Topic: Lockdown Policy, can it be viewed as an infringement on our Human rights? (Read 343 times)

It's a ruling on a legal technicality, that's all. They have been imposing restrictions using fast-tracked executive orders, rather than running through the full parliamentary process. The government have 30 days to get the rules through parliament.

This is not a 'the-human-right-to-go-to-the-shops-is-more-important-than-the-human-right-to-be-alive' ruling. Because obviously no sensible court would rule in that way, because the idea is utterly insane.

https://www.politico.eu/article/belgian-court-slaps-down-covid-19-measures-reports/

   Actually I don’t think it is an infringement on the fundamental human rights the government of the day is still acting according to the constitution, lockdown rules are imposed for the benefits of all and for the betterment of the society, the society needs to breath and that can only be achieved if we al obey the rules giving no government rose up and gave rules the word health organization advised all governments of all nations to instill this policies in order to curb this virus.

Belgium lockdowns are illegal a court has ruled
https://youtu.be/PPn6u-xer1g

The problem is in my opinion that all countries are doing it. So saying that the lockdown procedures are wrong in one country would mean they are wrong everywhere. I don't think that any court would tell the government is wrong. First of all it would need to be the highest court instance of the country to declare the measures illegal. But what if the judges are wrong and a lot of people are going to did of it? The judges are probably scared to be liable when deciding against the government.

Of course the lockdowns are an infringement of people's rights. The purpose of the lockdowns were/are to give more control to government.

The concept of using lockdowns to slow the spread of covid came out of China/the CCP, and their history with human rights should be all that you need to know about the matter.

I think these recent news from Belgium fits to this topic:
https://www.politico.eu/article/belgian-court-slaps-down-covid-19-measures-reports/
A. I think that lockdown restrictions breaks human rights more or less. I'm not saying that restrictions isn't needed at all, but there is so many things which doesn't makes sense. And lockdown should be only short term solution. Purpose of lockown - isolate sick people from healthy ones. People can't live in lockdown for more than year. Even with vaccines, we will have to learn to live with virus.
B. Some things is fair, some aren't. But as said above, there is lot of things which doesn't makes sense and there is lot of double standarts. One little example, people who have immunity from Covid or they got vaccine, they still have to live under all these restrictions.
It's nothing surprising to see people breaking rules of lockdown. They already tired to live until all these restrictions and they aren't in fear anymore as they used to be on first wave year ago.

I think it can also be infringement if the force is to much, over powering and not being considerate to one's own condition or situation, I believe it should be balance and if the interest is genuine and the motive is pure human right may consider it as good implementation. But we all know not everyone has the same opinion about it and we can't please everyone all in the name of policy.

The thing that lockdown really means is removal of the right to travel. It is removal of right to travel no matter the distance.

In the USA, if there is an emergency, the States each have a period of time that they can set down as martial law, and remove the right to travel. Possibly not all States have such. Some States have 30 days, or 60 or 90.

The kind of emergency that Covid is, has to be apparent. More than 99% of the people don't even get anything beyond mild symptoms... most no symptoms at all. And, it has always been this way. The emergency might have been a good thing for a short period of time, to check out the situation, but no emergency exists, or did exist.

But even if an emergency had existed, lockdowns for more than 90 days are only advisories until the State congress/legislature of each State makes laws. But they better make laws based on fact, or they are liable.

All these lockdown these policy is a safety of human life, actually many people mindset is that government introduced lockdown to suppressed their people, I can stand to defend any country that are into the system of lockdown,because on my own nothing like frustration or punishment to people across the country that experienced lockdown, now many people refused to be contaminated of corona virus disease due to some months staying at home, now restricting people for movement is for the interest of the people irrespective what causes the fact or point of restrictions because a government can't push in people into fire, they can only make adequate provision for the people in her country.

therefore a) I consider the lockdown imposed on the population as something against human rights, against individual freedom of movement and circulation
b) obviously considering the point a not legal even giving sanctions to those who violate the lockdown seems to me an unfair thing
in my opinion they are limits to democracy

By the looks of how infected the United States is, shutting down the borders would have saved a whole bunch of foreigners. You did mean "shutting" and not "shouting," didn't you?

Hmm. The evidence of his entire adult life suggests otherwise. I see him as more of a Trump-lite*.


If it's unclear what is happening, then given that people's lives are potentially at stake, it would be sensible for a government to be over-cautious rather than take a gamble.
But in this instance I think it was fairly clear what would happen given the situation in China and, later, as the virus made its way across Europe, Italy. It would be a welcome change if one day governments started to listen to the scientists instead of some lives vs $$$ cost-benefit analysis.

Having said that, I do appreciate that the argument that the UK could just have shut up shop like New Zealand did is overly simplistic, given that New Zealand has a much smaller population and is not a global transport hub.


* but with a Twitter account.

I just think Johnson did a poor job at communicating throughout all of COVID really. He's extremely smart so him downplaying COVID at the beginning of the pandemic was a bit dumb, but truly -- can you blame any politician for downplaying a virus when the infection mechanics weren't widely known?

I agree to the fact that, shouting down the borders would have helped to a large extent but, that depends on how effective the officials at the border carries out their duty. You can imagine that, despite the fee fined on both airports and travellers from London during the second phase of the covid pandemic, some persons still managed to take international flights...!
So, locking down the borders would have provided a minimal solution and in turn, increase corrupt practices at the borders especially in underdeveloped countries.

On the infringement of human rights, being bonded in a nations territory is already an infringement of human rights because,  your rights is defined by your nation. Why do you think you can't just walk across the border to a different nation, isn't it your right?
We've always lived in a world with limited freedom and it would take a lot more than the lock down for people to come to terms with this reality.

Covid 19 is nothing more than a chilling replay of Adolf policy. The "enemy" is at the doorsteps everone must fight. The enemy this time round is so small nobody has seen it, but dont matter its there the media will tell you so. Any opposition is shut down and laws put in place with severe punishment for what normal would be basic human rights. The elderly and stupid first once to deal with, first with ventilators (almost 90% success rate) than vaccine.
Yellow star is replaced with the modern version of a " green pass" to quickly seperate.
Nothing learned in 80 years.

Concentration camp survivor Vera Sharav  Session 44 The Roots of Evil  https://youtu.be/r02j7HaKYe8
(Mainly in English, closed caption autotranslates)

It's not hindsight, it was — or should have been — absolutely obvious everyone early last year what would happen, as soon as it started spreading beyond China. Here in the UK, we saw the pandemic wreaking havoc in Italy, and our government did nothing. They weren't willing to accept any degree of economic damage that might ensue from border controls* or that might prove unpopular and hurt them in the opinion polls. Instead they closed their eyes and hoped it would go away. Unfortunately wishful thinking doesn't work against reality.

*see also, as a neat counterpoint, Brexit.

Where did you mention hindsight? The whole COVID situation is woulda coulda shoulda so yeah anyone can look back and think of ways to do things differently. I'm just saying lockdowns aren't the real solution to any of this and they never were.

seems weird to see my words said back to me.. about hindesight. but then ignoring the learnings part of hindesight...  when i clearly said in hindesight too.
thing is we already know which strategy worked best because so many countries tried so many different ones
but hey if you want to just treat last year as a blame exercise instead. and then ignore and forget it and not treat it as a learning exercise for the next wave of new strain corona of the future or new strain of any spreadable pathogen of +1% deathrates.. well so be it.


anyway.. back to the point a page ago.
if we ever experience another pandemic again. keep it out the borders and pay those people that are our citizens but abroad to sty abroad and extend their vacation/business trip and get paid for it.. much cheaper then paying the entire population within the country.

In hindsight it would have been better if it works but there’s no way we could go back and see if paying out 30k euros would be a better economic strategy. And tbh I would gladly leave my country and stay out if they were paying me 30k euro...

Simply put, just about every lockdown was too late to the point it was useless. Yeah sure if a country acted early they could have curbed the spread, but again, that’s hindsight.

As usual, you're missing it. But what else could be expected?

By denying that an artificial entity is me, I am setting forth my own existence as it really is... stronger than ever.

We read in the news now and again, that the police arrested the wrong guy because of mistaken identity. All I am doing is showing you that court documents are not you. The entity on them is not you... unless you accept it.

I don't mind at all that you accept that some other entity is you. Go right ahead. Give yourself hundreds of you and your parents and siblings, and spouses, with hundreds of different children that nobody can find anywhere except on documents.

you have no clue. but you can deny your own existence in court, heck your going to have to deny your parents are your parents too. so good luck with that. and have fun in an ICE detention camp

That's pretty smart of you. Since it's your person, you have the right to identify what it is, lol.

Besides, it's the banks identity that made an agreement with your identity in the first place. Just make sure your identity maintains the terms of the agreement.

franky1 is not a person.
its an identity.

your parents and a doctor witnessed yourbirth and parents gave you a name. thats something you need to argue and call your parents a liar if you want to pretend your birthname is not you

goodluck with that
yes i can easily argue franky1 is not my birthname. but truly goodluck dis-proving something your family know and are witness to.

you must be truly hated at family parties

person has nothing to do with just a legal identity thats a separate vessel from a human.
a person is the human whether male female. the identity is something else

you can play the identity game separately. but that will involve you relinquishing your right to any bank account in that name if you suddenly want to deny you are called by a certain name
you then have to relinquish your birth certificate and so you will be deemed an illegal alien and put into a detention camp

good luck with that

UK.. coulda done the newzealand and australia thing.
yea a little difficult for europe.
but america could have avoided the repatriation flights and stopped all cruiseships and international airlines.


not as expensive as paying 320million people 'stimulus payments'
yep not many 'americans' were out of country as of february..
so paying a few hundred k is cheaper then hundreds of millions.

yes last april news "nearly 85k americans needed to get home"
they coulda easily pay them to stay where they were or put in a proper 3 week quarantine before being allowed within country

but hey if you think its easy to get in a country with border closures.. then the billions spent on 'the wall' went to waste

Actually, you can prove it to yourself that you have entities with names similar to yours. I call it the tip of the knife test. And I'm not saying that you personally do, because I don't know your situation in life. It's possible that you don't.

But, do you have a membership in this forum? The name franky1 isn't you, even though you use it all the time. Even if franky1 really is your personal name, here's how you can use the tip of the knife test to determine if your membership is you or not.

Get out a sharp knife. Sterilize it. Poke it a short distance into you arm, or leg, or some other part of your body that isn't going to be harmed by the poke. Don't poke it far. Simply poke it far enough to draw blood.

Then, log into your account in the forum. Poke the knife into any part of your computer that you want, and you will never be able to draw blood from your franky1 forum account.

Both you and the account might be called franky1. But you are two different entities. One has blood; the other doesn't. You just proved it to yourself.

Does the frank1 membership use you? No, of course not. Do you use it? All the time.

Next, go to the law - might be slightly different in the UK - and look up acceptance. Bitcontalk might have the authority to block the franky1 person, but they don't have the right to block the franky1 man. If they want to sue the franky1 person, they can go ahead and try. If they want to sue you, they will right up some paperwork that says franky1 on it.

Let's say they write up some legal paperwork, and serve you with it. Now try the the tip of the knife test on the paperwork. No blood. It isn't you. To back it up is the legal word ACCEPTANCE. You don't have to accept the paperwork. It isn't you. No description that they write about you is about you, because it is about the frank1 that is the piece of paper they served you with. The closest they can come is to say "the man, franky1." But if they write it on the paperwork, do the the tip of the knife test to see that it STILL isn't you, the man.

If you decide to not accept any of it, you don't have to, and they can't force it on you. If they try, and you are adamant about it, it's time for you to start suing them for trespassing on your property with an artificial entity that looks like it might be you, but isn't you, as certified by the the tip of the knife test. But, if you have done damage to them, and simply won't settle it with them, you are dishonoring yourself.

Maybe not right away, maybe for some time, there will people who will trust you. But as word gets around that you are not honorable or trustworthy, people will stop doing business with you. They will kick you out of their stores. They will walk the other way when they see you coming. And if it is a bad enough thing that you did, they will forget the law - which you wouldn't accept anyway - and they will lynch you.

So, take your pick. Be honorable, and accept the paperwork. Or don't accept it and show why their issuing an artificial entity in your name is their attempts to harm you for nothing. Or maybe accept their paperwork, and in court step out of the acceptance by proclaiming the court your court as a man, and using the right you have to personally face your accuser on the stand, under oath.

This doesn't make any sense. You cannot prevent COVID from entering your country unless you are on an island like New Zealand and completely cut off any and all travel from in and out of the country. Meaning no one can leave (because eventually they have to come back, you can't just expel your citizens), and no one can enter in. Of course, this isn't feasible at all. 30k euros to banish citizens seems pretty expensive, don't you think? Especially if the virus is going to spread anyways because no lockdown is ever perfect. (Unless you are talking about North Korea because dictators have no problem locking down a country because in North Korea, no one can leave or enter if they wanted to.) Great thing with the UK is that it's not a dictatorship, so people have at least some liberties to travel within in and out of the country.

anyway if you want a true 'human rights abuse' thing to discuss related to covid

look into the over use of DNR's in care homes

you dont have a separate entity person with a near similar name
seriously you are brainwashed with the freeman cult..

i know the rhetoric..your going to imply a police officer or a congressmen. in his duties in that role is using a persona of Officer Dave. or Congressman Jim. which they get new rights under that persona. but off duty/outside work hours they are just human dave and jim

but the flaw is. the constitution is defining humans and business entitys as persons

like cats and dogs defined as animals.
like species not of this planet as extra terrestrials

its not saying you as a human can slip in and out of your category at a whim
a cat cant just jump in and out of being an animal.

humans and business entities are always persons

so you trying your 'im a man' wont prove anything about some silly persona game.. they will just laugh and say your gender is not in question. and then proceed

saying your a man wont change the outcome. it wont change the due process. it wont change anything.
man vs person has no debate. man is a person

its like trying to say 'im an animal' .. one look at you and they will say. nope your an idiot

People have very limited Constitutional rights. I have very limited Constitutional rights. But there is a person with a name that is almost exactly the same as mine, that has Constitutional rights. I control this person to the extent that I have not given control of it up to others. I might have given some control of one of my many persons up to government.

Part of my rights one way or another is to sue the people who took the Oath of Office, if they don't live up to their duties as they pledged in the Oath. This does not include suing their persons, necessarily when they break their Oath. Some of their duties include protecting the borders (protecting me). Some include the coining of money. Others include living up to agreements and contracts people have made with them... usually through some person belonging to a man/woman.

The Constitution talks about people and persons. People are mentioned only a few times. Persons are mentioned many times. Persons can be people if the people accept that they are persons. Otherwise they are not.

so the constitution is not pro life.
in your mind the constitution does not protect man. but protects persons

if you want to play that flip flop then the constitution does not protect you and you have no rights
..
now lets see you back peddle to redeem your constitutional rights

depends on yourself, that's what I think. indirectly or like it or not we must be prepared to live hand in hand with the virus. in fact, always and even if in a few years there will be a virus outbreak that might be even greater than now. As time goes by, Humans are also getting smarter and more advanced, therefore the creatures that exist are also even stranger and more strange than they are now.

(a) No, as they implemented rules and regulations for the better of the mass. I will only see it as an infringement on human right, if they did it without having a plan that will support the lockdown.

By having a lockdown, the gov't must give every household the essentials for daily living that is associated with how the current era lives. meaning that it won't stop with just food, they must also consider internet, etc.

(b) It is only to fair to punish those who violate the rules and regulation in lockdown as others are also doing it for the greater good of the mass. Getting bored is not a reason to begin with to violate any rules.

The decision in lockdown comes down from the highest positioned person in the country, which is the prime minister if you are talking about parliament. The prime minister has the right to implement a lockdown as he sees it fit, following the parliament to overview of the decision made by the parliament to be valid and is a must. It is like parliament will be the judge if the prime minister did his job for the greatness of the country itself.

Look up the legal definition of "includes." Includes is limited to whatever is listed. This means that when the definition of "person" includes something, it legally includes only whatever is listed. "Man, woman, child" are not listed in the definition of person. Why not? They are not included in the list. There is no assumption in law. Law is very precise, especially in its definitions.

a person is not a fiction..
its to be more abstract category that INCLUDES men/woman/kids/businesses

it is not saying 'your person is a business/copyright and not human'
its saying a person can be man/woman/kid/business

try to learn some basics badecker.. stop reading freeman rhetoric. its making you dumber every day

you do not have a separate entity called 'person'
you are a person. as a man you come under the definition of person

a cat. is not a person.
a blade of grass is not a person

but a man is a person and gets the same legal and lawful and constitutional protections.
..

please really do try to learn common sense..
oh and try reading the cornell books and not the freeman cult websites pretending their opinion is in the cornell books

and one last thing.
no one has ever won a court case by shouting out "im a man im not a person". many have actually had extra fines/time in jail for being so stupid

Opinions regarding the right to travel, aren't very important, except when they come from a judge in a court of law.

The right to travel is summarized as the right to go from point A to point B without interference from Government - or anybody else.

In the USA, there is no straight-forward speech that talks about right to travel, located in the Constitution or the Amendments. However, judges have adjudicated that right to travel is part of the 1st Amendment. All the States have agreed in their founding documents to accept and follow the US Constitution... including the Amendments.

In emergencies, States can something-like suspend their Constitution temporarily. Most (if not all) States have a literal time limit for this Constitutional suspension. The time limit might be as long as 90 days in an emergency that is evident... such as an apparent and clearly understood disease pandemic. If the emergency seems to be lasting longer than 90 days (some States 30 days), the Legislature/Congress of the state is required to make laws. If they do make laws regarding limited travel, they had better have solid evidence. They can be sued in a court of law if the evidence is found to be otherwise.

In the USA, the Federal Government has the authority over the State borders, but not not within the States. Their emergency can temporarily limit the right to travel across State lines, or outside of the country. Enforcing such might be difficult or impossible. In addition, there are contracts between the States and the Federal that might allow interference from the Federal into the State.


Here is the most interesting part about this whole thing. The States all deal in fictions in all their laws. They deal in Persons as defined, and Person is not defined as Man, Woman, or Child. It's a trick that they use to maintain some kind of quasi-control over the unsuspecting public. People don't understand that they are not Persons under the law until they accept that they are such. And their acceptance doesn't have to be a formal, "I am a person regarding this law." It can be simply that they have acted the part, or responded to a question that shows that they are a Person as the law defines it.

If a man/woman/child appears to accept that he is a person under a law, they can be detained until there is a court trial. Law enforcement doesn't realize the difference between a person and a man, so they might arrest... if they feel like it. As it turns out, most people that are arrested, don't even take it to court under the 1st Amendment right to travel when they are arrested for disobeying a lockdown. But the few who do, don't make the distinction between themselves and persons. But if there are some that make this distinction, they usually step right back into person-hood by becoming a client of an attorney. But if they stand as a man in court, and they win their freedom therein, they usually don't come back on government people with a suit for money. But a few people win their suits for money because the government doesn't want this Person/Man difference info to come out into the open. People think they know why they won, but they really don't.


The point is that we all have the right to travel, except for apparent emergencies. The way to fight it is to know that you are a man/woman, and go after law enforcement or other government officials for money and/or imprisonment for breaking their oath of office to uphold the Constitution, which they did by taking away your right to travel... go from point A to point B.

Net search on, "right to travel Cornell."

I'd probably argue that the human right to go out and do some shopping is less important than the human right to be alive... in which case it makes sense to prevent people visiting shops if that reduces the spread of a pandemic, and saves lives.

You are not alone, you are part of the community where many people also living same like you. And understand why the lockdown ia getting implemented strictly is to avoid the spread which may cause other 1000 people to fall sick just because your freedom.

Exactly. It was evident to everyone, based on what happened in China and how it started to spread to Europe that it was only a matter of time before it hit the UK. The trouble is that the government - and governments in most countries, in general - is short-termist and reactive rather than proactive. They address a thing that is a problem now, whereas for a thing that will evidently become a problem later, they don't take steps to prevent it, they wait until it is a problem, and address it then. Their initial policy of keeping everything open was because they didn't want to incur any economic damage from closing the borders. Turns out, as should be obvious to anyone, that by not closing the borders you invite the virus in, and then have to implement stricter containment measures later, which causes far more economic damage than if they'd taken a small initial preventative step. Oh, and it would have prevented vast numbers of deaths, too... but that, for the government, is an irrelevance so long as it doesn't hurt them in the pocket or in the polls.

best solution would have been to shut down the borders in february2020 (the australia/sweden method) keep it out of the country in the first place. and have "freedoms" within the borders
even now. with the UK media saying there are 'quarantine hotels' for UK airport arrivals. this is not for all flights or all passengers. so its not really the same as the sweden/australia model

he went too soft on the borders which then meant he had to go tough within the country.
in hindesight we hope governments learn from this. dont do repatriation flights. just give those abroad £30k to stay abroad and extend their vacation/business trip.. and keep the virus out

a) you have the physical ability to walk and talk. and you can still leave your house and go for a walk.

there is no human right that says you should be allowed to enter a private business uninfringed.
a business owner can ban anyone for any reason.
a business owner can tell an employee not to come to work the next day
a government can ban a business from serving customers
a government can ban a business from operating at all

so if your talking about how 'non-essential' businesses are not open to the pubic.. that has nothing to do with human rights
its like construction road work.. a barrier saying you cant go this way is not breaching human rights. you can still travel.. you just have to find another route

being tied to a chair and handcuffed and tortured for days.. thats a human rights breach.
being told a restaurant is closed so you have to choose some other competitors drive-thru. is not a breach.

as for masks
just like clothing.. those that dont want to wear clothing will argue their whole life that them being naked does no physical harm to other people. and if they dont like it they can look away.
however being naked in public can do harm

same with masks it can do harm not wearing a mask and spreading a virus through ignorance
so its the norm to wear clothes even though some prefer not to they have to accept that clothes is mandatory
so are masks.
its not a breach of human rights. you can still walk and talk


b) as for fines..
well in the UK we have a scaling solution. first fine is low like normal average fine costs. then every time you re-offend it increases and increases and increases until like £10k cap
a £10k cap is like 6 months prison time of lost income for min wage earners
so if you havnt learnt first second. third. fourth time. then maybe you deserve the 6month/£10k punishment

i think its fair.. its like having a normal fine all the way through.. then the amount above that is just a 'stupidity tax' for those that didnt learn the first time

It is an infringement of rights, but so is a lot of things. The question you have to ask yourself is it worth giving up our rights for the collective good of society. Boris Johnson in the UK believed the answer was yes, and so he essentially shut down the entire country. Turns out, lockdowns were never that great of a solution, so you owe it to yourself to fight against them *democratically*.

Your opinions are very much needed as always;

(a) Would you consider the government's Lockdown policy and strong restrictions on people’s movements an infringement on human rights?

(b) Do you think that the punishment metted out to those who have grown tired of the lockdown and defaulted in some way is fair, especially when the lockdown rules and policies as well as the punishment for defaulters were not properly discussed in parliament?