By Mel Taylor

On Monday evening, Elliot and I interviewed two lawyers regarding their representation of multiple churches and mosques who are taking on Ashley Bloomfield and Chris Hipkins. This is over the Ardern government snatching away the right of places of worship to operate as normal. This was specifically during the period of time that had churches, mosques and other worship centres singled out while schools, cinemas, brothels, etc were given much more leeway.

The interview went well with the comments robust and healthy.

The lawyers spoke on their alignment to data suggesting that masks have been found to help restrict the spread of COVID19.

And near the end of the programme, one of the lawyers went on to strongly urge the audience to get their COVID1-9 vaccinations.

At this point, the comments began to increase in intensity mostly with a growing furore over some of the lawyers’ assertions around vaccine efficacy, trust in some of the government’s processes, and strong criticisms around parts of the Freedom Protests.

In reflecting, I find myself questioning exactly what free thought means to people.

The Daily Examiner audience is predominately made up of people of faith, freedom fighters and conservatives.

Therefore, I assumed that people would enjoy our interview and enjoy hearing firsthand from the lawyers fighting for freedom and religion, regardless of any other difference of opinion.

This is how I see it…..

For myself, I think that it is fantastic that a lawyer, who is obviously pro-vaccination, would fight in court for both the vaccinated and the unvaccinated, for people from different faith beliefs, for the Bill of Rights to be upheld, and for freedom.

This is one of the more amazing things that I experienced at Freedom Villiage. People there were from all walks of life, all religions and beliefs, all races, and all ages.  They came together in the name of freedom.  They came together to confront the government on their abuses of the Bill of Rights and on the coerced mandates that damaged the livelihood of so many.

People came together as one, and it was a beautiful sight.

So, has something changed?

Surely those seeking freedom regarding the right to vaccinate or not would appreciate others’ freedom to choose whether to not vaccinate or vaccinate.

This was a key message of the Freedom Protest. To be free to choose. This must apply to everyone,  whether we believe they have chosen the right choice…or not.

As for the lawyers’ approach to the case, they spoke the language that the Judge and the government lawyers would understand. They played the game. Something we need to keep in mind. They used information that the government has used such as how masks help reduce the spread of Covid, and they cleverly turned it against the government.

Yes, the lawyers could have brought in professionals that said masks don’t work, or that doctors have evidence that the Covid vaccination is dangerous. They could have found multiple professionals to attempt to disprove and counteract everything the government has been saying.

But that is not the battlefield they fought in. In the context of the courtroom, it is likely they would have lost.  To win, or to even have a chance of winning, we must know the language, speak the language and be able to fight back against the language.

At the end of the day, these lawyers had to choose whether to be vaccinated or not. They have the right to believe in the vaccination…or not. That is freedom of choice.

Freedom is about respecting one’s right to choose. If we cannot respect that, we run the risk of being a lot like our current government.

A good friend discussed my thoughts with me, and mentioned the following:

“People don’t understand that if they want a choice, they also have to allow others a choice, even one they disagree with.

That was the whole purpose of the action.

The government were severely limiting the right to conscientious freedom.”