3 ms·
In the UK law is being passed by decree without parliamentary approval, fundamental democratic freedoms are being specifically prohibited - freedom of speech, a
by barnacled 6y ago
In the UK law is being passed by decree without parliamentary approval, fundamental democratic freedoms are being specifically prohibited - freedom of speech, assembly and association and prosecution of people conducting hitherto legal and proper businesses.
The pattern is entirely that of emergency 'enabling law' examples from the past when equally scary things gave them apparent justification.
Boiling things down to 'just asking to wear a mask' is at best deeply naive and at worst arrogantly dismissive. Break out of the soundbites and take a moment to think about what's happening in historical context.
If you want a serious and reasoned analysis of the worries, concerns and threats under these circumstances (at least from a UK perspective) I firmly recommend you view Lord Sumption's thoughts on this matter (recently retired judge from the supreme court of the UK with a long and highly respected career in the judiciary) - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=amDv2gk8aa0 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=amDv2gk8aa0
Unfortunately under circumstances such as the covid-19 mess we all live under (and thank your lucky stars you are in a 1st world country, the 3rd world will suffer at unimaginable levels, highly likely considerably moreso due to covid-19 aid cuts than covid-19 itself) things are considerably greyer than 'conspiracy theory nuts vs. just asking to put a mask on'. If only it were that simple.
- tasty_freeze 6y agoSorry, I don't have time for an 1h16m video. I skipped the intro and started listening to Lord Sumption's part and quickly got bogged down in politics about the current government came into power saddled by constitutional baggage, blah blah. It sounds like he is trying to score points on unrelated matters and gave up. There are an infinite number of things which one might be worried could happen, and it is good to stay vigilant to those things. I have little fear that once the pandemic is mostly behind us that these temporary restrictions will be lifted -- we already know that many republicans think it is a political hoax, and I don't know of a single liberal who wouldn't love to get back to normal.
- barnacled 6y agoThank you for taking the time to take a look. It is a lengthily one but I do certainly recommend spending the time to listen, it is of course very UK-centric but a lot of the points he makes are valid globally. I am not advocating some absolute zero-measure approach but I also don't agree with the lockdowns which have repeatedly failed to work on any kind of permanent basis and whose costs are entirely ignored. The rational approach is a measured one taking into account all costs. Unfortunately politics, especially partisan ones don't work that way...
- pjc50 6y agoDo you have a casualty estimate for not doing the lockdowns?
- DanBC 6y ago>and whose costs are entirely ignored. The costs are not being ignored. Government frequently talks about the need to keep schools open to avoid some of those costs; we've recently had rapid release of suicide stats (no rise so far, but lots of caution needed); we're v worried about access to other forms of healthcare (London has today said they can't guarantee ambo service to home birth delivery that goes wrong) etc etc. People are constantly checking we've got the balance right. But the fact remains: covid kills lots of people and it seriously harms very many others. Those people who are harmed take time to recover and that has long term financial and health implications for them and their families. https://twitter.com/rupert_pearse/status/1342020644247130113 https://twitter.com/rupert_pearse/status/1342020644247130113
- jokethrowaway 6y agoI would have preferred a zero measure approach. No excuse is valid for infringing freedom.