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…4142444647…60

Comments

  • #1292
    Cienciano
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,135 ✭✭✭✭Cienciano


    YFlyer wrote: »
    She is saying she is getting stopped up to ten times per day. I have my doubts.
    She 100% isn't because if she was there'd be 10 videos a day on her twitter.
    Cupatae wrote: »
    whats GOD Derangement Syndrome when its at home?
    It's another thing Gemma supporters have stolen from the extreme Trump supporters in America. They claim because the media report on all the dumb shít Trump does and it generates so many negative headlines, it cannot possibly be true. It's more like a mental disorder. They're obsessed with negative headlines about him. Everything he does is great (like the perfect handling of COVID-19) it's just the media and their mental disorder, (Trump Derangement Syndrome) that are spinning everything he does as bad. So this is the Gemma version.

    It's very weird, it's part of the "them against us" division. Many supporters of Trump seem to think any form of liberalism, support of the Democrats, "socialism" (which is government handouts to poorer people) is a mental disorder. So this is what Gemma and her supporters are bringing to the country. All disguised under the Tricolor, patriotism and standing up for our rights.


  • #1293
    Shefwedfan
    Closed Accounts Posts: 18,955 ✭✭✭✭Shefwedfan


    growleaves wrote: »
    It could have as easily been challenged by an unknown person, as many pieces of legislation have been.

    It is mad in itself that anyone thinks the government can just bring in any law they like and no one can challenge it in court. For crying out loud educate yourself on what republican government is people.

    It seems that to me that our level of passivity surpasses anything ever seen before.

    Even medieval kings had to be careful in the face of motivated guilds. Its only the 20th/21st century technocratic state - think Soviet "scientific socialism" for another example - that enjoys something like near-absolute compliance.

    However protests in Berlin, Paris, US and other places are arguably putting paid to that.


    Only person I know to have got it, has spent the last few weeks in hospital. Was sent home with oxygen to keep him going. He is a professional trumpet player, nobody has the heart yet to tell him because of the damage to his lungs he will never play again


  • #1294
    Shefwedfan
    Closed Accounts Posts: 18,955 ✭✭✭✭Shefwedfan


    Cienciano wrote: »
    She 100% isn't because if she was there'd be 10 videos a day on her twitter.

    It's another thing Gemma supporters have stolen from the extreme Trump supporters in America. They claim because the media report on all the dumb shít Trump does and it generates so many negative headlines, it cannot possibly be true. It's more like a mental disorder. They're obsessed with negative headlines about him. Everything he does is great (like the perfect handling of COVID-19) it's just the media and their mental disorder, (Trump Derangement Syndrome) that are spinning everything he does as bad. So this is the Gemma version.

    It's very weird, it's part of the "them against us" division. Many supporters of Trump seem to think any form of liberalism, support of the Democrats, "socialism" (which is government handouts to poorer people) is a mental disorder. So this is what Gemma and her supporters are bringing to the country. All disguised under the Tricolor, patriotism and standing up for our rights.


    These are also the supporters who drank bleech because Trump told them :eek:


  • #1295
    growleaves
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,016 ✭✭✭growleaves


    Why don't you educate yourself!!! instead of talking rubbish

    Like I said, republican government means that there is restraint on the authorities. That's how the country was set up. Just because you personally support the government in this instance doesn't mean they have a blank cheque to do whatever.

    Drowning out this point with emotion doesn't help. The brother of someone I know committed suicide last week because he couldn't handle the isolation of the lockdown.


  • #1296
    Cienciano
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,135 ✭✭✭✭Cienciano


    Shefwedfan wrote: »
    These are also the supporters who drank bleech because Trump told them :eek:
    That's ridiculous, Trump knows more about the coronavirus than anyone, he'd never tell people to do something so stupid. He actually told them to inject it


  • Advertisement
  • #1297
    Shefwedfan
    Closed Accounts Posts: 18,955 ✭✭✭✭Shefwedfan


    growleaves wrote: »
    Like I said, republican government means that there is restraint on the authorities. That's how the country was set up. Just because you personally support the government in this instance doesn't mean they have a blank cheque to do whatever.

    Drowning out this point with emotion doesn't help. The brother of someone I know committed suicide last week because he couldn't handle the isolation of the lockdown.


    Who said they have a blank cheque?



    What exactly about this could be described as a blank cheque?


    I gave a reason why this is a health issue and the affects of the virus on people. People dont commit suicide because of a lockdown, it is because of a number of factors, the lockdown didn't help.


  • #1298
    Shefwedfan
    Closed Accounts Posts: 18,955 ✭✭✭✭Shefwedfan


    Cienciano wrote: »
    That's ridiculous, Trump knows more about the coronavirus than anyone, he'd never tell people to do something so stupid. He actually told them to inject it


    He told them to inject it but they drank it... couldnt even get that right


  • #1299
    growleaves
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,016 ✭✭✭growleaves


    People dont commit suicide because of a lockdown, it is because of a number of factors, the lockdown didn't help.

    Isolation is a known cause of depression though. Enforced isolation for months on end has got to be a massive trigger for distress and feeling of trapped-ness. A person with "underlying condition" of e.g. chronic depression is being placed at huge risk.


  • #1300
    TaurenDruid
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,269 ✭✭✭TaurenDruid


    maestroamado wrote: »
    If the judge cannot take some sanction they will have established the merit of their challenge..

    Ah, setting up the pieces already for the next round, in advance of the inevitable defeat?

    No. That's not how the legal system works. The most that can happen is they'll have costs awarded against them. And if the judge thinks their challenge was in the public interest (regardless of the merits of any argument they may have made), she may well make no ruling on costs.

    The only way they can "establish the merit of their challenge" is if they win.

    ===
    boards.ie default cookie settings now include "legitimate interest" for >200 companies, unless you specifically opted out!



  • #1301
    Shefwedfan
    Closed Accounts Posts: 18,955 ✭✭✭✭Shefwedfan


    growleaves wrote: »
    Isolation is a known cause of depression though. Enforced isolation for months on end has got to be a massive trigger for distress and feeling of trapped-ness. A person with "underlying condition" of e.g. chronic depression is being placed at huge risk.


    The government has not locked people into your house and you can have no contact with the outside World. So number one you dont have to be isolated unless you are cocooning and then youi can still have someone with you.


    Number 2 you are not enforced, you can go shops, do excerise etc.



    So quit with the over dramatics.


  • Advertisement
  • #1302
    walshb
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 58,632 ✭✭✭✭walshb


    growleaves wrote: »
    Isolation is a known cause of depression though. Enforced isolation for months on end has got to be a massive trigger for distress and feeling of trapped-ness. A person with "underlying condition" of e.g. chronic depression is being placed at huge risk.

    Seriously, it's a little insulting to be blaming a person ending their life due to society having to come together to preserve life.....Insulting, as well as ignorant!


  • #1303
    GM228
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,919 ✭✭✭GM228


    Balf wrote: »
    OK, I can appreciate you don't really understand what's at issue, but you are making an attempt to be informed which is good.

    Briefly, the Constitution gives you rights and puts strong limits on the capacity of your parliament to encroach on those rights. For instance, your parliament couldn't pass a law that automatically puts penalty points on your driving licence, which is why the notification of points requires to forgo your right to a Court hearing and consent to the points being added to your record. The Constitution demands that you have a right to a fair trial before you get penalised.

    The point at issue with that article you have now read is this: does the Constitution allow your parliament to give Simon Harris (in his job as Minister, not Si personally) the power to do things that mean you can be detained against your will, or that your home can be invaded? Because, if the Constitution doesn't allow that, that Act shouldn't say that he can.

    And, yes, it is quite important not to have your parliament writing laws that the Constitution doesn't allow.

    Thanks for the 101, I could have saved my last 5 years study and specialising in Constitutional and criminal law, oh well.

    The question is what part of the Constitution does people think the Government have crossed to enable the minister make such regulations?


    Balf wrote: »
    The main issue, put simply, is the application of restrictions to people who are perfectly healthy. That is novel

    The main issue is trying to prevent those perfectly healthy people from getting infected and spreading it to even more perfectly healthy people.

    maestroamado wrote: »
    I expect these people know what they are doing.

    As someone who has studied law for years I can tell you anyone who represents themselves in a judicial review needs a reality check.


    Anyway, back on topic, this thread is not the appropriate place for discussions on the law IMO, I suggest people come join us in the Legal Discussion thread, there are plenty of us solicitors, barristers and legal eagles over there who do understand the law, the various principles, maxims and presumptions at play, especially for those who think they can make an Article 40. 4.1° argument.

    Usually when restrictions on movement or personal liberties are questioned people are very quick to cite Article 40. 4.1° of the Constitution:-
    40.1° No citizen shall be deprived of his personal liberty save in accordance with law

    But they forget the most important part which is highlighted in bold. If there is a law which allows for your detention etc which is in force at the time and used accordingly you can't use Article 40 4.1° to make a claim that the law is unconstitutional, you need to use something else in the Constitution.

    Also to remember all rights are not absolute and subject to competing rights, public policy and of course public health.


  • #1304
    growleaves
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,016 ✭✭✭growleaves


    walshb wrote: »
    Seriously, it's a little insulting to be blaming a person ending their life due to society having to come together to preserve life.....Insulting, as well as ignorant!


    I said the issue should be discussed in the abstract. If you want to debate the lockdown in terms of personal suffering then I will discuss the dire effects it is having on people cut off from their family, regardless of whether you feel that is an insult to a noble policy decision.


  • #1305
    maestroamado
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,425 ✭✭✭maestroamado


    As someone who has studied law for years I can tell you anyone who represents themselves in a judicial review needs a reality check.


    The result will determine if they need reality check?


  • #1306
    blueythebear
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,074 ✭✭✭blueythebear


    maestroamado wrote: »

    The result will determine if they need reality check?

    It will be one prime indicator. Other indicators include gemmas deranged ramblings outside court and inside court available from the transcript she provided. The transcript which also exposes a fatal flaw in her argument, shows a clear lack of understanding of the application actually being made.

    Further ramblings from the news report yesterday also shows further that she does not understand the application. She is claiming that she will provide medical evidence (she cant, shes not a doctor) that shows that lockdown is excessive when there is no credible evidence that says lockdown is the wrong move.

    The result is a foregone conclusion to be honest. Theproceedings were hopelessly flawed to begin with.


  • #1307
    Cienciano
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,135 ✭✭✭✭Cienciano


    growleaves wrote: »
    I said the issue should be discussed in the abstract. If you want to debate the lockdown in terms of personal suffering then I will discuss the dire effects it is having on people cut off from their family, regardless of whether you feel that is an insult to a noble policy decision.

    It's all about balance and priorities. 1500 dead in the country already, that trumps people feeling sad because they have to wait a few months to visit their relations.


  • #1308
    Penn
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 35,740 ✭✭✭✭Penn


    Cienciano wrote: »
    It's all about balance and priorities. 1500 dead in the country already, that trumps people feeling sad because they have to wait a few months to visit their relations.

    Agreed. I live alone. I haven't physically seen anyone I actually know in almost 6 weeks. It's hard.

    But between family & friends, we message each other in group chats. We text/call each other individually. We have zoom or video chats etc. There's a bunch of ways to still stay connected with people. The other option is to visit them and risk their health by transmitting something to them (given how asymptomatic people can be).

    The more we keep things locked down, the quicker restrictions can be lifted. And that's not helped by attention-seeking twatwaddles like Gemma & Waters organising protests, shouting at guards about how their taxes pay their wages, and showing Judges their copies of the Constitution.


  • #1309
    Balf
    Closed Accounts Posts: 667 ✭✭✭Balf


    GM228 wrote: »
    Thanks for the 101, I could have saved my last 5 years study and specialising in Constitutional and criminal law, oh well.

    The question is what part of the Constitution does people think the Government have crossed to enable the minister make such regulations?
    You knowledge certainly hasn't been evident yet, as is clear from your earlier posts.

    If you are saying you see no real difference between confining a person known to have an infectious disease, and restricting people not known (and even known not) to have any disease, I suggest you need to go back to the books.


  • #1310
    Balf
    Closed Accounts Posts: 667 ✭✭✭Balf


    Shefwedfan wrote: »
    So what is your plan?


    Send the healthy people out till they all get sick, then put a lockdown in place?
    This is about whether its a valid law not whether its good advice to stay indoors.

    Can't wait for the Act that locks up smokers until they quit. For their own good.

    Or the Act that bans private cars, so someone doesn't accidently drive over someone else.


  • #1311
    lawrencesummers
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,867 ✭✭✭lawrencesummers


    blueythebear wrote: »
    It will be one prime indicator. Other indicators include gemmas deranged ramblings outside court and inside court available from the transcript she provided. The transcript which also exposes a fatal flaw in her argument, shows a clear lack of understanding of the application actually being made.

    Further ramblings from the news report yesterday also shows further that she does not understand the application. She is claiming that she will provide medical evidence (she cant, shes not a doctor) that shows that lockdown is excessive when there is no credible evidence that says lockdown is the wrong move.

    The result is a foregone conclusion to be honest. Theproceedings were hopelessly flawed to begin with.

    In your opinion, could somebody put forward an argument that would win this case? Is it possible that she is right (legally - not actually in reality) but not going to win because of how she is going about it?


  • Advertisement
  • #1312
    Annasopra
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 41,228 ✭✭✭✭Annasopra


    blueythebear wrote: »
    It will be one prime indicator. Other indicators include gemmas deranged ramblings outside court and inside court available from the transcript she provided. The transcript which also exposes a fatal flaw in her argument, shows a clear lack of understanding of the application actually being made.

    Further ramblings from the news report yesterday also shows further that she does not understand the application. She is claiming that she will provide medical evidence (she cant, shes not a doctor) that shows that lockdown is excessive when there is no credible evidence that says lockdown is the wrong move.

    The result is a foregone conclusion to be honest. Theproceedings were hopelessly flawed to begin with.

    I'm not sure Gemma even cares about the proceedings themselves. It's all a publicity stunt.

    It was so much easier to blame it on Them. It was bleakly depressing to think that They were Us. If it was Them, then nothing was anyone's fault. If it was us, what did that make Me? After all, I'm one of Us. I must be. I've certainly never thought of myself as one of Them. No one ever thinks of themselves as one of Them. We're always one of Us. It's Them that do the bad things.

    Terry Pratchet



  • #1313
    RobbieMD
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 449 ✭✭RobbieMD


    Balf wrote: »
    You knowledge certainly hasn't been evident yet, as is clear from your earlier posts.

    If you are saying you see no real difference between confining a person known to have an infectious disease, and restricting people not known (and even known not) to have any disease, I suggest you need to go back to the books.

    You clearly have no knowledge of the proportionality test so.

    If passive smoking killed otherwise healthy people in a few weeks, then you could compare the two.


  • #1314
    smokingman
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,773 ✭✭✭smokingman


    Balf wrote: »
    This is about whether its a valid law not whether its good advice to stay indoors.

    Can't wait for the Act that locks up smokers until they quit. For their own good.

    Or the Act that bans private cars, so someone doesn't accidently drive over someone else.
    Wish there was an act to get people like you deported when we're all doing our collective best to save loved ones lives.


  • #1315
    Shefwedfan
    Closed Accounts Posts: 18,955 ✭✭✭✭Shefwedfan


    growleaves wrote: »
    I said the issue should be discussed in the abstract. If you want to debate the lockdown in terms of personal suffering then I will discuss the dire effects it is having on people cut off from their family, regardless of whether you feel that is an insult to a noble policy decision.


    Nobody is debating the lockdown in terms of personal suffering


    My point was the affect the virus has on people who have got it, this was in response to your idea just to let the whole country get infected.



    Trying to link some poor persons suicide was all your morbid own doing.


    Again who is cut off from family? yes people are limited in terms of contact but in reality it is not people with family who are affected but those without, in my community we are making sure those people get visited etc.....while sticking to social distancing. It is fairly easy


    So please explain what you mean>?


  • #1316
    Balf
    Closed Accounts Posts: 667 ✭✭✭Balf


    RobbieMD wrote: »
    You clearly have no knowledge of the proportionality test so.

    If passive smoking killed otherwise healthy people in a few weeks, then you could compare the two.
    You've clearly no knowledge of how to follow an argument that you don't like.

    Smoking is an example of where we allow healthy people to hurt themselves.

    Private car usage is an example of where we allow people to potentially damage themselves and others.

    IIRC, FGM is an example of where we've made it illegal even if an adult consents.

    The question is where the current law sits, as the costs it entails are huge.

    And we typically find posters, like yourself, thinking that prissy posts constitute an argument.


  • #1317
    Shefwedfan
    Closed Accounts Posts: 18,955 ✭✭✭✭Shefwedfan


    Balf wrote: »
    This is about whether its a valid law not whether its good advice to stay indoors.

    Can't wait for the Act that locks up smokers until they quit. For their own good.

    Or the Act that bans private cars, so someone doesn't accidently drive over someone else.


    You didn't answer the question. What is your plan?


    That hyperbole rubbish leave to Gemma twitter page


  • #1318
    blueythebear
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,074 ✭✭✭blueythebear


    lawrencesummers wrote: »
    In your opinion, could somebody put forward an argument that would win this case? Is it possible that she is right (legally - not actually in reality) but not going to win because of how she is going about it?

    I dont believe so at least not in relation to the restrictions to stop the spread of the virus under section 31a and 38a. I have not reviewed all of the two acts so there could be something here.

    The new sections are very similar to the existing sections 31 and 38, which have been in force for over 70 years and section 38 was already subject of a constitutional challenge which failed.


    The new section 38a goes further than the existing section 38 but i would take the view that the measures are necessary in the exceptional times we find ourselves in. Finally, the courts have always been reluctant to interfere with the legislature in terms of policymaking so if the Act was introduced on the back of medical evidence, the court will be very reluctant to interfere.


  • #1319
    Balf
    Closed Accounts Posts: 667 ✭✭✭Balf


    smokingman wrote: »
    Wish there was an act to get people like you deported when we're all doing our collective best to save loved ones lives.
    Gosh, another poster with five years of constitutional law studies behind them.

    And no capacity to see costs as well as benefits.


  • #1320
    Balf
    Closed Accounts Posts: 667 ✭✭✭Balf


    blueythebear wrote: »

    The new section 38a goes further than the existing section 38 but i would take the view that the measures are necessary in the exceptional times we find ourselves in. Finally, the courts have always been reluctant to interfere with the legislature in terms of policymaking so if the Act was introduced on the back of medical evidence, the court will be very reluctant to interfere.
    Is it fair to say the State can say the WHO have declared a pandemic, and the Courts will be very slow to say either Who are WHO? or Is this strictly necessary?

    You'd need a better resourced challenge. And no Gemma, in particular.


  • Advertisement
  • #1321
    threeball
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,813 ✭✭✭threeball


    Balf wrote: »
    Gosh, another poster with five years of constitutional law studies behind them.

    And no capacity to see costs as well as benefits.

    You do realise the cost of shutting for a second wave would be multiple times worse what we have seen from this time around. Our main advantage this time is everyone else is in the same boat, if we have to close while everyone else is open that's when you'll see a real economic crash. And no EU money to stimulate us. We'll get one bite at that cherry.


Advertisement