7 ms·

I was going to write exactly the same comment but see everyone else writing it is getting downvoted and flagged to oblivion...

Nursie 5y ago
That would be because it’a a ludicrous false equivalence.
- ajkdhcb2 5y ago
  It's the same severe violation of human rights, regardless of differences or claimed intentions. Especially since it has been this way for over a year in Australia
  - Nursie 5y ago
    No, it’s really not, it’s vastly different. Australia is not under control by someone who appears to be a dictator, closing borders as part of a wider crackdown on dissent, and what looks like it could be a precursor to mass violence. Australia and other nations have implemented travel restrictions based on a global health emergency, restrictions which enjoy wide popular support. This is not a severe violation of human rights, and to try to call the two equivalent is really quite dishonest.
    - ajkdhcb2 5y ago
      Belarus has a worse covid situation than Australia. So Lukashenko just has to say he did it because of corona, then how is it not fair and justified, since that is apparently an acceptable reason? If your country has less stable politics then you arent allowed to manage your public health emergency?
      - Nursie 5y ago
        What if my cat says it's a dog? This makes no more sense than that. A dictator is closing borders as part of a program of suppression of dissent. This is materially different to health-related travel restrictions.
        ajkdhcb2 5y ago
        1) In Belarus, "The border committee blamed the measures on the coronavirus pandemic." 2) The covid situation is worse in Belarus than Australia 3) The covid situation in Australia is apparently enough to justify a multi-year ban on citizens leaving I still don't see how it is not justifiable to ban citizens from leaving in Belarus because of the pandemic. Less stable politics means you have to morally let people die by having no measures against the pandemic? Your argument seems to be based in guessing intentions within the politician's mind
        Nursie 5y ago
        In Belarus it’s a lie, for a start, and part of a wider pattern of crackdowns on dissent. In Australia it’s a genuine public health measure, even if you believe it misguided. If you don’t see difference I feel sorry for you.
        ajkdhcb2 5y ago
        At the least, it is a genuine public health measure AND a crackdown on dissent. Therefore it is not so simple to argue that it is a reprehensible move, if you are in favour of restrictions to prevent covid: you are saying that facilitating dissent is more important than "saving lives" from covid. It doesnt matter what the intention is: you believe that travel restrictions save lives. You must be subconsciously doing some sort of calculation between human rights and mitigating the pandemic
        deleted 5y ago
        [deleted]

Nursie 5y ago

That would be because it’a a ludicrous false equivalence.

ajkdhcb2 5y ago
It's the same severe violation of human rights, regardless of differences or claimed intentions. Especially since it has been this way for over a year in Australia
- Nursie 5y ago
  No, it’s really not, it’s vastly different. Australia is not under control by someone who appears to be a dictator, closing borders as part of a wider crackdown on dissent, and what looks like it could be a precursor to mass violence. Australia and other nations have implemented travel restrictions based on a global health emergency, restrictions which enjoy wide popular support. This is not a severe violation of human rights, and to try to call the two equivalent is really quite dishonest.
  - ajkdhcb2 5y ago
    Belarus has a worse covid situation than Australia. So Lukashenko just has to say he did it because of corona, then how is it not fair and justified, since that is apparently an acceptable reason? If your country has less stable politics then you arent allowed to manage your public health emergency?
    - Nursie 5y ago
      What if my cat says it's a dog? This makes no more sense than that. A dictator is closing borders as part of a program of suppression of dissent. This is materially different to health-related travel restrictions.
      - ajkdhcb2 5y ago
        1) In Belarus, "The border committee blamed the measures on the coronavirus pandemic." 2) The covid situation is worse in Belarus than Australia 3) The covid situation in Australia is apparently enough to justify a multi-year ban on citizens leaving I still don't see how it is not justifiable to ban citizens from leaving in Belarus because of the pandemic. Less stable politics means you have to morally let people die by having no measures against the pandemic? Your argument seems to be based in guessing intentions within the politician's mind
        Nursie 5y ago
        In Belarus it’s a lie, for a start, and part of a wider pattern of crackdowns on dissent. In Australia it’s a genuine public health measure, even if you believe it misguided. If you don’t see difference I feel sorry for you.
        ajkdhcb2 5y ago
        At the least, it is a genuine public health measure AND a crackdown on dissent. Therefore it is not so simple to argue that it is a reprehensible move, if you are in favour of restrictions to prevent covid: you are saying that facilitating dissent is more important than "saving lives" from covid. It doesnt matter what the intention is: you believe that travel restrictions save lives. You must be subconsciously doing some sort of calculation between human rights and mitigating the pandemic
        deleted 5y ago
        [deleted]