Heavy-handed enforcement of Covid-19 safety measures have become the source of widespread violations against fundamental human rights
Introduction
The article delves into the heavy-handed enforcement of Covid-19 safety measures and its impact on fundamental human rights. It questions the role of the state and examines the legality of restrictive lockdowns and social media censorship. The author emphasizes the need to understand the science of law and legislative intent. Additionally, it explores the duty of states to provide vaccines without infringing on individual liberties. The post contains references for further reading.
In the wake of recent social media censorship to subvert disinformation. Efforts to roll out Covid-19 vaccinations worldwide has met a potential huge backlash from Covid-19 vaccine nationalists. Though, it is true that we must put human rights at the centre of our battle against Covid-19. Law is not entirely a social construct but a political instrument of control that does not consent to human behaviour and their social relations. Since all rules that relate to curfews, disasters, war, and recession have all been invoked in one instance. The state has become too supreme, and her sovereign might has become infallible and unquestioned. Although, the state enjoys the right to do whatever is necessary to save lives. However, it is not true that the state should always be seen to hold the legitimate right given by the ‘electorate’ to protect and defend the ‘people’. We must question, if not seek to better understand the role of the state regarding Covid-19 and human rights.
If law is truly a social construct, then self responsibility to isolate would be considered a human right rather than an imposed obligation, that we’re all being forced to protect ourselves against our own ‘free will’, is unjustifiable.
Gcwelethemba
It is unreasonable to assume that the state was caught unprepared and incapacitated. But it is a mistake also to assume that the paramount state is the vicar for the people. In fact, the state of emergency has plunged the world into legal oblivion. A disorder that will take time to disentangle except those who cogently saw it as positivism. That the human is only an object of law and arbitrary control. Therefore, we cannot appeal to social justice only. Rather, it is necessary to decipher the science of law and the idea of legislative intent to understand how these laws are made, for what purpose, and to whom do they serve.
In response to the ongoing global pandemic, governments across the world have implemented various measures to control the rapid spread of the Covid-19 virus. One of the most notable measures has been the implementation of recurrent restrictive lock-downs, commonly known as emergency law proclamations. While these measures are intended to safeguard public health and mitigate the impact of the virus, they have undoubtedly caused significant disruptions to daily life and have raised important questions about individual freedoms and government intervention.
Alongside these lock-downs, there has been a growing trend of social media censorship aimed at curbing the dissemination of misinformation and promoting public health guidelines. Private technology media companies, often referred to as Big Tech, have assumed an unprecedented role in enforcing what can and cannot be shared on their platforms. While the intention behind these actions is to protect public health, the scope and extent of this censorship have raised concerns about its impact on freedom of speech and expression.
The emergence of Big Tech as a de facto law enforcement entity in the digital realm has sparked a wider debate on the boundaries of governmental authority and the role of private companies in shaping societal norms. The question arises as to whether states, under international law, have an explicit obligation to ensure the availability of vaccines for the entire population. However, it is also important to acknowledge that states generally do not possess the duty or authority to infringe upon individual liberties and freedoms in matters of personal health choices.
Fundamental human rights, such as the right to exercise free will and choice, are considered non-derogable rights that should be protected and respected. This includes the right to make decisions about whether to receive vaccinations or not. The tension between public health imperatives and individual freedoms raises complex ethical and legal questions that require careful consideration.
Concerning The Right to Health
The right to health as enshrined in international law does not suggest that every individual human right entitlement is bound by a duty of morality and common interest.1 If this is the case, then this is a narrow textual interpretation of the law. Not only is it flawed and lacking in substance. Given that the paramount obligation of States is to take all necessary steps to ensure “prevention, treatment and control of epidemic, endemic, occupational and other diseases”.2 Nowhere does it suggest that vaccines should be distributed like food parcels in a disaster relief situation. Rather, article 16(2) of the African Charter emphasizes that only in ‘special circumstances’, shall the provision of medical treatment be made available in the event of sickness or illness.3 That sickness cannot be determined by generalisation so as to suggest that everyone is by commission or implication presumed to be sick and infected.
Interpreting the right to health solely as an unlimited entitlement can be seen as a narrow textual interpretation of the law that fails to address the complexities of healthcare resource allocation. While it is important to ensure that everyone has access to necessary healthcare services, it is equally important to consider the broader context, including the limitations and available resources of each country’s healthcare system.
One vital aspect to consider is that States have the primary responsibility to take all necessary measures to ensure the prevention, treatment, and control of various diseases, including epidemics, endemic diseases, and occupational illnesses. This provision emphasizes the importance of public health measures and initiatives that aim to protect and promote the well-being of communities as a whole.
Furthermore, it is worth noting that the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights, in its Article 16(2), emphasizes that the provision of medical treatment should be made available, in special circumstances, to those who are sick or in need of medical assistance. The concept of “special circumstances” highlights the need for targeted interventions based on specific situations rather than a blanket approach assuming everyone requires the same level of medical treatment.
In the case of vaccines, it is crucial to approach their distribution and administration with consideration for public health priorities, scientific evidence, and population needs. Vaccines play a vital role in preventing the spread of diseases and protecting individuals and communities. However, their distribution should be guided by evidence-based assessments of risk and need, as well as ethical considerations.
In conclusion, while the right to health is a fundamental human right, it is essential to strike a balance between individual entitlements and collective interests. The provision of medical treatment and access to healthcare should be guided by objective criteria based on public health priorities, available resources, and the specific circumstances of each situation. Only by taking a comprehensive approach can we ensure effective and equitable healthcare for all.
Further Reading
[1] African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights, art. 27(2)
[2] 1966 International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, art. 12(2)(c)
[3] African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights, art. 16(2)