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?

Agree @Hardbackwriter, and as well as being enforceable and effective (and yes created by trusted accountable bodies that are felt to represent the best interests of the people they exist to serve), on the whole laws need to be perceived to require relatively little sacrifice, to provide relatively substantial societal gain. We're currently expecting huge sacrifice of normal people in some cases for what can feel like very arbitrary reasons (e.g. county boundaries, councils hoping for funding, hospital capacity in far away parts of the country, etc.).

Losing public trust and general compliance in such a way is going to prove a very tricky path to walk back from.

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

It was an emergency situation.*

Wow you really don't know much about the past do you, the old rose tinted view about stuff upper lip has to stop.

Ever heard about consiencious objectors, a lot of time they shot them.

People didn't do as they were told during blackouts as they wee afraid of houses getting looted.

And you think people didn't moan about rationing really.

@Deliaskis and @Hardbackwriter

Losing public trust and general compliance in such a way is going to prove a very tricky path to walk back from

reasons that are seen as arbitrary and political

I think some will hold on to any excuse they can come up with not to follow the rules

@Deliaskis

on the whole laws need to be perceived to require relatively little sacrifice

We are in the middle of a pandemic, I don't think anyone should expect temporary restrictions to require 'little effort'

[quote trulydelicious]@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[/quote]
I think you have this the wrong way round.

The human rights are ours and are inalienable. They are not “being brought into” this situation. They are inextricably part of the situation. To restrict our rights the government should have to demonstrate that what they are doing is proportionate to the risk to public health. They have not done so.

[quote trulydelicious]@Deliaskis

on the whole laws need to be perceived to require relatively little sacrifice

We are in the middle of a pandemic, I don't think anyone should expect temporary restrictions to require 'little effort'[/quote]
You're kind of proving my point though. You clearly believe and feel that the restrictions are reasonable and proportionate, under pandemic circumstances. But for a law to be 'successful', almost everybody needs to believe that. That others don't agree with you is an inescapable fact. The question is how many, how strongly do they feel about it, and how 'legitimate' do they feel in their protest at it? If a law doesn't have the goodwill and support of most people most of the time, it won't be successful. If you make lots of laws like that, what is or isn't legal starts to become irrelevant to a lot of people, and that's really dangerous.

To restrict our rights the government should have to demonstrate that what they are doing is proportionate to the risk to public health. They have not done so

What do you think has been brought in with inadequate justification?

Bearing in mind that human rights organisations are warning of the potential for abuse (eg what is quoted in the opening post) but have not cited any yet occurring.

The UN has also warned of the need to respect human rights during a pandemic, but has yet to identify breaches. It permits making reasonable limitations on things such gatherings and activities outside the home, provided that these are subject to normal law-making process (not just imposed - ending dictatorship is one of the seven standing priority tasks to improve global human rights) reviewed regularly, and with specific end date.

What UK is doing is very much in line with what all countries are doing, and the law which permits the government to act in this way has formal review points and a sunset clause.

The Opposition did not oppose the Act, nor are they calling for change to any particular measures (whether on human rights grounds or any others)

And one way to persuade more people would be to have independent processes, like judicial review, which could then consider the question of whether the measures were proportionate - I still can't see why anyone who thinks they are doesn't want this to happen?

@meditrina

To restrict our rights the government should have to demonstrate that what they are doing is proportionate to the risk to public health. They have not done so

What do you think has been brought in with inadequate justification?

Bearing in mind that human rights organisations are warning of the potential for abuse (eg what is quoted in the opening post) but have not cited any yet occurring.

The UN has also warned of the need to respect human rights during a pandemic, but has yet to identify breaches. It permits making reasonable limitations on things such gatherings and activities outside the home, provided that these are subject to normal law-making process (not just imposed - ending dictatorship is one of the seven standing priority tasks to improve global human rights) reviewed regularly, and with specific end date.

What UK is doing is very much in line with what all countries are doing, and the law which permits the government to act in this way has formal review points and a sunset clause.

The Opposition did not oppose the Act, nor are they calling for change to any particular measures (whether on human rights grounds or any others)

The scientific justification put forward seems to be to be poor. Specifically on the “4000 deaths a day” which they admitted had no scientific basis.

We have restrictions now that mean I am breaking the law by inviting whoever I choose into my own private dwelling. This is a huge deal. I am nowhere near convinced that evidence has been shown that eroding such a fundamental freedom to the extent it has been is justified.

And as stated above by other posters you really need public support and buy in for measures to be effective. If people don’t believe in the measures they won’t comply.

Y'all need to stop whinging and be glad you're alive. It's not going to last forever and you'll see your rels again.

To restrict our rights the government should have to demonstrate that what they are doing is proportionate to the risk to public health. They have not done so.
Because they cannot provide proof that their a actions were proportionate. The Rubicon was crossed a long time ago.
I am so disappointed that most people have submissively followed the rules with no proper scrutiny or debate. We have given away so many of our fundamental rights with barely a whimper. I'm stunned.

@shamalidacdak

Y'all need to stop whinging and be glad you're alive. It's not going to last forever and you'll see your rels again.

There’s more to life than being “not dead”. I’m sick of legitimate concerns such as; delayed cancer treatment being considered whinging.

But what is the alternative to lockdowns? At present there are 21,286 people in hospital, a month before there were 16,341, a month before that there were 7850 and a month before that there were 1616. Do we just go about our business and let the nhs get so overwhelmed nothing else can be done?

@Pinotwoman82

But what is the alternative to lockdowns

@Billie18 , the OP, appears to be convinced of her superior discerning capabilities but has not yet answered that question

The thing is though @pinotwoman82, I'm not even against lockdown and restrictions per se, but I'd be willing to bet that none of the people in hospital right now are there because someone in a tier 3 area had an illegal cup of tea in their mum's garden sitting at a distance of several metres, nor because someone exercised outdoors with two friends during the November lockdown when one was the legal maximum. Those restrictions are not rooted in science and disease transmission at all. They're rooted in 'we don't believe you'll stick to what we're asking so we're mandating something stricter than necessary, and criminalizing perfectly harmless things, in the hope that you'll only break the law minimally and not substantially'. From a behavioral science perspective, it makes some sense, but you can only do it for a limited time before a significant proportion of society lose respect for the law completely. We've all probably seen this in miniature in our high school years.... the ineffective teacher who attempted to inflict ever stricter discipline whilst losing the respect of his class more quickly than ever.

Of course we need restrictions, to ensure healthcare is there for those who need it, but every restriction needs to be justifiable. Making restrictions ever tighter won't result in greater compliance, if people don't believe that each measure is relevant and needed.

There may be no alternative. But it should be to the minimal extent for the shortest period of time and the government should be able to demonstrate that the restrictions are proportionate to the threat to public health. PROPERLY based on peer reviewed science and not by pulling figures out their arse with no scientific basis or using modelling which has been subject to criticism.

@Deliaskis

The thing is though *@pinotwoman82*, I'm not even against lockdown and restrictions per se, but I'd be willing to bet that none of the people in hospital right now are there because someone in a tier 3 area had an illegal cup of tea in their mum's garden sitting at a distance of several metres, nor because someone exercised outdoors with two friends during the November lockdown when one was the legal maximum. Those restrictions are not rooted in science and disease transmission at all. They're rooted in 'we don't believe you'll stick to what we're asking so we're mandating something stricter than necessary, and criminalizing perfectly harmless things, in the hope that you'll only break the law minimally and not substantially'. From a behavioral science perspective, it makes some sense, but you can only do it for a limited time before a significant proportion of society lose respect for the law completely. We've all probably seen this in miniature in our high school years.... the ineffective teacher who attempted to inflict ever stricter discipline whilst losing the respect of his class more quickly than ever.

Of course we need restrictions, to ensure healthcare is there for those who need it, but every restriction needs to be justifiable. Making restrictions ever tighter won't result in greater compliance, if people don't believe that each measure is relevant and needed.

Agreed

@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.

Such a shame that people still have to be so nasty and awful with their name calling just because somebody might have a different opinion to themselves.

@Pinotwoman82

But what is the alternative to lockdowns? At present there are 21,286 people in hospital, a month before there were 16,341, a month before that there were 7850 and a month before that there were 1616. Do we just go about our business and let the nhs get so overwhelmed nothing else can be done?

I am not actually anti lockdown, I just think we need to be mindful of human rights infringement.

As for what can be done? Having an effective track, trace and test system would be a start, as would properly addressing issues in schools!

@MadameBlobby you are aware even peer reviewed science can get it wrong simply as the virus is new. Research papers openly state the limitations on their research e.g. models flaws, bias in samples, assumptions. Plus all scientists have their own individual opinions anyway so don't always agree, and even when they do agree the way they get to the same conclusion will be different.

@RedMarauderar I may be wrong but I think @MadameBlobby is referring not to mistakes that were made but to completely inaccurate figures that were presented as fact when they knew full well they were wildly over exaggerated. that has eroded public trust and is inexcusable.

They risk being the boy who cried wolf.

1.Since Covid19 doesn't impress some people much, pose a question about Ebola. Assume it is running through the country. Assume even the hardest-of-understanding have mostly grasped the point it isn't a good plan to infect other people. Assume, then, that a large house next to you is holding mass parties day and night, particularly holding widely publicised orgies, a favourite hobby of the occupant. But it's "in their own home" so they are "entitled to do as they like".
Are they?
2.A local newsletter group carries messages including those from people who offer personal services going from door to door. Hairdressing, cleaning, massage, eyelash curling, coaching, manicure. They protest they are entitled to do so, in tier 3.
Are they?

‘I am not actually anti lockdown, I just think we need to be mindful of human rights infringement’

I’m not either. But as l said previously children are the forgotten victims in this. Just hurled into a melting pot of germs to carry home. A lot are scared of catching it. They haven’t even got any health and safety precautions, never mind human rights. Isn’t a basic human right to be safe?

No commission is looking after their human rights

@ArseInTheCoOpWindow

‘I am not actually anti lockdown, I just think we need to be mindful of human rights infringement’

I’m not either. But as l said previously children are the forgotten victims in this. Just hurled into a melting pot of germs to carry home. A lot are scared of catching it. They haven’t even got any health and safety precautions, never mind human rights. Isn’t a basic human right to be safe?

No commission is looking after their human rights

Children are included though. The only qualifying factor for human rights is to be human, of any age. I specifically commented that we could do 2 things that may improve safety and I included educational settings. I am not sure if you are disagreeing or agreeing with me!