Fluoride Action: In Our Own Self-interest or That of the Public of New Zealand?
Did NZDSOS and Fluoride Free New Zealand (FFNZ) engage in a self-interested court action that benefited only their members?
In a significant legal challenge, Fluoride Free New Zealand and NZDSOS took on the Hastings District Council regarding the issue of water fluoridation. We requested an urgent injunction to halt the fluoridation of the Hastings District Council (HDC)water supply, pending a Bill of Rights review.
We maintained that the premature water fluoridation breached the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act, as well as the principles of medical ethics, particularly the fundamental right of individuals to refuse medical interventions. This is especially pertinent when the intervention is known to be toxic.
Whilst the Hastings District Council supported water fluoridation as a public health initiative, the case illustrates the significant implications of imposing treatment on the population. A treatment that individuals would find very difficult to avoid.
We requested that the Council pause fluoridation until the Bill of Rights assessment had been completed by the Director General of Health (DGoH), currently Diana Sarfati.
The Judgement
The courts did not uphold our request for an injunction and took the extra step of awarding costs against us. This action by the courts has been described by an experienced NZ lawyer as highly unusual, given that the proceedings concerned a matter of the public interest.
In his judgment, La Hood J, stated “…while the applicants clearly consider they are acting in a public interest, in reality the case reflected the special interests of their members” and that our claim “was about advancing the special interests of its member rather than the wider public interest”.
Costs & The Public Interest
NZDSOS is appealing the costs awarded against us of $40,000 (combined with FFNZ) on the basis that we have acted in the public interest rather than in our own self-interest.
We have called out and tried to stop harmful interventions, in the name of medicine, being inflicted on New Zealanders. We have done this despite substantial personal risk. Our founding objectives include supporting appropriate legal undertakings and our constitution states that the purpose of NZDSOS is to “benefit the community by furthering and enabling health education and supporting people in need of help which is not readily available to them”.
We do not agree with this court decision and ask if the lawyers for the crown and the HDC have any understanding of “supporting people in need”?
More Than Just Appealing the Costs
We cannot just keep quiet about a harmful, un-consented and unavoidable medical intervention.
We have been called names before and have had to pay court fees before. However, this case is too important to ignore. We believe we are acting in the public interest, as the vast majority of New Zealanders can’t just turn the tap off and refuse the intervention.
Furthermore, public interest in water fluoridation is supported by large turnouts at council meeting when discussing this topic. We have reported on large amounts of evidence that water fluoridation harms and has trivial benefits, if any. Those who wish to have fluoride are able access this through fluoridated toothpaste (which is arguably more effective in preventing dental caries than water fluoridation) and fluoride tablets.
Cost of The Appeal
For us to proceed with our appeal, the court is requiring a security of $14,000. Through generous support we have raised $8,000, thus far.
We are determined to continue to fight for the people of New Zealand to be heard.
How You Can HelP
Thanks to your support, we’ve made significant strides. Still, we need a monumental collaborative push to show the councils and courts that we are not a fringe group as they claim but a countrywide public interest movement!
When imposing costs for the legal challenge, the judge stated, “while the applicants clearly consider they are acting in a public interest, in reality, the case reflected the special interests of their members” and “their claim was about advancing the special interests of its members rather than the wider public interest.”
We disagree and think that if New Zealanders were asked, a large proportion would be opposed. Furthermore, the population has not been fully informed about all aspects of water fluoridation (we’ve only had glossy promotional material short on the truth).
In order to demonstrate to the courts that those who oppose the mass medication of water are not a fringe minority, we need thousands of signatures on the parliamentary petition.
By doing this, we have the chance to not only avoid the hefty court fees we and FFNZ have incurred, but also to continue stand up for all New Zealanders.
Once you have signed the petition, please share this post with your friends, family, and colleagues—every signature counts.
If your region’s water is not currently fluoridated, it may well be shortly, so please get involved. The DGoH has a list of the next 27 councils to be directed.
Let’s Keep Making Our Voices Heard
Protect our health and environment from needless fluoride exposure. If we get enough signatures, we will prove to the government that plenty give a damn and the costs must be dropped in this case.
Save us this court fee money so we can use the funds to keep the momentum up in exposing and keeping pressure on the Ministry of Health, which has imposed this action on the local councils and people of New Zealand.
Your support allows us to continue our core work for medical freedom.
