John Waters & Gemma O'Doherty to challenge lockdown in the high Court

blueythebear

Niner leprauchan wrote: »

People seem to believe only right wing lunatics oppose the lockdown

You dont have to be a lunatic to be opposed to a lockdown. You have a right to hold a different view to the medical experts of just about every country in the world if you wish, even if you are wrong.

However if you believe that the lockdowns are to implement 5g mind control tech or to force random vaccinations on people to prop up big pharmas profits or to round up celebrity paedophiles then you would be viewed as a lunatic, yes.

growleaves

growleaves wrote: »

So it isn't merely 'Trumptards' or 'Murica' people who are opposed to lockdowns.

The protests that involve people in close proximity isn't exactly a great sign of the intelligence of the protesters though..

is_that_so

Niner leprauchan wrote: »

People seem to believe only right wing lunatics oppose the lockdown

One can oppose it but not with generalised waffle about liberties. One needs to offer an alternative.

growleaves

You dont have to be a lunatic to be opposed to a lockdown. You have a right to hold a different view to the medical experts of just about every country in the world if you wish, even if you are wrong.

Er by supporting the lockdown you hold a view different to medical experts in just about every country in the world.

Some of the oldest and most prestigious medical research universities in the world - University of Bonn, University of Mainz, Oxford University, Curie Institute (France), Cornell Medical School, Rockefeller University - have medical experts who oppose the lockdown.

Gregor Samsa

Deleted User wrote: »

She managed to get 100 people onto the streets yesterday.....usually a protest deos well if it draw out 1% of its support base.

Given with restrictions there is likely noone from outside dublin,deos this make gemma odoherty have 10K supporters in dublin....or are numbers skewed higher by the lockdown??

The turnout yesterday was not 100. I count 55 people in the photo below. Let’s be really generous and say there's 10 behind the lamppost and obscured. That makes 65 - there's still no way there was 100.



I'm not sure why you think that given the restrictions, it's likely that none are from outside Dublin. If the restrictions were a factor, none of them would be there at all except Gemma and John. EDIT: Gemma herself retweeted a post from someone who said that they drove 600km to be at the protest. I assume that's a round trip, because there's nowhere on the island that's a 600km drive from Dublin, unless you get very lost.

That 1% turnout number seems plucked out of the air. If it were true, we should never see a protest in Ireland with more than 50,000 people at it, given our population of about 5 million (and that would be about something that literally everyone in the country supports). We've often seen protests with more than 100,000 people at them, even for things that don't have anything near ubiquitous support.

All in all, your methodology doesn't seem that accurate.

But wait... all is not lost...

You estimated her support in Dublin to be about 10,000 people.

In the 2019 European Parliament Elections (Dublin Constituency), she got 6,659 first preference votes. If you can find or factor about 3,400 non-voting supporters, you would be right

blueythebear

growleaves wrote: »

Er by supporting the lockdown you hold a view different to medical experts in just about every country in the world.

Some of the oldest and most prestigious medical research universities in the world - University of Bonn, University of Mainz, Oxford University, Curie Institute (France), Cornell Medical School, Rockefeller University - have medical experts who oppose the lockdown.

And are those relevant medical experts?

Either way it does not matter. The countries in which those universities are located have locked down on the basis of medical advice so i guess the individuals you refer to must not be the top guys in this field.... plus, the Uk tried not locking down and you see what happened there

growleaves

And are those relevant medical experts?

Yes they are relevant subject-matter experts such as epidemiologists, microbiologists etc. who have given contrary opinions.

Either way it does not matter. The countries in which those universities are located have locked down on the basis of medical advice so i guess the individuals you refer to must not be the top guys in this field.... plus, the Uk tried not locking down and you see what happened there

Well some of them would be in that company but there can only be one policy. I do think the research from Oxford University disease specialists lab could be vindicated over the long-term. Its all academic now.

Risteard81

blueythebear wrote: »

And are those relevant medical experts?

Either way it does not matter. The countries in which those universities are located have locked down on the basis of medical advice so i guess the individuals you refer to must not be the top guys in this field.... plus, the Uk tried not locking down and you see what happened there

We don't see what the difference would have been between locking down and not locking down actually, so stop being so disingenuous.

We also know that the alleged death figures are calculated in bizarre way including for those who were not actually killed by COVID-19. They are meaningless and entirely concocted to promote lockdown as the one true faith as opposed to an act of treason and aggression against the population.

VinLieger

Risteard81 wrote: »

We don't see what the difference would have been between locking down and not locking down actually, so stop being so disingenuous.

We also know that the alleged death figures are calculated in bizarre way including for those who were not actually killed by COVID-19. They are meaningless and entirely concocted to promote lockdown as the one true faith as opposed to an act of treason and aggression against the population.

Hey folks looks like we got one here.


So tell me whats the purpose of the restrictions if not to benefit the public health?

shaveAbullock

VinLieger wrote: »

Hey folks looks like we got one here.


So tell me whats the purpose of the restrictions if not to benefit the public health?

It furthers the objectives of the lizard overlords.

blueythebear

growleaves wrote: »

Yes they are relevant subject-matter experts such as epidemiologists, microbiologists etc. who have given contrary opinions.



Well some of them would be in that company but there can only be one policy. I do think the research from Oxford University disease specialists lab could be vindicated over the long-term. Its all academic now.

I totally accept that the nature of science is for a hypothesis to be tested. In any scenario like this where the science is not 100% there will always be credible dissenting voices.

I think it boils down to whether governments want to take a risk with their citizens lives by accepting the minority view and not locking down or accepting that the majority of science says we should lock down.

They will invariably play it safe because if it fails, you are talking about many more deaths from the virus. Morally nobody could or should really make that choice and from a self interest point of view, no government would put citizens lives at risk by going with the minority scientific view. I think it is correct that everything is fone to save lives so if that means a lockdown, then thats what we do.

blueythebear

Risteard81 wrote: »

We don't see what the difference would have been between locking down and not locking down actually, so stop being so disingenuous.

We also know that the alleged death figures are calculated in bizarre way including for those who were not actually killed by COVID-19. They are meaningless and entirely concocted to promote lockdown as the one true faith as opposed to an act of treason and aggression against the population.

Can you please explain how the figures are treasonous or constitute aggression?

Gregor Samsa

It's funny. My mother in law suffers from paranoid schizophrenia. She refuses to accept this diagnosis and is currently refusing her medication. She's been hospitalised and sectioned a number of times.

Anyway, she's in her 70s, and is cocooning. She doesn't have any internet access, and the only place she gets her news is from local radio and terrestrial TV. I say this to point out that she's not being influenced in any way by online conspiracy theories.

Yesterday, on the phone to my wife, she was roaring down the phone about how the lockdown was an act of treason and aggression against the population (her exact words). She was demanding that the State do the honourable thing and line people up and just shoot them (she often uses phone calls to my wife to convey messages to "the authorities" that she believes are listening in.

I just find it sriking that she comes to the exact same conclusion as Gemma and her supporters, wihout coming into any contact with them.

Risteard81

blueythebear wrote: »

Can you please explain how the figures are treasonous or constitute aggression?

I was very obviously referring to the lockdown policy as opposed to the false figures used to justify it.

eleventh

growleaves wrote:

Protests so far in France, Germany, Russia, Iraq, Lebanon, Phillippines, Malawi and the US.

Lockdown ruled illegal by Supreme Court in Malawi after a human rights group took a case.

Niner leprauchan wrote:

All using different legal systems to us. Malawi is probable the closest and that changed dramatically after Independence

I don't get the point. Are you saying their systems allow the right to protest?

blueythebear

blueythebear wrote: »

You dont have to be a lunatic to be opposed to a lockdown. You have a right to hold a different view to the medical experts of just about every country in the world if you wish, even if you are wrong.

However if you believe that the lockdowns are to implement 5g mind control tech or to force random vaccinations on people to prop up big pharmas profits or to round up celebrity paedophiles then you would be viewed as a lunatic, yes.

Please quote where I said you did

blueythebear

Risteard81 wrote: »

I was very obviously referring to the lockdown policy as opposed to the false figures used to justify it.

Ok then can you please explain how the lockdown is treasonous, goven the fact that the stated intention is to prevent deaths of irish citizens?

eleventh

eleventh wrote: »

I don't get the point. Are you saying their systems allow the right to protest?

I'm saying that what happens on France has no bearing on us nor used an example of what would happen.

France operates Napoleonic law, Italy a romsn legal system. Spain a mix of both. Germany I can't remember but it's not like ours I don't think. Iraq and Lebanon have very different systems.

The Irish system is based on the British common law system as was Malawi thus they are the closest to us. However they greatly changed their system and in the 1970s reduced freedoms that were built into the legal system.

The us created their own system but the one they were used to was again common law moving into monarchist and statute. There remains similarities but they have mutated greatly.

Add to all of that the Constitution of ours being a republican Constitution from the early 20th century which may mimic the French but it's different to Britain and Spain and Germany.

blueythebear

Niner leprauchan wrote: »

Please quote where I said you did

I am not saying that you ever said that you have to be a lunatic to be opposed to the lockdown...

blueythebear

blueythebear wrote: »

I am not saying that you ever said that you have to be a lunatic to be opposed to the lockdown...

Fair enough, it read that way as you were quoting me and my point was exactly the same

shaveAbullock

blueythebear wrote: »

I am not saying that you ever said that you have to be a lunatic to be opposed to the lockdown...

Or Swedish

eleventh

blueythebear wrote:

.. explain how the lockdown is treasonous, goven the fact that the stated intention is to prevent deaths of irish citizens?

A stated intention can be different than the actual intention - especially when it comes from a political system that's corrupt.

Treason means betrayal of trust.
Irish people elect a government to act in their best interests.
Irish government acts against the best interests of Irish people - instead obeys the wishes of world government bodies who want to impose their rule.
Irish government members are in their jobs because they're happy to follow those orders - because it's more important to them to advance their careers than it is to care about doing what is right.

eleventh

eleventh wrote: »

A stated intention can be different than the actual intention - especially when it comes from a political system that's corrupt.

Treason means betrayal of trust.
Irish people elect a government to act in their best interests.
Irish government acts against the best interests of Irish people - instead obeys the wishes of world government bodies who want to impose their rule.
Irish government members are in their jobs because they're happy to follow those orders - because it's more important to them to advance their careers than it is to care about doing what is right.

Ah, so clear now. You have a different meaning to words than we do

Gregor Samsa

eleventh wrote: »

Treason means betrayal of trust.

I think you’re being unduly broad with the definition there.

I think, in the context of the discussion we’re having here, the more regular definition of treason being “the crime of betraying one's country,” is the one most people will understand is being used. Treason is usually regarded in most legal systems as being one of the most serious of all crimes. It’s therefore not something to casually accuse people of. It would also be disingenuous to claim that one actually means a much broader and less serious definition of it, without being explicit about that up front.

eleventh

Niner leprauchan wrote:

I'm saying that what happens on France has no bearing on us nor used an example of what would happen.

That is not the reality of the situation we are in though.
The Irish government's whole policy has been based on what happened in other countries. Almost every measure they have taken has been copying what other countries did.

France operates Napoleonic law, Italy a romsn legal system. Spain a mix of both. Germany I can't remember but it's not like ours I don't think. Iraq and Lebanon have very different systems.

The Irish system is based on the British common law system as was Malawi thus they are the closest to us. However they greatly changed their system and in the 1970s reduced freedoms that were built into the legal system.

The us created their own system but the one they were used to was again common law moving into monarchist and statute. There remains similarities but they have mutated greatly.

Add to all of that the Constitution of ours being a republican Constitution from the early 20th century which may mimic the French but it's different to Britain and Spain and Germany.

How does any of that have relevance to the discussion, of either
a) people in Ireland protesting or not
b) people challenging the legality of the emergency laws

brightspark

eleventh wrote: »

A stated intention can be different than the actual intention - especially when it comes from a political system that's corrupt.

Treason means betrayal of trust.
Irish people elect a government to act in their best interests.
Irish government acts against the best interests of Irish people - instead obeys the wishes of world government bodies who want to impose their rule.
Irish government members are in their jobs because they're happy to follow those orders - because it's more important to them to advance their careers than it is to care about doing what is right.

This is THE definition of treason.

"Treason shall consist only in levying war against the State, or assisting any State or person or inciting or conspiring with any person to levy war against the State, or attempting by force of arms or other violent means to overthrow the organs of government established by this Constitution, or taking part or being concerned in or inciting or conspiring with any person to make or to take part or be concerned in any such attempt."

blueythebear

eleventh wrote: »

Irish people elect a government to act in their best interests.

Do you believe that preventing the deaths of irish people is acting in the best interests of irish people?

VinLieger

Risteard81 wrote: »

I was very obviously referring to the lockdown policy as opposed to the false figures used to justify it.

To what end are they falsifying the figures to justify the restrictions?

blueythebear

eleventh wrote: »

A stated intention can be different than the actual intention - especially when it comes from a political system that's corrupt.

The political system is corrupt? Do you believe that vote counts in the last election were tampered with or something?

holyhead

You could argue they have a legal right to challenge Government either on the grounds of its actions or legislation. We are after all a democracy. The problem with such freedom is, that it is abused as is the case here. Waters has always been anti establishment. I don't know much about O'Doherty.

I do think in taking this case they are

1. Acting recklessly.
2. Wasting court time.
3. Costing the state money at the most inopportune time.
4. Showing disregard for the health of their fellow citizen both in taking this case and drawing a crowd.

While the dynamic duo claim the state is unlawfully curtailing our freedom, these wizards are abusing our democracy by taking this case.

eleventh

Gregor Samsa wrote:

I think you’re being unduly broad with the definition there.

Treason is usually regarded in most legal systems as being one of the most serious of all crimes. It’s therefore not something to casually accuse people of. It would also be disingenuous to claim that one actually means a much broader and less serious definition of it, without being explicit about that up front.

It's not a legal forum so I did not give a text book definition. People who are interested in the longer definition can look it up easily enough.

Mrs Shuttleworth

holyhead wrote: »

You could argue they have a legal right to challenge Government either on the grounds of its actions or legislation. We are after all a democracy. The problem with such freedom is, that it is abused as is the case here. Waters has always been anti establishment. I don't know much about O'Doherty.

I do think in taking this case they are

1. Acting recklessly.
2. Wasting court time.
3. Costing the state money at the most inopportune time.
4. Showing disregard for the health of their fellow citizen both in taking this case and drawing a crowd.

While the dynamic duo claim the state is unlawfully curtailing our freedom, these wizards are abusing our democracy by taking this case.

"Abusing democracy by taking this case?" Fruit loop stuff.

Have you actually read the legislation they're challenging? Have you read their pleadings?

Gregor Samsa

brightspark wrote: »

This is THE definition of treason.

Ah here, don’t be confusing the constitutional defenders by quoting the Constitution.

suicide_circus

People need hate figures

eleventh

brightspark wrote: »

This is THE definition of treason.

"Treason shall consist only in levying war against the State, or assisting any State or person or inciting or conspiring with any person to levy war against the State, or attempting by force of arms or other violent means to overthrow the organs of government established by this Constitution, or taking part or being concerned in or inciting or conspiring with any person to make or to take part or be concerned in any such attempt."

I would say that's not a clear definition.

Then again, covid19 has been described as a war situation necessitating emergency laws and powers.
I don't know if the term "war" has been used by anyone in the government. I have definitely heard phrases like "war against covid" used in the media.

holyhead

Mrs Shuttleworth wrote: »

"Abusing democracy by taking this case?" Fruit loop stuff.

Have you actually read the legislation they're challenging?

We're not on lockdown for some reality TV show. This is serious. Stick your fruit loop comment where the sun don't shine.

Mrs Shuttleworth

eleventh wrote: »

I would say that's not a clear definition.

Then again, covid19 has been described as a war situation necessitating emergency laws and powers.
I don't know if the term "war" has been used by anyone in the government. I have definitely heard phrases like "war against covid" used in the media.

There's a specific process that has to be followed to declare an emergency in Ireland and that was directly specified and set out in a Supreme Court constitutional ruling in 2011 however that procedure wasn't followed by the Government in enacting this legislation.

brightspark

eleventh wrote: »

I would say that's not a clear definition.

Then again, covid19 has been described as a war situation necessitating emergency laws and powers.
I don't know if the term "war" has been used by anyone in the government. I have definitely heard phrases like "war against covid" used in the media.

Considering it is the definition in the Constitution (Article 39), I think it is clear enough.

Most words do have fairly clear definitions, if everyone just made up their own definitions of words then life is going to be very confusing.

normanbond

That pair are simply attention seeking nut jobs!!
Fr Neil Horan will probably offer to do a special peace jig for them in solidarity 😆

Balf

Risteard81 wrote: »

... an act of treason and aggression against the population.

Calling it treason is unnecessary ranting.

It may simply be Government exceeding it's powers to direct us. That's the point missed by many folk criticising the Court challenge. Ranting about treason doesn't illuminate the issue for them.

We don't live in a feudal society, only allowed to do whatever our God-appointed rulers permit. Although that seems to be what some believe.

We live in a State where the Government draws its legitimacy from the consent of the people, as defined in the Constitution. In other words, it is the Government that is only allowed to do whatever the Constitution allows. We can do whatever we like, unless it is specifically agreed that we can't.

It is absolutely our right to move, assemble and earn a living. Its the Government that's on the back foot, because they have to demonstrate that a proportionate response to the risk of spreading Covid is to stop perfectly healthy people from doing what they want.

Not easy, I'd suggest, in a context where its apparently fine for fruit pickers to enter the country from abroad, but absolutely not right for people from Finglas to walk around the Hill of Howth.

Gregor Samsa

eleventh wrote: »

I would say that's not a clear definition.

Then again, covid19 has been described as a war situation necessitating emergency laws and powers.
I don't know if the term "war" has been used by anyone in the government. I have definitely heard phrases like "war against covid" used in the media.

It’s the legal definition. As for media comments about war, that is a metaphor, which is common linguistic technique but has no legal standing. There’s also a legal definition of war (i.e. not a metaphor) that can be used to understand the legal definition of treason. It’s almost as if there’s a defined system of rules and practices that governs now thing work.

eleventh

Brightspark wrote:

Most words do have fairly clear definitions, if everyone just made up their own definitions of words then life is going to be very confusing.

Yet every country has its own definition, which you can see here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treason
Some have lengthy definitions giving several points where treason can be said to occur.

brightspark

eleventh wrote: »

Yet every country has its own definition, which you can see here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treason
Some have lengthy definitions giving several points where treason can be said to occur.

It's not relevant what other countries define it as, we are talking about in Ireland.

Gregor Samsa

eleventh wrote: »

Yet every country has its own definition.

Some countries would define driving on the left hand side of the road as dangerous driving.

Mrs Shuttleworth

Balf wrote: »

Calling it treason is unnecessary ranting.

It may simply be Government exceeding it's powers to direct us. That's the point missed by many folk criticising the Court challenge. Ranting about treason doesn't illuminate the issue for them.

We don't live in a feudal society, only allowed to do whatever our God-appointed rulers permit. Although that seems to be what some believe.

We live in a State where the Government draws its legitimacy from the consent of the people, as defined in the Constitution. In other words, it is the Government that is only allowed to do whatever the Constitution allows. We can do whatever we like, unless it is specifically agreed that we can't.

It is absolutely our right to move, assemble and earn a living. Its the Government that's on the back foot, because they have to demonstrate that a proportionate response to the risk of spreading Covid is to stop perfectly healthy people from doing what they want.

Not easy, I'd suggest, in a context where its apparently fine for fruit pickers to enter the country from abroad, but absolutely not right for people from Finglas to walk around the Hill of Howth.

Bang on.

+1

eleventh

brightspark wrote:

It's not relevant what other countries define it as, we are talking about in Ireland.

My reply was to your idea that the same definition of treason applies everywhere - obviously not true.
I did quote what you said when replying. Here it is again for you:

brightspark wrote:

Most words do have fairly clear definitions, if everyone just made up their own definitions of words then life is going to be very confusing.

kippy

eleventh wrote: »

To those who don't want legislation to be questioned
you really don't have to do much to get your wish. Totalitarianism is on the way.

Most here want to speed it up by the sounds of it.

The government must be glad to have such support. All they have to do is pay people 350/week to sit on social media posting on how much they dislike people who disagree with the government and how much they want lockdowns to continue(or escalate).

It is sad that so many are almost begging for their own demise, seemingly unaware that that is what they're doing.

In this instance, what is/was the alternative?

brightspark

eleventh wrote: »

My reply was to your idea that the same definition of treason applies everywhere - obviously not true.
I did quote what you said when replying. Here it is again for you:

No you are actually proving my point by extending the definition beyond it's actual meaning here in Ireland.

I could just as easily claim that anyone who is complaining about the current restrictions and seeking to have them removed is being treasonous as they are endangering the lives of the citizens of the State.
They aren't, they are just being selfish, reckless and ignorant.

Gregor Samsa

eleventh wrote: »

My reply was to your idea that the same definition of treason applies everywhere - obviously not true.

You’re confusing “dictionary definition” with “legal definition”. The dictionary definition of treason. - The crime of betrayal of one’s country, is universal. The legal definition of what specifically constitutes such a betrayal is dependent on the laws of the given country.

eleventh

brightspark wrote:

No you are actually proving my point by extending the definition beyond it's actual meaning here in Ireland.

1) What point are you referring to? Quote it.
2) Where did I "extend the definition beyond it's actual meaning here in Ireland". Quote that as well.