Waters out of his depth in quixotic court bid

THERE’S always been something endearing about John Waters – a genuine streak of decency that many others could benefit from copying.

But his disastrous legal misadventure with failed presidential and general election candidate Gemma O’Doherty last week was entirely quixotic – somewhere between ridiculous and absurd.

When the law of the land is challenged, it’s a basic requirement that all your legal ducks are in a row. Waters and O’Doherty failed miserably at the first hurdle in their attempt to have our Covid-19 law judicially reviewed.

In order to ensure that madcap and time-consuming legal challenges to legislation are avoided, there is a vetting process where permission for a full hearing has to be given by the court. That makes sense.

Judge Charles Meenan found they didn’t have an arguable case because they failed to show evidence establishing that the restrictions provided for in the anti-virus law were disproportionate.

Fact is, there’s no doubt at all that many of our constitutional rights HAVE been curtailed by the law. But so what?

Restrictions mean precisely nothing unless and until the court has evidence that such curtailment is neither necessary nor proportionate. Neither Waters nor O’Doherty provided that evidence. Outside of their failed court action, there is something uneasy about the type of supporters Waters and O’Doherty are attracting.

Many of them are inflexible, off the Richter, conspiracy-drivien, anti-State looneys – similar to the anti-lockdown, gun-carrying, militia types in the States that love Donald Trump.

John Waters has the kind of contrarian voice we all need to hear. But, perhaps, he might take a leaf out of Roy Keane’s book when taking on the government in the Four Goldmines. He needed to prepare. Clearly, he didn’t and therefore he failed. Gloriously.