Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

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

1…1415171920…60

Comments

  • #482
    eleventh
    Closed Accounts Posts: 436 ✭✭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.


  • #483
    Mrs Shuttleworth
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,476 ✭✭✭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?


  • #484
    Gregor Samsa
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,140 ✭✭✭Gregor Samsa


    brightspark wrote: »
    This is THE definition of treason.

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


  • #485
    suicide_circus
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,802 ✭✭✭✭suicide_circus


    People need hate figures


  • #486
    eleventh
    Closed Accounts Posts: 436 ✭✭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.


  • Advertisement
  • #487
    holyhead
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,249 ✭✭✭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.


  • #488
    Mrs Shuttleworth
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,476 ✭✭✭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.


  • #489
    brightspark
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,637 ✭✭✭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.


  • #490
    normanbond
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 346 ✭✭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 😆


  • #491
    Balf
    Closed Accounts Posts: 667 ✭✭✭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.


  • Advertisement
  • #492
    Gregor Samsa
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,140 ✭✭✭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.


  • #493
    eleventh
    Closed Accounts Posts: 436 ✭✭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.


  • #494
    brightspark
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,637 ✭✭✭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.


  • #495
    Gregor Samsa
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,140 ✭✭✭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.


  • #496
    Mrs Shuttleworth
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,476 ✭✭✭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


  • #497
    eleventh
    Closed Accounts Posts: 436 ✭✭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.


  • #498
    kippy
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,275 ✭✭✭✭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?


  • #499
    brightspark
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,637 ✭✭✭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.


  • #500
    Gregor Samsa
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,140 ✭✭✭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.


  • #501
    eleventh
    Closed Accounts Posts: 436 ✭✭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.


  • Advertisement
  • #502
    Mrs Shuttleworth
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,476 ✭✭✭Mrs Shuttleworth


    kippy wrote: »
    In this instance, what is/was the alternative?

    Without going into minute detail there are certain aspects of the legislation that are very far reaching and disproportionate even to the thread of COVID. The composition of the Mental Health Tribunal being reduced from three members to one member for example, and to be a solicitor not a clinician.A solicitor can't write a psychiatric report on a patient but this Act gives him authority to commit someone without such.


  • #503
    Gregor Samsa
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,140 ✭✭✭Gregor Samsa


    eleventh wrote: »
    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.

    No, you gave a specific definition that allows you to claim that what you mean isn’t what everyone else understands. That’s an example of using “weasel words”, which is another linguistic technique, and a particularly underhand one at that.


  • #504
    brightspark
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,637 ✭✭✭brightspark


    eleventh wrote: »
    1) What point are you referring to? Quote it.
    "if everyone just made up their own definitions of words then life is going to be very confusing."


    2) Where did I "extend the definition beyond it's actual meaning here in Ireland". Quote that as well.

    "Treason means betrayal of trust."
    "Yet every country has its own definition,...." blah blah

    A betrayal of trust may be treasonous, but treason isn't always a betrayal of trust. (Just like a storm is windy, but a wind isn't always a storm)

    Other countries do have their own definitions, but it I think we know where we are living.
    Treason has an accepted definition in Ireland, you seem to be trying to extend it's meaning beyond that.


  • #505
    eleventh
    Closed Accounts Posts: 436 ✭✭eleventh


    Gregor Samsa wrote:
    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.
    I am not confusing them because it wasn't a legal discussion in the first place.

    If I intended the discuss the constitutional definition specifically, I would have mentioned it. Since I did not, it should be taken that I meant treason, as you say, in the general English language sense of "the crime of betrayal of one’s country".

    And that is serious enough in my mind, I don't know about anyone else.


  • #506
    brightspark
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,637 ✭✭✭brightspark


    eleventh wrote: »
    I am not confusing them because it wasn't a legal discussion in the first place.

    If I intended the discuss the constitutional definition specifically, I would have mentioned it. Since I did not, it should be taken that I meant treason, as you say, in the general English language sense of "the crime of betrayal of one’s country".

    And that is serious enough in my mind, I don't know about anyone else.

    So in a thread about a challenge to legislation based on it's constitutionality you want to ignore the definitions used in that constitution?


  • #507
    eleventh
    Closed Accounts Posts: 436 ✭✭eleventh


    brightspark wrote:
    A betrayal of trust may be treasonous, but treason isn't always a betrayal of trust.
    You have the logic wrong but I get what you're trying to say.
    Treason has an accepted definition in Ireland, you seem to be trying to extend it's meaning beyond that.
    I said the definition in the constitution is unclear.
    That's actually all I said on it.


  • #508
    eleventh
    Closed Accounts Posts: 436 ✭✭eleventh


    brightspark wrote:
    So in a thread about a challenge to legislation based on it's constitutionality you want to ignore the definitions used in that constitution?
    For some reason you are going on as if that was what was being discussed.
    Go back and read what was actually said - or do you need it quoted for you again.

    If you thnk everyone posting here has a degree in law or politics, or should have before they can post here, you're probably in the wrong thread.
    To discuss the legislation and legal definitions in detail, there is a Legal Discussion forum for doing that.


  • #509
    brightspark
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,637 ✭✭✭brightspark


    eleventh wrote: »
    I said the definition in the constitution is unclear.
    That's actually all I said on it.

    I would consider it a clear definition and certainly more accurate than yours.


  • #510
    eleventh
    Closed Accounts Posts: 436 ✭✭eleventh


    Gregor Samsa wrote:
    No, you gave a specific definition that allows you to claim that what you mean isn’t what everyone else understands. That’s an example of using “weasel words”, which is another linguistic technique, and a particularly underhand one at that.
    I did not state anywhere that I was "giving a definition".
    What I said was in reply to someone who gave their opinion that the laws are "treasonous". That person did not quote the constitution, nor refer to the constitution in any way, and neither did I.
    I stated my view of the situation which you can disagree with away but don't try and twist it into something that wasn't said.


  • Advertisement
  • #511
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 5,369 ✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    eleventh wrote: »
    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.

    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

    Your first part is pointless. Copying a countries responses had no bearing legally and this is a thread about a legal challenge.

    Again, this entire thread is about a legal challenge to a law being contrary to our constitution. The fact that other countries are raising issues and protesting their countries laws means nothing to how this challenge will fair in an Irish court.

    My point was Simple, pointing at other countries proves nothing.


Advertisement