A High Court judge has declined Whangarei District Council’s application for an interim injunction to delay the introduction of water fluoridation, despite expert testimony warning of potential harm to infants and young children.
The council sought the injunction to postpone fluoridation until its full legal challenge, scheduled for later this year, could be heard.
The court ruling means WDC must comply with the Ministry of Health’s directive to fluoridate its water supply or face steep fines of $200,000 and $10,000 for each day of non-compliance.
In her ruling, Justice Grau acknowledged the expert evidence from internationally recognised neurotoxicity researchers Professors Bruce Lanphear and Philippe Grandjean, but dismissed it, deferring instead to the Ministry of Health’s stance.
She stated that the role of judicial review was not to evaluate scientific merit, but to ensure proper process.
Critics like Fluoride Free NZ argue the Ministry’s lead expert, Dr Ian Town, lacks relevant expertise, and his reliance on a discredited study weakens the Ministry’s position.
The judge also referenced a U.S. federal court ruling that found water fluoridation posed an “unreasonable risk” to health, but did not deem it definitively harmful—yet campaigners argue that interpretation downplays the precautionary principle.
Fluoride Free NZ has condemned the decision, calling it a dangerous precedent that ignores mounting international evidence linking fluoride to developmental harm.
Image credit: ClickerHappy
NZ Judicial system is a tool for the criminal overlords, our judges are dictated by the UN, WHO, WEF and their ilk through the treasonous Government officials. These processes require none of we the people’s focus as we create healthy strong communities. Yes we are affected by these criminals yet over time with a shift in our focus these criminals and their harmful processes lose power. We the people are sovereign, liberated, healthy, loving, brilliant, connected and very capable of creating healthy thriving communities
What you have written hits the nail on the head. The weston world is left with no option but to go to war wtih our own respective.governments. As Musk said , unless there is a correction, citizens are pushed into civil war.
The UK and Europe governments are ignoring their citizens will. This is not democracy. Elon Musk said civil war is the only alternative left to the people. We here in NZ must at least prepare for that eventuality.
Many people think Trump is an asshole. He is not. Only the queers , special interest groups like Greens, Maori sucking on the governments tit are worried that might end here too. Trump is restoring sensible government policies.
Cancelled the federal woke education. Cancelled USAID, Cancelled the war in Ukraine. Cancelled transgender. Restorod 2 gendars . And just so many more.
Winston has picked up on the overwhelming positive effects and he is beginning to start the process of unwinding woke. Just how much pull he has is yet to be seen.
All Winston has to do is cross the floor and the governor general has to dismiss the sitting government and call for new elections. Remember when that happened in Australia in the 1970’s.
My hope is Trump will call Luxon and ask him to cut out the crap, or we will make it difficult for you to trade. Frankly, ide rather live under Trump than the current corrupt wankers in the UK and Europe.
Judicial sytem is bought and paid for, she has been instructed to make this ruling, shame on her.
Follow the science is out of fashion now? Follow the rules is the new motto? And if the rules are rooted in delusional ideas that’s all fine, because the govt is the one source of truth. At least that did not change.
The law is one thing.
Justice is another.
As a ratepayer, don’t do it Whangarei council. Make them fine us
In current NZ this judicial decision shows that the control of its citizens through a diktat by a bureaucrat carries more weight than to defer to the side of caution when it comes to the health of New Zealanders.
Don’t they sell flouride toothpaste in Whangarei?
Same MO as Covid with a stacked Court system appointed by Labour. Basic premis is the Court says it believes the government “science” and any other actual expert is not recognised. Its the same MO as the media under Labour tand its called cancel culture.
So there you have it- I wonder what the Governor-General will do to dismiss Judge Grau from the bench knowing full well she ruled to contaminate our children with a known toxin!!!!!
Luxon, with his Despicable Me minion haircut, will do NOTHING to demand the cessation of Fluoride in the water, and halting ALL Covid -19 bio-weapon ‘Vaccines’ indefinitely…they want us dumbed-down for what is coming on the horizon, never to question their ‘actions’!
This is what we have for a Uni-Party Government and…J3wdiciary!!
In the meantime, residents will have to get a Berkey, Alexa-Pure or some type of home water filtration system that has a PF-2 add-on filter that reomves the Fluoride and other heavy metals.
If you’re buying bottled water, make sure it is actual spring water and NOT out of a tap that is fluoridated!
The judiciary are charged with protecting our chemical lobotomy and democide programme.
Most people accept this treason.
“She stated that the role of judicial review was not to evaluate scientific merit, but to ensure proper process.”
Yet another NZ judge presides over national perdition and its erasure of personal liberty, while culpably and wantonly demonstrating an ignorance of science, of personal choice and informed consent, but ensuring that the ‘process” is “proper.”
Are NZ judges incompetent, unfit and ill-trained for purpose?
Just have a close look how judges operate.
They are woefully removed from reality.
Firstly they have to be a certain type of psychopath to gain their role. For that they have to have had no normal upbringing, at least not an upbringing connected to the soul of a people and the earth they live on and toil for sustenance, like ‘the salt of the earth’. They are so far removed from reality that they themselves cannot fathom that distance.
They cannot be seen having a ‘normal’ life with ‘normal’ friends’, as ‘normal’ citizens. They have no address and no telephone number. All they have, all they can, is socializing within their own ilk and that of their parallel stooges, the politicians.
In the end they are booked and paid by the system, which is -at it’s core- the system of the financial cabal.
Long stretch? Follow the money.
No surprise from the corrupt NZ courts.
So in other words, Judge Grau is telegraphing the likely decision before it is heard later this year. Why implement it otherwise.
Judge rules for forced medication. The Judge knows best because he’s part of the plan to further dumbing down of the population.
So you still don’t trust tank water?
The judiciary is a fundamentally vital part of a functioning parliamentary democracy.
If judges choose to ignore science and refuse to evaluate scientific merit, then it’s now time for me to start ignoring judges.
And absolutely NO ONE is surprised. Facts be damned, if it goes against the government narrative. Every bit as bad, as NZ Police.
Trade Me have 100 Tap Water Test Strips, Water Test Kit $26 all up including ahipping
These Water Quality Test Strips Can Test 16 Parameters. Total Hardness, Free Chlorine, Iron, Copper, Lead, Nitrates, Nitrites, Mps, Chlorine, Fluoride, Cyanuric Acid, Ammonia Chloride, Bromine, Total Alkalinity, Carbonate, and Ph. Use them also to check whether the claims on your new water filter system are true.
The best ways to remove fluoride from water are with reverse osmosis filters, bone char carbon filters, activated alumina filters, and water distillers.
Boiling water or using a simple activated carbon filter is NOT an effective way to remove fluoride.
I hope they do not hire a DEI to measure and add the stuff to our water.
I think fluoridated water dulls the hair and makes it fall out – in women anyway. Maybe in men as well.
Take the fine/s and don’t pay them. Call Ashley Bloomfield into court later in the year to testify and be cross examined. Put the new studies to him to give answers.
Time to investigate this judge.
They all protect each other: https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/crime/113628730/deputy-pm-and-simon-bridges-hit-out-at-judges-decision-after-fraudster-suppression
https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/crime/300036021/vices-vanity-fantasy-joanne-harrison-fraud-saga-highlights-calls-for-publics-right-to-know-about-serial-con-artists
Just don’t pay the fine, and Northland need’s to cede from the rest of the country, and become our own Nation. I am quite sure China or Russia would like to have a port here, and also an international airport as well.
Do not consent to corporate legalize. We the people stand in common law, not corporate law.
The following is an assessment of the legal jeopardy elected Councillors face under section 23 of the Health Act 1956, Part 2, specifically section 23(c), in the context of a water fluoridation scenario where fluoride concentrations exceeding 1 mg/L; i.e. concentrations that have not been the subject of safety reviews. This section of the Health Act 1956 imposes a general duty on local authorities to protect public health, with specific powers to abate nuisances or conditions injurious to health.
Section 23 of the Health Act 1956: Overview
Section 23 – General powers and duties of local authorities in respect of public health states:
Duty: Every local authority must “improve, promote, and protect public health within its district.”
Specific Power (s 23(c)): If satisfied that a “nuisance” or “condition likely to be injurious to health or offensive” exists, the local authority is empowered and directed to “cause all proper steps to be taken to secure the abatement of the nuisance or the removal of the condition.”
Scope: “Nuisance” and “injurious to health” are broad terms, historically covering sanitation, pollution, or hazards, but applicable to drinking water quality if evidence supports harm.
This imposes a proactive obligation on Councils to address health risks, complementing the fluoridation directive under s 23C.
Context: This would apply if the following Fluoridation Scenario was occuring:
Scenario: The water treatment station delivers fluoride concentrations >1 mg/L (beyond the 0.7–1 mg/L target), confirmed at community taps, due to flawed methodology (no tap monitoring, unverified dilution assumptions). This as an operational failure with unassessed risks (e.g., neurodevelopmental harm per JAMA Pediatrics 2025, NTP 2024).
Recommendation: Stop fluoridation immediately, citing the precautionary principle, to prevent potential harm while fixing the system.
Legal Jeopardy for Elected Councillors Under Section 23(c)
Councillors’ legal exposure under s 23(c) hinges on their response to the over-fluoridation issue, balancing their duty to protect health against the s 23C directive to fluoridate. Here’s the breakdown:
1. Continuing Fluoridation (Ignoring Over-Dosing)
Risk of Breach: If Councillors allow fluoridation to proceed with levels >1 mg/L, they may fail s 23(c)’s duty if this is deemed a “condition likely to be injurious to health.” There is evidence of potential neurodevelopmental risks at 1–1.5 mg/L (e.g., 1.63 IQ point loss per 1 mg/L urinary fluoride, JAMA 2025), especially for fetuses and infants. While not conclusive below the Taumata Arowai MAV of 1.5 mg/L, this suggests a plausible hazard.
Councillor Jeopardy:
Civil Liability: If harm (e.g., cognitive deficits) is later proven, residents could sue Councils for negligence under tort law, alleging Councillors failed to abate a known risk. The council, not individuals, would typically be liable, but Councillors could face scrutiny for ignoring evidence.
Judicial Review: A third party could seek review, arguing Councils breached s 23(c) by not acting on over-dosing. Courts might order abatement (e.g., stopping fluoridation), exposing Councillors to criticism if they resisted.
Personal Liability: Unlikely under Local Government Act 2002 (LGA) s 43 (indemnity for good-faith acts), unless Councillors knowingly disregarded clear harm evidence, constituting gross misconduct.
Likelihood: Moderate. Levels >1 mg/L but 1 mg/L a “condition likely to be injurious.” Unassessed risks, operational failure—provide a basis to argue this, satisfying their duty to “secure the removal of the condition.”
Conflict with s 23C: This pits s 23(c) against the Director-General’s directive (s 23C) to fluoridate at 0.7–1 mg/L. Stopping fluoridation risks non-compliance with s 23C, triggering fines ($200,000 + $10,000/day) and a mandamus order against the Council.
Jeopardy:
Fines on Council not Councillors personally, faces s 23C penalties for defying the Notice. LGA s 43 shields Councillors unless they act in bad faith (e.g., sabotaging staff efforts).
Court Challenge: The Ministry of Health could argue s 23C overrides s 23(c), as fluoridation is legislated as a health benefit. However, Councillors could counter that over-dosing negates this, seeking judicial clarification (e.g., via injunction).
Public Health Tension: If stopping fluoridation leads to dental health decline (unlikely short-term per Cochrane 2024), Councillors might face criticism, but not legal liability under s 23(c).
Likelihood: High for council-level fines if s 23C is breached, low for personal Councillor liability. Courts may prioritize s 23C’s specific mandate over s 23(c)’s general duty unless harm is imminent.
3. Failure to Act (Inaction)
Risk of Breach: If Councillors neither stop nor fix the over-dosing (e.g., delay decisions), they risk breaching s 23(c) by not abating a potential hazard, alongside s 23C non-compliance if fluoridation isn’t implemented.
Jeopardy: Dual exposure—civil claims for neglect (s 23(c)) and fines for defiance (s 23C). Personal liability remains unlikely, but reputational damage and court orders escalate.
Likelihood: Moderate, depending on how long inaction persists.
Reconciling s 23(c) and s 23C
Statutory Tension: Section 23(c) empowers Councils to act against health risks, while s 23C mandates fluoridation, assuming it promotes health. Over-dosing >1 mg/L creates a paradox—fluoridation complies with s 23C but may contravene s 23(c) if harmful.
Judicial Precedent: The High Court’s 2023 ruling (New Health NZ v Director-General) found the original directive unlawful for not assessing NZBORA rights, suggesting s 23C isn’t absolute. Councillors could argue s 23(c) justifies suspension if over-dosing poses a “condition injurious to health.”
Precautionary Duty: It is recommended to leverage the precautionary principle, aligning with s 23(c) to prioritize harm prevention over uncertain benefits (Cochrane 2024).
Specific Jeopardy Assessment
Personal Liability: Minimal. LGA s 43 protects Councillors acting in good faith (e.g., voting to stop fluoridation based on my report). Penalties or claims target Councils as a body corporate.
Council Liability:
Stopping Fluoridation: High risk of s 23C fines ($200,000+) and enforcement, mitigated by seeking an injunction.
Continuing Over-Dosing: Moderate risk of s 23(c)-related civil action or review if harm emerges, reduced by fixing the system.
Worst-Case Scenario: Continued over-dosing with proven harm (e.g., IQ loss) could lead to significant Council liability (millions in damages), with Councillors indirectly implicated for oversight failure, though still shielded personally.
Recommendations to Minimize Jeopardy
Act Under s 23(c): Vote to suspend fluoridation, citing the evidence of a “condition likely to be injurious,” fulfilling s 23(c) duties.
Challenge s 23C: Apply for an interim injunction to stay the Notice, arguing over-dosing risks outweigh benefits, harmonizing s 23(c) and s 23C obligations.
Fix Methodology: Implement changes (tap monitoring, dosing control) to ensure 0.7–1 mg/L if fluoridation resumes, avoiding both risks.
Document Rationale: Record decisions as precautionary, referencing scientific uncertainty (e.g., JAMA 2025), bolstering legal defenses.
Conclusion
Councillors face limited personal jeopardy under s 23(c)—liability rests with Councils. Stopping fluoridation aligns with s 23(c) but risks s 23C fines, while continuing over-dosing risks s 23(c) claims if harm occurs. The safest path is suspension with judicial review, balancing both duties. Their jeopardy is more political (fines vs. community trust) than personal, thanks to LGA
NZ Still undER JEwDI MinD Control. SinCE WW2 All pollies in tHE FEYS Countries are pagan Pollies. Why? All bu·reau·crats Must NOT BE Babylonian Gibberish and yet, those pee pee’s made the NZ High Court Babylonian Gibberish Specific. What is a neurotoxin again? Flourdie in water iS NOT the Flouride in Toothpaste. It is bi product of industrial waste. NZ has the best natural waters coming off the Mountains, yet the goyim must drink the neurotoxin Why? Docile us down that is, so we can never get to Our inner self and oneness of it All. fyi
https://www.infonews.co.nz/news.cfm?id=125172
Don’t pay your rates if they fluoridate your water .
The state of Utah has banned fluoride from public water systems effective 7 May 2025
https://www.naturalnews.com/2025-03-30-utah-removes-fluoride-from-public-water-systems.html
O f*** really after all the receipts, after all the evidence waaaaaaat
Piss the people off at your own peril. When justice is ignored, people administer it themselves. I’m looking forward to seeing that.
Luxon is a clown. Far too toxic to lead the National party in the next election. Luxon will step down 6 months before then election.
Ardern can’t live here anymore. Luxon will join her in the political wasteland.
In Hastings they installed a water station that has dechlorinated and unfluoridated water. You go there and fill up your drinking supply if you don’tl ike what’scoming from your home tap (fluoride and chlorine). Doesn’t stop you from being exposed via showering though…
Councils eh? https://www.stuff.co.nz/nz-news/360634308/council-spending-128m-year-salaries-plus-staff-perks?cx_testId=47&cx_testVariant=cx_1&cx_artPos=2#cxrecs_s
It is clear that we need to become more militant towards councils adding fluoride to our water. We need to make it too hazardous for councilors to keep adding fluoride, and they will certainly stop. Councils wont want to be seen as bullies, so they will stop doing it. They are only doing it now cos it is easy to get away with.