Lockdown Policy, can it be viewed as an infringement on our Human rights?

[Rruchi man]

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?

[1715131352]

1715131352

[1715131352]

1715131352

[1715131352]

1715131352

[Gyfts]

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*.

[franky1]

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

[franky1]

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*.

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

[Cnut237]

best solution would have been to shut down the borders in february2020

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.

[jrrsparkles]

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?

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.

[Cnut237]

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

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.

[BADecker]

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?

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."

[franky1]

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

[BADecker]

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

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.

[Natsuu]

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?

(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.

[Sak Karepe]

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.

[franky1]

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.

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

[BADecker]

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.

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

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.

[franky1]

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

[franky1]

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

[Gyfts]

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*.

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

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.

[BADecker]

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

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.

[franky1]

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*.

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

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.

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.

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?

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

[franky1]

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