Tiers until the end of time

[runningpink]

Quickly putting this up as last thread is full

Yes @Jellycatspyjamas I mentioned that in my previous post.

The true fallout from all this will not be seen for many many years. I think it was right and proper to take collective action last year and to protect the most vulnerable, and at the start of this year. But now no, I think risks have been mitigated as much as they can and we need to accept that Covid will be a contributory factor to some deaths in the same way that other virus and infections can lead to the death of the frail.

I’d also add that the Scottish Government clearly know the HRA applies to them given they’ve previously had legislation successfully challenged in the Supreme Court under the issue of privacy and family - it wouldn’t be the first time they’ve played fast and loose with human rights.

Sorry thread has moved on while I was composing above post.

@Jellycatspyjamas

I’d also add that the Scottish Government clearly know the HRA applies to them given they’ve previously had legislation successfully challenged in the Supreme Court under the issue of privacy and family - it wouldn’t be the first time they’ve played fast and loose with human rights.

Yes but the human rights act 1998 doesn't include freedom of movement as far as I can see.

I am clearly not a lawyer but countries can pick and choose. I don't think freedom of movement is a human right in either Scotland or England.

Legally, these regulations do remove human rights.

The argument would be as to whether this is proportionate.

@WouldBeGood what human rights do they remove legally?

I actually would like this answered definitively now because I'm just literally googling it and starting to doubt myself!

@makingitupaswegoon

Sorry thread has moved on while I was composing above post.

Same here, can't keep up!

What about your right to make decisions in your private life and home?

The HRA codifies the ECHR, not the Universal Declaration which the ECHR was based on so no, the U.K. doesn’t get to pick and choose which articles they agree with. They can argue the measures are strictly required, but that would be to acknowledge they’ve removed human rights, which you think isn’t the case.

@WouldBeGood

Legally, these regulations do remove human rights.

The argument would be as to whether this is proportionate.

This. If you look at the ECHR relevant articles have some sort of exception covering public safety or similar. Article 8 for example has "there shall be no interference by a public authority except...as is necessary in the interests of national security, public safety..."

At what point do restrictions cease to be necessary? We're not there yet IMO but if the vaccine proves to reduce the death rate as much as expected then we rapidly will be.

Whether human rights have been removed is a different argument to whether it’s permissible, appropriate or proportionate.

The current restrictions are an infringement on human rights, though @kurtrussellsbeard would have us think otherwise. Whether the government were right to do so as an appropriate, measured, “strictly required” response to Covid now and ongoing is a different debate.

I do think otherwise tbh.

The only right that has been removed from us is the right to assemble. Which, as pointed out has always had a caveat.

Obviously this is my interpretation of it and I'm not a lawyer 🤷🏻‍♀️

And yes I think that removal is appropriate and proportionate.

You continuously ignore the right to family and private life, which gives people the right to make decisions as an autonomous adult.

If you were a very cynical person you might think that the Scottish government is prioritising trying to minimise the number of deaths due to covid over everything else (except elite sports, it seems; NS gets very cross about footballers breaches of rules, but doesn't apply sanctions to them) because every country is obliged to publish covid data but is not obliged to quantify the harms caused by lockdown. Covid deaths and number of cases are visible and easily quantifiable, unlike the harms caused by lockdowns. So a very cynical person might think the Scottish government is putting what it thinks is best for how the scottish government will look before the all round harm to the population. It should always be remembered that the current Scottish government's very raison d'etre is to do whatever it takes to achieve independence. Even from a progressive uk government if it were in power. It seems to me that trusting a government whose guiding principle is independence, rather than a notion of what's best for most people is naive. I assume the Scottish government is hoping to advance its case in the May election by saying how it has dealt with the pandemic better than the UK govt, safe in the knowledge that the bulk of the lockdown harms won't be apparent until after the election.

For the first few months of last year NS approach was almost identical to the UK gov's. Now, despite the most vulnerable among us being vaccinated she's diverging more. There's no mention from the Scottish government of how they plan to make the NHS more resilient so that we don't have to have horrific blanket restrictions to protect it, or how to improve track and trace or how to support more effective quarantining or how to speed up the vaccination programme when supplies are increased again.

@Jellycatspyjamas

You continuously ignore the right to family and private life, which gives people the right to make decisions as an autonomous adult.

I think article 8 is definitely being restricted - both from a personal private social life perspective and due to limitations on access to certain jobs.

Article 12 covers the right to marry - for a chunk of the last year it's been impossible to marry
Article 9 freedom of religion
Article 11 freedom of assembly

Plus many others.

Rogueantimatter
I must be very cynic then.

@Jellycatspyjamas apologies. I'm not ignoring it. I was trying to find out more informations about it. Article 8 covers your right to privacy and family life free from government interference. In the few documents I've read it says nothing about making decisions and seems to refer to the idea that you are allowed privacy with your own wee family unit. It covers your personal identity, the way to look and dress etc. I can't see anywhere where it mentions decisions or allowing people in and out of your home. If you have a link I'll gladly be educated!

Like the assembly one it's not an absolute right. It's a qualified right so the government can intervene for various reasons including public safety 🤷🏻‍♀️

Great post @rogueantimatter

Article 12 states that a government can interfere with the right to marry and its subject to national laws. What it can't do is say that marriage is banned indefinitely, for example, without reasonable reason.

People have been able to access religious services online. It hasn't been banned or removed. It's just not been the way people would want it.

To be very clear I don't think that these things are particularly acceptable but they are not a removal of our human rights.

The rights involved are in article 5: right to liberty; article 8 right to respect for private and family life; and article 11 freedom of assembly and association.

These have exemptions and also proportionality to be considered.

(There are also the rights of the child which have also been removed in some cases: same considerations apply.)

Obviously people have different takes on this stuff.

Religion goes beyond being able to access services online though. There a lot of things in a lot of religions which do require people to be there with others in person in some way, and have been very hard to miss.

I’m not saying it’s not warranted that we have missed them - I think it has been necessary, as a least worst option. But it’s just not the case that if we’ve got Zoom we’ve got freedom to practice religion.

@GoldenOmber

Religion goes beyond being able to access services online though. There a lot of things in a lot of religions which do require people to be there with others in person in some way, and have been very hard to miss.

I’m not saying it’s not warranted that we have missed them - I think it has been necessary, as a least worst option. But it’s just not the case that if we’ve got Zoom we’ve got freedom to practice religion.

Article 9 specifically says "freedom of religion implies freedom to manifrst one's religion not only alone and in private but also in community with others, in public, and within the circle of those whose faith one shares".

The rules around exemptions for public safety will not hold forever. It wouldn’t surprise me if a religious group is one of the first to challenge actually

On another note, anyone got any thoughts on why Edinburgh's case numbers are going up so much? And some of the Lothian regions too. I'd heard there might have been a peak in a prison, but it doesn't explain all the different neighbour spikes, eg. Gilmerton. I thought we'd been doing so well!

Neither Scottish nor UK law more generally are prescriptive in the rights accorded to citizens. All the various Human Rights legislation is the bare minimum not the maximum freedom.

This is the opposite of most other countries where you have no rights except those specifically granted by the State.

This is why most of the "Roolz" in March 2020 were couched in terms of "guidance" rather than legislation and why it was so "problematic" to critique Cummings, Jenrick or Kinnock. Closer to home Catherine Calderwood did nothing illegal. The line was crossed when guidance started to be replaced with legislation but so far most if not all penalties under said legislation have fallen on legal challenge. (see Adam Wagner on twitter)

There is a further aspect to this with regards to the State not fulfilling its responsibilities in relation to its citizenry. Denial of healthcare, Care
Homes, Education etc all look open to challenge here. eg I vaguely remember case law on prisoner visiting rights - it seems inconceivable and shocking that nursing home residents and hospital patients have fewer rights atm.

Charles Walker is calling for a Royal Commission post pandemic and Lord Sumption similarly minded.

The Scottish Govt is potentially more exposed than the UK Govt because the Scottish Legal system is intrinsically more Principle based than the English system which has more reliance on Precendent as amended by Statute.

As Charles Walker put it "how can it be right for the State to legislate against hugging your own children?".