Relaxation of Restrictions, Part VIII Read OP For Mod Warnings

10-02-2021 02:43PM

JRant wrote: »

Real eye opener alright to see how the ICU and HDU were managing to treat people. It certainly wasn't a war zone and they were giving great care to the tiny percentage of people that are actually sick enough to need it.

That is an extraordinarily weird perspective on what was seen in that programme. Extraordinarily weird.

Boggles wrote: »

GemGem and her poodle tested it in the High Court, they lost.

You are free to take a case though.

Hah! Not a hope. They'll just keep posting on here. If people disagree they're "servile" or something. It says a lot when even a supposed rabble can't be roused. Or could it be that in the real world, they are simply ignored.

francogarbanzo · 10-02-2021 02:45PM

Graham wrote: »

Reminder:

Source: Office of the High Commissioner Human Rights, United Nations

Read down a little further:

"Derogation during a state of emergency

In exceptional circumstances, including armed conflict, rioting, natural disasters or other public emergencies that threaten the life of a nation, governments may take measures derogating from their human rights obligations, provided that the following conditions are met:

• A state of emergency, which threatens the life of the nation, must be officially
declared.
• The specific measures derogating from an international treaty must be officially
notified to the competent international organizations and other States Parties.
• Derogation is permissible only to the extent strictly required by the situation.
• The derogation must be lifted as soon as the situation permits.
• The rights subject to derogation must not be among those that admit no derogation4
(see Box 17 and Chapter 9)."

walus · 10-02-2021 02:46PM

dublinbando wrote: »

Ah ok so rights are not actually rights and are really just privileges that can be rescinded by a government at any time

The last time this happened people were blasting China for violating human rights...

As long as western world does this, everything is fine. The disparity of measures undertaken and the risk represented by cv19 is simply massive.

Graham · 10-02-2021 02:48PM

francogarbanzo wrote: »

• Derogation is permissible only to the extent strictly required by the situation.
• The derogation must be lifted as soon as the situation permits.

It is required by the situation.
The situations does not yet permit lifting.

Feel free to prove those two points wrong at the Court of your choosing.

suicide_circus · 10-02-2021 02:50PM

Graham wrote: »

The situations does not yet permit lifting.

And what situation would permit lifting? We're serving an open ended sentence here - cruel and unusual.

walus · 10-02-2021 02:50PM

Graham wrote: »

It is required by the situation.
The situations does not yet permit lifting.

Feel free to prove those two points wrong at the Court of your choosing.

Has the government actually announced/declared the state of emergency?

francogarbanzo · 10-02-2021 02:57PM

Graham wrote: »

It is required by the situation.
The situations does not yet permit lifting.

Feel free to prove those two points wrong at the Court of your choosing.

Why is it my responsibility to prove that it's not "required by the situation" for me to not have my human rights violated on (mostly) and off (rarely) for nearly a year?

Graham · 10-02-2021 02:59PM

suicide_circus wrote: »

And what situation would permit lifting? We're serving an open ended sentence here - cruel and unusual.

You should definitely try and persuade a court of that. I will follow with great curiosity.

walus wrote: »

Has the government actually announced the state of emergency?

If you think that's a requirement, you too should take a case.

francogarbanzo · 10-02-2021 03:00PM

Also if you ever finding yourself on the side of a human rights violation where you're reading the fine print, you may want to reevaluate your priorities.

Penfailed · 10-02-2021 03:00PM

francogarbanzo wrote: »

Read down a little further:

"Derogation during a state of emergency

In exceptional circumstances, including armed conflict, rioting, natural disasters or other public emergencies that threaten the life of a nation, governments may take measures derogating from their human rights obligations, provided that the following conditions are met:

• A state of emergency, which threatens the life of the nation, must be officially
declared.
• The specific measures derogating from an international treaty must be officially
notified to the competent international organizations and other States Parties.
• Derogation is permissible only to the extent strictly required by the situation.
• The derogation must be lifted as soon as the situation permits.
• The rights subject to derogation must not be among those that admit no derogation4
(see Box 17 and Chapter 9)."

Doesn't strengthen your argument.

Graham · 10-02-2021 03:03PM

francogarbanzo wrote: »

Why is it my responsibility to prove that it's not "required by the situation" for me to not have my human rights violated on (mostly) and off (rarely) for nearly a year?

You don't have to do it, not at all. That's the great thing.

You can do nothing, and nothing will change as a result.

walus · 10-02-2021 03:07PM

Graham wrote: »

If you think that's a requirement, you too should take a case.

I take that as a no.

Graham · 10-02-2021 03:09PM

walus wrote: »

I take that as a no.

I don't see it as a requirement.

I do expect somebody will copy & paste the SA parliamentary example shortly, under the misunderstanding it somehow applies here.

Graham · 10-02-2021 03:16PM

francogarbanzo wrote: »

Also if you ever finding yourself on the side of a human rights violation where you're reading the fine print, you may want to reevaluate your priorities.

:rolleyes:

They do say ignorance is bliss.

OwenM · 10-02-2021 03:19PM

Penfailed wrote: »

Doesn't strengthen your argument.

At the moment it doesn't, but by mid summer when the death and hospitalisation rates are down by a factor of 100 I'm guessing a legal challenge will have merit. The right to travel is also in the Irish constitution I believe, wasn't there a famous abortion ruling in the 80's?

edit: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thirteenth_Amendment_of_the_Constitution_of_Ireland

SNNUS · 10-02-2021 03:30PM

FintanMcluskey wrote: »

If you walk around certain areas in Ireland, restaurants, cafes, barbers and construction is open as normal

Complete Bullsh1t.

Penfailed · 10-02-2021 03:31PM

OwenM wrote: »

At the moment it doesn't, but by mid summer when the death and hospitalisation rates are down by a factor of 100 I'm guessing a legal challenge will have merit. The right to travel is also in the Irish constitution I believe, wasn't there a famous abortion ruling in the 80's?

edit: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thirteenth_Amendment_of_the_Constitution_of_Ireland

Feel free to take a test case with the European Court of Human Rights.

Penfailed · 10-02-2021 03:33PM

SNNUS wrote: »

Complete Bullsh1t.

It's not like that's a new phenomenon from Finbar. When pulled up on things, he ignores, deflects or lets the dust settle for a while before coming back for more.

paw patrol · 10-02-2021 03:37PM

ecoli3136 wrote: »

Hah! Not a hope. They'll just keep posting on here. If people disagree they're "servile" or something. It says a lot when even a supposed rabble can't be roused. Or could it be that in the real world, they are simply ignored.

this is the 3rd time , pro lockdown poster has been upset with my choice of word "servile" since I posted it yesterday that they specifically reference it.

I sincerely regret not using it earlier

suicide_circus · 10-02-2021 03:37PM

francogarbanzo wrote: »

Also if you ever finding yourself on the side of a human rights violation where you're reading the fine print, you may want to reevaluate your priorities.

Rights are hard won, easily lost.

Most people here are only questioning the scale of restrictions, very few calling for none. As necessary as some kind of mitigation measures are, it is also necessary to push back against any and all degradations of our rights. Neither matter is frivolous.

Penfailed · 10-02-2021 03:43PM

paw patrol wrote: »

this is the 3rd time , pro lockdown poster has been upset with my choice of word "servile" since I posted it yesterday that they specifically reference it.

I sincerely regret not using it earlier

...but it wasn't aimed at me

10-02-2021 03:50PM

paw patrol wrote: »

this is the 3rd time , pro lockdown poster has been upset with my choice of word "servile" since I posted it yesterday that they specifically reference it.

I sincerely regret not using it earlier

LOL. It's nothing specific to you at all. You're all at it.

In any event I'm not upset by it all. It's the only thing you can say about everybody when everybody disagrees with you about this kind of thing.

"SERVILE. YOU'RE ALL SERVILE"

Think of it this way, if you're absolutely sure you're right, but you can't convince anybody else in any significant numbers (except obvious loonies), is it that you are absolutely awful at convincing people or that they have discerned that you're not right at all?

Oh no, wait, they're all sheeple.

LOL.

OwenM · 10-02-2021 04:01PM

Penfailed wrote: »

Feel free to take a test case with the European Court of Human Rights.

I'm sure there will be plenty, but if not I just might and I think the high court will do?

MOH · 10-02-2021 04:18PM

Boggles wrote: »

GemGem and her poodle tested it in the High Court, they lost.

You are free to take a case though.

There was a High Court case challenging fines for people leaving Ireland to return to their home country, unless their trip is deemed "necessary"? I missed that one, do you have a link?

PTH2009 · 10-02-2021 04:19PM

God knows how strict the new living with covid plan will be going by Leo's words yesterday

Was he getting us ready for the bad news?

average_runner · 10-02-2021 04:21PM

PTH2009 wrote: »

God knows how strict the new living with covid plan will be going by Leo's words yesterday

Was he getting us ready for the bad news?

It wasn't good anyhow. But at least outdoor gatherings of 30-40 will allow some big bbqs

Penfailed · 10-02-2021 04:25PM

dublinbando wrote: »

The amount of scared pro lockdown boomers in this thread

Eh? Who's a 'scared pro lockdown boomer'? Gimme a list of the ones on the thread for clarity.

Boggles · 10-02-2021 04:50PM

MOH wrote: »

There was a High Court case challenging fines for people leaving Ireland to return to their home country, unless their trip is deemed "necessary"? I missed that one, do you have a link?

No, it was far more encompassing than that.

The governments legality to impose public health restrictions.

Anyway this was the jist GemGem's case.

The two anti-Covid restriction campaigners claim Covid-19 is a "common cold" and described it as an "alleged virus" and an "alleged pandemic".

Ms O'Doherty said most people did not know anyone who had Covid-19 or who had died from it

This morning, Ms O'Doherty said she hoped the Court of Appeal would respect the science in relation to an "alleged pandemic" and an "alleged virus"

She said the State parties had decided to embark on a completely new path never tested before in medical and scientific history by locking down the 99% of the population who are healthy to deal with the "common cold", which she said is what Covid-19 is

Ms O'Doherty said they had asked the State for evidence that lockdowns, masks, social distancing, contact tracing or PCR testing were based on science, but they had not produced one peer reviewed scientific study

Ms O'Doherty said the respondents were experimenting on Irish people with vaccines that had not passed normal safety trials

Most people who died had "underlying conditions" and "their time was up anyway".

Ms O'Doherty accused the State of manipulating and massaging the figures in relation to death and said it was the "greatest scam ever perpetuated on the Irish people."

She said the damage from the lockdowns would be felt for generations to come.

There was a cure for the virus, she claimed, from hydroxychloroquine, vitamin C and zinc, but hospitals were putting people into intensive care and "bringing about their deaths".

She said she had gone into hospitals "as an investigative journalist" to see with her own eyes where the pandemic was. They had been empty since last March, she claimed.

Sounds very familiar, I'd swear she just printed out this thread and handed it into the High Court.

growleaves · 10-02-2021 04:59PM

Boggles wrote: »

No, it was far more encompassing than that.

The governments legality to impose public health restrictions.

That case was taken BEFORE lockdown became a multi-year phenomenon.

Can you picture yourself giving out the same talking points about 'flattening the curve' in 2023 or 2024?

Question for all pro-restrictionists here:

Is your entire life from this point onwards going to be defined by mouthing empty rhetoric about hospital management? Is that to be your personal legacy? 'We have to stay the course, expanding ICU capacity is very complicated it's not something you just do'

Graham · 10-02-2021 05:02PM

growleaves wrote: »

That case was taken BEFORE lockdown became a multi-year phenomenon.

You reckon the law has changed in favour of less restrictions in the intervening period?

Relaxation of Restrictions, Part VIII *Read OP For Mod Warnings*

Comments

Relaxation of Restrictions, Part VIII Read OP For Mod Warnings