> ## Content Index > Fetch the complete content index at: https://goodoil.news/llms.txt > Use this file to discover other available public pages before exploring further. # Trust Not the Courts - URL: https://goodoil.news/trust-not-the-courts/ - Published: 2026-10-29T19:30:00.000Z - Updated: 2026-10-29T19:29:59.000Z - Description: New Zealand’s courts are cooked. Pity the children. - Author: Reproduced with permission - Tags: NZ Politics, Judiciary, Transgenderism, Health [**John McLean**](https://mcleanj.substack.com/p/trust-not-the-courts) *Citizen typist patriot* In a judgment issued on 21 October, High Court judge Dale La Hood overturned the current government’s 2025 regulations banning new prescriptions of puberty blocking drugs for young people said to suffer from gender dysphoria. (To be gender dysphoric is to think the impossible – that you’re the opposite sex to your bodily biological sex.) La Hood’s judgement comes on the back of an earlier High Court decision putting a moratorium on implementation of the relevant regulations. I’ve been following this evolving saga, since its genesis: [PUBERTY BLOCKED](https://mcleanj.substack.com/p/puberty-blocked) [John McLean](https://substack.com/profile/150118186-john-mclean?ref=goodoil.news) 22 November 2024 ![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/31/f4/31f4e20a-0315-499e-83ff-139e8eab53bf/content/images/2026/10/image-9.png) New Zealand’s Ministry of Health has yesterday (21 November 2024) released a long-awaited statement on the use of puberty blocking hormones in New Zealand, and announced a consultation that will last until late January 2025 i.e. all of two months. I’ve covered this topic in an earlier Substack: [Read full story](https://mcleanj.substack.com/p/puberty-blocked) The High Court has invalidated the puberty blocker banning regulations on two grounds. First, the court maintained that the government failed to adequately consult before it put the regulatory ban in place. La Hood’s hot feel was that the government should have directly consulted with affected gender dysphoric young people and their families, which he found the government failed to adequately do. Secondly, Pale Dale found the regulations breached young gender dysphoric New Zealanders’ right to freedom from discrimination on the ground of disability, as contained in the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 (**NZBORA**). La Hood’s reasoning is terribly abstruse and unconvincing. He swallows almost everything thrown at him by the ‘professionals’ from the applicant for overturning ban, The “Professional” Association for Transgender Health Aotearoa Incorporated (PATHA). Most significantly, La Hood’s discrimination finding is so legally flawed that he can’t have been playing with a straight bat. More on this telling aspect below. Regarding the adequacy of the consultation, the Medicines Act required Simeon Brown, as Minister of Health, to consult “with such organisations or bodies as appear to the minister to be representative of persons likely to be substantially affected by the regulations”. The crucial point here is that, because the ban only applied to new prescriptions, Brown only needed to consult with gender dysphoric youths ***who were not already on puberty blocking hormones***. Quite how Brown can reasonably be expected to have even identified such unblocked youths, let alone consult with them, is anybody’s guess. ![](https://substackcdn.com/image/fetch/$s_!KHLd!,w_1456,c_limit,f_auto,q_auto:good,fl_progressive:steep/https%3A%2F%2Fsubstack-post-media.s3.amazonaws.com%2Fpublic%2Fimages%2Fbb83aaef-2bf7-43d9-b80a-ca83de1ec594_532x580.png) This piece does not analyze La Hood’s decision in meticulous detail. Rather, I simply highlight a major, undeniable and revealing legal flaw in his decision. It’s abundantly clear from La Hood’s judgement that his discrimination finding was – in his apparent view – reason enough (i.e., without combining it with his failure-to-consult finding) to invalidate the regulations. In other words, La Hood regarded his finding that the regulations breached the NZBORA as sufficient ground, on its own, to strike the regulations down. But this finding is itself in direct conflict with the NZBORA. Section 4 of the NZBORA states as follows: > **4 Other enactments not affected** > > No court shall, in relation to any enactment (whether passed or made before or after the commencement of this Bill of Rights), – > > (a) hold any provision of the enactment to be impliedly repealed or revoked, or to be in any way invalid or ineffective; or > > (b) decline to apply any provision of the enactment – > > by reason only that the provision is inconsistent with any provision of this Bill of Rights. Section 4 therefore expressly and unambiguously prohibits a court from invalidating or declining to apply any provision of an enactment (including, in this case, regulations banning puberty blockers for gender dysmorphic youths) because the provision is inconsistent with the NZBORA. But that is PRECISELY WHAT JUDGE LA HOOD HAS DONE. But, I hear you murmur, doesn’t “enactment” only cover Acts of Parliament, and not regulations made under acts? Not so, dear readers. Section 29 of New Zealand’s Interpretation Act 1999 specifically defines “enactment” and “regulations” as follows: > 29 In an enactment, – > … > **enactment** means the whole or a portion of an Act or regulations > … > **regulations** means…regulations, rules, or bylaws made under an act by the Governor-General or by a Minister of the Crown So we’ve got A Big Problem, Houston. La Hood is not the Brain of Britain, but he’s not completely dumb either, so his abuse of the NZBORA to strike down the puberty blocker banning regulations cannot be – and certainly isn’t – an innocent mistake. In a court case that goes to the heart of a highly contentious Culture Wars issue, La Hood is deliberately ignoring the clear wording of legislation passed by New Zealand’s democratically elected parliament. This is therefore yet another example of a New Zealand activist judge ignoring the clear wording of statutes and undermining New Zealand’s parliamentary democracy. I’ve addressed this dreadful state of affairs in earlier Substacks: [WOE BETIDE US WHEN PARLIAMENT’S WORDS NO LONGER MATTER](https://mcleanj.substack.com/p/woe-betide-us-when-parliaments-words) [John McLean](https://substack.com/profile/150118186-john-mclean?ref=goodoil.news) 19 June 2025 ![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/31/f4/31f4e20a-0315-499e-83ff-139e8eab53bf/content/images/2026/10/image-10.png) As a child, I believed my grandmother simply started knitting, without an end in mind, and on each occasion an unforeseen woolen item would magically take shape. [Read full story](https://mcleanj.substack.com/p/woe-betide-us-when-parliaments-words) New Zealand’s Human Rights Commission stuck its Uber Woke nose into the case (as “Interested Party”), naturally supporting PATHA’s challenge to the regulations. Prior to the litigation, the commission had publicly criticized the proposed ban. Prudence Walker, “Commissioner spokesperson for Rainbow rights”, announced: > This ban denies access to essential healthcare for many trans youth. It is a clear breach of their human rights and will cause unnecessary harm and distress to vulnerable young people. According to the commission’s official statement: > Steps that erode children’s rights to health are in breach not only of international obligations (including in the Convention on the Rights of the Child), but also the government’s obligations under Te Tiriti o Waitangi. Under article 2 of Te Tiriti, Māori have the right to tino rangatiratanga over kāinga (which includes the right to care for children according to tikanga) and taonga (which includes tikanga Māori in relation to gender identity). The government also has the obligation to enable equitable health outcomes under article 3, which requires providing health services that recognise the unique needs of all tamariki Māori. I’ve covered the Corpulent Prudence Walker… [IMPRUDENT NON-WALKER](https://mcleanj.substack.com/p/imprudent-non-walker) [John McLean](https://substack.com/profile/150118186-john-mclean?ref=goodoil.news) 10 August 2025 ![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/31/f4/31f4e20a-0315-499e-83ff-139e8eab53bf/content/images/2026/10/image-11.png) On 24 July 2025, Sport New Zealand officially withdrew its 27 page Guiding Principles for the Inclusion of Transgender People in Community Sport. [Read full story](https://mcleanj.substack.com/p/imprudent-non-walker) If our Human Rights Commission is indeed a friend of confused children, then they don’t need enemies. Trans away all those little gays! The Horror. ![](https://substackcdn.com/image/fetch/$s_!1_vg!,w_1456,c_limit,f_auto,q_auto:good,fl_progressive:steep/https%3A%2F%2Fsubstack-post-media.s3.amazonaws.com%2Fpublic%2Fimages%2Febd0e90b-56d4-4e88-97f7-359c2f348255_405x507.png) Winston Peters has called for La Hood’s decision to be appealed through the court system. But Peters didn’t come down in the last shower and knows that an appeal would fail. New Zealand’s upper courts are full noise Trans Woke. The timing of La Hood’s decision is also curious, to say the least, coming as it did within about a fortnight of a general election and after parliament’s last sitting on 23 September 2026\. It’s almost as if he wanted to slip it in, under the radar of political scrutiny. If the current coalition government is restored after the upcoming election, then one of the first things it should do – if it still wishes to ban puberty blocking – is to abandon the regulations route and pass property legislation – the Puberty Blockers Prohibition Act. Luxon will thankfully be gone soon, and the Weak-Sauce Nats will need to grow some balls and begin to take decisive, powerfully symbolic actions against The Madness. This article was originally published on the [author’s Substack](https://mcleanj.substack.com/p/trust-not-the-courts).