I had the privilege of meeting Sir Edmund Hillary twice, once in Colorado and once in Namche in the Everest region where I used to lead treks to the base camp. He dedicated his life to helping the Sherpas who were such a critical part of his first ascent. Beyond the Summit is the first work to dramatize their lives in fiction. Hillary’s work in the area is mentioned frequently as well as his climbing partner, Tenzing Norgay.
Details of Sherpa culture and religion are interwoven in a tale of romance and high adventure. The story has something for everyone: a love affair between an American journalist and Sherpa guide, conflict between generations as the modern world challenges centuries of tradition, an expedition from the porter’s point of view.

Beyond the Summit, is the rare gem that shows us the triumphs and challenges of a major climb from the porter’s point of view. The love of two people from diverse cultures is the fiery centerpiece of a novel that leads its readers through harshly beautiful and highly dangerous territory to the roof of the world. Malcolm Campbell, book reviewer

Conflict and dialog keep this gripping story of destiny, romance and adventure moving from the first page to the last paragraph. LeBlanc has a genius for bonding her readers and her characters. I found I was empathizing in turn with each character as they faced their own personal crisis or trauma.
Richard Blake for Readers Views.

A gripping, gut-twisting expedition through the eyes of a porter reveals the heart and soul of Sherpas living in the shadows of Everest. EverestNews.com

A hard-hitting blend of adventure and romance which deserves a spot in any serious fiction collection. Midwest Book Review

LeBlanc is equally adept at describing complex, elusive emotions and the beautiful, terrifying aspect of the Himalayan Mountains. Boulder Daily Camera

LeBlanc’s vivid desc

mmm yes a great man - putting aside his views on infanticide and the introduction of abortion to Nepal - that is…

I had a great admiration for Sir Edmond Hillary too. This diminished somewhat when I found out this week he was vice president of the New Zealand Abortion Law Reform Association and very involved in Planned Parenthood in this country. We cannot be Christian and commend his behaviour in these areas.

I too was saddened to learn of Edmund Hillary’s pro-abortion position.

I have always admired his climbing feats, and his work with in Nepal, but sadly his support for the holocaust of abortion has cast a grave shadow over his life for me.

I saw a comment on another blog a few days ago where someone asked whether we would would be praising a great sports star who devoted himself to helping the poor, but at the same time has been an avid supporter of the Nazi holocaust.

It is always difficult to accept that great men can also have great flaws. I once mentioned Nelson Mandela on a Mercator posting and got the same response. It is right to point out the flaws and limitations of human heroes, while commending what is good about their lives. Further, we must recognise that neither Hillary nor Mandela had/has the grace of a Christian understanding of reverence for life.  In this respect they are both products of their time.

Francis,

I hear what you are saying, and I am someone who greatly admires the exploration feats achieved by Sir Edmund Hillary, but I think that we need to be careful that we don’t gloss over serious evils just because of celebrity or fame.

I don’t mean to keep using the Nazi example (and I am a little bit hesitant about doing so in this case, because I in no way wish to compare Sir Ed. to Hitler), but would we praise Hitler as a shining example of political oratory and at the same time excuse the evil he engaged in by saying that he was just a product of his times, and that he didn’t have the grace of a Christian understanding?

Also, this situation is a little bit more than just Sir Edmund’s personal views about abortion - he actively engaged himself in liberalizing abortion laws in this country, and in Nepal, and this has led to the deaths of hundreds of thousands of innocent New Zealanders.

The reality is that when Sir Ed. stands before God, they won’t be discussing how many mountaineering feats, or exploration achievements he manged, they will be discussing what he did to contribute to the ‘least of these’.

Like I said, I have a lot of time for the adventuring achievements of Sir Ed., and for his work in Nepal, but what saddens me is that he actively worked to increase the greatest injustice of our times; abortion.

I don’t minimise your charges, Thomas; they are indeed grave. But I don’t think the analogy with Hitler is helpful. His monstrous shadow throws everything out of perspective.
I was reading Pope Benedict’s Spe Salvi yesterday and what he writes (nos. 45-46) may be helpful here: “ There can be people...who have lived for hatred and have suppressed all love within themselves...profiles of this type can be seen in certain figures of our own history...On the other hand there can be people… completely permeated by God...Yet we know from experience that neither case is normal in human life. For the great majority of people there remains...an openness to truth, to love. In the concrete choices of life, however, it is covered over by ever new compromises with evil...but the thirst for purity remains and it still constantly re-emerges from all that is base...What happens to such individuals when they appear before the Judge?...”

No space to quote more, but you get my drift: Sir Edmund joins ‘the vast majority’. Not knowing the details of his life as you do, I wonder if he was ever exposed to positive, pro-life influences?

Wow, thats great: an article about one of NZ’s greatest hero and all the NZers can do is complain about his stance on abortion or compare him to Hitler (Congratulations on Godwining yourself BTW). Nice.

I would like to have thought that we could put aside differences like this when we celebrate the life of someone like Sir Ed, but, no.

Well done, you make the rest of NZ look bad.

ConstantNeophyte,

I think you may have missed the point I was trying to make.

I have stated several times now that I consider Sir Ed’s adventuring feats, and his work in Nepal to be admirable and worthy of praise.

But that doesn’t mean we should overlook his active involvement in the greatest holocaust of our era - abortion.

I wasn’t comparing him to Hitler (and I even stated that I was hesitant to use that example), I was merely using Hitler as an example to show that we must consider a person’s life and work in its totality, not in compartmentalized bits - which often leads to a romanticism, or even a denial of the reality of the things that weren’t good.

(Side note: Godwin’s Law is actually a cop out, and it falls into logical fallacy by implying that any and all references to the Nazi’s in a discussion of morality is invalid - which is obviously not correct)

I’m sure you’ll agree with me that what actually makes the rest of NZ look bad is the 18, 000 babies a year that we kill through abortion (as opposed to my opinions on this issue).

Do you really believe that a person’s celebrity and popularity should prevent an honest and full appraisal of ALL of their life’s work - not just the popular, morally acceptable bits?

Maybe we should ask the hundreds of thousands of NZ children who were never born because of abortion, whether they think that Sir Edmund’s mountaineering feats should be considered more important than his active support for the liberalization of NZ abortion laws before the time they were conceived?

Francis,

I think that we must not lose sight of the fact that we are all blessed with an intellect and a will, & that we all have an obligation to from both in the truth.

You ask whether Sir Ed. was ever “exposed to positive, pro-life influences”?

I think this line of questioning is important and valid when engaging our modern culture, but it also has its limits.

I think it is a very important question when discussing the issue of how a person is shaping their personal opinions on important life issues (in this case abortion).

But when a person goes beyond mere personal opinions regarding a moral issues (in this case abortion), & actively engages in pro-abortion work, then a different question must be asked:

Did they try to form their intellect regarding the truth about this issue before they acted, or did they just act without considering what was true?

It’s one thing to say that a person is a “product of their times” in regards to the moral opinions, but when it gets to the point where someone is actively advocating for a gravely immoral act, then they are no longer just having their morality shaped by the culture, they are now actively trying to shape the morality of the culture.

I know a lot of men and women who are “products of their times”, in that they believe that abortion should be legal, but they would never ever consider an abortion for themselves because they consider it to be a terribly destructive act.

I have also read several articles by atheists and agnostics, who oppose abortion on philosophical and scientific grounds.

These people are examples of those who have actually engaged their intellect and reason, even though they haven’t experienced positive pro-life influences.

I think we must be extremely careful when excusing immoral actions by writing them off as being simply the result of bad cultural influences. It becomes too easy an excuse for us not to honor our obligation to engage our reason & form our intellect in the truth.

Thomas,

What your doing is horrific. You have taken the view of one man, a greater man than you, no doubt, and twisted it into an argument about abortion.

Sir Ed has done more to help people in this world than you will ever do.

With regards to Godwin’s law: It doesn’t have anything to do with morality. The definition: “As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches one.” Although using Hitler as an example/comparison is usually considered a sign of a weak/stupid argument.

I won’t say much.  I agree with you Thomas.  Thanks for expounding on your point.

Hi ConstantNeophyte,

You still seem to be missing the point, and I feel that you are letting emotion get in the way of a reasoned and complete examination of the life lived by Sir Edmund Hillary.

Not once have I ever suggested that Sir Ed should not be praised for his adventuring feats, or his work in Nepal, both of which I consider to be worthy of praise.

My concern is that many people have simply overlooked his active involvement with one of the greatest crimes of our era - abortion.

PS - your comments about Godwin’s Law simply confirm what I stated about it earlier - the manner in which it is used constitutes a fallacy of logic.

You have confirmed this when you state:

“...using Hitler as an example/comparison is usually considered a sign of a weak/stupid argument.”

The weakness or strength of an argument has nothing to do with whether Hitler or the Nazis are used an example.

Instead, the weakness/strength of an argument is based firmly on whether or not the argument being put forward is reasoned, logical and conforms to truth.

As I stated earlier, Godwin’s Law implies that using the Nazi’s as an example somehow makes your argument inferior - which is just plain nonsense.

Thanks Chen Sy Yu - just speaking my mind.

Hilary received accolades because of the “help” he gave the Nepalese rather than his climbing feats which - if it were a one off and no more was heard - would not have earned the respect that altruistic works have brought. However that “help” to the Nepalese must be weighed and balanced. While bringing education and health services enhanced and helped the people of Nepal and probably alleviated poverty and may have saved some lives, this must be balanced against the death and destruction that the mobile abortion clinics brought. How many little Nepalese died because of this and how many Nepalese women had their bodies, souls and fertility damaged because of his actions. Abetting in the taking of innocent lives deserves condemnation while at the same time recognising that praise should rightly be given to those who work to the alleviation of poverty.