Counsel said those publications include criticism about the lack of clarity concerning whether certain restrictions have a legal basis or are merely advisory. It appeared it may not actually be an offence to celebrate or attend Mass, he said.
The State had addressed the matter in a very technical way, effectively saying the issue of whether it is an offence to attend Mass, or it is advisory not to, did not arise because there are no masses to attend, he outlined. Catherine Donnelly SC, for the State, said the matters raised by counsel had not been raised in correspondence with her side and she needed time to take instructions.
Here comes the daily Christianaphobia article . Leave this minority alone and attack the establishment
IMT_latest The basic is to help prevent the spread of the virus. It's obvious.
No rights are absolute.
the state is a twat, how dare they restrict people attending a religious service, f them and attend now , fuck restrictions, they do now own us, or control us, attend now, f the goverment, and HSE,
There are more attending church services on line than attended in reality. The state makes regulation to protect public and the churches and acolytes should accept it with good grace.
Asking the big questions
Divide sq meterage by 2m to give max permissible allowed. Otherwise, faithful would be justified in suspecting ulterior motives for total shutdown.
I hope he wins and it invalidates all the daft health laws.