Western Civilisation: O’Doherty & Waters For The Defence

UNREPORTED in Australia – where most of the media have become shut-down pom-pom jigglers – a hearing began today in Ireland’s High Court brought on by journalists Gemma O’Doherty and John Waters who want laws introduced to combat the largely harmless coronavirus ruled unconstitutional. Counsel for the Irish state told the court at a preliminary hearing last week that the government opposes leave being granted for the case to proceed. Patrick McCann SC told Mr Justice Meenan that O’Doherty and Waters’ claims “are not arguable.” If that’s true, Ireland’s most powerful officials are strangely apprehensive. Barrister Francis Kieran for the Dail (lower house), the Seanad (upper house) and the Ceann Comhairle (Dail Speaker) also registered opposition to the matter being heard. The litigants want recently enacted laws to restrict and detain the public quashed. The case has been adjourned this morning, Irish time, while the State prepares a response to their sworn statement. The pair have enthusiastic supporters and viciously spiteful enemies. A large contingent of gardaí are stationed outside the Four Courts complex where the case is proceeding.

Supporters they have but as William O’Sullivan reports from Dublin, most Irishmen see O’Doherty and Waters as “dangerous radicals.” The hatred many in the commentary class especially have towards them is illustrated by well-known cartoonist Niall O’Loughlin’s meme-ified depiction of himself as a garda kicking the two out of Ireland. O’Loughlin’s artist-as-cop also personifies what post-Catholic Ireland has become: a nasty jamboree of adolescent iconoclasm and left-wing thuggery. As her Twitter site demonstrates, however, Gemma O’Doherty isn’t afraid of mocking the country’s shrill Year Zeroists. Her brave endeavour will certainly fail but – as in Irish times of old – maybe this commitment to the preservation of reason will bear fruit.

This entry was posted in COVID-19, International, Rule of law. Bookmark the permalink.

26 Responses to Western Civilisation: O’Doherty & Waters For The Defence

  1. Mark A says:

    I always thought, the Irish were lucky to have the English as a common enemy.
    Without them they would have exterminated each other long ago.

  2. Beachcomber says:

    Thanks C.L. I, like almost everyone else, had heard nothing of this. A great article by William O’Sullivan. He is rightly scornful of ” ….. the delusions of a decadent society given to mania”.

    The fanatical and passionate abuse of O’Doherty by O’Loughlin and the commenters at his Twitter account brings to mind a famous passage from Orwell’s 1984.

    Was he, then, alone in the possession of a memory?


    Covid-1984 is the stuff of dystopian fiction, but it is all too real.

    Imagine how it must be to live in a society where ……….

  3. Ƶĩppʯ (ȊꞪꞨV) says:

    where is our efforts to quash these unconstitutional laws?

    watching this unfold in communist chinese shithole, I was thinking they can’t possibly enforce a lockdown in the west….

  4. rickw says:

    where is our efforts to quash these unconstitutional laws?

    Part of the problem is that our constitution is shit.

    Offers minimal protection to The People because it is founded on the absurd idea that Government never acts in a manner that is contra to The People’s best interests.

    One can only assume that the writers were historically illiterate. Incredible that it was so poorly written given that they had the benchmark of all constitution’s available to them (The USA’s).

  5. Iampeter says:

    Supporters they have but as William O’Sullivan reports from Dublin, most Irishmen see O’Doherty and Waters as “dangerous radicals.”

    Those who would actually defend Western Civilization would be considered “dangerous radicals” by you too.
    The greatest enemies of the West today are those claiming to be it’s defenders in the mainstream.

    where is our efforts to quash these unconstitutional laws?

    Who are you asking? The people currently opposing these laws were just the loudest advocates for very similar laws only months ago.

    A better question is, does anyone even know what a constitution is supposed to do?

  6. jupes says:

    A better question is, does anyone even know what a constitution is supposed to do?

    Only you Pete.

    It must be hard being the only one in step.

  7. Yeah sure Petey, Locke, Mill and Peter Lalor wanted Coronavirus lockdown. So would have Ayn Rand.

    Anyone who fails to see your greatness knows absolutely nothing about politics, economics, medical science or constitutional law.

  8. notafan says:

    Isn’t most of the lockdown being implemented under state laws?

  9. thefrollickingmole says:

    Lot more “good germans” than I ever thought there were.

  10. duncanm says:

    notafan
    #3441639, posted on May 6, 2020 at 8:28 am
    Isn’t most of the lockdown being implemented under state laws?

    which leads to the unconstitutional part, maybe – not allowing people to flee their state?

  11. And the only good ger…

  12. notafan says:

    Apparently quarantine is a state issue.

    If people want to run a case on the constitutionality of state quarantine laws they can.

  13. nfw says:

    The Garda Commissioner has appointed a senior officer to inquire into the large gatherings of people outside the Four Courts both this week and last.

    “We made it clear at the time that they were in breach of the regulations and they were given warnings,” Commissioner Drew Harris said of the first court appearance.

    Only in Ireland would the SS Services appoint a top walloper to investigate why a crowd had gathered to support those fighting against unlawful regulations.

    And only in Ireland would the SS Services give illegal “warnings” to those who had peacefully gathered to exercise their common law rights (ever hear of the Magna Carta politicians and SS Services?) to attend a court hearing about the very same illegal regulations and warnings.

  14. Sinclair Davidson says:

    Similar case in New Zealand got thrown out on procedural grounds.

  15. Tim Neilson says:

    The people currently opposing these laws were just the loudest advocates for very similar laws only months ago.

    Name some names.

  16. pbw says:

    Here’s John Waters’ article in First Things.

    It’s well worth reading. Some excerpts:

    I do not mind so much the people who shout at me in the street. “Ah! The Revolutionary!” “If you don’t mind me saying, you’re an effing disgrace!”

    (I like the “if you don’t mind me saying!”)

    It was as if people became eager to dismantle their own freedoms, as though these belonged to them like furniture and were not eternal gifts merely borrowed from posterity. It was as though the “pandemic” provided a license to let go of all responsibility and succumb to the embrace of unaccountable power.

    That’s the really frightening part – the enthusiasm for totalitarianism. What happened to the men? Even though half the US population longs for state control, it is encouraging to see the demonstrations against lockdowns. Some vestiges of the desire for freedom and independence remain in the US; desire which is absent in the rest of the “developed” world.

  17. Hay Stockard says:

    One would have thought that in Australia the loyal opposition would have taken a stand against the Government arrogating these sort of draconian powers to themselves.

  18. Iampeter says:

    Yeah sure Petey, Locke, Mill and Peter Lalor wanted Coronavirus lockdown. So would have Ayn Rand.

    Um…what? I think you haven’t understood what was said, but got triggered and responded before thinking about it.

    Also, you knowing “absolutely nothing about politics, economics, medical science or constitutional law” has nothing to do with me.

    Name some names.

    Tim Nielson, for one.
    We’ve just had a whole exchange on this in another thread where you ended up not being able to counter what I said and going off on some random tangent no one was disputing as usual.
    I don’t think we need to rehash that again.

  19. Tim Neilson says:

    We’ve just had a whole exchange on this in another thread where you ended up not being able to counter what I said and going off on some random tangent no one was disputing as usual.
    I don’t think we need to rehash that again.

    Au contraire, M. Iamashiteater.

    You spectacularly beclowned yourself as usual, and now that you’ve resurrected your stupidity by making the accusation on this thread, it’s time to repeat the humiliating bottom spanking you suffered.

    I said There’s no contradiction in saying that a nation state has a right to keep out foreigners who it doesn’t want to let in, and criticising the lack of wisdom in a particular government response to a particular situation within its borders.

    You said Yes there is. There is a direct contradiction in supporting the government sacrificing individuals for some greater agenda and then turning around and opposing the government sacrificing individuals for some greater agenda.

    Your statement can be proved incontrovertibly untenable by the Socratic method.

    I’ll ask four questions.

    You can choose to:
    (a) fail to answer – thus proving that you know you’re about to be humiliated;
    (b) do your usual emotionally incontinent meltdown hurling meaningless word salads e.g. “random” “triggered” etc., – i.e. not answering the questions – thus, again, proving that you know you’re about to be humiliated; or
    (c ) answer them.

    If you choose (a) or (b) I’ll demonstrate that any combination of answers reveals your position to be untenable.

    You can expedite the process by choosing (c ), in which case I’ll address your answers.

    In any case the next step will be to induce two propositions from the answers.

    Then those propositions get applied to your assertion.

    Here goes:

    Questions 1 and 2 – Immigration
    Is a government of a sovereign state justified in:
    (1) refusing to allow a foreigner in if the foreigner is a carrier of a highly contagious and fatal disease?
    (2) placing a total ban on immigration?

    Questions 3 and 4 – internal measures during a pandemic
    If a citizen of a sovereign state who is present within the territory of that state falls ill with a highly contagious and fatal disease, is the government of the sovereign state justified in:
    (3) forbidding the citizen from travelling on crowded public transport?
    (4) having the citizen shot so that workers in hazmat suits can burn the body?

  20. Iampeter says:

    This just beclowns you, not me. There’s no question here for me to answer as you haven’t understood what’s being said and/or cannot directly respond to it so have gone off on a random tangent no one is discussing.

    Here’s how our conversations go:

    Iampeter: 2 apples + 2 apples = 4 apples
    Tim: Oh yeA?! Well, um, what color are those apples?!?!111
    Iampeter: It doesn’t matter. It’s not going to change the answer.
    Tim: Answer the [email protected]
    Other cat posters: yea answer question!
    Other cat poster: ! stop being slippery!!!!!! question!!111KKK DIshonesty!!!1!1
    Iampeter: facepalm
    Tim: Socratic method!!!!1!111!!

    Until you can understand and directly address what’s actually being said, there’s nothing else to discuss.
    But if you could’ve done that then you would’ve just done so to begin with instead of these inane walls of text.

  21. Shorter I Am Petey Massive Congenital Brain Damage:

    *I know you are but what am I?*

    Not worth engaging with. Just a socialist troll.

  22. thefrollickingmole says:

    Iampeter: 2 apples + 2 apples = 4 apples

    hes being polite and not pointing out they are horse apples you are playing with dillweed.

  23. Tim Neilson says:

    OK, so Iamashiteater has opted for (b).

    Now, solely for the record (since Iamashiteater is too conceited, stupid and ignorant to understand, and it’s no doubt obvious to everyone else)…

    Whichever of the four questions is being answered, the answer must fall within one of the following categories, and can never fall within more than one:
    (a) always yes;
    (b) in some circumstances yes and in some circumstances no; or
    (c ) always no.

    Taking questions (3) and (4) first;
    Someone who answered (a) to both questions would clearly be insane, advocating for government power in all circumstances to shoot citizens who are unfortunate enough to contract an illness of the type in question.
    That is because a proper government exists because of a compact to which citizens are parties, and the government cannot, as against a citizen, unilaterally renege on all rights of the citizen in all circumstances.
    Conversely someone who answered (c ) to both questions would also clearly be insane, demanding that the ill citizen must in all circumstances be at liberty to put other citizens at risk of infection with such a disease. That is once again because a proper government exists because of a compact to which citizens are parties, and the citizen cannot, as against all other citizens, unilaterally renege on all responsibilities of the citizen in all circumstances.
    Accordingly, it would seem incontrovertible that a rational citizen will support a government having some powers, at least in some circumstances, to encroach on a citizen’s normal “rights”* in a pandemic, but will not believe that the government can justifiably take away all of a citizen’s rights in all circumstances just because there is a pandemic.
    That is, if one is asked simply whether a government can justifiably take away rights of a citizen because there is a pandemic [general question A] , the only rational answer is (b).
    [* I use the term “rights” for simplicity – of course in analysing any specific situation it would be preferable to distinguish between “rights”, “liberties”, etc.]
    The rational position is clearly adopted by all Cat commenters (except maybe Iamashiteater who refuses to answer the questions).

    Iamashiteater asserts that this is irrational, not necessarily inherently, but by reference to commenters’ views on immigration powers.
    So let’s move to questions (1) and (2).

    Presumably no-one is so irrational as to answer (c ) to question (1).
    Once one accepts that (a), or even (b), is the rational answer to question (1), it is clear that a rational person accepts that even if foreigners are thought to have “rights” to enter a sovereign state, those rights are not absolute – that is, there are at least circumstances where it is proper for a government to refuse entry to a foreigner. That is, the general question “can the government of a sovereign state justifiably refuse entry to a foreigner” [general question B] can rationally be answered only as (a) or (b). (This is so even for someone who answers (c ) to question (2) – they would still answer (b) to the more general question if they are rational.)

    Clearly Iamashiteater’s sneer must be irrational if the person objecting to some of the current internal restrictions would answer both A and B as (b). That is, for such a person there is no possible inherent logical contradiction between believing that:
    (i) some but not all of the current internal restrictions are unjustified (question A, answer (b)); and
    (ii) current immigration settings are either justified or too weak (question B, answer (b)).

    So Iamashiteater’s sneer could be justified only if it could be shown that both:
    those he is criticising would answer question A as (b) (which in fact they all do), and would answer question B as (a); and
    there is some inherent contradiction between those answers.

    TBC

  24. Tim Neilson says:

    Let’s assume for the sake of argument that some Cat commenters would answer question B as (a) – that is, in answer to the question “can the government of a sovereign state justifiably refuse entry to a foreigner” they’d say “always yes”.

    Is that inherently contradictory to their answer to A – that is that, if asked whether a government can justifiably take away rights of a citizen because there is a pandemic they would answer in some circumstances yes and in some circumstances no.

    Given that in answer to the question “can the government of a sovereign state justifiably refuse entry to a foreigner” the answer “always no” is irrational, then someone who states that the answer “always yes” is irrational must be able to articulate some ground on which in some circumstances a foreigner is entitled to demand entry.
    They must also articulate who it is who gets to adjudicate whether those grounds of entitlement exist in any particular case.

    Who gets to adjudicate can be only either:
    the foreigner;
    the government; or
    someone else.

    Clearly it cannot rationally be the foreigner. That would be effectively saying “always no” to the government’s power to exclude a foreigner.
    If it is to be “someone else”, who can it be? Whoever it is will be, effectively, exercising judicial power as part of the governmental system of the relevant sovereign state – that is, it is effectively futile to say that the matter can be adjudicated to “someone else”. E.g. if the government of an EU country is told by the European Court of Human Rights (gag, I know) that it must admit a foreigner, that can be enforced only because the EU state has chosen to vest some of its sovereign government authority in judicial matters on the ECHR.
    Even if there were “one world government”, the same analysis would apply.

    So it seems that we are required to conclude that adjudication of a foreigner’s supposed entitlement to enter a sovereign state must inevitably be done by the government of the sovereign state or some body to which the government has transferred the relevant power (thus, in any case, making that body effectively part of the government for that purpose).

    A proper government of the sovereign state exists, as noted, by virtue of a compact between the citizens of the state. That is why a citizen’s rights are not totally defeasible.
    The foreigner is not part of the compact. That is, the foreigner does not have the citizen’s right to require that the citizens within the compact conform vis a vis the foreigner with any rules of the compact.
    For example, no-one rational would assert that foreigners should be allowed to demand the right to vote in the sovereign state’s elections.
    It is self-evident therefore that the foreigner cannot demand any right as against the sovereign state merely because citizens have that right.

    That is why there is no inherent contradiction between answering (b) to question A, and (a) to question B. There is nothing inherently irrational in asserting that a foreigner’s “rights” in relation to a sovereign state are less than those of a citizen or are even non-existent.
    In particular, there is no inherent contradiction in asserting both that:
    citizens retain some rights during a pandemic; and
    foreigners have no right to challenge a government’s decision to refuse them entry into the jurisdiction.

  25. Mullumhillbilly says:

    T.S. Eliot could have been writing about CoViD19
    This is the way the world ends
    Not with a bang but a whimper.

Comments are closed.