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?

Anything that improves safety is good!!! But l do think children are the forgotten victims. The big push to keep schools open put them ( and staff) in an unsafe environment. But that seems to have been conveniently overlooked

@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

This post is a little confusing. I presume the second part is a response to the first sentence? It's the second part I'm responding to...

Of course the Equality and Human Rights Commission is there to protect everyone no matter what age.

Are you talking about children's safety at school? No school can be completely safe it is impossible but children do have a right to education. Schools need to be made as safe as possible but at the same time children's rights to an education must also be upheld. When considering children's human rights safety is not the only concern otherwise we would never give them any freedom.

There are many risky things that we allow and even encourage children to do because of the benefits and enjoyment they gain from them. Walking, running, playing sport, swimming, riding bikes, traveling in cars, planes, going to school crossing roads... The list is endless. If their human right was just safety then they wouldn't be allowed to do any of these things. But their human rights also and rightly include freedom.

Balancing the need to save lives from coronavirus and children's (and adults) human rights is the tight rope that the Equality and Human Rights Commission Chief Executive refers to in the statement. Has the balance tipped too far towards safety at the expense of children's rights to freedom and an education?

Incidentally any child who is scared of catching coronavirus should be told very clearly that the restrictions in place are there not because they are at risk of serious illness but to protect the elderly and/or vulnerable. It is terrible that any child should be fearful for themselves.

@ArseInTheCoOpWindow

Anything that improves safety is good!!! But l do think children are the forgotten victims. The big push to keep schools open put them ( and staff) in an unsafe environment. But that seems to have been conveniently overlooked

I feel like nobody is going to win. Earlier this year, there was thread after thread about closed schools and the well-being of children being ignored. Now, the threads are the polar opposite. Either way, some children are missing out. :( Schools could - and should - be made safer for all children and teachers.

1. It is not possible to control a virus
2. It is not possible to be safe, and never has been, and therefore it is unreasonable to require other people to ensure that you are safe

But, as you can see from many a MN thread, there are people who do not accept the above and will give up any amount of freedoms and rights (or ask other people to, at least) in order to try to achieve the impossible. As long as this is the case, there will divisions among us.

A line has to be drawn.

Oh I see. And you've decided that the line is drawn where I get to be put more at risk of catching diseases than others are, despite the fact that it could be made safer for me in the same way it's been made safer for every other person on the planet? Okay. Thats against my human rights.

It is not possible to be safe, and never has been, and therefore it is unreasonable to require other people to ensure that you are safe

No need to stop at pedestrian crossings then?

I find it hard to swallow the save the NHS rhetoric when it’s the very people who pay into the NHS who are losing their jobs and businesses. Where will the funding come from for the NHS once huge swathes of the population have lost their jobs and struggle to find other.

For what it’s worth OP I agree with you

But some businesses are booming.

@Hardbackwriter

Basic principles of good law include that laws are understood by most

I do not believe for a second that Covid restrictions are not understood.

Most of us may have been confused in March/April when we were trying to figure out how the virus is transmitted and what precautions we should take.

Currently some of the detailed guidance might be difficult to follow due to the frequent changes and different tiers.

However, I do think most understand very clearly the spirit of the law i.e. stay away from those outside of your household and only come into contact should it be absolutely essential (plus wear PPE/ meet them outside where possible).

Some people will not follow the guidance simply because it is inconvenient to them and they reckon the virus will not impact them or their children - full stop (think pool parties, flying to Dubai, not bothering with track and trace or isolation, etc)

Same those asking for instance:

'If I invite 6 people for dinner, does a baby count as a 7th guest?'
I see that as trying to push the boundaries and these questions of 'is X allowed' would not be necessary if people acted responsibly within the spirit of the guidance

@Deliaskis

But for a law to be 'successful', almost everybody needs to believe that

Same as above, those who believe that they (and their nuclear family) are low risk for Covid will be against the restrictions, consider them an infringement of human rights, and so on.

So during a pandemic/crisis/emergency, it's not always possible for everyone to 'agree' with the law to expect compliance.

@Hardbackwriter

And one way to persuade more people would be to have independent processes, like judicial review

The virus will not wait for the outcome of a judicial review before infecting you.

Neither will it wait for several NGOs across the world to debate and reach an unanimous opinion on whether very basic infection control guidelines are infringing human rights

@Billie18

any child who is scared of catching coronavirus should be told very clearly that the restrictions in place are there not because they are at risk of serious illness but to protect the elderly and/or vulnerable. It is terrible that any child should be fearful for themselves

If people start playing the 'human rights' card and on that basis decide against compliance, the virus will spread unchecked, mutate and a variant may end up causing serious illness to children - so they may have to start being 'fearful for themselves'

Does that sit well with you?

I do find the rules confusing. I have family in a different part of the UK and the rules are different. Plus we recently changed tier. We are just keeping to our own household and going to work but I think more is allowed

Neither will it wait for several NGOs across the world to debate and reach an unanimous opinion on whether very basic infection control guidelines are infringing human rights

Good point. We have forgotten what basic infection control looks like, when there is no treatmentnsnd no vaccine.

And yes, the measures require limits on what a population can do, but they are all permissible, including from a human rights pov, during novel pandemic.

Now I know that there are pandemic deniers. I think it is unlikely they will be able to form a persuasive case. The questions of reasonableness and proportionality need to be kept under continual review. The only thing that can be done to reduce transmission of the virus is to reduce the amount of contact between people, so restrictions of that kind are in use globally, and are legal. Suspending human rights is permissible, when it is done by by normal processes of law, and is clearly to prevent event worse harm.

At its most basic, everyone has a right to life

And as the consequence of life ending cannot be reversed, steps to preserving life can include temporary and scrutinised suspension of other rights.

I know some people have posted that it should just be let to rip through and kill the vulnerable (and of course in one horrible peak that will cause awful widerbsocual and economic harm). I don't agree with that pov. I think temporary, scaleable measures which periodically reduce contact between people are the most acceptable means to preserve life and health services.

But yes, it seems unfamiliar because we are lucky enough not to have lived with the scourge of widely-threatening infectious diseases fot so long.

@trulydelicious you seem determined to position this as rule abiders versus rule breakers, which misses the original point, which was that in order to not infringe people's human rights, restrictions even in a pandemic/emergency/crisis, should be necessary and proportionate. I personally begin to feel uncomfortable with laws that forbid safe and harmless activities, in the basis that 'they might lead to other unsafe activities'. My belief is that those laws may not in every case be proportionate. And I do think in some cases it's a slippery slope.... maybe we should also ban any alcohol, coffee or chocolate, on the basis that they can alter mood and behaviour, and we all need to keep our wits about us? Or an outright ban on cycling, because although it's safe, we know people will still do it in groups. You may think those are silly examples, but they're no less rational than any law that bans a safe and harmless activity.

Anyway, I'm using that to illustrate my 'line in the sand', where I move from comfortable to uncomfortable in terms of whether a law is necessary and proportionate. Others will feel differently, I know many are uncomfortable with the fact that's it's been illegal for many single adults to have sex for many many months now, and others are uncomfortable with it having been made impossible for some to have family close as they die. These are fundamental issues, and just saying 'you're wrong because everything and anything is justified in a pandemic' is not going to make much of a difference.

But that isn't how law is written, people aren't supposed to guess the spirit of it and act accordingly, they're supposed to know what is and isn't legal. 'Spirit of the law' isn't enforceable and you can't give people a fine for not being in the spirit, it should be for a specific and identifiable breach of the law as written.

I just don't understand the viewpoint that human rights don't matter in an emergency. Tough situations are exactly when respect for human rights is vital, they're absolutely meaningless if they only exist when all is well. I don't even disagree with the measures or lockdowns, I just think it's really dangerous to say that a government can do absolutely anything in a pandemic and that human rights don't matter and so therefore even raising them should be verboten. And it's been nine months, I think there is indeed both time and opportunity for judicial review.

I just don't understand the viewpoint that human rights don't matter in an emergency. Tough situations are exactly when respect for human rights is vital, they're absolutely meaningless if they only exist when all is well

This is how the UN sees the balance - written during the first wave of the pandemic.

www.un.org/victimsofterrorism/sites/www.un.org.victimsofterrorism/files/un_-_human_rights_and_covid_april_2020.pdf

[quote meditrina]I just don't understand the viewpoint that human rights don't matter in an emergency. Tough situations are exactly when respect for human rights is vital, they're absolutely meaningless if they only exist when all is well

This is how the UN sees the balance - written during the first wave of the pandemic.

www.un.org/victimsofterrorism/sites/www.un.org.victimsofterrorism/files/un_-_human_rights_and_covid_april_2020.pdf[/quote]
A very detailed document laying some of the safe guards that should be in place to protect human rights during the response to coronavirus.

Are these safeguards in place? I think we are in danger of tipping the balance and disregarding some of the safeguards.

@Hardbackwriter

But that isn't how law is written, people aren't supposed to guess the spirit of it and act accordingly, they're supposed to know what is and isn't legal. 'Spirit of the law' isn't enforceable and you can't give people a fine for not being in the spirit, it should be for a specific and identifiable breach of the law as written.

I just don't understand the viewpoint that human rights don't matter in an emergency. Tough situations are exactly when respect for human rights is vital, they're absolutely meaningless if they only exist when all is well. I don't even disagree with the measures or lockdowns, I just think it's really dangerous to say that a government can do absolutely anything in a pandemic and that human rights don't matter and so therefore even raising them should be verboten. And it's been nine months, I think there is indeed both time and opportunity for judicial review.

I agree

[quote trulydelicious]@Billie18

any child who is scared of catching coronavirus should be told very clearly that the restrictions in place are there not because they are at risk of serious illness but to protect the elderly and/or vulnerable. It is terrible that any child should be fearful for themselves

If people start playing the 'human rights' card and on that basis decide against compliance, the virus will spread unchecked, mutate and a variant may end up causing serious illness to children - so they may have to start being 'fearful for themselves'

Does that sit well with you?[/quote]
My quote that you've used was in response to a comment about how children were fearful of catching coronavirus. I think their fears should be addressed by telling them the truth as it is. Certainly not telling them about something hypothetical.

Human rights should guide the law. The Equality and Human Rights Commission advises those that make laws and it is their duty to follow this guidance. The laws we have should protect our human rights so there would be no need to break them.

There is zero scientific evidence that the restrictive laws in place are stopping the virus spreading let alone mutating into a variant that will cause serious damage to children. You are making things up. Perhaps out of misinformation or fear? There is a lot of misinformation and fear about.

@Hardbackwriter

But that isn't how law is written, people aren't supposed to guess the spirit of it and act accordingly, they're supposed to know what is and isn't legal. 'Spirit of the law' isn't enforceable and you can't give people a fine for not being in the spirit, it should be for a specific and identifiable breach of the law as written.

I just don't understand the viewpoint that human rights don't matter in an emergency. Tough situations are exactly when respect for human rights is vital, they're absolutely meaningless if they only exist when all is well. I don't even disagree with the measures or lockdowns, I just think it's really dangerous to say that a government can do absolutely anything in a pandemic and that human rights don't matter and so therefore even raising them should be verboten. And it's been nine months, I think there is indeed both time and opportunity for judicial review.

We can look to history to see how "tough situations" have been used by the powerful to strip people of basic human rights.

@Billie18

There is zero scientific evidence that the restrictive laws in place are stopping the virus spreading let alone mutating into a variant that will cause serious damage to children. You are making things up

I'm not making this up. These aspects are being discussed and it appears that children are indeed more susceptible to the new strain. I have said that the virus may end up being serious for children if things continue the way they are.

www.bmj.com/content/371/bmj.m4944

^Are children more susceptible to the new variant?

Yes, in comparison with the non-variant virus^

it seems unfamiliar because we are lucky enough not to have lived with the scourge of widely-threatening infectious diseases fot so long.

Exactly as Scaevola says. I put these recent measures in a different category because the evidence of spread of disease shows they are there to either protect public health by limiting spread, or protect the integrity of the publicly funded Health Service for everyone by limiting pandemic-related demand on an overstretched system. Theyre not solely about a political entity or state power doing power grabbing. They do reveal existing problems more sharply like inadequate health and education funding and disparity of employment opportunities for example.

But we’re not living in the Ickabog. I feel more concerned about existing challenges to democracy like the unchecked rise of global retail and social media companies and pornography providers and corporate overreach like not paying proper taxes etc, all making laws around anti-corruption and safeguarding hard or impossible to enforce and eroding the power of democratic government.

I think the area we need to keep a close eye on is the plan for recovery, beyond the emergency-stage powers. We all need to demand that the rebuild is democratic and its equality impact and environmental impact is carefully and transparently considered, and is wherever possible a global consensus exercise not the policy of each individual government working in isolation.

That said, since we’re not used to living with pandemics it can be hard to see what is the emergency and what is the rebuild, because a global pandemic emergency is not going to last only for a short period, and also it can recur in short succession and seems likely to as it is a symptom of environmental degradation.

So I would like to know more about the global consensus on what these different phases are, and more about global plans for recovery as they emerge. I want to be guided by experts in the acute phase on a more national basis and will exchange a certain amount of loss of freedom for that if it promotes solidarity between national citizens but then I very much want to have democratic control in the recovery phase and for the plans for that to be informed by global cooperation.

Climate Rebellion seem to have unarguable suggestions including citizen panels, which have as far as I know been a great success here and elsewhere. As a way to break polarised dogmas in existing politics it seems the only way
I think they are wise not to become a party themselves, but there is no situation where diverse input cannot improve output. Power to the people, but not the mob. The assemblies are expected to take time to consider different points of view based always on fact.
An uninformed rabble will be determined to lynch a paediatrician in belief the word means paedophile. (U,K case)
Excluding the planet from decisions has brought us to, possibly, the last years of habitable earth.

Excluding women in particular leads to distortion equivalent to trying to walk using only one leg.
Excluding wide age and wide experience (including what is known as 'street wisdom') especially that of those whose lives are the opposite of decision makers cannot make any sense.

It horrifies me that Equality and Human Rights has now become a single issue, excluding Age and Disability in particular. Sir Trevor Phillips noted, as the then Head of the then supposedly equal equalities body, that Disablism is worse than Racism. He might have added Ageism