7 ms·

I don't expect you to understand, but in Europe, people actually care about their rights [1]. There are weekly protests with lots of impact [2]. [1] https://ne

I don't expect you to understand, but in Europe, people actually care about their rights [1]. There are weekly protests with lots of impact [2]. [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28139889 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28139889 [2] https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/aug/10/protest-stop-checking-my-sources-i-am-telling-you-the-truth https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/aug/10/protest-stop-c...

shric 5y ago
Link 2 is a 404 for me. Hilariously, Australians protest about their rights by trying their best to extend lockdowns further [1]. [1] https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2021/jul/24/anti-lockdown-protests-across-australia-as-covid-cases-surge-to-record-levels-in-sydney https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2021/jul/24/anti-...
- logicchains 5y ago
  Why is it hilarious? The whole point of human rights is they they don't just disappear whenever there's an emergency, otherwise the next dictator who comes along will just declare an emergency and violate everyone's rights, as has happened countless times in history. It's sad not funny that people protesting their rights being violated just leads to their rights being violated even more.
  - stavros 5y ago
    So, in your view, human rights cannot be suspended, even if there is an emergency? So things like banning indoor meetings should be allowed to continue, even when there is a pandemic? I didn't protest the lockdowns because it seems reasonable to me that you'd want to ban proximity to curtail the spread of a disease that spreads by proximity. That doesn't mean I won't protest a dictator just declaring an emergency and violating everyone's rights.
    - eightails 5y ago
      > So, in your view, human rights cannot be suspended, even if there is an emergency? This does seem a pretty common misconception. People seem to forget that even the most liberal countries still regularly and systematically infringe on people's rights, e.g. by imprisoning criminals. But you don't see many of the anti-lockdown types protesting the existence of prisons. In both cases, it's a matter of proportionally balancing the loss of individual rights with the interests (and indeed, other conflicting rights) of the community as a whole.
      - lethologica 5y ago
        The imprisonment of criminals is a governments way of fulfilling one of its primary duties, keeping its citizens safe. It’s not 100% accurate of course but I’d much rather take that than wondering if my neighbour will kill me. If you’re saying a government shouldn’t be locking people up so that an individuals rights aren’t violated, then you’re saying a government shouldn’t be looking after the wellbeing of its people. In which case, you’re essentially talking about anarchy.
        stavros 5y ago
        But you're agreeing with the GP. Similarly, governments have a responsibility towards the citizens to protect them against COVID, even if that means some temporary lockdowns.
  - thisone22 5y ago
    Ok, this is a spectrum. How far along the spectrum does the emergency need to get to justify a lockdown? For example - The Black Plague which killed 30%~ of Europe. At what point would a lockdown be justified? - Germany just invaded my northern border. Again. Am I allowed to force my residents to turn their lights off to avoid bombing? Rights aren't universal, and no serious person argues this. There is always an emergency that's bad enough. The question is 'what is bad enough' and this has no scientific answer. The answer is up to the government of the day, and the population who can decide whether to turf that government.
    - Pet_Ant 5y ago
      > Rights aren't universal, and no serious person argues this. There is always an emergency that's bad enough. I feel like this is the point of contention. Many people truly don't consider things that can be taken away a right. Is the constitution a suicide pact a serious question that has been argued in the US Supreme Court (that phrased originated by a justice arguing that it wasn't... he was in the minority opinion). I will try to keep this neutral, but people say things like "driving isn't a right, it's a priveledge"... what distinguishes between rights and priveledges?
- jaywalk 5y ago
  "Just do what you're told and you'll get your rights back when the dear leaders decide you've done enough. But they'll still reserve the right to take them away whenever they feel like it." How's that boot polish tasting?
logicchains 5y ago
>I don't expect you to understand, but in Europe, people actually care about their rights [1] That's a bit condescending. In recent weeks there were tens of thousands of people marching on the streets of Sydney and Melbourne to protest covid lockdowns and defend their right to free assembly.
- BLKNSLVR 5y ago
  Fucking perfect example. Exemplifies exactly the things that get Australians hot and bothered enough to protest - getting it totally and absolutely arse-about. Perfect example, nicely done.
- bradrn 5y ago
  > tens of thousands of people marching on the streets of Sydney and Melbourne to protest covid lockdowns and defend their right to free assembly As an Aussie I must say that I see these protests rather differently. For better or worse, Australia has gotten used to having zero COVID: people here tend to see the protesters not as brave individuals defending their rights, but as idiots who recklessly endanger the lives of others by spreading disease through a largely unvaccinated populace. Many people here are of the opinion that some ‘fundamental’ rights can and should be suspended in a critical emergency.
- shric 5y ago
  Do you have a source for "tens of thousands"? I think it was fewer than 10k. Thankfully only 3,500 in Sydney out of a population of 5 million. Fortunately the vast majority of Australians aren't completely selfish and thoughtless. Nobody likes lockdowns. The government doesn't benefit from them, it's not lining some evil overlord's pockets.
  - jlangenauer 5y ago
    I believe the governments in Australia do benefit from the lockdowns. I'm from Australia, but live in Germany, so when I look back home from here, I'm shocked by how deliberately the fear of Covid has been stoked and played up in Australia. Constantly in and out of lockdowns, daily press conferences about death and case numbers, no path out and no hope. It feels to me that Australia will be a country suffering from PTSD once it finds a way out of the pandemic and impossible dream of zero covid. (For comparison, here in Europe, the pandemic is largely over, and our vaccination wall is looking strong enough that even what's coming over winter shouldn't be too bad.)
onethought 5y ago
Which rights would those be? The ones that were given up in order to join the EU? Most EU countries are not sovereign states, given by the fact they don’t control their borders nor their economy (See Greece, or the other affectionately named PIGS countries). There is an insane amount of influence from Germany and Belgium. This is a glasshouses and stones situation.

shric 5y ago

Link 2 is a 404 for me. Hilariously, Australians protest about their rights by trying their best to extend lockdowns further [1]. [1] https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2021/jul/24/anti-lockdown-protests-across-australia-as-covid-cases-surge-to-record-levels-in-sydney https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2021/jul/24/anti-...

logicchains 5y ago
Why is it hilarious? The whole point of human rights is they they don't just disappear whenever there's an emergency, otherwise the next dictator who comes along will just declare an emergency and violate everyone's rights, as has happened countless times in history. It's sad not funny that people protesting their rights being violated just leads to their rights being violated even more.
- stavros 5y ago
  So, in your view, human rights cannot be suspended, even if there is an emergency? So things like banning indoor meetings should be allowed to continue, even when there is a pandemic? I didn't protest the lockdowns because it seems reasonable to me that you'd want to ban proximity to curtail the spread of a disease that spreads by proximity. That doesn't mean I won't protest a dictator just declaring an emergency and violating everyone's rights.
  - eightails 5y ago
    > So, in your view, human rights cannot be suspended, even if there is an emergency? This does seem a pretty common misconception. People seem to forget that even the most liberal countries still regularly and systematically infringe on people's rights, e.g. by imprisoning criminals. But you don't see many of the anti-lockdown types protesting the existence of prisons. In both cases, it's a matter of proportionally balancing the loss of individual rights with the interests (and indeed, other conflicting rights) of the community as a whole.
    - lethologica 5y ago
      The imprisonment of criminals is a governments way of fulfilling one of its primary duties, keeping its citizens safe. It’s not 100% accurate of course but I’d much rather take that than wondering if my neighbour will kill me. If you’re saying a government shouldn’t be locking people up so that an individuals rights aren’t violated, then you’re saying a government shouldn’t be looking after the wellbeing of its people. In which case, you’re essentially talking about anarchy.
      - stavros 5y ago
        But you're agreeing with the GP. Similarly, governments have a responsibility towards the citizens to protect them against COVID, even if that means some temporary lockdowns.
- thisone22 5y ago
  Ok, this is a spectrum. How far along the spectrum does the emergency need to get to justify a lockdown? For example - The Black Plague which killed 30%~ of Europe. At what point would a lockdown be justified? - Germany just invaded my northern border. Again. Am I allowed to force my residents to turn their lights off to avoid bombing? Rights aren't universal, and no serious person argues this. There is always an emergency that's bad enough. The question is 'what is bad enough' and this has no scientific answer. The answer is up to the government of the day, and the population who can decide whether to turf that government.
  - Pet_Ant 5y ago
    > Rights aren't universal, and no serious person argues this. There is always an emergency that's bad enough. I feel like this is the point of contention. Many people truly don't consider things that can be taken away a right. Is the constitution a suicide pact a serious question that has been argued in the US Supreme Court (that phrased originated by a justice arguing that it wasn't... he was in the minority opinion). I will try to keep this neutral, but people say things like "driving isn't a right, it's a priveledge"... what distinguishes between rights and priveledges?
jaywalk 5y ago
"Just do what you're told and you'll get your rights back when the dear leaders decide you've done enough. But they'll still reserve the right to take them away whenever they feel like it." How's that boot polish tasting?

logicchains 5y ago

>I don't expect you to understand, but in Europe, people actually care about their rights [1] That's a bit condescending. In recent weeks there were tens of thousands of people marching on the streets of Sydney and Melbourne to protest covid lockdowns and defend their right to free assembly.

BLKNSLVR 5y ago
Fucking perfect example. Exemplifies exactly the things that get Australians hot and bothered enough to protest - getting it totally and absolutely arse-about. Perfect example, nicely done.
bradrn 5y ago
> tens of thousands of people marching on the streets of Sydney and Melbourne to protest covid lockdowns and defend their right to free assembly As an Aussie I must say that I see these protests rather differently. For better or worse, Australia has gotten used to having zero COVID: people here tend to see the protesters not as brave individuals defending their rights, but as idiots who recklessly endanger the lives of others by spreading disease through a largely unvaccinated populace. Many people here are of the opinion that some ‘fundamental’ rights can and should be suspended in a critical emergency.
shric 5y ago
Do you have a source for "tens of thousands"? I think it was fewer than 10k. Thankfully only 3,500 in Sydney out of a population of 5 million. Fortunately the vast majority of Australians aren't completely selfish and thoughtless. Nobody likes lockdowns. The government doesn't benefit from them, it's not lining some evil overlord's pockets.
- jlangenauer 5y ago
  I believe the governments in Australia do benefit from the lockdowns. I'm from Australia, but live in Germany, so when I look back home from here, I'm shocked by how deliberately the fear of Covid has been stoked and played up in Australia. Constantly in and out of lockdowns, daily press conferences about death and case numbers, no path out and no hope. It feels to me that Australia will be a country suffering from PTSD once it finds a way out of the pandemic and impossible dream of zero covid. (For comparison, here in Europe, the pandemic is largely over, and our vaccination wall is looking strong enough that even what's coming over winter shouldn't be too bad.)

onethought 5y ago

Which rights would those be? The ones that were given up in order to join the EU? Most EU countries are not sovereign states, given by the fact they don’t control their borders nor their economy (See Greece, or the other affectionately named PIGS countries). There is an insane amount of influence from Germany and Belgium. This is a glasshouses and stones situation.