Yes, it's me! Mark Steyn of that ilk - and not dead yet, despite the best efforts of the dirty stinkin' rotten corrupt American "justice" system. For the moment, I am at liberty and thus able to conduct another midweek edition of our Clubland Q&A, taking questions from Mark Steyn Club members around the planet. Our home time zone in North America has sprung into summer, but everywhere else remains fallen back in winter. So for this month only the show starts an hour later in the US, Canada, Jamaica, the Caymans and a few other places such as Panama - that's to say at 4pm North American Eastern Time - but we're at the regular time everywhere else: 8pm Greenwich Mean Time, 9pm in Western Europe, etc.

On today's show I'm happy to talk about whatever's on your mind, including any follow-up questions you might have on the subjects we've touched on at SteynOnline this last week.

~Headline of the Day, courtesy of Dr Neville Hodgkinson over at The Conservative Woman:

Blood from the vaxxed may not be safe for transfusions, say researchers

This story metastasises like one of those turbo-cancers we're assured don't exist. Do read the full Japanese study: the implications for, inter alia, organ donation are not good. I was listening to a podcaster the other day refer to himself as a "pure-blood". But that cuts both ways: You're just giving the state a heads-up on whose uncontaminated body parts to harvest.

~Any thoughts of yours on my brace of free-speech lawsuits are also welcome. My old friend John O'Sullivan has a very good summation of Mann vs Steyn for Australian readers in Quadrant. He begins by dividing public reaction into two hermetically sealed camps:

Much the larger group that knew about the trial from its sparse and occasional coverage in the mainstream media could hardly be either surprised, let alone disturbed, that Steyn and Simberg had lost and received punitive damages for launching attacks on climate scientists and climate science with, as the New York Times reported, "maliciousness, spite, ill will, vengeance or deliberate intent to harm".

On the other hand:

A smaller and more interested group was following the proceedings closely either in court or through the intensive internet coverage of news and commentary websites, including Steyn's own website, but in particular Ann McElhinney's and Phelim McAleer's hour-long daily reconstruction of the trial with actors reading out court transcripts as a play—and an exciting one at that.

That group was amazed that the course of the trial they had been following (which certainly revealed lots of maliciousness, spite, ill-will and vengeance, not wholly or even mainly from the defendants) contrasted so markedly with its result. Instead of a verdict on defamation, they thought, the jury had delivered a public policy decision to protect climate science and scientists from criticism.

John concludes:

What then explains the outcome? In his summing up, the judge had told the jury that the case was about defamation—not climate change. That's a basic legal rule. But it's also a tough call for Washington DC jurors who are told by all the progressive great and good in society that climate change is an imminent threat to the world overriding all other considerations. Mann's lawyer, John Williams, facing a real risk of defeat, told the jury that this was a chance to vindicate their progressive sympathies. They should end the attacks on climate scientists. And that's what they did. They voted to end climate scepticism by transforming it into defamation of climate scientists. If this stands, both scientific debate and free speech fall.

Correct. The verdict was not just a massive setback for the First Amendment, but also a defeat for the scientific method.

~I'm also happy to take any questions on my other legal battle - against the UK state censor Ofcom over my coverage of the Covid "vaccines". GB News chose to submit to the censor re my show, only to find that Chief Commissars Grade and Dawes are now coming after everything else they do, including even the sainted Nigel, who has butched up re Ofcom too late. Ah, if only he and GB management had talked like this a year ago...

Many listeners have asked how they can support these important free-speech cases on both sides of the Atlantic. There are several ways:

a) signing up a friend for a Steyn Club Gift Membership;

b) buying a near-and-dear one a SteynOnline gift certificate; or

c) ordering a copy of my latest book, The Prisoner of Windsor (you won't regret it, says Kathy Gyngell).

~Whether or not you're a member of The Mark Steyn Club, you can listen to our Clubland Q&A live as it happens wherever you chance to be on this turbulent earth: Club membership is required only to ask a question. We love to hear from brand new members, and among the additions to our ranks in recent days are newbies from around the globe, from London to New York, from Vaughan, Ontario to Vaud in Switzerland, from Wichita to Warsaw. Whether you've joined this week either for a full year or a see-how-it-goes experimental quarter do shoot me a head-scratcher for today's show.

But, if you're not interested in joining, no worries, as they say in Oz: We seek no unwilling members - and as always the show is free to listen to, so we hope you'll want to tune in.