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

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

paw patrol wrote: »

I find the attitudes here bizarre. Really fcukin weird.

It is good and proper that our laws are tested in court. This is a good thing - should be seen as such.
Only a moron would object to that.

Love the lockdown or loath it - your liking should be irrelevant , a proper free society should allow and delight at these challenges. It shows the system works and prevents excessive government control.

The vitriol here is amazing , this lockdown for some on boards its like "Papal Infallibility" ,it cannot be questioned.
This awe of our betters should have died out decades ago.

We know governments can be correct at times, make mistakes at times or be downright nefarious at times . So why the gung-ho blind following of them?

The lads in government and the HSE are not infallible and nor are they make from better clay than the rest of us (to misquote Frederic Bastiat) . Not to question or challenge them is moronic.

You’re right, people are free to make these challenges. However, people are also free to comment upon these challenges. People who talk about society being free and their entitlements with regards to that never seem to consider that the free action can be criticised and that’s also free.

Zaph

Strumms wrote: »

People might not like whats going on... but its been proven as necessary , in fact a crictital necessity to maintaining a health and wellbeing of our population a healthy and functioning country. Not proven by FF/FG or any political grouping but by the health experts worldwide..

I agree. Personally I couldn't give a flying fcuk whether the measures ordered by the government are constitutional or not. These are extraordinary circumstances that require extraordinary measures. And if it means staying inside to ensure the health and safety of me and those I care about specifically, but also the wider population, then I'm not going to argue about it. Sure, I'm fed up working from home, it's a pain in the ass, but I'm one of the lucky ones who hasn't been laid off, so in the grand scheme of things I've little to moan about.

12trackmind

Gregor Samsa wrote: »

I don't think that's safe to assume at all. There may still be some restrictions in November, or if things go badly wrong, the current levels of restrictions may be back by November, but all indications are that the current levels of restrictions will be relaxed long before then. To what level is the big question.

Fair enough. I'm glad the ICCL is onto it anyway.



Either way, the case being taken by Waters and O'Doherty now seems to superfluous and unecessary...

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

Juicee wrote: »

This is called playing the man not the ball. THE most prevalent tactic here on this forum.

And? Sometimes the ball is the problem.

paw patrol

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »

You’re right, people are free to make these challenges. However, people are also free to comment upon these challenges. People who talk about society being free and their entitlements with regards to that never seem to consider that the free action can be criticised and that’s also free.

agreed 100%

but the level of hate expressed here is something else beyond comment

super_furry

Who's funding her? She doesn't work but she has a seemingly endless supply of money for court-cases, presidential campaigns, election campaigns and the rest. Would love to know who's putting up the money for all of that and what their agenda is.

Zaph

paw patrol wrote: »

agreed 100%

but the level of hate expressed here is something else

That stems from all the other sh*te she's felt the need to involve herself in over the last couple of years. She's a nasty hatemonger who deserves nothing but people's contempt.

SetOverSet

is_that_so wrote: »

It's not a constitutional challenge as the HC can't hear one. It's a challenge to the alleged illegality of the enactment of the emergency legislation.

It can. The High Court has full jurisdiction in and power to determine all matters and questions whether of law or fact, civil or criminal (Art. 34.3.1), including the validity of any law having regard to the Constitution (Art. 34.3.2). Perhaps you're thinking of an Article 26 reference to the SC?

12trackmind

super_furry wrote: »

Who's funding her? She doesn't work but she has a seemingly endless supply of money for court-cases, presidential campaigns, election campaigns and the rest. Would love to know who's putting up the money for all of that and what their agenda is.

Good q! You have me wondering now too. Does she do that patreon thing? (Then the q becomes who funds the patrons, of course.)

Looking at her track record and fixations, you'd have to suspect U.S. far-right funding. And who funds the American far-right? Hmmm...

TaurenDruid

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

It's basically marxism :pac:

Cultural marxism?

plodder

Mrs Shuttleworth wrote: »

I can well understand anyone thinking on the face of it given their track record that they're loons for taking this action however if you read the legislation in fine print there's some really sinister material in there that the MSM has conveniently kept quiet about.

For example, an "officer of health" or "authorised person" can direct a member of An Garda Siochana to break into your home, remove you and detain you indefinitely until the "officer of health" decides you're no longer a "public health risk" and here's the clincher you only have to be a "potential source of infection" not actually have the virus or be in contact with anyone who has it. The law also says the "officer of health" doesn't have to test you on making the order for up to 14 days! And furthermore the appeal process to the Minister for Health under the 1947 Act is abolished.

That's not quite correct. Search for the word "review" rather than "appeal" and the process is much the same as it has been since 1947.

In fact the whole process is much the same as it has been since 1947. How many times have the gardai broke into people's homes to do this up to now?

TaurenDruid

paw patrol wrote: »

agreed 100%

but the level of hate expressed here is something else beyond comment

And again I refer you to the likes of ooh, let's see - maybe Gemma's own facebook livestreams and twitter feed, where she'll attack workers, gardaí, "psychopath Bill Gates" and even children, to the extent she gets banned.

How about commenting on that level of abuse?

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

Gretas Gonna Get Ya! wrote: »

Allowing people to die, by not protecting them from a deadly virus... would that not be unconstitutional too?

Doesn't the state have a duty of care over its citizens?

This Gemma O'Doherty lass... Is she suffering from some sort of mental illness or something?

She seems to find controversy and outrage around every corner she looks... I've nothing against people standing up against injustices, but this lady just seems a bit mentally unstable and one of those looney SJW types!

(She also likes to throw in a nice big dollop of religion/conspiracy theory BS just to put a little cherry on top of her fruitcake - always does wonders for your all-round credibility that)

I would say yes. Because I remember when she was a decent enough journalist. Measured, analytical, made some good points. Something has happened to her in the last few years.

eleventh

Joeythparrot wrote:

...saving their anger/indignation for public discourse is really all about them narcissistically looking for media headlines.

So you're saying what - that anyone who expresses indignation on a topic (as almost everyone does at some point) is only looking for attention and doesn't believe a word of what they're saying. OK.

People who 'look for media headlines' as you put it tend to be people who jump on bandwagons.

People who hold views that aren't popular tend to not to look for media attention, because they know that if they do it won't be in support of them.

tjhook

Boards has the rule "attack the post, not the poster", and it's probably a good general principle beyond Boards. Ignore who it is that's bringing this case, and their possible motivations. They shouldn't be the central point. Is there any validity to the case? Or any upside to having the current restrictions validated in a court?

As much as I detest the restrictions on normal day-to-day freedoms, I recognise their necessity at this time. And without the ability to enforce as law, we've seen there's a large number of selfish c**ts who will do what they want at everybody else's expense. So yes, there needs to be a mechanism to enforce a lockdown.

However, I would like to be confident that the restrictions have been brought in lawfully. And are there any limits as to when a government can do so again? Could it be repeated for a more normal winter flu if it put an underfunded health system under stress? What if there is an election due when a lockdown is declared? Questions like that (and there are plenty more of them) are theoretical, but I imagine a lot of our constitution is made up of protections that haven't yet needed to be used.

If the case being brought has no merit, then it'll be dismissed easily enough. And if it has merit, it'll take a long time to appeal and sort through anyway. I think it's no harm to have a spotlight shone on the whole situation though. There needs to be a way to protect the public from itself during a pandemic. But it should be within narrow limits as to why. And preferably requiring the agreement of a non-political (medical?) body.

That's just my opinion. We should be glad there's a right to test or challenge restrictions on freedom.

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

paw patrol wrote: »

agreed 100%

but the level of hate expressed here is something else beyond comment

I disagree. People are free to judge them based on their actions. Nobody has an automatic right to be respected. That must be earned. And respect can be lost too.

FileNotFound

In fairness, all constitutions that anyone refers to are outdated documents thrown together to give a basis for a state to exist.

US right to carry arms was specific to blocking invasion - no longer a threat, now the constitution is abused.

The Irish constitution is to protect the people, the current lockdown is to protect the people. If these are not compatible I know which one I would change.

Guess the real question is can our constitution still apply? Seems to let us down as often as it helps.

jmayo

paw patrol wrote: »

I find the attitudes here bizarre. Really fcukin weird.

It is good and proper that our laws are tested in court. This is a good thing - should be seen as such.
Only a moron would object to that.

...
The vitriol here is amazing , this lockdown for some on boards its like "Papal Infallibility" ,it cannot be questioned.
This awe of our betters should have died out decades ago.

We know governments can be correct at times, make mistakes at times or be downright nefarious at times . So why the gung-ho blind following of them?

The lads in government and the HSE are not infallible and nor are they make from better clay than the rest of us (to misquote Frederic Bastiat) . Not to question or challenge them is moronic.

I have even said I think Holohan is probably out of his depth and I don't trust him at this stage no more than Patrick Neary.
Holohan admonished the nursing homes for bringing in visiting bans and who was shown to be correct and how needed they were ?

But due to my experience with HSE and watching the history of HSE/Dept of Health, if anything I think they could be often underplaying the seriousness.

As for some of the eejits in government including that backstabber in charge, don't get me started.

But even if you doubt our own government and health service, then why the flying fook are most governments and health services doing much the same right around the world.
Even the ones that initially tried different approach have changed tact.

Of course you and others throw out such well know open transparent countries as Iran and China as examples of something different.
Oh and yes of course Sweden.
Yes Sweden the country that had forced sterlisation and eugenics until the 70s and a society of reasonably law abiding people who aren't great mixers at the best of times. :rolleyes:

I would be seen as right wing around here, what with my views on certain religions non compatability with Western societies, bogus asylum seekers, travelers and social welfare careerists, gender semantics, etc but yet I find myself wholeheartedly agreeing on this thread with such posters as Joeytheparrot, a poster who I would normally not agreed with on whether it was night or day.

Waters and O'Doherty are professional cranks and loons.

They will ultimately be laughed out of court if they represent themselves arguing that the restrictions in place are unconstitutional and unnecessary as covid doesn't exist and it is all a grand conspiracy.

the purple tin

Gregor Samsa wrote: »

I'm confused now. Do you realise I was being outlandishly sarcastic, and are playing along? Or did you believe I was being serious and are having a dig at me? Or did you hear me cough though the implant the Lizard people put in my arm when I was vaccinated, and are genuinely concerned for my wellbeing?

Gregor, relax, man.
No need to bug out

Gregor Samsa

tjhook wrote: »

We should be glad there's a right to test or challenge restrictions on freedom.

We certainly should. We should also robustly call it out when complete loons abuse that right in support of their crackpottery that would be laughable if there weren't lives at stake.

Gregor Samsa

the purple tin wrote: »

Gregor, relax, man.
No need to bug out

You do hear my thoughs! :eek:

paw patrol

TaurenDruid wrote: »

And again I refer you to the likes of ooh, let's see - maybe Gemma's own facebook livestreams and twitter feed, where she'll attack workers, gardaí, "psychopath Bill Gates" and even children, to the extent she gets banned.

How about commenting on that level of abuse?

I'm not privy to her social media but her words shouldn't control your decency or lack of .

are you stooping to the same level of somebody whose behaviour (you claim) is poor. :rolleyes:

paw patrol

jmayo wrote: »

I have even said I think Holohan is probably out of his depth and I don't trust him at this stage no more than Patrick Neary.
Holohan admonished the nursing homes for bringing in visiting bans and who was shown to be correct and how needed they were ?

But due to my experience with HSE and watching the history of HSE/Dept of Health, if anything I think they could be often underplaying the seriousness.

As for some of the eejits in government including that backstabber in charge, don't get me started.

But even if you doubt our own government and health service, then why the flying fook are most governments and health services doing much the same right around the world.
Even the ones that initially tried different approach have changed tact.

Of course you and others throw out such well know open transparent countries as Iran and China as examples of something different.
Oh and yes of course Sweden.
Yes Sweden the country that had forced sterlisation and eugenics until the 70s and a society of reasonably law abiding people who aren't great mixers at the best of times. :rolleyes:

I would be seen as right wing around here, what with my views on certain religions non compatability with Western societies, bogus asylum seekers, travelers and social welfare careerists, gender semantics, etc but yet I find myself wholeheartedly agreeing on this thread with such posters as Joeytheparrot, a poster who I would normally not agreed with on whether it was night or day.

Waters and O'Doherty are professional cranks and loons.

They will ultimately be laughed out of court if they represent themselves arguing that the restrictions in place are unconstitutional and unnecessary as covid doesn't exist and it is all a grand conspiracy.

the same countries we are following also suffered the same fate in the economic crash of 2008 - the same countries seem aligned on many things. just a thought

you make fair points tbh and its a decent response compared to some others.

I don't like the lockdown , its' excessive but I never said we should do nothing. But that is on another thread. This thread is about the legal side.

It's a different topic in a way just married to the lockdown by circumstance.
I think many laws should be challenged to show the whole system works correctly and legally esp laws like this which have such a wide range of impacts.

tjhook

Gregor Samsa wrote: »

We certainly should. We should also robustly call it out when complete loons abuse that right in support of their crackpottery that would be laughable if there weren't lives at stake.

I don't know a lot about the beliefs of Waters, and almost nothing about the beliefs of O'Doherty. They have about as much relevance to my life as a Kardashian does. If what has been written about them on Boards is all true, then they are loons. But knowing how anybody with an opinion is treated by Boardsies, I take it all with a pinch of salt.

What I do have strong opinions about is freedom. Six months ago, I had no idea that I could be made a prisoner in my own home. I accept that it's necessary, but I want there to be strict limits on how it can be imposed. And this case is the first I've heard about anybody forcing an examination of that. Whether it's a Waters, a D. Higgins or a Bono who initiates it is of secondary importance to me.

TaurenDruid

paw patrol wrote: »

I'm not privy to her social media but her words shouldn't control your decency or lack of .

are you stooping to the same level of somebody whose behaviour (you claim) is poor. :rolleyes:

I have not abused anybody on this or any other thread, so - no!

You've not seen any of her social media? Really?! Pull the other one!

Gregor Samsa

tjhook wrote: »

I don't know a lot about the beliefs of Waters, and almost nothing about the beliefs of O'Doherty. They have about as much relevance to my life as a Kardashian does. If what has been written about them on Boards is all true, then they are loons. But knowing how anybody with an opinion is treated by Boardsies, I take it all with a pinch of salt.

What I do have strong opinions about is freedom. Six months ago, I had no idea that I could be made a prisoner in my own home. I accept that it's necessary, but I want there to be strict limits on how it can be imposed. And this case is the first I've heard about anybody forcing an examination of that. Whether it's a Waters, a D. Higgins or a Bono who initiates it is of secondary importance to me.

You go and read O'Doherty's twitter and come back and tell us how useful you think she would be regarding defending freedom.

This isn't someone with a nuanced legal mind taking an abuse of power to task. This is someone who literally believes that Covid19 is a conspiracy by the "Luciferian One World Government" (her words) to ensalve the world. It does matter - very much - who is taking this action and what their motivations are.

Standing by your principals and claiming "I might not agree with what they say, but I will defend to the death their right to say it" sounds very noble. But it's time people actually stood up for truth, for logic, for reason. There are actual lives at stake.

lawrencesummers

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »

I would say yes. Because I remember when she was a decent enough journalist. Measured, analytical, made some good points. Something has happened to her in the last few years.

Maybe she lives near a power line

tjhook

Gregor Samsa wrote: »

You go and read O'Doherty's twitter and come back and tell us how useful you think she would be regarding defending freedom.

Assuming it's not a long-term, very patient wind-up, that Twitter feed is the work of somebody with issues. That's a few minutes of my life I'll never get back. Damn you Gregor!

But I still believe it's a good thing to challenge the boundaries of these restrictions. Maybe even the threat of this challenge and the possibility of more to come will focus the minds of government, to ensure the legislation is all properly done. We can only hope. Regarding O'Doherty, even a stopped clock is right twice a day!

paw patrol

paw patrol wrote: »

the same countries we are following also suffered the same fate in the economic crash of 2008 - the same countries seem aligned on many things. just a thought

you make fair points tbh and its a decent response compared to some others.

I don't like the lockdown , its' excessive but I never said we should do nothing. But that is on another thread. This thread is about the legal side.

It's a different topic in a way just married to the lockdown by circumstance.
I think many laws should be challenged to show the whole system works correctly and legally esp laws like this which have such a wide range of impacts.

She's an attention seeking hate monger. That's a statement of fact. What is motivating both of them to take the case is also entirely relevant, 5g caused virus etc. They don't give a ****e about the fact that deaths would drastically increase if the measures were dropped.

Also I can guarantee you that there's nothing unconstitutional about the legislation. This is akin to those people who challenge referendum results eg marriage ref and the repeal the 8th referendum.

paw patrol

TaurenDruid wrote: »

I have not abused anybody on this or any other thread, so - no!

You've not seen any of her social media? Really?! Pull the other one!

I don't have social media , boards it is.
seen a few screenshots on WhatsApp that's it