> There is no pandemic exception to basic civil rights.
This actually highlights a fundamental question which is at the heart of most disagreements on this issue. As a non-US-ian, looking at the US Constitution there does not seem to be an equivalent of Article 3 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which states, "Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person." In the UDoHR the right to life and the right to liberty are equated, so how do we manage situations where we have to trade off one or the other (as is the case here)? I recall the old saying, "your right to swing your fists, ends where my nose begins".
Therefore a blanket statement that there is no pandemic exception to civil rights, specifically, the right to free assembly and freedom of movement, elevates those rights above a right to "life" (which presumably provides a limit on others' behaviours that risk life).
Personally, I can't see that being viable, based on the "common sense" aphorism mentioned earlier. Therefore, there must be some balance. Clearly, achieving that balance is a politically quixotic exercise in the sense that you'll be pissing off one group or another. Consensus is probably key here. Good luck achieving that in the US.
EDITED: grammar. Seriously, I should learn to re-read before hitting submit.
This actually highlights a fundamental question which is at the heart of most disagreements on this issue. As a non-US-ian, looking at the US Constitution there does not seem to be an equivalent of Article 3 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which states, "Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person." In the UDoHR the right to life and the right to liberty are equated, so how do we manage situations where we have to trade off one or the other (as is the case here)? I recall the old saying, "your right to swing your fists, ends where my nose begins".
Therefore a blanket statement that there is no pandemic exception to civil rights, specifically, the right to free assembly and freedom of movement, elevates those rights above a right to "life" (which presumably provides a limit on others' behaviours that risk life).
Personally, I can't see that being viable, based on the "common sense" aphorism mentioned earlier. Therefore, there must be some balance. Clearly, achieving that balance is a politically quixotic exercise in the sense that you'll be pissing off one group or another. Consensus is probably key here. Good luck achieving that in the US.
EDITED: grammar. Seriously, I should learn to re-read before hitting submit.