5 ms·

From: https://marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2021/08/the-tga-is-worse-than-the-fda-and-the-australian-lockdown.html https://marginalrevolution.com/ma

by gojomo 5y ago

From: https://marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2021/08/the-tga-is-worse-than-the-fda-and-the-australian-lockdown.html https://marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2021/08/th... > Article 13 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights states that > Everyone has the right to freedom of movement and residence within the borders of each state. >Everyone has the right to leave any country, including his own, and to return to his country. > Australia has now violated each and every clause of this universal human right and seemingly without much debate or objection. It is deeply troubling to see people prevented from leaving or entering their own country and soldiers in the street making sure people do not travel beyond a perimeter surrounding their homes. The costs of lockdown are very high and thus so is any delay in ending these unprecedented infringements on liberty.

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
Barrin92 5y ago
"Salus populi suprema lex esto" -Cicero Alex Tabarrok should maybe consider that in contrast to some other countries which have seen deaths comparable to the second world war Australia has largely been covid free.
markdown 5y ago
Australia has made a number of their citizens stateless recently, cancelling their citizenships without trial in violation of UN conventions on statelessness. Among the developed western nations of the world, USA is a bottom-rung country when it comes to human rights, what with assassinating their own citizens in the middle east, torturing prisoners and keeping them locked up for decades without trial, not to mention all the abuses on the domestic front. Australia is one rung above USA.
- josephcsible 5y ago
  > Australia has made a number of their citizens stateless recently Who, specifically, did the Australian government revoke the citizenship of who wasn't also a citizen of another country?
  - markdown 5y ago
    Neil Prakash is one I'm familiar with, but there've been many others who've had their citizenships cancelled. Prakash was born in Australia, radicalised in Australia, and became a terrorist in Australia. He went off to the Middle East and did bad shit. Australia wanted to wash their hands of the hurt they'd unleashed on the world, so they claimed that he was a (dual) citizen of Fiji, and they cancelled his Australian citizenship. Prakash's Aussie father was Fiji-born and may (this isn't clear) have still been a Fiji citizen at the time he fathered Prakash in Australia. However, Fiji does not automatically grant citizenship to children of Fijians born overseas. Their parents need to apply for their citizenship, and Prakash's father never did this because of course he had left Fiji and made Australia his home. So Prakash was not born in Fiji, never gained Fiji citizenship, and has never stepped foot in Fiji. https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2021/feb/23/peter-duttons-push-to-use-secret-evidence-to-revoke-citizenship-condemned https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2021/feb/23/peter... He was an Australian citizen, and rather than deal with their problem, they made him stateless.
    - deleted 5y ago
      [deleted]
ceejayoz 5y ago
Sure, if you ignore: Article 3: > Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person. Article 29: > In the exercise of his rights and freedoms, everyone shall be subject only to such limitations as are determined by law solely for the purpose of securing due recognition and respect for the rights and freedoms of others and of meeting the just requirements of morality, public order and the general welfare in a democratic society. When there's a conflict between your rights and my rights, like "I want to travel freely, and you want to not die", we wind up having to navigate that.
- gojomo 5y ago
  Maybe the people who want absolute safety can stay in their homes, & whatever tiny perimeter of limited interactions can guarantee their safety, while those who accept some risks still have the human right of travel? Just a thought. COVID isn't caused by travel itself – especially among populations where there's little or none – but by close shared-air contact with current cases. Maybe those who travel can wear a bright vest, so those who want to trade that freedom for safety can just stay at a safe distance from danger, not shorn of all movement rights?

by gojomo 5y ago

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

Barrin92 5y ago

"Salus populi suprema lex esto" -Cicero Alex Tabarrok should maybe consider that in contrast to some other countries which have seen deaths comparable to the second world war Australia has largely been covid free.

markdown 5y ago

Australia has made a number of their citizens stateless recently, cancelling their citizenships without trial in violation of UN conventions on statelessness. Among the developed western nations of the world, USA is a bottom-rung country when it comes to human rights, what with assassinating their own citizens in the middle east, torturing prisoners and keeping them locked up for decades without trial, not to mention all the abuses on the domestic front. Australia is one rung above USA.

josephcsible 5y ago
> Australia has made a number of their citizens stateless recently Who, specifically, did the Australian government revoke the citizenship of who wasn't also a citizen of another country?
- markdown 5y ago
  Neil Prakash is one I'm familiar with, but there've been many others who've had their citizenships cancelled. Prakash was born in Australia, radicalised in Australia, and became a terrorist in Australia. He went off to the Middle East and did bad shit. Australia wanted to wash their hands of the hurt they'd unleashed on the world, so they claimed that he was a (dual) citizen of Fiji, and they cancelled his Australian citizenship. Prakash's Aussie father was Fiji-born and may (this isn't clear) have still been a Fiji citizen at the time he fathered Prakash in Australia. However, Fiji does not automatically grant citizenship to children of Fijians born overseas. Their parents need to apply for their citizenship, and Prakash's father never did this because of course he had left Fiji and made Australia his home. So Prakash was not born in Fiji, never gained Fiji citizenship, and has never stepped foot in Fiji. https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2021/feb/23/peter-duttons-push-to-use-secret-evidence-to-revoke-citizenship-condemned https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2021/feb/23/peter... He was an Australian citizen, and rather than deal with their problem, they made him stateless.
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]

ceejayoz 5y ago

Sure, if you ignore: Article 3: > Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person. Article 29: > In the exercise of his rights and freedoms, everyone shall be subject only to such limitations as are determined by law solely for the purpose of securing due recognition and respect for the rights and freedoms of others and of meeting the just requirements of morality, public order and the general welfare in a democratic society. When there's a conflict between your rights and my rights, like "I want to travel freely, and you want to not die", we wind up having to navigate that.

gojomo 5y ago
Maybe the people who want absolute safety can stay in their homes, & whatever tiny perimeter of limited interactions can guarantee their safety, while those who accept some risks still have the human right of travel? Just a thought. COVID isn't caused by travel itself – especially among populations where there's little or none – but by close shared-air contact with current cases. Maybe those who travel can wear a bright vest, so those who want to trade that freedom for safety can just stay at a safe distance from danger, not shorn of all movement rights?