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

eleventh wrote: »

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.

It’s the commonly understood word “treason”, on a thread about a legal challenge. If you think calling someone out on misusing the word, or explaining why it’s being misused, is legal jumbo-jumbo, then you’re probably in the wrong thread. This is pretty simple stuff, in all fairness.

eleventh wrote: »

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.

You said, and I quote directly, “ Treason means betrayal of trust.”

You gave a definition of the word, very clearly and deliberately. A definition that is disingenuous in the context it is being used. You’re the only one doing any twisting. You’re like a curly-wurly at a Chubby Checker concert.

Mrs Shuttleworth wrote: »

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.

Just wondering which ruling you are referring to here?

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.

Can I ask is your objection to flying in fruit pickers because they are fruit pickers? What if they had flown in nurses? Did you object to the doctors and nurses returning home from Australia?

There is a difference between going for a walk during a period of restricted movement and the facilitation of the arrival of essential workers. Now there might well be an argument over fruit pickers being essential but that's what internet forums are for.

podgeandrodge wrote: »

They are a slightly mad looking bunch.

Nice national flag etiquette from our patriots. Dragging it along the ground and standing on it.

Off topic but very relevant to this discussion.
Why is John Waters still in the country given that he was absolutely leaving if we repealed the 8th?

Everyone in that photo should be sitting in jail right now and used for vaccine testing trials

Inquitus wrote: »

At least she's stopped blaming 5G towers for the virus and posting David Icke youtube videos on twitter, maybe this can shut her up for a bit, hope she's wasting her own money on this.

Give her a few days she will be back to the 5g conspiracy ****e

Balf wrote: »

I think the point is pretty clear, and doesn't benefit from pedantry.

If the risk is so great that people can't move outside their homes without very good reason, and then no further than 2km without similarly good reason, how good does the reason have to be to accept folk flying in from abroad is perfectly fine? I totally accept fruit picking isn't just a skill. Its a vocation.

Seriously, is the glaring gap really that hard to appreciate?

And again, do you object to doctors/nurses flying in?

Balf wrote: »

If the risk is so great that people can't move outside their homes without very good reason,

People can move outside their homes for shopping, exercise, and to go to work, if that work is essential and can't be done from home. Fruit picking is essential, and can't be done from home.

and then no further than 2km without similarly good reason

What? No. The only mention of 2km in the regulations is to do with exercise. You can go for brief exercise outside so long as you stay within 2km of your house. That's it.

Work, shopping, whatever else - if it's essential, the 2km doesn't apply.

how good does the reason have to be to accept folk flying in from abroad is perfectly fine?

Essential horticultural workers, coming from a country with a far lower infection rate than here, preventing food going to waste, tested before they left, self-isolating since they arrived, for 14 days?

Yeah, I have no problem with that, in the same way I've no problem with doctors and nurses flying to Ireland, so long as they too are tested and self-isolated before starting work.

Do you have a problem with that? Why? Cos, y'know we need food.

I still have a hell of a bigger problem with the Irish ****ers who flew over to Cheltenham and then came back to spread covid. And the Italian rugby fans who flew over anyway despite the match being cancelled.

eleventh wrote: »

I don't think the constitution was discussed at all in the thread up to that point, (Open to correction on that and feel free anyone to quote where it was. I'm not going back through that many posts to check)

Did you even read the thread title beforehand?

Did you read any of the posts before derailing it with your erroneous definition of treason?

Just some of the earlier posts (not going to quote them all as it would be too long!).

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

Niner leprauchan wrote: »

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

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.

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.

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

bennyl10 wrote: »

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

jackboy wrote: »

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

meeeeh wrote: »

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 wrote: »

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

banie01 wrote: »

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.

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

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 :

Juicee wrote: »

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

plodder wrote: »

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.

jimmycrackcorm wrote: »

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.

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.

owlbethere wrote: »

I understand the importance of the restrictions and come May the 5th, hopefully we will have turned a corner with the virus and some restrictions will be lifted. I do think we will be carrying some restrictions and social distancing measures with us for a few more months.


What happens if Gemma and John are successful with this? Will the restrictions have to be lifted?

If they have to be lifted, wouldn't that be considered dangerous and cause more people to catch this virus and overwhelm the health service?

is_that_so wrote: »

The restrictions are not governed by the law, it's the new enforcement that is. There's fairly little likelihood they will succeed but we'd probably need a new government and redrafting of the law. The majority of us have enough common sense to stay home so should have no real impact even if they won.

SeaFields wrote: »

It is worth bearing in mind it is a judicial review and interested posters who are not familiar with this mechanism could look up on wiki or something.

Essentially it is a means by which the court can review the manner in which a public body reached a decision rather than the decision itself.

The first hurdle that must be overcome is being granted leave by the high court to bring the judicial review - the decision making body generally doesn't know that leave of the court has been sought. Then the substantive matter can be judicially reviewed if leave is granted. The court cannot overturn the decision but direct the public body to look at the decision again.

I'd imagine the restrictions will be a long time over by the time all the above happens.

blueythebear wrote: »

In this case, the state has been put on notice of the leave application and so the leave application will be opposed.

In terms of what the court can do, it can grant certiorari which effectively torpedoes the act immediately so the lockdown restrictions cease to have effect of law. Pointless given the fact that lockdown is back to being voluntary since the 12th.

Totally agree with you that the restrictions will be done by the time the case is resolved, unless the court dismisses the leave applicarion next week in short order, which is likely.

gmisk wrote: »

Because he is full of sh1t?

I agree but locking them up would only give them the publicity and attention they want. Bunch of absolute numpties.

I will say at least the Irish electorate had the good sense and decency to humiliate the both of them come election time, and in GODs case multiple times.

And John has history on that publicity/attention seeking behaviour - remember when he wanted a grace period after the grace period for parking?

https://www.thejournal.ie/john-waters-arrest-prison-1067238-Sep2013/

But yes, maybe he should be fulfilling his commitment to leave the country now, and maybe he could take Ray Darcy with him, given Darcy's promise to emigrate if Enda Kenny became Taoiseach.

Tweeter wrote: »

Off topic but very relevant to this discussion.
Why is John Waters still in the country given that he was absolutely leaving if we repealed the 8th?

John Waters is a professional contrarian. You say up, he says down, you say right, he says left.

He always has been. When he first started in journalism he was known as a rebel, someone who was always challeneging the attitudes of the day, challenging the church and the traditional attitudes.

When attitudes changed, he very swiftly became a champion of the church and traditional values, happily changing his stance in order to maintain his contrarianism.

He's an overt hypocrite, which is why he'll happily grandstand about leaving the country and then do nothing.

If being a spineless weasel in his work wasn't enough, just look up what he's done in his private life, especially to Sinead O'Connor.

The man is an odious scumbag. He has no sense of ethics or morality beyond himself.

Balf wrote: »

You realise you've just repeated what I said?

For me, it needs a huge effort of will not to appreciate the point.

I notice this is an investment of time and energy that you feel compelled to make.

Nah, dude, it isn't. Your post implies you can't move more than 2k outside your house. Which is not the case.