Over the past months we've been experiencing a global outbreak of a Coronavirus. To battle this outbreak, many countries have resorted to all kinds of countermeasures, with varying results. Besides the many different countermeasures, there have also been many different ways people look at these measures. The longer they take, the more they object. The question then rises. Are these Covid-19 measures an infringement on our rights? Has our freedom been taken? Some people do think so.
In some countries there has been an complete lockdown, to the extent that people were forced to stay in their homes. Where the people only were allowed to go the nearest supermarket or work at an essential job outside the house. Others were "forced" to work from home and remain there as much as possible. These measures have even been enforced by law-enforcement and even by the military.
With societies al around the world under lockdown and with it, the global health crisis also turning in to a global economic crisis, people are getting frustrated. They want more freedom to do as they please, where governments dont allow them to. In turn people feel their governments have turned authoritarian on them, taking their freedom away.
But, is this a fair assessment? In my opinion, not completely. We're all living together in our societies. People tend to forget, that we all, individually, have rights. There where you have rights, it is also your duty to not infringe upon other peoples rights. You have a right to go freely as you please, others also have the right, that you don't infect them with the Coronavirus. We all need to take other peoples rights in to account aswell.
Compromises have to be made
Taking other peoples rights in to consideration means compromises have to be made. We're in an extraordinary situation, which requires extraordinary measures. This also means, that for the greater good, being the public health, we all need to compromise. This raises the question; 'Where do we draw the line?' Is it at wearing a mask, social distancing, limiting interpersonal contact, extra cleaning of touchable surfaces, using handsanitizer more frequently, shutting down places where people gather? Or is it a combination of several of these things or even all of them? And... Do these measures need to be enforced?
As I see it, people go against many rules, because they don't understand their purpose. Even now, when in most places the lockdown has ended and people are able to move outside more freely, there are Corona countermeasures in place. Measures that people willfully ignore, because they don't see the purpose of them, or because they've been frustrated about having had to compromise on their freedom. Prior they didn't have to compromise, but now they are completely done with complying to their social duties. Perhaps as a subconscious means of compensation or retaliation.
Rules and Guidelines in the Public Domain don't infringe rights
Living in the Netherlands, here there they've opened up the economy by allowing more and more (non-essential) businesses to reopen, but for those businesses and the general public there still are rules and guidelines to adhere to. Rules like:
Social distancing > 1.5 meters (5 feet)
No handshaking or similar contact
Staying at home when symptomatic
Mandatory shoppingcarts in supermarkets (and cleaning the handles)
Mandatory use of facemasks in Public Transport
These rules are in place for good reason. To stop the spread of Covid-19. Even when now the amount of cases has decreased significantly. They are in place, to prevent a second wave of the disease. Dispite this, people still ignore these rules.
Today I saw a video, showing a man exhaling smoke from an e-sigaret, through a face mask. He intended to show that the face mask doesnt work, as the smoke moved around the mask and stayed near the man. The Covid-19 virus however is not an airborne virus. It moves via respiratory droplets. These are the tiny drops of saliva that exits your mouth when you exhale, speak, sing or cough. They are retained by the face mask.
Without wearing a mask you can spread the virus by breathing, talking, singing or coughing, directly in an area about 5 to 6 feet infront of you. Outdoors, with weather influences like wind, this risk apprears to be smaller. When contained in a room with people, like officebuildings, stores and public transportation, one can easily spread the virus to others, when you are not wearing a mask.
The same goes for personal contact with people or objects. The virus may be in your saliva or mucus. Having wiped your mouth or nose, it may have ended on your hands. Cleaning your hands and surfaces of objects you frequently use, like shopping carts and phones, removes the substances containing the virus, limiting the spread of it.
Although these measures all seem reasonable to me, there are new countermeasures suggested, which do awfully look like a violation of rights, as they allow the government to track individual people, based on cellphone information and it would allow law enforcement to gain access to homes, in order to remove anyone who doesn't live there.
Here's where I draw the line
Let's be honest. In general people can't be trusted to adhere to rules. We've all bend or broken some rules at some times. When governments are responsible for Public Health issues it's a good and well that they come up with rules, like social distancing, wearing facemasks and other rules that have been discussed. We all have a right to our health. Those measures help everyone to stay safe. I see no reason as to why people would object to making this compromise.
But when the government then suddenly allows for an emergency law, that will allow them to use information from telecom companies, to determine where groups of people are gathering and to enter people's home's in order to break up these gatherings, then a line is crossed. This is a violation of privacy. Then the government moves outside the public domain and enters a private domain.
Is the public health at risk, to such an extent, that the government gets to invade your private home? To me, giving the people proper information about the risks of gathering in large groups and providing guidelines that the people can work with, should be enough. Ofcourse there will always be people who won't be bothered by these rules and guidelines. And yes, those people should be dealt with. But, infringing peoples rights to privacy and the safety of their own private homes, that's a bit rich.
In conclusion
You have your rights. I have my rights. In order to not infringe eachothers rights, we all need to compromise somewhere. We can do that, by following the guidelines for interaction in the public domain. These guidelines and rules are not an infringement of your rights, when you can still do the things you want to do.
If you want to get your nails done or have your hair cut, you still can. Even when you have to wear a facemask, in order to shield others from a possible Covid-19 infection. As you still can get your hair cut and nails done, this right is not taken away. You are simply expected to adhere to your civil duties, to play your role in maintaining a functioning society. The same one, you depend on, as much as others do.
This, to me, is what people do when they want to coexist in peace. They look out for eachothers well being, help eachother when needed and certainly not, do stuff that might put others at risk.
This however can not be a given. There will always people who think differently about this or who make a different risk assessment in these situations. But does this warrant the government implementing rules that infringe your rights to privacy?
You have the right to gather in groups. For public health reasons I can see the government implementing a limit on the size of these groups. And as long as they dont take the right away and aslong as people deal with this sensibly, I can go along with this quite a bit.
But as soon as the government decides to take away your privacy, by using your private information in order to then invade your home, then yes, your rights are being infringed and no matter what situation, these rights should be protected.
I understand the governments have the ungrateful job to do what they think is best for the people, knowing full well that there will be people who object to this. But they too should know where boundaries lie.
Comments