Can we have some fcuking control on the airports from high risk countries please?

gozunda · 04-04-2021 11:56PM

gally74 wrote: »

When did travel become a crime?

Country had lost the plot,

Its more they appear to be in breach of non essential travel and quarentine restrictions. Restrictions which are there to help prevent the further introduction of new cases into the country.

The UK have a similar system - and they have made travel for holiday or leisure purposes llegal...

gozunda · 05-04-2021 12:26AM

gally74 wrote: »

Ya and thry are getting rid of it

https://uk.finance.yahoo.com/news/coronavirus-travel-international-holidays-vaccine-passports-tests-boris-johnson-quarantine-ba-heathrow-160012746.html?guccounter=1&guce_referrer=aHR0cHM6Ly93d3cuZ29vZ2xlLmNvbS8&guce_referrer_sig=AQAAAD5uzD0_N3sYvY1uVirTlwS96Bruet8OyLskd5Lund5-IUFYxYjH4EBDO5zTpVcdNe7eENYklA4moQ-Q32flmta4N8CnpADvtXsiMtL1qjs97jhRNaYEFHAKsKG2eIaXxEHd85eDN1l7HlMQfCYOg23_xOUj1XE3opB0gHBRxd9e

Indeed. They have it earmarked for review subject to a whole bunch of caveats and restrictions. Oh and they're at an advanced stage of their vaccination schedule.

Happydays2020 · 05-04-2021 06:24AM

standardg60 wrote: »

Sorry i've no idea what you're referring to here

Auto correct. Just spotted now. DFA has consistently performed since the founding of the State. D/Health has certainly not.

Happydays2020 · 05-04-2021 06:38AM

Sono Topolino wrote: »

I have already answered why it is unconstitutional. For some reason you are under the impression I agreed with you that it's not unconstitutional, but I have explained that it violates Article 40.03 and 40.04.

Interestingly, as late as 3 February 2021 the Taoiseach was claiming that MHQ for Irish citizens was unconstitutional. He has since changed his tune, and we'll see soon whether this is correct.

The counter argument is that personal rights in the Constitution are subordinate to the public good. The Supreme Court in the past has permitted the government to restrict fundamental rights in the name of the public good. This was acknowledged in Ryan v Attorney General [1965]. However, there is a strict proportionality test that must be met, and this was set out by Costello J. in Heaney v Ireland [1994]. In order to justify restraining personal rights and liberties of citizens, a measure must meet all of the following criteria:
Pursue an objective of sufficient importance.

Be rationally connected to that objective, and not unfair or arbitrary.

Impair the right as little as possible.

Clearly the objective being pursued is of sufficient importance, and arguably it impairs rights as little as possible (being that the quarantine period is determined by scientific data). However, as I have alrady stated - the measure is both unfair and arbitrary in that the designation of countries in Category 2 is arbitrary and not based on the science.

The government has undermined itself repeatedly in its public pronouncements on this. No doubt the barristers representing these two women will be combing over everything Simon Coveney, Micheál Martin, Stephen Donnelly and NPHET have said publicly about the Category 2 countries.

Ergo I argue that this particular quarantine law is unconstitutional by my understanding of the constitution and case law. Now the ultimate decision is in the hands of the court, but hopefully this explains my reasoning to your satisfaction.

Thanks for this. Any reflections on how this the legislation interacts with EU Freedom of Movement. I have noted the EU Commission is concerned with restrictions on place in various countries.

The secondary legislation powers in the Health Act are quite extraordinary - see Irish Times today about Donnelly determined to follow through. Danger this will lead to both a constitutional and political crisis.

05-04-2021 08:26AM

Happydays2020 wrote: »

Thanks for this. Any reflections on how this the legislation interacts with EU Freedom of Movement. I have noted the EU Commission is concerned with restrictions on place in various countries.

The secondary legislation powers in the Health Act are quite extraordinary - see Irish Times today about Donnelly determined to follow through. Danger this will lead to both a constitutional and political crisis.

How does being in jail affect freedom of movement?
Surely its illegal to jail people if you are restricting their EU freedom of movement?
I expect jails to close on the basis of this as EU freedom of movement trumps local law breaking ...
Free the portlaoise 2000
Free the mountjoy 1000

caveat emptor · 05-04-2021 08:33AM

MissShihTzu wrote: »

According to the Examiner, these women went for 'cosmetic procedures', which were in fact not done. So they went on holiday then.

All paid for by family whiprounds. How the defence lawyers told the judge all that with a straight face, I have no idea.

Apparently they couldn't do the quarantine as no one to mind the kids. Wasn't an issue while they were in Dubai funnily enough.

faceman · 05-04-2021 08:46AM

AuntySnow wrote: »

How does being in jail affect freedom of movement?
Surely its illegal to jail people if you are restricting their EU freedom of movement?
I expect jails to close on the basis of this as EU freedom of movement trumps local law breaking ...
Free the portlaoise 2000
Free the mountjoy 1000

Having, contracting or transmitting Covid is not a crime.

faceman · 05-04-2021 08:49AM

All the speculation on the 2 women, their circumstances, suggestions they’re criminals by people here and in public.

Reminds of that time the public suspected that a family of Irish travellers had kidnapped a child as the child looked far too exotic for them. The gardai took the child from them

We all know how that ended up.

05-04-2021 09:08AM

faceman wrote: »

Having, contracting or transmitting Covid is not a crime.

Potentially Transmitting it in contravention of health laws is

ZX7R · 05-04-2021 10:37AM

AuntySnow wrote: »

Potentially Transmitting it in contravention of health laws is

No its not, knowingly been infected and deliberately transmitting it is.

Away With The Fairies · 05-04-2021 11:14AM

ZX7R wrote: »

No its not, knowingly been infected and deliberately transmitting it is.

What about knowingly being a close contact and just continuing on like normal?

ZX7R · 05-04-2021 11:23AM

Away With The Fairies wrote: »

What about knowingly being a close contact and just continuing on like normal?

Not illegal.
If you're contacted as a know close contact ,there is no legal requirement for you to comply with the contact tracing team.

Away With The Fairies · 05-04-2021 11:25AM

ZX7R wrote: »

Not illegal.
If you're contacted as a know close contact ,there is no legal requirement for you to comply with the contact tracing team.

What the actual fück? So are you saying, you're free to do what you want until you test positive?

Happydays2020 · 05-04-2021 11:35AM

Away With The Fairies wrote: »

What the actual fück? So are you saying, you're free to do what you want until you test positive?

Indeed. Maybe looking closer to home rather than minimal risks from abroad would be a bit more sensible.

Away With The Fairies · 05-04-2021 11:48AM

Happydays2020 wrote: »

Indeed. Maybe looking closer to home rather than minimal risks from abroad would be a bit more sensible.

There is risk from abroad though. Are we forgetting what happened with that barber in Sligo last summer. Came home and went to visit his family and ended up positive and infecting them.

Red Silurian · 05-04-2021 12:56PM

b0nk1e wrote: »

Right, so we're now into collective preventative detention. That's absolutely wild. Within about ten minutes we've spiralled from "anyone who tests positive for Covid must be imprisoned" to "anyone who tests positive for Covid must be imprisoned. And their children. And their children's children. Regardless of whether they test positive or not".

I think you're getting confused between prison and mandatory hotel quarantine

Red Silurian · 05-04-2021 12:59PM

Away With The Fairies wrote: »

There is risk from abroad though. Are we forgetting what happened with that barber in Sligo last summer. Came home and went to visit his family and ended up positive and infecting them.

To be fair at the time we had less than 10 cases every day so him adding another 20 made a huge difference

We currently have 500-700 daily cases so MHQ isn't going to stop all that many cases... What it will do is it will allow us to expand on a system that's already setup if we need to slow down inbound travel this summer

Happydays2020 · 05-04-2021 01:00PM

Away With The Fairies wrote: »

There is risk from abroad though. Are we forgetting what happened with that barber in Sligo last summer. Came home and went to visit his family and ended up positive and infecting them.

There is a risk. And I agree with PCR tests and self quarantine. Ok for follow up checks as well but we have continued to fail at contact tracing.

I know of one case here at Christmas where one individual infected over 60 family members.

Red Silurian · 05-04-2021 01:03PM

Happydays2020 wrote: »

I know of one case here at Christmas where one individual infected over 60 family members.

Something which wouldn't have happened had they been isolating (hotel or otherwise) before they met their families

Happydays2020 · 05-04-2021 01:06PM

Red Silurian wrote: »

Something which wouldn't have happened had they been isolating (hotel or otherwise) before they met their families

It was not travel related.

JP Liz V1 · 05-04-2021 01:28PM

Is France, US, Italy and Germany going on the mandatory quarantine lists? The government it seems don't want to upset the EU

JP Liz V1 · 05-04-2021 01:31PM

faceman wrote: »

All the speculation on the 2 women, their circumstances, suggestions they’re criminals by people here and in public.
Reminds of that time the public suspected that a family of Irish travellers had kidnapped a child as the child looked far too exotic for them. The gardai took the child from them
We all know how that ended up.

I'm not bothered about how they paid but why cosmetic surgery twice to Dubai was deemed essential, was any airport checks? Same with all those who went abroad for new teeth veneers whitening etc.,

ZX7R · 05-04-2021 01:35PM

JP Liz V1 wrote: »

Is France, US, Italy and Germany going on the mandatory quarantine lists? The government it seems don't want to upset the EU

Enhanced home quarantine not mhq

ZX7R · 05-04-2021 01:37PM

Away With The Fairies wrote: »

What the actual fück? So are you saying, you're free to do what you want until you test positive?

Basically yes.

faceman · 05-04-2021 02:05PM

JP Liz V1 wrote: »

I'm not bothered about how they paid but why cosmetic surgery twice to Dubai was deemed essential, was any airport checks? Same with all those who went abroad for new teeth veneers whitening etc.,

I don’t think the word essential is used in the legislation for travel, I could be wrong but I don’t believe so. So technically yes, an aul teeth polish would permit you to travel.

I know anecdotally the gardai aren’t quizzing people on how essential their appointments are

Kaisr Sose · 05-04-2021 02:12PM

faceman wrote: »

All the speculation on the 2 women, their circumstances, suggestions they’re criminals by people here and in public.

Reminds of that time the public suspected that a family of Irish travellers had kidnapped a child as the child looked far too exotic for them. The gardai took the child from them

We all know how that ended up.

You are mounting a good defence but ultimately I see the whole exercise as a folly.

It is deeply annoying and frustrating for many people that have followed the public health guidelines, with our liberty to work, travel, and socialise severely curtained within our own neighbourhoods. However, we don't go running to the High Court to challenge the constitutionality of these measures. If we did, most likely we would not get free legal aid to do so.

There are so many questions about the trip or trips, including the source of funds. The relevant state agencies can look into this now as it has been disclosed in court proceedings. The amounts involved fall into scope for scrutiny, so let's hope they follow the money. If they are living beyond their financial means, they should be treated the same way as others found to be doing the same. After all, all the two women want is to be treated fairly.

faceman · 05-04-2021 02:24PM

Kaisr Sose wrote: »

You are mounting a good defence but ultimately I see the whole exercise as a folly.

It is deeply annoying and frustrating for many people that have followed the public health guidelines, with our liberty to work, travel, and socialise severely curtained within our own neighbourhoods. However, we don't go running to the High Court to challenge the constitutionality of these measures. If we did, most likely we would not get free legal aid to do so.

There are so many questions about the trip or trips, including the source of funds. The relevant state agencies can look into this now as it has been disclosed in court proceedings. The amounts involved do fall into scope for scrutiny, so let's hope they follow the money. If they are living beyond their financial means, they should be treated the same way as others found to be doing the same. After all, all the two women want is to be treated fairly.

Totally get the anger and frustration. I’d have as much time for those 2 as the shinners have for Arlene Foster

But at the same time I’m not going to cast moral judgements on them either in absence of the facts. Particularly at a time when most of Ireland are breaking covid rules anyway.

The big issue is the scrutiny of the law. A lot of the legislation around covid was rushed, understandably, and some portion of it is based on what we don’t know rather than on science. That’s a noose we could hang ourselves with.

A simple example being MHQ for travellers with negative tests but no enforced restrictions for the hundreds of people who are confirmed to have covid in Ireland daily.

Irish people have had the vast majority of their civil liberties for over a year now and at no point during the whole thing has there been an exit strategy. While other countries are saying vaccines get us out and giving vaccinated citizens freedoms back, Ireland isn’t claiming “unknown variants”

tjhook · 05-04-2021 02:32PM

faceman wrote: »

I don’t think the word essential is used in the legislation for travel, I could be wrong but I don’t believe so. So technically yes, an aul teeth polish would permit you to travel.

I know anecdotally the gardai aren’t quizzing people on how essential their appointments are

The law uses the phrase "reasonable excuse". Example "reasonable excuses" provided by the statute include visiting "essential retain outlets", with take-aways being specified as one of them, and "attend a medical or dental appointment" is also allowed. But there is scope to apply further restrictions to these "excuses". Otherwise one could travel across the country, or even to Lanzarote to collect a take-away.

I think the law does allow for the prevention of travel abroad for non-essential treatments, but the enforcers (gardai) wouldn't feel qualified to be the ones do decide how essential a medical treatment is. I couldn't blame them for that.

05-04-2021 04:08PM

tjhook wrote: »

The law uses the phrase "reasonable excuse". Example "reasonable excuses" provided by the statute include visiting "essential retain outlets", with take-aways being specified as one of them, and "attend a medical or dental appointment" is also allowed. But there is scope to apply further restrictions to these "excuses". Otherwise one could travel across the country, or even to Lanzarote to collect a take-away.

I think the law does allow for the prevention of travel abroad for non-essential treatments, but the enforcers (gardai) wouldn't feel qualified to be the ones do decide how essential a medical treatment is. I couldn't blame them for that.

The law states 'essential' medical reasons and Gardai make the call in this as much as they do with a normal traffic or public order ticket. Thats all it is, a ticket and like all tickets, can be decided by a court if you dont pay.

Its really a lot more mundane and daily than people think

tjhook · 05-04-2021 04:27PM

Niner leprauchan wrote: »

The law states 'essential' medical reasons and Gardai make the call in this as much as they do with a normal traffic or public order ticket. Thats all it is, a ticket and like all tickets, can be decided by a court if you dont pay.

It does say "essential", that's a good catch, and Gardai are entitled to make a call on it. I'd agree with Faceman's assessment that they don't appear to be doing so.

I can only imagine the fuss if they stopped a person going for plastic surgery or dental work, for it to arise later that the work was considered essential by a medical consultant who referred them for it. If I was a member of the Gardai, I wouldn't risk making that decision.

Can we have some fcuking control on the airports from high risk countries please?

Comments