Equality and Human Rights Commision - "We are walking a tight rope".

[Billie18]

In September this year the Equality and Human Rights Commission Chief Executive, Rebecca Hilsenrath had this to say about the effect of coronavirus restrictions on human rights -

"We are walking a tightrope. We need to find the balance between saving lives from coronavirus, and allowing people the hard won freedoms that are the framework for those lives - such as a right to a private and family life, to freedom of assembly, and to an education. This must go hand in hand with an economic recovery that provides everyone with an adequate standard of living.

“At the same time, we must protect those many other lives which will be put at risk without access to appropriate health and social care, such as older and disabled people, patients with cancer or with mental health challenges - or risked through the rising rates of domestic violence.

“In lockdown we heard how those in residential care were being protected as much as possible from the virus, but we also heard how people were deprived of family when they needed them most. Staying at home to protect the NHS was a simple message but it may have stopped screening and the right to health care for those with other conditions such as cancer. Blanket approaches may well have other consequences. The virus isn’t going anywhere anytime soon and we have to make sure that our efforts to live free from coronavirus don’t come at too high a price.

“As more restrictions are considered, we’re calling on the Government to make sure that protections are proportionate, measured, and rooted in science and the law. Any changes that restrict our rights must be flexible, with review and end points, and remain open to challenge. If we want to protect public health and save lives, then changes need to complement or enhance our human rights, not treat them as optional.”

www.equalityhumanrights.com/en/our-work/news/covid-19-restrictions-and-effect-human-rights

With the new harsh restrictions in place with no end date and the full closure of schools and universities not be being ruled out have we now crossed a line in terms of equality and human rights?

Billie18 you read too much into it. The Human Rights Commission Chief is not saying that the anti-vaxxers, covid deniers and other assorted entitled idiots are right. She's just advising caution.

Getting through with the NHS in tact is laughable. A privatised NHS is the end game with any Tory government

@Katie517

It been too much for about 3 months now!! No end date or believable exit plan. I get that we still need precautions but they can’t expect people to carry on like this for much longer just the fact that it has been illegal for some people to see their families inside for nearly 9 months is appalling.

But back on planet earth the exit plan includes at least 3 vaccines and more on their way. You should take a look around while you're here.

Refractory "The general population loves lockdown" spoken like a petulant teenager. Which is fine of course if you ARE a teenager.

Human rights are essential, l absolutely agree, but we are in an emergency situation. We can’t ignore that.

Did people go on about human rights in the war?
Conscription?
Blackout?
Rationing?

It was an emergency situation.

Interesting how there’s been little comment on this thread about residential care homes. It isn’t just ‘old people’. There are young adults who have no no face to face contact with their loved ones since March. Most people have had very restricted contact but some have had absolutely none. :( I’ve seen a couple of cases listed for hearing in the court of protection regarding this.

@ArseInTheCoOpWindow

Human rights are essential, l absolutely agree, but we are in an emergency situation. We can’t ignore that.

Did people go on about human rights in the war?
Conscription?
Blackout?
Rationing?

It was an emergency situation.

Wars were fought for human rights. People gave their lives to win the freedoms we have.These are the hard won freedoms that the Equality and Human Rights commission was set up to protect. We should all listen and take heed of their concern.

@ArseInTheCoOpWindow

Human rights are essential, l absolutely agree, but we are in an emergency situation. We can’t ignore that.

Did people go on about human rights in the war?
Conscription?
Blackout?
Rationing?

It was an emergency situation.

If you think that human rights don't matter in war then I don't think you know very much about the history of human rights

As more restrictions are considered, we’re calling on the Government to make sure that protections are proportionate, measured, and rooted in science and the law. Any changes that restrict our rights must be flexible, with review and end points, and remain open to challenge. If we want to protect public health and save lives, then changes need to complement or enhance our human rights, not treat them as optional.

I honestly struggle to see how anyone could disagree with this, and I find it mind boggling that there are people on this thread who seem to think there should be no process of review or checks on the current curtailment of human rights - if you're so sure that they're necessary and right then they'll easily pass any review as proportionate, so what possible argument against having the checks and balances is there?

Shami Chakrabati was saying much the same thing at the start of the pandemic

The suspension of civil liberties during a pandemic is legal only if it is proportionate .

Holding the government to account in real time is a job for the Opposition in real time, and for judicial review in the longer term.

@LastTrainEast

Billie18 you read too much into it. The Human Rights Commission Chief is not saying that the anti-vaxxers, covid deniers and other assorted entitled idiots are right. She's just advising caution.

It's a serious statement. No "just" about protecting human rights.

Agreed.

I think we crossed the line into disproportionate infringement of human rights a very long time ago particularly with regard to restrictions on seeing family in your own home. There’s been very little analysis of the proportionality of all this from a human rights perspective or attempt from the government to achieve any kind of proportionality.

I have heard the argument that human rights don’t matter because it’s an emergency before and think it’s really dangerous. To me that is exactly when human rights should matter most because it is when they are most at risk of being infringed. You can’t say (or shouldn’t say) it’s ok to torture someone because there’s a war or it’s ok to imprison someone without trial because there’s a terrorism threat. If all you need to do in order to remove human rights is declare an emergency then the HRA is pointless because any government could find an emergency to declare. Human rights are meant to be fundamental.

And for those saying that it’s temporary, a year with no definite end point isn’t really temporary. It’s 100% of my son’s life. For many care home residents the restrictions will last until they die. For many people the effects of these measures will be permanent.

I don’t really understand the EHRC’s point here. Yes obviously government action should be rooted in law and equality and so on, everyone can agree about that. Are they saying that there is a problem or there isn’t?

@Chessie678 I agree, it’s not temporary or for a short period anymore. A year is too long. They need to try something else, it’s most definitely against human rights for it to be illegal to see family in your own home and it shouldn’t be allowed to happen for more than a years

@alreadytaken

Yawn.

The economy will not recover until we control the virus.

You cant have other health care if health care staff have covid. You treat those who need help to survive before you treat those who can wait.

I will give up non-essential rights temporarily to protect the lives of others and their access to health care.

You are so very boring.

hmm ,but its a fact that cancer patients are having their treatment cancelled and being having to wait when they actually cannot wait as cancer spreads , not to mention the people in need of organ transplants who are now having to wait , when in fact they could very well die waiting . you might want to change your username to alreadytaken by complete and utter idiocy

I agree as well. So many people on here don’t seem to get that human rights are inalienable, they are ours, not for the government to remove from us at will.

@Chessie678

I think we crossed the line into disproportionate infringement of human rights a very long time ago particularly with regard to restrictions on seeing family in your own home. There’s been very little analysis of the proportionality of all this from a human rights perspective or attempt from the government to achieve any kind of proportionality.

I have heard the argument that human rights don’t matter because it’s an emergency before and think it’s really dangerous. To me that is exactly when human rights should matter most because it is when they are most at risk of being infringed. You can’t say (or shouldn’t say) it’s ok to torture someone because there’s a war or it’s ok to imprison someone without trial because there’s a terrorism threat. If all you need to do in order to remove human rights is declare an emergency then the HRA is pointless because any government could find an emergency to declare. Human rights are meant to be fundamental.

And for those saying that it’s temporary, a year with no definite end point isn’t really temporary. It’s 100% of my son’s life. For many care home residents the restrictions will last until they die. For many people the effects of these measures will be permanent.

Brilliant post

@Billie18

So, what exactly do you suggest the government did? (please provide details)

Which other government has handled this crisis correctly in your view?

As I said, this is a pandemic, these measures are temporary and bringing human rights into this is blowing things massively out of proportion

@Chessie678 I agree. Devi Sridhar gives me chills (not good ones) when she appears on TV talking about it.

For me lack of trust in this government and experts is the biggest issue. Once the trust went, how do I know what is truth and what is not?

@Chessie678

I think we crossed the line into disproportionate infringement of human rights a very long time ago particularly with regard to restrictions on seeing family in your own home. There’s been very little analysis of the proportionality of all this from a human rights perspective or attempt from the government to achieve any kind of proportionality.

I have heard the argument that human rights don’t matter because it’s an emergency before and think it’s really dangerous. To me that is exactly when human rights should matter most because it is when they are most at risk of being infringed. You can’t say (or shouldn’t say) it’s ok to torture someone because there’s a war or it’s ok to imprison someone without trial because there’s a terrorism threat. If all you need to do in order to remove human rights is declare an emergency then the HRA is pointless because any government could find an emergency to declare. Human rights are meant to be fundamental.

And for those saying that it’s temporary, a year with no definite end point isn’t really temporary. It’s 100% of my son’s life. For many care home residents the restrictions will last until they die. For many people the effects of these measures will be permanent.

Great post, completely agree.

It's also hugely dangerous to criminalise huge swathes of the population for doing very normal day to day things. You lose trust, and slowly chip away at the perceived value and legitimacy of the rule of law, with the risk of many usually very reasonable and naturally law-abiding people beginning to pick and choose which laws they feel it's reasonable for them to abide by. It's a foolish path to go down, as a government or establishment, with fairly horrifying long term implications that could last a lot longer than the pandemic will.

It's also hugely dangerous to criminalise huge swathes of the population for doing very normal day to day things. You lose trust, and slowly chip away at the perceived value and legitimacy of the rule of law, with the risk of many usually very reasonable and naturally law-abiding people beginning to pick and choose which laws they feel it's reasonable for them to abide by. It's a foolish path to go down, as a government or establishment, with fairly horrifying long term implications that could last a lot longer than the pandemic will.

I've been worried about this too. Basic principles of good law include that laws are understood by most, stable enough that citizens can plan their lives around them, and that they are enforceable and therefore effective. I think huge swathes of what has been done doesn't meet those standards.

I've banged on about this on other threads using this specific example, but I don't think this is a government that understands the importance of public will to comply or how easily squandered it is at all. I live in Essex, which back in October was in the odd and unique position that the county council actively requested that we move up a tier despite having much lower cases than other places being put up at that point. I actually think it was well-intentioned, but it turned out to be utterly pointless due to the timing of the November lockdown and, more importantly, it was widely seen as cynically done by the council to get more money. That really hurt compliance and I don't think we've ever got it back around me - once you start feeling like the county council (not a body that engenders great trust or that most people feel closely democratically linked to) can demand limits on what you can do in your own home and get them for reasons that are seen as arbitrary and political it's really hard to get that genie back in the bottle and even though our numbers now clearly justify tier 4 I really think the idea that it's all meaningless has persisted and will persist.