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

Hamsterchops

Long_Wave wrote: »

Now I know they are going to get a lot of ridicule for this but the lockdown is almost certainly unconstitutional so I wish them luck. https://mobile.twitter.com/gemmaod1/status/1250421661062459399

Nutters, wouldn't surprise if ex priestess, spiritual guru & Harikrishna activist Sinead O'Connor is also on board :cool:

jmayo

Juicee wrote: »

How many livlihoods are going down the drain over this lockdown?
How many healthy people are going to become unhealthy due to psychological distress, financial distress, depression, not having access to social activities, adequate sunlight, fresh air, nature etc.

Questions have also been raised by many, over the misrepresentation of death stats cancer/heart disease/seasonal flu/pneumonia/natural causes deaths are plummeting they say, while covid deaths are skyrocketing.

It marvellous how many people have suddenly become concerned with mental health issues.

Years ago I used to laugh when older people that lived through WWII used to take pot shots at younger generations, but fooking hell if current generations had to deal with nightly air raids they would be pi**ing in their pants and shivering lunatics after one night.
These were people that lived and worked in London, Birmingham, Coventry, etc, not someones living in Ireland who can't go out as they please.

And yeah the whole dying from covid is a conspiracy.

Sure aren't all those old people just dying.
I mean FFS just look at all the people dying in New York, Spain, Italy.
Nothing out of the ordinary whatsoever.

It's not just O'Doherty and Waters that are loons.
It appears a sizable chunk of our population are afflicted with the same lack of brain cells.
I didn't know we had such a preponderance of village idiots.
We could start an export business with the numbers.

Juicee

Pinkpotato wrote: »

STATUTORY RULES AND ORDERS. 1941. No. 13.

THE PUBLIC HEALTH (INFECTIOUS DISEASES) REGULATIONS, 1941.

DEPARTMENT OF LOCAL GOVERNMENT AND PUBLIC HEALTH.

WHEREAS the Minister for Local Government and Public Health is empowered by Section 148 of the Public Health (Ireland) Act, 1878, as amended by the Public Health Act, 1896, from time to time, to make, alter and revoke regulations with a view to the treatment of persons affected with any epidemic, endemic or infectious disease and for preventing the spread of the disease and to provide for the enforcement and execution of the regulations :

None of that's from the constitution though.

I believe it is a section of the health act 1947 that has been activated for the current restrictions. Its constitutionality has never been tested but it looks like that's about to change

Juicee

jmayo wrote: »

It marvellous how many people have suddenly become concerned with mental health issues.

Years ago I used to laugh when older people that lived through WWII used to take pot shots at younger generations, but fooking hell if current generations had to deal with nightly air raids they would be pi**ing in their pants and shivering lunatics after one night.
These were people that lived and worked in London, Birmingham, Coventry, etc, not someones living in Ireland who can't go out as they please.

And yeah the whole dying from covid is a conspiracy.

Sure aren't all those old people just dying.
I mean FFS just look at all the people dying in New York, Spain, Italy.
Nothing out of the ordinary whatsoever.

It's not just O'Doherty and Waters that are loons.
It appears a sizable chunk of our population are afflicted with the same lack of brain cells.
I didn't know we had such a preponderance of village idiots.
We could start an export business with the numbers.

please see my post at 17:05

Quin_Dub

Juicee wrote: »

Gemma posted a stat on her twitter showing the deaths are down about 1000 versus at this stage in 2017 / 2018 / 2019. She also posted a US gov stat showing seasonal flu deaths plummeted vs same stage in previous years.
I haven't verified this myself personally. I'm sure it could be proven (or disproven if untrue) easily enough

Of course they are - Everybody is inside and not going out and about - Yet with all of that , we still have 400+ deaths from this.

It's hardly surprising that Flu deaths are down - That's the impact of Social distancing for you , however the infinitely more virulent Covid19 is still killing people.

As for other deaths - Is it in any way surprising that accidental deaths etc. are down in a time when no one is going outside or driving?

We had a poor start to the year for road deaths , but only a very small handful in the last few weeks - How many deaths would there have been over the Bank Holiday if it were a normal Easter for example?

The extreme lack of critical thinking from Conspiracy theorists like Gemma O'Doherty is one of the many things I don't understand about them - They see a single isolated figure that aligns with their theory and carry out absolutely ZERO validation of that data point before hyping it as absolute proof that they are right..

jackboy

Would I be right in assuming that if the high court doesn’t shoot this down they will just refer up to the Supreme Court? If yes it will take a long time to get a definitive answer from the courts.

astrofool

I'd imagine the news coverage and this thread is both the beginning and end of what the attention seeking Gemma and John were looking to get out of this.

They are bad people at their core. If you believe them or follow them, inside you are a bad person as well. Please go and internalise that.

Quin_Dub

Quin_Dub wrote: »

It's hardly surprising that Flu deaths are down - That's the impact of Social distancing for you.

Just on this point - Anthony Fauci in the US made the comment the other day that he'd like to see the increased hand-washing , covering your mouth when you cough, general hygiene/disinfecting etc. continue after all this is settled down as it would have a massive impact on Flu deaths in future years.

One of the potential positives of all of this is a general increase in peoples awareness of personal hygiene and cleanliness leading to a sharp decrease in the spread of common infectious diseases .

owlbethere

We had 41 deaths yesterday. If it wasn't for the restrictions that are in place there would be a lot more people dying from this in Ireland.

plodder

Juicee wrote: »

Article 40 (which protects personal freedom) and article 15 (which prevents legislation which is quote "repugnant" to the constitution)

As an aside, I find it amazing the amount of personal abuse that is allowed on this forum, absolutely no need for it.

Not a lawyer, but many rights are subject to limits based on some notion of the common good, and even when they aren't, rights like free movement are clearly impinging on other rights like bodily integrity and health, which are threatened by the virus in this case. So, it doesn't take a legal genius to accept that some restrictions would be accepted by the courts. I think they bent over backwards to keep these restrictions as limited as possible and explaining the rationale for them.

The truth is that no matter how water tight the law is, people can still challenge it in the High Court and go on to appeal it then further. At least here, as another poster points out, the worst of the restrictions will be long over before the courts come out with a decision.

RTE report here

https://www.rte.ie/news/courts/2020/0415/1130727-covid-19-restrictions-challenged-in-high-court/

Judging by the arguments outlined there, there is little to be worrying about ... It's very unlikely that that pair of armchair lawyers will find a flaw in the laws or regulations imo.

Guy:Incognito

Breezin wrote: »

Maybe because they don't actually minimise it -- see the Sweden thread. Proportionally, we are doing no better, or not much better than them, at much more cost.

So, from a personal standpoint, would you continue exactly as you were before if no restrictions had been put in place? Or would you take precautions?

wadacrack

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GCSXNGc7pfs

listermint

Juicee wrote: »

How many livlihoods are going down the drain over this lockdown?
How many healthy people are going to become unhealthy due to psychological distress, financial distress, depression, not having access to social activities, adequate sunlight, fresh air, nature etc.

Questions have also been raised by many, over the misrepresentation of death stats cancer/heart disease/seasonal flu/pneumonia/natural causes deaths are plummeting they say, while covid deaths are skyrocketing.

I'm assuming alot less than 125,000 which would have been he projected numbers with mortality rate and our population size or is 125,000 a nice number for libertarians among us..

is_that_so

Juicee wrote: »

Article 40 (which protects personal freedom) and article 15 (which prevents legislation which is quote "repugnant" to the constitution)

As an aside, I find it amazing the amount of personal abuse that is allowed on this forum, absolutely no need for it.

Then why are they not going straight to the SC? How is it repugnant? And how does this claim fit in with the concept of the State as guardian of the common good?

Juicee

Juicee wrote: »

How many livlihoods are going down the drain over this lockdown?
How many healthy people are going to become unhealthy due to psychological distress, financial distress, depression, not having access to social activities, adequate sunlight, fresh air, nature etc.

Questions have also been raised by many, over the misrepresentation of death stats cancer/heart disease/seasonal flu/pneumonia/natural causes deaths are plummeting they say, while covid deaths are skyrocketing.

Not having adequate access to sunlight, fresh air and nature, even Gems who goes on like she lives in a tinfoil lined bunker is out and about.

She and Walters are tools, we're still stuck with him despite his promise to emigrate if the 8th was repealed.

They certainly know how to gather the low hanging fruitcakes and are a handy tool for that scrote Barrett.

is_that_so

Juicee wrote: »

How many livlihoods are going down the drain over this lockdown?
How many healthy people are going to become unhealthy due to psychological distress, financial distress, depression, not having access to social activities, adequate sunlight, fresh air, nature etc.

Questions have also been raised by many, over the misrepresentation of death stats cancer/heart disease/seasonal flu/pneumonia/natural causes deaths are plummeting they say, while covid deaths are skyrocketing.

There seem to be about 40 questions in one here. I don't think you want answers to them TBH, just a spot of venting on whatever views you hold on this. You really might want to consider some reframing on your perceptions of life.

owlbethere

wadacrack wrote: »

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GCSXNGc7pfs

Vitamin D, the sunshine vitamin.

Is that why Gemma is going to court over the restrictions?

Absolutely ridiculous argument. People can still go out and soak up the sun for about 10/15 minutes and that's your vitamin D. It's also available as a supplement. People can still leave their homes and go outside but there are restrictions of 2km to prevent new clusters of the disease from forming.

kenmc

Can't it just be scheduled for after the lockdown, when it's safe to congregate once more? Like 2044 or something

Palmach

Long_Wave wrote: »

Now I know they are going to get a lot of ridicule for this but the lockdown is almost certainly unconstitutional so I wish them luck. https://mobile.twitter.com/gemmaod1/status/1250421661062459399

Bravo Gemma. You are a racist conspiracy obsessed nutcase but maith an cailín for this.

jimmycrackcorm

Juicee wrote: »

Constitution mentions Emergency. Emergency is defined as war only. I understand a supreme court case in 2011 reaffirmed this

It' s notes if we didn't previously already have such emergency laws as precdent. The Emergency Powers Act, 1939 allowed for similar wide-ranging same restrictions.

Palmach

bennyl10 wrote: »

Article 24.1 allows for public emergency, not necessary for it to be war,a dn allows for bill to be passed for the preservation of public peace and security

that is actually what's happened in this case

And the powers given to the Guards are simply wide ranging to cover Covid 19. I have seen Guards stopping people from fishing even though there is no one be near them.

kenmc

Palmach wrote: »

And the powers given to the Guards are simply wide ranging to cover Covid 19. I have seen Guards stopping people from fishing even though there is no one be near them.

Fishing or trolling?

VinLieger

They are both conspiracy nutjobs, im surprised they arent dont mention 5G and microchips in their legal arguments

John Hutton

The restrictions may be necessary and worthwhile but it doesn't mean they are legal.

There are some very interesting constitutional questions at play here, will be curious to see what happens.

VinLieger

John Hutton wrote: »

The restrictions may be necessary and worthwhile but it doesn't mean they are legal.

There are some very interesting constitutional questions at play here, will be curious to see what happens.

There really isn't, do you know how I can tell? Cus of the conspiracy idiots involved.

blueythebear

Theres a report on this in the journal and they seem to be relying on technical grounds related to the manner in which the laws were enacted, i.e. not enough TDs in the chamber at the time, that the government is a caretaker government, etc.

The whole thing is a publicity stunt anyway....even if they succeed in getting leave for a full judicial review, no ultimate decision by the court will be made for months, by which time there will be a functioning government and new legislation can be passed.

I also note that they were self represented, so no solicitor wanted to act for them. I wonder why....

Breezin

Guy:Incognito wrote: »

So, from a personal standpoint, would you continue exactly as you were before if no restrictions had been put in place? Or would you take precautions?

I would most certainly take precautions. Like they are in Sweden!

blueythebear

John Hutton wrote: »

The restrictions may be necessary and worthwhile but it doesn't mean they are legal.

There are some very interesting constitutional questions at play here, will be curious to see what happens.

There are no fundamental rights issues worth arguing here. They only have very technical arguments about the implementation of the legislation, which, as lay litigants, they are going to find it extremely difficult to succeed with.

carchaeologist

Pelvis Parsley wrote: »

Waters really has a thing for crazy, doesn’t he?

He threw a pup in Sinead O’Connor.
Nuff said.

riffmongous

Breezin wrote: »

Maybe because they don't actually minimise it -- see the Sweden thread. Proportionally, we are doing no better, or not much better than them, at much more cost.

Except there are also countries that introduced lockdowns and have a much lower death rate than Ireland or Sweden, comparable examples being Austria and Czechia

JP Liz V1

Whose paying for this?

blueythebear

JP Liz V1 wrote: »

Whose paying for this?

Theyre representing themselves so their costs would be minimal. But the State has to engage barristers and will have to pay for that.

growleaves

Except there are also countries that introduced lockdowns and have a much lower death rate than Ireland or Sweden, comparable examples being Austria and Czechia

There also countries that didn't introduce lockdowns that have a much lower death rate than Ireland or Sweden, such as Taiwan and Belarus and states like Iowa.

Away With The Fairies

What lockdown though? They were only restrictions, even someone asked Leo about the lockdown on the first evening of the announcement and he didn't mention anything about a lockdown, he didn't use the word lockdown, they were restrictions. Good looney Gemma.

Harry Palmr

Ah jasus, their case is on Six-One News (for 20 seconds)

AmberGold

Harry Palmr wrote: »

Ah jasus, their case is on Six-One News (for 20 seconds)

Saw that, what a pair of total wasters.

2ndcoming

Would everyone please stop holding up Sweden as some kind of positive example.

Their case numbers are low because they have done hardly any testing... they had over four times as many deaths than us today, have three times as many deaths overall.

Compare them to their neighbours in Finland and Denmark if you want to see the evidence of whether the measures are important.

As for the pair of self-serving ghouls in the thread title, both should be ignored at all costs no matter what attention seeking stunt they come up with.

coolclogher

blueythebear wrote: »

Theyre representing themselves so their costs would be minimal. But the State has to engage barristers and will have to pay for that.

Given that they are bringing the case they should have to post a bond to cover the states legal costs ( or some portion) if the case goes against them.

southstar

Listened to ,David Quinn try an opportunist dig at WHO ,..they were slow to the game blah blah..I really don't really like Trump.RREALLY.....REALLY.....blah blah..,.time was crucial..blah blah..
.David think condoms ..and all the other lazy bull****..what were you saying then.,how many years did it all that take to address.,.David you got licked ,move on

Breezin

2ndcoming wrote: »

Would everyone please stop holding up Sweden as some kind of positive example.

Their case numbers are low because they have done hardly any testing... they had over four times as many deaths than us today, have three times as many deaths overall.

Compare them to their neighbours in Finland and Denmark if you want to see the evidence of whether the measures are important.

Did you read the reports on rte.ie and in the Guardian? Those comparisons are covered and put in context.

jos28

The restrictions were put in place to protect each and everyone of us.
There would have been no need to implement legislation if gobshi*** didn't try to ignore the restrictions.
People should morally and socially respect the restrictions but there will always be idiots who think they know better.

riffmongous

growleaves wrote: »

There also countries that didn't introduce lockdowns that have a much lower death rate than Ireland or Sweden, such as Taiwan and Belarus and states like Iowa.

You'd rather compare Taiwan and Belarus to Ireland than Austria or Czechia?

blueythebear

coolclogher wrote: »

Given that they are bringing the case they should have to post a bond to cover the states legal costs ( or some portion) if the case goes against them.

Unfortunately, security for costs is very difficult to obtain and is likely to bd impossible for the state to obtain. The reason its so difficult is to ensure everyones right of access to justice is upheld, even these two characters

trashcan

blueythebear wrote: »

Theyre representing themselves so their costs would be minimal. But the State has to engage barristers and will have to pay for that.

Well, the losing party in a judicial review would normally have costs awarded against them by the Courts, which would mean they would be on the hook for the States costs, as well as their own. Of course the Judge has discretion to do whatever what he (or she) wants as regards costs.

blueythebear

trashcan wrote: »

Well, the losing party in a judicial review would normally have costs awarded against them by the Courts, which would mean they would be on the hook for the States costs, as well as their own. Of course the Judge has discretion to do whatever what he (or she) wants as regards costs.

Yes, and in this case, whether they raise an issue of public importance is particularly relevant also but irrespective of that, i dont believe i have ever heard of the state pursuing costs in a judicial review...

Juicee

Juicee wrote: »

Article 40 (which protects personal freedom) and article 15 (which prevents legislation which is quote "repugnant" to the constitution)

As an aside, I find it amazing the amount of personal abuse that is allowed on this forum, absolutely no need for it.

'save in accordance with law'. People always forget that part.

Legislation had existed since 1939 impeding the personal right to personal freedom. There's been multiple acts since then that have restricted your personal freedom. In fact most acts restrict your personal freedom in some manner. It's not an absolute right and it's not claimed to be.

satguy

John Waters & Gemma O'Dorherty,, two fine upstanding individuals.

Right up there with other great leaders of people such as Chairman Mao and Pol Pot,, take a bow guys..

Foxhound38

Their kind of idiocy is actually dangerous. I say that as somebody who stupidly downplayed the seriousness of this thing until it became clear (for slow learners such as myself) that this catastrophe is as serious as it gets (before the lockdown for the record).

I have a conspiracy-minded uncle with too much time on his hands constantly sending me whatsapps about how this whole thing is a hoax and the restrictions are just a reason for the government to do x,y and z. I have to beg him to take this seriously, for fear that he will actually flout the restrictions, get infected and get seriously ill. The videos he sends me are Gemma O'Doherty's.

Pure bloody insanity - has she no family or friends that could have a chat with her about this behaviour?

Plumbthedepths

Plumbthedepths wrote: »

The right to assemble as an example is protected by the constitution yet outlawed at the moment. So the poster may well be right. Maybe a legal mind could give a better answer.

As above, save in accordance with law and many laws infringe upon that right.

The courts have found many times that your individual rights cannot be at the expense of the rights of others.

coolclogher

coolclogher wrote: »

Given that they are bringing the case they should have to post a bond to cover the states legal costs ( or some portion) if the case goes against them.

While that would prevent loony cases, it's important that the average person can challenge the law in court. I would have to see us go down the road of the courts only being accessible to the rich