Kia ora, tatou! Half-past eleven on a Thursday morning, midwinter. I shall try to be brief.

The Court case. There has been something of an hiatus while we endeavoured to engage the Crown in constructive discussion. This follows their nonchalant changing of the law to suit themselves and the more recent confirmation of their intention to inject 12-15 year olds. So, finally, Crown Law has responded, having consulted presumably with their obnoxious clients.

Two fairly insulting emails. One (in essence) offering us a paltry sum to go away. The other declining our invitation to meet, mainly because we wanted to talk about a trend to dictatorship. They kindly point out how difficult and expensive we should find it to pursue our case against them. We are ‘too far apart’, they say, and for once I agree.

So all of this is very hot stuff, and the email waves have been zInging as your KTI MedAct Inc executive and others have expressed their opinion as to how we react. I had best moderate the language to ‘they can get stuffed’. I think we have complete consensus to instruct Sue Grey to proceed.

My own opinion is that we should apply for costs, continue the actions we have commenced and seek leave to introduce our outrage at the intended injection of this hazardous substance into our young people, at school sites, or anywhere else. It is quite possible that we shall seek to lay new charges at the feet of these defendants, perhaps of being party to homicide.

The general mood is one of extreme anger. We are not to be insulted. We are not to be intimidated. We are right, and they are plain wicked. This must stop. No doubt Sue will shortly publicise her formal responses. We are going to need to appeal to you again for funds, in the completely confident expectation that the public will rise to this occasion out of plain necessity.

Unlike this tyrannical ruling class, we are prepared to hear argument to the contrary, and invite your views especially if you find those expressed here unsatisfactory. Diversity of opinion, freedom of speech, are essential to the proper functioning of democracy. Win or lose, we must carry out our moral duty as citizens. Thank you for your attention, and for your money. It’s going to be a hard fight, but we shall of course prevail.

A grave new threat

A decree was made two days ago, to take effect from tomorrow night. Broadly, it sets up a set of sanctions to affect those who resist vaccination in particular workplaces. There is a context, to which I wish to draw attention. Regardless of the history of this extraordinary dictate, its announcement took place after a phone conference with Ellis J. on 22 May, six days prior. In her minute of the same day, Ellis J. records that “Ms Grey helpfully agreed that only the first two orders (orders A and B) in the amended application would be pursued on an interim basis.”

The Court has, helpfully, been treating our claim as urgent, but, with this agreement, antecedent to the decree since promulgated, regarded that part of our claim which had to do with infringement by the Crown of the Bill of Rights Act as of lesser urgency. By issuing this decree, the Crown has put a match to the issue of the lawfulness of the decree, and others like it of which we complain in respect of the Bill of Rights. Simply put, this matter has become, by virtue of the Crown’s intervention, ┬ásupremely urgent, and ought now, in my view, be given priority for consideration by the Court.

Sue manages not to run out of superlatives when it comes to the grossness of the Crown’s actions. Peter Williams gets the point. This is an exceedingly dangerous time for our democracy. The issue is not one of public health. It is one of resistance to tyranny.