The emergence of coronavirus in China has precipitated a global collapse in human rights. Billions of people have been forbidden by their governments from going to work, going to school, seeing friends, or even leaving their homes. They have been prevented from earning a living, getting an education, participating in society.
Most states not currently on a strict lockdown have in place, at the minimum, 2 meter social distancing rules. Citizens are forbidden from coming within 2 meters of each other, except possibly in very small groups. Facilities such as bars or churches are shut down by the government if they don’t strictly enforce these oppressive distancing rules. Most heads of state have suspended democracy and grabbed absolute power for themselves. Never before in modern history have so many people been denied their fundamental human rights.
Lockdowns Contravene International Human Rights Law
These developments are in violation of international human rights law and domestic constitutions. Astonishingly, there has not been an outcry against these human rights abuses. The stigma against opposing lockdowns is so severe that everyone is afraid to speak up for fear of retribution. Those who protest lockdowns — human rights activists by any definition — are villainized by the media and politicians.
They are called demeaning names like COVIDIOT, and falsely accused of being conspiracy theorists or being motivated by attention. Perhaps most astonishing of all is the silence of human rights and civil liberty advocacy groups on lockdowns. Recognizing the popular support for lockdowns, these groups have decided to support them so as not to lose their donors. They have been part of the problem, not part of the solution. Smart fundraising move, but they have rendered themselves illegitimate.
The most common issue related to lockdowns brought up by professed civil liberty groups is government’s tracking of the location of residents using their mobile phones — a relatively unimportant issue given the much more serious aforementioned rights violations. A famous expression relevant to lockdowns by William Blackstone, “It is better that 10 guilty men go free than one man suffer [from a wrongful conviction].”
Today, billions of people have recently been denied their freedom under the ruse of infection control. Our governments are telling us that they have the right to deny everyone their rights because it is necessary to win the war against COVID-19. However, social isolation and lockdowns are causing a much greater health and wellbeing crisis than a coronavirus pandemic ever could. They contravene countless articles of international human rights law, including 12 of the 30 articles of the most important document, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights of 1948.
Lockdowns Do Not Meet the Criteria for Derogation of Human Rights Law
It is important to note that lockdowns not only contravene human rights instruments of the United Nations, they also contravene the exception clauses contained therein. There are numerous clauses contained in international human rights documents that outline when the stated rights of the document may be defied. Public health emergencies are one such reason that may justify a limitation of rights. However, where these exceptions are mentioned, so to are the qualifications for lawful exercise of those exceptions.
Possibly the most notable instances of this can be found in two UN documents pertaining to the International Covenant of Civil and Political Rights: The Siracusa Principles (1984) and “CCPR General Comment No. 27: Article 12 (Freedom of Movement)” (1999). Lockdowns do not meet the criteria to ignore human rights law according to these documents. Because lockdowns harm public health more than they protect it, they violate the qualifications of necessity and proportionality set out in these documents.
Siracusa Principles
Exerpt: II C. 51. The severity, duration, and geographic scope of any derogation measure shall be such only as are strictly necessary to deal with the threat to the life of the nation and are proportionate to its nature and extent.
CCPR General Comment No. 27: Article 12 (Freedom of Movement)
Excerpt: 14. Article 12, paragraph 3, clearly indicates that it is not sufficient that the restrictions serve the permissible purposes; they must also be necessary to protect them. Restrictive measures must conform to the principle of proportionality; they must be appropriate to achieve their protective function; they must be the least intrusive instrument amongst those which might achieve the desired result; and they must be proportionate to the interest to be protected.
Justin Trudeau, Prime Minister of Canada, admitting to violating fundamental rights, Dec. 2021.
The public health crisis is fast becoming an economic and social crisis and a protection and human rights crisis rolled into one. Emergency and security measures, if needed, must be temporary, proportional and aimed at protecting people.
COVID-19 and Human Rights, United Nations
Lockdowns defy the Siracusa Principles in other ways. According to this document, governments retracting human rights for emergency purposes must 1) prove that such actions are necessary, and 2) err on the side of upholding human rights law. However, governments that have implemented lockdowns have done neither. They have not published a comprehensive cost-benefit analysis demonstrating that lockdowns do more good than harm. Neither have our governments attempted to uphold human rights in the face of pandemic uncertainty. They have totally abandoned almost all human rights, claiming that the uncertainty about COVID-19 is the very reason why rights are now obsolete.
Exerpt:
I. 3. All limitation clauses shall be interpreted strictly and in favor of the rights at issue.
I. 12. The burden of justifying a limitation upon a right guaranteed under the Covenant lies with the state.
Lockdowns Target the Most Vulnerable
Social distancing laws affect subsectors of society unequally. Nearly everyone is adversely affected in a strict lockdown but some people are better off in a semi-open economy than they were before the pandemic. For instance, a person with a negative environment at work may now appreciate the freedom of working from home. People who have a close social group that like to hang out in each others’ homes may not have witnessed a hit to their social lives if they didn’t have to shelter in place.
The economic toll of lockdowns disproportionately affects low income earners because they lack a financial cushion, are more likely to work in sectors of the economy that have been decimated by lockdowns, such as retail, and have limited transferable skills and education that can be used to enter another industry. This is a widely accepted reality. Fortunately, many of these people are able to receive governmental support to help them through their economic hardship.
There is another vulnerable subsection of society that is suffering particularly hard due to social distancing, however. This demographic is likely to experience diminished health and quality of life to a greater degree than any other group, and yet is never mentioned. I am speaking of people who lack an adequate social or romantic life. Social connections, platonic or romantic, are one of the largest determinants of wellbeing in one’s life. Without a romantic partner, friendly acquaintances, and close comrades, people cannot have an adequate quality of life regardless of their economic situation.
An important but little-known fact is that lonesomeness is one of the largest risk factors for health. According to former Surgeon General of the United States, Dr. Vivek Murthy, loneliness takes more years off one’s life than obesity and approximately the same number of years as cigarette smoking (10 years). It is important to recognize the high toll that social isolation has on people because most places that are not in full lockdown mode still require that people stay 2 meters away from others, except a small intentional group such as 4 friends hanging out. Where bars are open, they strictly enforce the 2 meter rule — you will get kicked out if you get within talking distance of someone that you didn’t arrive with.
Duty to Protect?
The duty to protect doctrine is found in many forms of law including human rights law. It establishes that a government has the responsibility to protect its citizens in the face of a major threat to health. According to this doctrine, government should take action in situations such as:
-
- Removing a new medication from the market if its side effects have been found to be unacceptably serious.
- Banning a substance that is discovered to be very harmful to health, like a toxic pesticide that has killed many people.
- Making a vaccine available for an infectious disease, provided it has proven safe and effective (ie. undergone the standard 5-10 year safety trial).
- Preventing contamination of drinking water by implementing and enforcing environmental regulations.
There are countless applications of the duty to protect doctrine. The premise in every case is that the government should make it possible for people to be as healthy as possible and intervene in anything which severely threatens public health. It is related to Article 12.1 of the International Covenant on Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights: “The States Parties to the present Covenant recognize the right of everyone to the enjoyment of the highest attainable standard of physical and mental health.”
Article 12.1 and the duty to protect doctrine are relevant for the coronavirus outbreak. They oblige governments to respond to the pandemic in such a way as to ensure the best long-term health outcomes for the population. Sadly, politicians have used this doctrine to pursue the least healthy course of action. Lockdowns and social distancing laws massively increase the power of politicians at the expense of public health. Alternatively, permitting life to continue as normal even though coronavirus infection rates will be higher will result in superior health outcomes by all measures: number of people dying early, wellbeing-adjusted life years saved, and quality of life.
It is ironic that politicians are exploiting a human rights doctrine to commit the opposite of its intended purpose. Many politicians and experts say that social distancing laws will continue into at least 2022, even though we have a vaccine now. It is nearly impossible to make friends or find someone to date if one cannot meet others in person. Social connections are typically made at work, school, church, or at social gatherings. Dating apps advise users not to meet in person and have virtual dates only. Many singles are following that advice, making online matchmaking unfeasible.
People who had minimal social lives or lacked a romantic partner before the lockdown are now trapped in that situation, facing intense long-term loneliness — and the poor health and decreased life expectancy that come along with it. It is a tragedy that government policy to fight coronavirus is hurting those worse off the most — those who have the least financial or social resources. Social distancing policies, therefore, contravene the following human rights laws by preventing people from engaging in legally-entitled social activity.
Universal Declaration of Human Rights
Article 20 1.Everyone has the right to freedom of peaceful assembly and association.
Article 27 1.Everyone has the right freely to participate in the cultural life of the community, to enjoy the arts and to share in scientific advancement and its benefits.
Article 29 1.Everyone has duties to the community in which alone the free and full development of his personality is possible.
International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights
Article 1 1. All peoples have the right of self-determination. By virtue of that right they freely determine their political status and freely pursue their economic, social and cultural development.
Article 15 1. The States Parties to the present Covenant recognize the right of everyone: (a) To take part in cultural life;
Solution
Impunity is at the root of human rights abuses. Serious human rights violations by politicians should never go unpunished. Transparency International considers ending impunity to be the most important method of combating corruption. The only way to end the scourge of cruelty in the name of public health is to hold accountable the politicians and public health officers responsible.
Write to your elected officials demanding that all social distancing laws be repealed immediately and the policymakers responsible for them are prosecuted for crimes against humanity, defying the domestic constitution, and suspending democracy. Protest peacefully in the streets. Administrators of lockdowns are criminals of the highest order. They should spend the rest of their lives in jail.
