Ireland is a country where people hold strong opinions (not necessarily always rational) and so it's no surprise to see some of the strongly held views on @gemmaod1 and @VoteJohn2020 Court action against the government. I hasten to add that for the purposes of this thread I >

> draw a distinction between the issuing of the proceedings and the after circus that took place in the Four Courts on Tuesday.
But do Gemma & John have a credible case or just attention seeking? That is the question everyone, and especially journalists, should be addressing. >

>I believe they do have a case, and a strong one at that.

So let's start:
The Irish Constitution is there to protect some fundamental rights of citizens against the reach of our politicians or other bad players. Article 40 is the most relevant section here for it safeguards >

> our fundamental personal rights such as Liberty, Detention, Private property(Article 43), Freedom of Assembly, Free Speech, Right to Earn a Living, etc. No need to go into more detail here as copies of The Constitution of Ireland are freely available, including on line. >

The one thing to note is that all these Constitutional Rights are not absolute rights but are subject to laws passed by our Parliament (Dáil) as may be required from time to time for the good governance of the country, be in the public interest or perhaps in times of emergency>

> and this brings us to #COVIDー19 specifically S.I. No. 121/2020 Health Act 1947 ( Section 31A - Temporary Restrictions) (Covid-19) Regulations 2020.
This piece of legislation quite literally drives a coach and horses through The Constitution, specifically Article 40. >

>"But it's an emergency, people are dying"; I hear people cry!
And you would be correct on both counts, as you would be in the case of deaths from smoking, alcohol, heart disease, cancer, flu and any other 'emergency' that results in large numbers dying month in Ireland. >

> Perhaps the only 'emergency' with #COVIDー19 is the inability of our health services to cope with a sudden surge in demand for medical treatment through a combination of lies by China, a snoozing WHO and a our insistence on electing politicians that are not fit for purpose. >

> Either way, the point is that Sect 31A is a draconian piece of legislation that was not debated, scrutinised or consulted upon but rushed in upon 'advice' from people that have a track record of incompetence and signed by a Minister that didn't even know how Covid-19 >

> earned it's name and believed there are 18 other Coronavirus for 'which there is no vaccine'.
Here are just some of the provisions of Sec 31A:
Reading the full extent of the provisions would make some totalitarian regimes around the world blush.

> This brings us to the concept of 'proportionality' in the law, a concept born out of human rights debate after WW2 and now enshrined in EU legislation.
Ireland's first concept of proportionality was raised in COX v IRELAND 1992 by the Supreme Court, establishing the concept >

> that legislation may be reviewed on the basis that it is over burdensome albeit for a legitimate purpose. This is the contention that in the event that the legislature does have to step upon Constitutional ground, it must do so with as soft a footprint as possible.
In Cox >

> the Supreme Court did hear Article 40.1 but avoided considering it in the Judgement. Subsequently we have had TOUHY v COURTNEY and HEANEY v IRELAND [1994] giving us The Oakes Test of Charter on compatibility (R v Oakes 1986) and there the matter has been left to rest, >

> still no definitive ruling.
I don't know whether Gemma & John will eventually end up before the Supreme Court providing it once again an opportunity to visit proportionality. I'm not even sure what G&J's case is but it seems to me this is an argument that must be made about >

> Sect 31A for if not, whose going to decide in future what is and is not an 'emergency' justifying the virtual castration of The Constitution.

The balance here is loss of livelihoods, destruction of businesses, virtual imprisonment in our homes, suicides, not being able to >

> say good bye to our loved ones and the utter destruction of many lives that will never recover, as against the government's 'its about saving lives' and have no choice.
The achilles heel on the government position can be summed up in one word *Sweden*.

End of thread