nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

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

Long_Wave

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

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

bennyl10

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

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

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

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

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

[Deleted User]

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

gifted

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

[Deleted User]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Juicee

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.

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.