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

Long_Wave · 15-04-2020 3:53pm #1

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

Plumbthedepths · 15-04-2020 3:57pm

Interesting to see what a judges take will be.

Quantum Erasure · 15-04-2020 3:58pm

The new Mick Wallace and Claire Daly?

Glebee · 15-04-2020 3:58pm

Just back from a next door neighbours funeral who pasted away from complication due to Covid 19. Fcuk off Gemma you absolute mongloid.

15-04-2020 3:59pm

It worries me that so many people support her. If the government done nothing and people she knew were dying she'd give out about that too. Dope

CtevenSrowder · 15-04-2020 4:05pm

Ah can we not have another thread about these melts.

Tokyo · 15-04-2020 4:06pm

Mod: @Quantum Erasure - threadbanned.

The_Kew_Tour · 15-04-2020 4:08pm

It would do everyone great favour if everyone just ignored both of them

eviltwin · 15-04-2020 4:09pm

Who's bankrolling this pair of muppets?

Ash.J.Williams · 15-04-2020 4:09pm

Quantum Erasure wrote: »

The new Mick Wallace and Claire Daly?

they're elected

BanditLuke · 15-04-2020 4:10pm

Convinced one of them posts here in the restrictions thread.

Guy:Incognito · 15-04-2020 4:17pm

Long_Wave wrote: »

so I wish them luck.

Why, so people can "stick it to the man" , spread the virus around and kill some people?

Yeah, thatd be super awesome.

Pinkpotato · 15-04-2020 4:19pm

If ever there was a case for Internment it's these two. Hopefully they both catch it and can't speak for a few weeks. Not die or need hospital, just can't get out of bed for a while...

maestroamado · 15-04-2020 4:25pm

"they say give them enough rope and they hang themselves"

Whatever credibility they have (if any) be gone.

Seth Brundle · 15-04-2020 4:25pm

Any idea what the pair are trying to achieve from this malarkey?

Plumbthedepths · 15-04-2020 4:27pm

Seth Brundle wrote: »

Any idea what the pair are trying to achieve from this malarkey?

The lifting of restrictions I assume if the lockdown is found to be unconstitutional. Although if the state loses there will most likely be an appeal. By then the present restrictions should be eased

15-04-2020 4:28pm

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

On what basis is the lockdown "almost certainly unconstitutional" in your opinion?

listermint · 15-04-2020 4:29pm

Suspicious im sure a go fund me will be involved......

Seth Brundle · 15-04-2020 4:31pm

Plumbthedepths wrote: »

The lifting of restrictions I assume if the lockdown is found to be unconstitutional. Although if the state loses there will most likely be an appeal. By then the present restrictions should be eased

But apart from attention seeking, what benefit is it to them? Businesses are closing their doors (and had been doing so before the lockdown) because of the obvious benefits to their customers, their workforce and so on.
Why would anyone with an ounce of cop-on want to remove the procedures that minimise the spread of a deadly virus?

Plumbthedepths · 15-04-2020 4:31pm

Niner leprauchan wrote: »

On what basis is the lockdown "almost certainly unconstitutional" in your opinion?

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.

Juicee · 15-04-2020 4:33pm

Niner leprauchan wrote: »

On what basis is the lockdown "almost certainly unconstitutional" in your opinion?

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.

Juicee · 15-04-2020 4:34pm

btw No I'm not Gemma but I know she has flagged these 2 articles in relation to the lockdown so I'd say those 2 articles are central to the case

Be right back · 15-04-2020 4:36pm

I wonder who is paying for this? What do they reckon the alternative should be?

suicide_circus · 15-04-2020 4:36pm

Glebee wrote: »

Fcuk off Gemma you absolute mongloid.

I was not aware she has Mongolian ancestry

Guy:Incognito · 15-04-2020 4:37pm

Unconstitutional or not, what are people that support this action actually looking for from it? Do you think the whole thing isnt real and that theres no risk to anyone? That no one is dying?

jrosen · 15-04-2020 4:38pm

Is this not just an utter waste of time? We have these measures to try and slow the spread for the greater good of everyone on this island.

listermint · 15-04-2020 4:39pm

Anyone that can't see a publicity ruse and crowd funding in the heart of this isn't really looking close enough.

suicide_circus · 15-04-2020 4:41pm

In a way its a ridiculous publicity stunt.

And in another way, its important to ensure the government isnt exceeding its remit

Pinkpotato · 15-04-2020 4:43pm

The constitution actually allows for this during outbreaks of infectious disease. Which is why legaslation only had to be built on for the new laws and not a full referendum

meeeeh · 15-04-2020 4:44pm

Now that's a dream couple....

I know lock down is a serious issue but all I can think about is that they are made for each other.

bennyl10 · 15-04-2020 4:44pm

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.

She keeps going on about article 40, which yes protects personal freedom, but the common good is at the heart of the entire constitution and overrules it all.

Common good, a la, not being able to kill everyone by being a dumbass and going outside, is protected by this lockdown.

No part of the lockdown is repugnant to the constitution

bennyl10 · 15-04-2020 4:46pm

Pinkpotato wrote: »

The constitution actually allows for this during outbreaks of infectious disease. Which is why legaslation only had to be built on for the new laws and not a full referendum

Gemma doesn't care about this though.

It's like those that were sharing the freestate constitution during the Irish water scandal

give a dog a bone(no matter how irrelevant that bone may be) and they'll run with it.

jackboy · 15-04-2020 4:46pm

Pinkpotato wrote: »

The constitution actually allows for this during outbreaks of infectious disease. Which is why legaslation only had to be built on for the new laws and not a full referendum

Does the constitution mention infectious disease? At least the court will decide now. No harm getting such clarification.

meeeeh · 15-04-2020 4:47pm

Anyway what happens if constitutional court says they are not sitting till the end of lock down. Social distancing from nut jobs and all that.

Juicee · 15-04-2020 4:48pm

Guy:Incognito wrote: »

Unconstitutional or not, what are people that support this action actually looking for from it? Do you think the whole thing isnt real and that theres no risk to anyone? That no one is dying?

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.

Juicee · 15-04-2020 4:50pm

jackboy wrote: »

Does the constitution mention infectious disease? At least the court will decide now. No harm getting such clarification.

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

poolboy · 15-04-2020 4:51pm

Who pays for this sort of stunt. Bringing people unnecessarily together for what?

gifted · 15-04-2020 4:51pm

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.

Livilihoods can be raised out of the drain again.....people can't come back out of graves

15-04-2020 4:52pm

An attention-seeking sham, designed to monetise crackpot conspiracy theories latest of which is the 5G rollout. Thrive only on the oxygen of publicity, ignore and they quickly fade from relevance. OP only has a slightly less dubious track record.

Guy:Incognito · 15-04-2020 4:53pm

Juicee wrote: »

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.

Theres a fairly simple way to look at it. How many more people are dead, month on month , compared to previous years?

If theres no issue, numbers should be largely the same, no?

owlbethere · 15-04-2020 4:54pm

Oh my god, I can't believe what I'm reading here from this gemma one. The woman is a nutcase.

I'm not a FG fan (but I'm warming to them slowly) but I doubt the caretaking/outgoing government woke up one morning and decided 'hmmm, how can we take an almighty dump upon the backs of the Irish population and trash the economy while we' re at it'.

The restrictions in place are so important. We are dealing with a new viral illness that's not a flu by the way. It's going to cause flu like symptoms but it's not a flu. It's too early to know what way this viral infection is going to behave.

The reasons for the restrictions is to slow it down. Try and protect as much people as possible from this illness. Allow the medical and science professionals to grasp onto this and try and understand it the disease.
To prevent as many people as possible from getting sick all at once.
Prevent the health service from collapsing if too many people get sick at once. If the health service collapses no body else gets care either. Cancer treatment, a+e treatment like from car accidents, yeah well good luck with that.

The restrictions are in place to help all of us. If in May there is some lifting of restrictions, chances are we will probably be living with some form of restrictions too.

dd973 · 15-04-2020 4:55pm

That O'Doherty was filming at Dublin Airport taking umbrage at being told to go home by a member of security staff.

'And...he's NOT even IRISH!'

Oh, FFS.

Breezin · 15-04-2020 4:55pm

Absolutely hate to be on the same side of any argument as this pair, but these are strange times indeed, and it could be argued that they've been handed the ammunition.

Seth Brundle wrote: »

Why would anyone with an ounce of cop-on want to remove the procedures that minimise the spread of a deadly virus?

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.

banie01 · 15-04-2020 4:57pm

A lot of the powers and restrictions afforded to the state during this pandemic stem from the 1947 health act and more direct action and restriction are available.

Further to that, a strong argument can be made that the suspension of constitutional rights is lawful as per the 1st amendment given this is a time of emergency.

It wouldn't take a talented brief to extend the wartime/conflict provision to a fight against Covid-19 and for public safety IMO.

uptherebels · 15-04-2020 4:58pm

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.

How many deaths from an infectious disease must there be for the current restrictions to be warranted, in your opinion?

Quin_Dub · 15-04-2020 4:58pm

Seth Brundle wrote: »

Any idea what the pair are trying to achieve from this malarkey?

If you dip into Gemmas Twitter feed (only briefly mind) you will see that she doesn't believe that it's real , she believes that it's a NWO plot to subjugate the masses.

You should check out the twitter thread between her and Dublin Airport about flights in and out of the Airport from a few days back.

As for John Waters - Probably something to do with Churches being closed..

bennyl10 · 15-04-2020 4:59pm

Juicee wrote: »

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

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

Juicee · 15-04-2020 4:59pm

Guy:Incognito wrote: »

Theres a fairly simple way to look at it. How many more people are dead, month on month , compared to previous years?

If theres no issue, numbers should be largely the same, no?

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

Pinkpotato · 15-04-2020 5:00pm

jackboy wrote: »

Does the constitution mention infectious disease? At least the court will decide now. No harm getting such clarification.

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 :

Pelvis Parsley · 15-04-2020 5:01pm

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

Juicee · 15-04-2020 5:05pm

Pelvis Parsley wrote: »

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

Don't know the guy myself so I wouldn't know. Have listened to him speak a few times, he doesn't seem to have the same penchant for levelling personal abuse at others, as do so many on boards unfortunately. Shame really. In my opinion once you go there, you immediately disqualify yourself from any further reasonable discussion.

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

Comments