech legislation through.
I arrived there a little early at 1,15 so that I might talk with Graham and stand with him. But it was all over by then and Graham had been arrested.
I shall be there again, as usual, next week.
It is my practice to quietly pray for the souls of the murdered babies, their misguided and errant mothers, the ‘doctor’ who flies in and flies out each week and the nurses who assist him. I pray for the people of Tasmania who go about their business with blind eyes.
I am pleased to note that Graham Preston is utilising the United Nations Declaration of Human Rights. Although it does not give a guarantee of powers over which the Australian courts must bend to, it does mean that any persecution Preston – or anyone else – receives for peaceful, non-invasive, protest is a problem for which the Australian nation may have to answer to internationally.
Most judges are aware of a need to consider the greater good, where a judgement is not predicated strictly by the law. Only a stupid judge, if given room to manoeuvre, would decide that the greater good is served by going against international treaties signed by his government.
It should be obvious by now that a white Christian Male has no rights any more. That is the way the law sees us.
40 days of prayer for life has begun today. We pray that people working in abortion clinics will come to know the horrible thing that they are doing and walk off the job like some have already done. Praise the Lord for brave men like Graham.
Many blessings
Ursula Bennett
Graham Preston is a hero. May he be vindicated like Daniel or Peter. May his protest send shock waves through our community and wake us up!
Ian:
Take it as a compliment. Protected species are the most fragile, and act increasingly dependent the further you go up the protection hierarchy, until you reach the Homos and Muslims who tell lies for a living.
It is logical that Christians are not pampered. We are in charge of the earth – God says so.
We must be doing something right then.
I am a taxi driver in Hobart. A few days ago, I was driving along Macquarie Street at around 8.30 am from memory, and I saw this brave man standing alone on a corner holding his two signs for all to read and think upon. This was a day or so after his arrest near the abortion clinic. He is a brave man. Increasingly, Christians will have to be prepared to stand up and be counted, boldly standing for God’s righteous standards, and standing against the increasing demonstration of evil in society.
Ok, so it seems in Tasmania you can, under Section 8 of the “Tasmanian Reproductive Health Act 2013” kill a yet to be born child and it will not be regarded as a criminal offense but if you express any opposition to the killing of a child and you are within 150 meters of the place that performed the murder you will, like Mr Preston be arrested and charged with a criminal offense. Hitler would be proud of his legacy.
In Tasmania one would be charged, tried and imprisoned for causing pain and suffering to an unborn dog (rightly so) and the person bringing this to the attention of authorities would be thanked. I live in Tassie and I’m starting to believe what they say about us on the mainland that we really do need to increase our gene pool. It appears that our legislator’s ability to think straight has been affected by inbreeding. Come to think of it, maybe the termination legislation is really about making sure the population remains low and those that think differently are imprisoned. It took a Queenslander to come over and show us in Tassie the way. Blessings to Mr Preston and his family for their faith and courage
I am happy if people join me on Tuesdays at around 2pm to quietly pray. It would be a real wake-up call to Tasmanians if a large, silent crowd gathered and simply stood there seeking God’s Grace.
The Reproductive Health Act bans “protest[s] in relation to terminations” (Part 2, clause 9(1)). As the signs do not say “Stop abortion” or “Abortion is wrong”, where is the protest?
Moreover, if abortion is legal, the public display of factual information about what it involves, cannot be a crime.
Let’s hope this publicity reaches all those working in the abortion clinics and they do an “Abby Johnson” – she was the director of an abortion clinic who turned pro-life advocate after a series of ‘awakenings’ to what was actually going on in the clinic!
Does anyone know if Graham needs any financial assistance – has he been fined to date?
Graham is resting over the weekend and Monday but will be standing in the City on Tuesday onward until the election.
I will stand with him on Tuesday near Franklin Square.
Anyone is welcome to stand and support him if you are in Hobart.
Contained within the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights itself is the trapdoor that effectively flushes all of its stated universal “rights” away.
Remember, when doing statutory construction, be sure to read the entire statute.
Article 29 reads,
(1) Everyone has duties to the community in which alone the free and full development of his personality is possible.
(2) In the exercise of his rights and freedoms, everyone shall be subject only to such limitations as are determined by law solely for the purpose of securing due recognition and respect for the rights and freedoms of others and of meeting the just requirements of morality, public order and the general welfare in a democratic society.
Do you see the “by law” trick? Rights are first granted, but then they’re made subject to limitations as set forth “by law.” In other words, it’s all a charade. In a UN world, which bears great similarity to an Islamic world, government comes first and foremost, with the people “allowed” to exist but only to serve the state.
Article 29 is a playground for any totalitarian government. In the UN/USSR/EU* approach to government then, government “gives,” but government can take away, and still be within compliance with the UDHR by simply referring to and relying upon Article 29. If a “right’ can be taken away, then no right ever existed. No counterpart of Article 29 exists in the US Constitution.
That “by law” limitation trick is found throughout EU documents.
Apparently Graham was arrested, not under the law banning abortion protests, but for not following a police instruction to move on – likely following a tip off by the ABC. See here: http://www.projectesther.org/graham-prestons-diary/
Thanks for pointing that out.
That means the UN kind of makes “human rights” a bit of a joke.
Very sad.
Jeremy Hopwood
A.C.T
@J Hopwood, and interested others,
That “by law” trick is found in all of these phony “international” documents. Let me give you another one, the UN’s Convention on the Rights of the Child.
As usual, you find all the high-minded sounding language about freedom of thought, religion, movement, and so forth, much like those found in the 1948 Declaration. And like the 1948 document, the Convention on the Rights of the Child contains the “by law” trick. For example (you can do an internet search to get the full text of the Convention),
Article 10,
The right to leave any country shall be subject only to such restrictions as are prescribed by law and which are necessary to protect the national security, public order (ordre public), public health or morals or the rights and freedoms of others and are consistent with the other rights recognized in the present Convention. [Like any Muslim country is going to let any child and his/her parents leave; in Islam, it’s a lot like the Eagles’ Hotel California: you can check out any time you like, but you can never leave]
Article 13,
1. The child shall have the right to freedom of expression; this right shall include freedom to seek, receive and impart information and ideas of all kinds, regardless of frontiers, either orally, in writing or in print, in the form of art, or through any other media of the child’s choice.
2. The exercise of this right may be subject to certain restrictions, but these shall only be such as are provided by law and are necessary:
(a) For respect of the rights or reputations of others; or
(b) For the protection of national security or of public order (ordre public), or of public health or morals.
Article 14,
1. States Parties shall respect the right of the child to freedom of thought, conscience and religion.
2. States Parties shall respect the rights and duties of the parents and, when applicable, legal guardians, to provide direction to the child in the exercise of his or her right in a manner consistent with the evolving capacities of the child.
3. Freedom to manifest one’s religion or beliefs may be subject only to such limitations as are prescribed by law and are necessary to protect public safety, order, health or morals, or the fundamental rights and freedoms of others.
*****
No Western country should ever be a member of the UN. That wise advice applied in the 1940s when the UN was getting off the ground. It’s even more significant today with the UN controlled by member states that vote in lockstep such as all Muslim countries. While the USA pays some 25% of the UN’s outrageous costs, it still gets only 1 vote.
Please, spread the word on the “by law” trick. No right exists if in the document that “grants” it, that right can be removed “by law,” and all of it is perfectly in compliance with the document!
Remember, Egypt has both signed and ratified the Convention. But because Egypt has made Christians second-class citizens (actually, subjects) “by law,” Egypt is in full compliance with the Convention on the Rights of the Child..
Thank you very much Frank Scarn,
this is very helpful to know!
I will try and spread the word.
Blessings,
Jeremy Hopwood
A.C.T
Hi Frank,
Your’re quite right.
But you missed out section (3) of article 29 which is even more broad and damning:
(3) These rights and freedoms may in no case be exercised contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations.
It’s a bit like our Victorian charter of human rights which states:
9 Right to life
Every person has the right to life and has the right not to be arbitrarily deprived of life.
10 Protection from torture and cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment
A person must not be—
(a) subjected to torture; or
(b) treated or punished in a cruel, inhuman or degrading way
17 Protection of families and children
Every child has the right, without discrimination, to such protection as is in his or her best interests and is needed by him or her by reason of being a child.
But then takes this all away by section 48 which declares:
Nothing in this Charter affects any law applicable to abortion or child destruction.
Sad, but true.
Mansel Rogerson
wow, Mansel Rogerson.
Thank you for bringing this to your attention!
That is so contradictory!
His latest arrest occurred in Hobart where the state’s new abortion laws were put to a test. As one news report says, “A Brisbane man has become the first person charged under a new Tasmanian law which bans protests close to abortion clinics.
One is reminded of the haunting words of Martin Niemoeller:
…
Then they came for me–and there was no one left to speak for me.
Pray that his case is a test case and is thrown out and any charges dismissed, thereby making this law unworkable.
Dear Bill, Mr. Preston is showing the people what Tasmanian Law thinks of human rights. I wish him and his family all the best.
Regards, Franklin
I was aware that Graham would be there holding his protest, and he knew that it was and is my usual practice to say a Rosary outside that ‘Specialist Medical Centre’ every Tuesday at around 2pm. It is the only time I am in town.
I wrote some time ago to every politician in Tasmania telling them that I would. I have even been observed there by Nick McKim who took no notice despite being party to getting that awful, anti-baby, anti-Free Speech legislation through.
I arrived there a little early at 1,15 so that I might talk with Graham and stand with him. But it was all over by then and Graham had been arrested.
I shall be there again, as usual, next week.
It is my practice to quietly pray for the souls of the murdered babies, their misguided and errant mothers, the ‘doctor’ who flies in and flies out each week and the nurses who assist him. I pray for the people of Tasmania who go about their business with blind eyes.
I am pleased to note that Graham Preston is utilising the United Nations Declaration of Human Rights. Although it does not give a guarantee of powers over which the Australian courts must bend to, it does mean that any persecution Preston – or anyone else – receives for peaceful, non-invasive, protest is a problem for which the Australian nation may have to answer to internationally.
Most judges are aware of a need to consider the greater good, where a judgement is not predicated strictly by the law. Only a stupid judge, if given room to manoeuvre, would decide that the greater good is served by going against international treaties signed by his government.
It should be obvious by now that a white Christian Male has no rights any more. That is the way the law sees us.
40 days of prayer for life has begun today. We pray that people working in abortion clinics will come to know the horrible thing that they are doing and walk off the job like some have already done. Praise the Lord for brave men like Graham.
Many blessings
Ursula Bennett
Graham Preston is a hero. May he be vindicated like Daniel or Peter. May his protest send shock waves through our community and wake us up!
Ian:
Take it as a compliment. Protected species are the most fragile, and act increasingly dependent the further you go up the protection hierarchy, until you reach the Homos and Muslims who tell lies for a living.
It is logical that Christians are not pampered. We are in charge of the earth – God says so.
We must be doing something right then.
I am a taxi driver in Hobart. A few days ago, I was driving along Macquarie Street at around 8.30 am from memory, and I saw this brave man standing alone on a corner holding his two signs for all to read and think upon. This was a day or so after his arrest near the abortion clinic. He is a brave man. Increasingly, Christians will have to be prepared to stand up and be counted, boldly standing for God’s righteous standards, and standing against the increasing demonstration of evil in society.
Ok, so it seems in Tasmania you can, under Section 8 of the “Tasmanian Reproductive Health Act 2013” kill a yet to be born child and it will not be regarded as a criminal offense but if you express any opposition to the killing of a child and you are within 150 meters of the place that performed the murder you will, like Mr Preston be arrested and charged with a criminal offense. Hitler would be proud of his legacy.
In Tasmania one would be charged, tried and imprisoned for causing pain and suffering to an unborn dog (rightly so) and the person bringing this to the attention of authorities would be thanked. I live in Tassie and I’m starting to believe what they say about us on the mainland that we really do need to increase our gene pool. It appears that our legislator’s ability to think straight has been affected by inbreeding. Come to think of it, maybe the termination legislation is really about making sure the population remains low and those that think differently are imprisoned. It took a Queenslander to come over and show us in Tassie the way. Blessings to Mr Preston and his family for their faith and courage
Has anyone contacted Jacqui Petrusma, Shadow Minister for Human Services?
http://www.jacquiepetrusma.com.au/
I am happy if people join me on Tuesdays at around 2pm to quietly pray. It would be a real wake-up call to Tasmanians if a large, silent crowd gathered and simply stood there seeking God’s Grace.
The Reproductive Health Act bans “protest[s] in relation to terminations” (Part 2, clause 9(1)). As the signs do not say “Stop abortion” or “Abortion is wrong”, where is the protest?
Moreover, if abortion is legal, the public display of factual information about what it involves, cannot be a crime.
Let’s hope this publicity reaches all those working in the abortion clinics and they do an “Abby Johnson” – she was the director of an abortion clinic who turned pro-life advocate after a series of ‘awakenings’ to what was actually going on in the clinic!
Does anyone know if Graham needs any financial assistance – has he been fined to date?
Graham is resting over the weekend and Monday but will be standing in the City on Tuesday onward until the election.
I will stand with him on Tuesday near Franklin Square.
http://parzivalshorse.blogspot.com.au/2014/03/some-are-more-equal-than-others.html
Anyone is welcome to stand and support him if you are in Hobart.
Contained within the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights itself is the trapdoor that effectively flushes all of its stated universal “rights” away.
Remember, when doing statutory construction, be sure to read the entire statute.
Article 29 reads,
(1) Everyone has duties to the community in which alone the free and full development of his personality is possible.
(2) In the exercise of his rights and freedoms, everyone shall be subject only to such limitations as are determined by law solely for the purpose of securing due recognition and respect for the rights and freedoms of others and of meeting the just requirements of morality, public order and the general welfare in a democratic society.
Do you see the “by law” trick? Rights are first granted, but then they’re made subject to limitations as set forth “by law.” In other words, it’s all a charade. In a UN world, which bears great similarity to an Islamic world, government comes first and foremost, with the people “allowed” to exist but only to serve the state.
Article 29 is a playground for any totalitarian government. In the UN/USSR/EU* approach to government then, government “gives,” but government can take away, and still be within compliance with the UDHR by simply referring to and relying upon Article 29. If a “right’ can be taken away, then no right ever existed. No counterpart of Article 29 exists in the US Constitution.
That “by law” limitation trick is found throughout EU documents.
Apparently Graham was arrested, not under the law banning abortion protests, but for not following a police instruction to move on – likely following a tip off by the ABC. See here:
http://www.projectesther.org/graham-prestons-diary/
But this hasn’t deterred John from continuing to stand up for the unborn and enduring assault for it. See here:
http://www.projectesther.org/grahams-hobart-assault/
Wow, Frank Scarn, that is very interesting.
Thanks for pointing that out.
That means the UN kind of makes “human rights” a bit of a joke.
Very sad.
Jeremy Hopwood
A.C.T
@J Hopwood, and interested others,
That “by law” trick is found in all of these phony “international” documents. Let me give you another one, the UN’s Convention on the Rights of the Child.
As usual, you find all the high-minded sounding language about freedom of thought, religion, movement, and so forth, much like those found in the 1948 Declaration. And like the 1948 document, the Convention on the Rights of the Child contains the “by law” trick. For example (you can do an internet search to get the full text of the Convention),
Article 10,
The right to leave any country shall be subject only to such restrictions as are prescribed by law and which are necessary to protect the national security, public order (ordre public), public health or morals or the rights and freedoms of others and are consistent with the other rights recognized in the present Convention. [Like any Muslim country is going to let any child and his/her parents leave; in Islam, it’s a lot like the Eagles’ Hotel California: you can check out any time you like, but you can never leave]
Article 13,
1. The child shall have the right to freedom of expression; this right shall include freedom to seek, receive and impart information and ideas of all kinds, regardless of frontiers, either orally, in writing or in print, in the form of art, or through any other media of the child’s choice.
2. The exercise of this right may be subject to certain restrictions, but these shall only be such as are provided by law and are necessary:
(a) For respect of the rights or reputations of others; or
(b) For the protection of national security or of public order (ordre public), or of public health or morals.
Article 14,
1. States Parties shall respect the right of the child to freedom of thought, conscience and religion.
2. States Parties shall respect the rights and duties of the parents and, when applicable, legal guardians, to provide direction to the child in the exercise of his or her right in a manner consistent with the evolving capacities of the child.
3. Freedom to manifest one’s religion or beliefs may be subject only to such limitations as are prescribed by law and are necessary to protect public safety, order, health or morals, or the fundamental rights and freedoms of others.
*****
No Western country should ever be a member of the UN. That wise advice applied in the 1940s when the UN was getting off the ground. It’s even more significant today with the UN controlled by member states that vote in lockstep such as all Muslim countries. While the USA pays some 25% of the UN’s outrageous costs, it still gets only 1 vote.
Please, spread the word on the “by law” trick. No right exists if in the document that “grants” it, that right can be removed “by law,” and all of it is perfectly in compliance with the document!
More for @J Hopwood, and interested others,
Now lets do a comparison.
Egypt is a 1990 signatory to the Convention on the Rights of the Child. More than 20 years ago,
https://treaties.un.org/pages/ViewDetails.aspx?src=TREATY&mtdsg_no=IV-11&chapter=4&lang=en#EndDec
Now take a look at the picture in Robert Spencer post of March 13, 2014,
http://www.jihadwatch.org/2014/03/egypt-jizya-vigilantes-target-christian-minorities
The sign reads, “Coptic Children Are Forced to Leave Their Families and Convert to Islam Because the Law Says Muslims Are Better than Christians.
Remember, Egypt has both signed and ratified the Convention. But because Egypt has made Christians second-class citizens (actually, subjects) “by law,” Egypt is in full compliance with the Convention on the Rights of the Child..
Thank you very much Frank Scarn,
this is very helpful to know!
I will try and spread the word.
Blessings,
Jeremy Hopwood
A.C.T
Hi Frank,
Your’re quite right.
But you missed out section (3) of article 29 which is even more broad and damning:
(3) These rights and freedoms may in no case be exercised contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations.
It’s a bit like our Victorian charter of human rights which states:
9 Right to life
Every person has the right to life and has the right not to be arbitrarily deprived of life.
10 Protection from torture and cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment
A person must not be—
(a) subjected to torture; or
(b) treated or punished in a cruel, inhuman or degrading way
17 Protection of families and children
Every child has the right, without discrimination, to such protection as is in his or her best interests and is needed by him or her by reason of being a child.
But then takes this all away by section 48 which declares:
Nothing in this Charter affects any law applicable to abortion or child destruction.
Sad, but true.
Mansel Rogerson
wow, Mansel Rogerson.
Thank you for bringing this to your attention!
That is so contradictory!
Jeremy Hopwood
A.C.T
And finally a good outcome to the story:
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-09-04/police-drop-charges-over-abortion-clinic-protest/5719298