Coronavirus and "human rights"

[lightand]

I was thinking to start a thread about this, this morning, but couldnt think of quite the right words.
Now I have been on a thread, and with the permission of another poster, I am reposting her words here.

"A year ago if you'd told me what the rules would be I wouldn't have believed you. I would have thought it a human rights abuse. I feel scared, unsafe. I'm living in a world where the government can put law abiding citizens into solitary confinement. That's fucking terrifying. I couldn't escape it. I couldn't escape what they did. Nothing feels safe, knowing they can take everything. Take away your loved ones."
[She wrote it in the context of living alone and being separated from loved ones].

I think this will be one of the many enduring memories when people look back on what has happened in the last year. That what we think of as human rights, were, and still are, being easily taken away from us.

We have shown it can be easily done simply by fear propaganda

Yes, I think that's one of the saddest things - that people have been controlled by fear.

People are existing, not living. They've had the joy sucked out of life. They are lonely and isolated. Some are suicidal. They've been stripped of their freedoms. Yet the vast majority just accept it, because of fear. Shame on all our governments.

@Wildswim

We have shown it can be easily done simply by fear propaganda

Yes, I think that's one of the saddest things - that people have been controlled by fear.

People are existing, not living. They've had the joy sucked out of life. They are lonely and isolated. Some are suicidal. They've been stripped of their freedoms. Yet the vast majority just accept it, because of fear. Shame on all our governments.

But I'm not afraid.

I think you misunderstand why people are complying.

It is absolutely terrifying. And as a PP said above - if your not concerned about this then you are not paying attention.

Wildswim so are you saying that people across the globe have allowed themselves to be controlled by fear, but only you and a few others on this site are able to see the truth? Why is that?

@pinkearedcow I think everyone can see that we are all controlled by fear. It's just how it is. It doesn't mean it has to be sinister and the gov controlling us. It just means that the virus is scary for everyone in one way or another.

@DuchessofHastings1

I was thinking this the other day.

I plan to have a little tea party for my DS. Hes 3, an only child and missed out massively this past year. I plan to have my parents, partners parents and my 4 nephews. Non of us high risk, CEV or over 60.

The police could barge in my house and stop it. For having my family around my house. They're making law abiding citizens into criminals by having family over.
The personal responsibility is gone. The government have decided it's too dangerous for us on our behalf. It's a police state.

I would, and many others who I know, would happily sign a wager to NHS, "do not treat me in the event of Corona virus" if it was to allow us to live a normal life.

The world has gone mad.

Yes exactly because the chance of requiring hospitalisation from Covid is next to none

[quote PracticingPerson]@Fridget I would have wished for greater scrutiny and am in favour of reduced executive powers.

However my view is we would have ended up with the same or similar restrictions - with the exception of the worse position English children were put in with regard to socialising compared to Scottish children.

But every European democracy had the power to impose restrictions and almost all did. So it wasn't our parliamentary system that led to this.[/quote]
I’m not saying that our parliamentary system led to this. I’m saying the usual system which legislation has to go through has been bypassed. This is a quote from Adam Wagner’s article:

Second, the method by which lockdown has been imposed in England borders on anti-democratic. There may have been justification in March for using emergency procedures to bypass Parliament but there has not been since. The most severe legal restrictions on liberty require the gold standard of democratic accountability, not a rushed procedure which side-lines Parliament. This has likely led to illiberal outcomes, for example the explicit allowance for protest being removed in early December, meaning that it is unclear whether socially-distanced outdoor protests are a criminal offence or not.

Turning a blind eye to the government using emergency powers instead of going through the usual democratic process is a serious matter.

I agree we may well have ended up with similar measures; and that there was a genuine reason for the measures. But that doesn’t take away from the point that these are gargantuan interferences with our basic freedom and it’s ok to talk about that without being selfish.

There's an old saying about the cure not being worse than the disease. I truly think we've reached that point.

But post anything about your kids futures being ruined, being lonely, not having any money as a result of redundancy or businesses being closed - and you're directly responsible for the murder of anyone over 80. And that's if your post passes the Facebook police.

Obviously some of the actions have been necessary...but have we been allowed to have any opinions on which are and which aren't? What we are prepared to sacrifice?

A year ago I simply wouldn't have believed that it was possible or legal to prevent me from being with my terminally ill husband when he was given his diagnosis, had appointments and was then admitted. I was given his diagnosis over the phone and not allowed to see him until he was hours from death.

My DM is now in hospital with no mental capacity and no one to advocate her. She is scared, lost and lonely but DSis and I aren't allowed to visit.

We are one family in thousands going through this. Who would ever have believed this time last year that people including children in residential care would be denied the support of their families. Scary times.

@KarenMarlow3

That it became illegal for my child to play with another ever, or for me to have a cup of tea with my Mum. That is considerably more terrifying for me than catching the virus I think you might change your mind if you caught Covid.

Yes she might but fortunately for most people the chances of catching it and developing severe illness is almost none! So that is not an argument at all

@HermioneWeasley

It’s terrifying. If you’re not scared, you’re not paying attention

Quite honestly if you were under the impression your life was your own before covid you haven’t been paying attention.

I support restrictions because the much larger picture is worse and absolutely threatens what is my admittedly very comfortable life. I’m very ordinary and not rich in the slightest (way below the average wage - or was - I’m now jobless) but I can see the effects for myself and believe that this is a disaster that won’t get better without a collective effort. People think they can risk assess, and they can for their individual situation, but somewhere along the line their ultimate motivation won’t be taking into consideration wider consequences. That’s where boundaries and whose rights trump whose gets messy. Does my right to be protected from the effects of your rights trump yours or yours mine?

No one can sit here and say they’re experts on the economy, health provision, virology or sociology and have no bias with one area in particular based on their individual circumstance. That’s what the government is for (god help us with this shower) and ultimately we need leadership to prevent a descent into chaos before we can get over this.

The government has an 80 majority, after a relatively recent election.
Has that been why there has been, or feels like there has been, little debate?

Who would ever have believed this time last year that people including children in residential care would be denied the support of their families

I do think that has been a huge error and ways around this should have been found.

You could always be locked up for disobeying the law and you could always be quarantined if carrying a deadly disease. And rightly so.

The whole point of a government is that it can make laws to protect society as a whole from individual behaviour. That's why we have one at all. Otherwise I could exercise my 'human right' to go where I please and take a seat on your sofa. I presume you're ok with that right to be taken away from me? Not thinking of protesting on my behalf?

Most of your 'human rights' have been limited by laws, but you didn't notice as you were used to those limits.

Personally i wish there were some way to put all those objecting in some place where they could try out the alternative. Some island perhaps with no laws. Where you could exercise your full human rights without limit and so could everyone else. That would be fun for about 5 minutes until the implications sunk in.

We could televise it maybe for entertainment.

While I'm here where do people get these human rights from? Is it god? Only when you come out of the womb you have none at all. We made a set that are generally agreed international, but those are made by governments too. They are not a birthright.

@StopGo

@lightand

The government has an 80 majority, after a relatively recent election. Has that been why there has been, or feels like there has been, little debate?

Or is it because there is no viable alternative to the restrictions and most politicians realise this?

There is pushback now from some Tory backbenchers, though.

@PracticingPerson

I do worry about the reporting, but tbh we have always known any country could become fascist.

The government imposed rules/controls over the civilian population in ww2, why is this different?

Erm because it was a war. Bombs were dropping from the sky

Btw I'm looking for support to remove the laws regarding driving because freedom of movement is clearly a human right.

So if I wanna get pissed and drive on the pavement it be my 'uman right like innit!

@StopGo

A year ago I simply wouldn't have believed that it was possible or legal to prevent me from being with my terminally ill husband when he was given his diagnosis, had appointments and was then admitted. I was given his diagnosis over the phone and not allowed to see him until he was hours from death.

My DM is now in hospital with no mental capacity and no one to advocate her. She is scared, lost and lonely but DSis and I aren't allowed to visit.

We are one family in thousands going through this. Who would ever have believed this time last year that people including children in residential care would be denied the support of their families. Scary times.

That's really sad @StopGo

These restrictions have actually been inhumane.

DuchessofHastings1 well spotted. As you say it was because there was a danger that would kill people.

Just like now.

@lightand

The government has an 80 majority, after a relatively recent election. Has that been why there has been, or feels like there has been, little debate?

No, that’s because there’s largely been cross-party agreement.

Expect far more debate in the coming months as hopefully recovery plans are put into action.

@PracticingPerson

These threads always go the same way. They are not about civil liberties, they are about not believing covid is a serious risk.

Covid is a serious risk, to a small percentage of the population.

The majority get mild symptoms. It is about civil liberties and freedoms. The government have decided on our behalf it's too dangerous for us. Having police barging into peoples houses having family over or fines for exercising with a friend with a cup of coffee in your hand, is a drastic reaction and a removal of human rights by criminalizing normal behaviour.

You clearly relish in the doom and gloom of all this.

"Running a one dimensional terror campaign for a year" is that from the David Icke forum? One of those "covid isn't real it was invented by bill gates" things?

No one can sit here and say they’re experts on the economy, health provision, virology or sociology

But no one is. The problem is that the government hasn't listened to, or sought the views on experts on the economy, sociology, or mental health. Or indeed those with children's interests at heart. Instead it has given far too much authority to scientists narrowly focused on case numbers, while ignoring the bigger picture.

@LastTrainEast

DuchessofHastings1 well spotted. As you say it was because there was a danger that would kill people.

Just like now.

looks outside

I cant see any bombs.

I've been working in a customer facing role throughout this. I'm still here