Are we meekly surrendering our freedom? (Debate)

Mon 22 Mar 2021, 09:36

Very wise. I was concerned about the ‘othering’ aspect, it’s not a joke.

Mon 22 Mar 2021, 08:33

I think it's worth bearing in mind too that this will be the first pandemic in human history where mankind has tried to vaccinate it's way out of it. Control of outbreaks has always relied on a few key principles (removing sources of infection by isolating cases and contacts, interrupting transmission with good personal hygiene, educating communities to prevent new infections etc). Although vaccines help, they aren't enough on their own and you have to have the co-operation of the public for the basic infection control principles to be effective and this has been demonstrated repeatedly throughout history. I know people are joking about badges and bells for those who choose not to comply, but there is a real danger that othering them makes the situation worse as opinions become more entrenched and harder to reverse.

Sun 21 Mar 2021, 13:27 (last edited on Sun 21 Mar 2021, 13:30)

Katie and Stephen.  Completely agree.

Interesting idea Stephen, and I like it, but is it enforceable?  Also not sure about the "shaming" angle.

Could ramp it up a bit so that those who haven't had the vaccine have to wear a badge or armband, ring a bell, and call out "unclean, unclean" at one minute intervals.

Sun 21 Mar 2021, 07:06

The flip side of this discussion could lead one to suggest that instead of proving that you have had the vaccination those that do not should wear a badge stating the fact so that those of a nervous disposition can avoid them. When I went to live in Addis Abeba in 1971 it was not uncommon to meet a beggar with leprosy who was obliged to ring a bell to worn passers by. Ironically I believe that it has been shown since that leprosy in very contagious.

Sat 20 Mar 2021, 21:23

Spot on Katie. And yes, dentists and dental nurses too are tequired to be vaccianed against HepB. To protect themeselves, but mainly to prevent transmission of highly transmissable blood borne disease to members of the public in their care, 

Fri 19 Mar 2021, 15:14

Vaccination against some diseases, in particular yellow fever, is already compulsory and you cannot enter certain countries without a valid international vaccination certificate. I absolutely believe people have the freedom to choose not to be vaccinated, but I also believe people shouldn't have the freedom to spread a pathogen that's caused a global pandemic to countries that require vaccination to enter or to care homes that accomodate vulnerable patients. I don't think this is prosecutable under the Equality Act-surgeons (and maybe dentists?) have to be vaccinated against hep b to work in the NHS, so a precedent exists. I personally feel it would be better to focus on providing high quality reliable sources of information to encourage high take up- we already know this works to counter vaccine hesitancy. But people also need to be reminded that getting vaccinated is part of the social contract. You get your jab to help achieve herd immunity and thereby protect people that can't have the jab. We are all part of one big population now and that social contract is more important than ever. Those who feel their freedoms are being eroded by being made to comply with lockdowns, masks and vaccines fail to appreciate how their failure to see themselves as part of society puts the most vulnerable at risk.

Thu 18 Mar 2021, 13:23

My lack of understanding here is what prompts my question: Why is it a good thing for people to resist being innoculated against an infectious disease? And further, to show proof of said vaccination?

If we were in the middle of a polio epidemic, would that same reticence still fall under the 'it's their RIGHT not to be vaccinated' canopy? Ditto smallpox, or TB, or [fill in horrible infectious disease name here].

There are jabs required to go to certain countries -- no proof of jab, no entry. Why is that any different to employers asking for proof? Ounce of prevention worth more than pound of cure??

Interesting reading here about Typhoid Mary (always a good story):
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3959940/

Fri 12 Feb 2021, 18:34

Interesting stuff.

I was impressed by the content of this article in "Unherd":

https://unherd.com/2021/02/the-dangers-of-compulsory-vaccination/?tl_inbound=1&tl_groups[0]=18743&tl_period_type=3

Fri 12 Feb 2021, 17:32

I agree with you Charlie. But, if our government insists that inoculation must remain a matter of choice, what can we do? After all, they are democratically elected. A bit of a conundrum. 

Chris, I do understand your point about world-wide inoculation (nobody is safe until we are all safe). But this will probably take a year or two. In the meantime, we face immediate dilemmas which we have to resolve.

A director of a chain of care homes has said that he will not employ new staff  unless they can provide proof of vaccination. He is likely to be prosecuted under the Equal Opportunities Act. 

I suppose we have to wait for this to be decided in court.

Fri 12 Feb 2021, 15:21

Phil, that is exactly *my* question too ... but I think its resolution (if it is that!) is in putting the liberty of the majority over the liberty of the individual. 

I agree wholeheartedly with making the vaccination compulsory (subject to considerations of allergies, for example), because by giving someone the right to refuse the vaccination, one is giving that individual the liberty to infect those around them.

I would put it on a parallel with the decision to imprison Oswald Mosley and his fascist colleagues in the Second World War, because otherwise they might have exercised their "liberty" to betray this country to the Nazis.

Fri 12 Feb 2021, 15:01 (last edited on Fri 12 Feb 2021, 15:02)

Will vaccination passports really be worth the paper they are written on? Presumably until the majority of the planet is inoculated against Covid, virus mutations will keep occurring around the world and undermining the effectiveness of  vaccine programs in individual countries. 

Wed 10 Feb 2021, 17:07

Thanks Carl. 

I get what's going on about international travel which is just a pragmatic response to an immediate situation. What I want to get at is the question of individual liberties.

As it stands, we are 'offered' a vaccine and we can refuse it if we wish. That is our right or our civil liberty. But then comes somebody else's liberty - the person who could be endangered by our decision to decline a vaccine.

Personally, I would make vaccination mandatory but I struggle to reconcile this with my libertarian instincts. Help!

Wed 10 Feb 2021, 12:02

Scrub the previous post, just listening to the Midday news on R4 and apparently the Transport Sec IS considering introducing vaccination passports for international travel! I do wish this government would make up its mind...

Wed 10 Feb 2021, 09:15

Phil,

The vaccines minister stated on the Andrew Marr show last weekend that the government would not be making vaccine passports compulsory. As an example, Marr quizzed him about Greece advertising that they will welcome UK tourists in the summer as long as they have proof of vaccination - as the minister said, any country has the right to do this and that if individuals needed proof of vaccination they should be able to obtain this from their medical records held by their GP. 

As for airlines and hotels declining business, they have checked validity of visa's and immunisations for travel to certain countries at the check-in gates long before Covid-19 so this is nothing new. Covid-19 is likely to be around for a long time and as such precautions will need to be taken in order to manage it. If a country requires documentation for entry they are perfectly entitled to do so

Tue 9 Feb 2021, 15:42

I think we ought to return to Nick's original question about surrendering freedoms. There is much media coverage at the moment about "vaccination passports" which I think is pertinent. This certainly relates to individual freedom.

At the moment, the government has no plans to introduce anything like a "passport".      But, could this come in by the back door? Can businesses impose conditions such as this unilaterally?

You can imagine airlines, hotels or restaurants asking us for proof of vaccination. If we do not provide it, they can decline our business. Is this an erosion of personal liberty? 

Fri 29 Jan 2021, 08:50

Steve - a rather more balanced view. Thankyou

Thu 28 Jan 2021, 23:07

I think it's unfortunate when things start turning into condemnation of people based on stereotypes. There are good and bad people with a whole range of different political views, and they don't all analyse the world in the same way.

Speaking as a floating voter who has (I think) voted for four different parties in my time (maybe better called three and a half as two were closely associated), I find life and politics a bit more complicated than a simple spectrum of good and bad.

Thu 28 Jan 2021, 14:00

Absolutely, Hannan! So many Tories don’t seem to recognise honesty, integrity, honour, humility, grace....(how long this list  could become)....So what’s left? My normal mantra of “Personal Greed and Arrogance”?

Wed 27 Jan 2021, 18:44

Agree Liz.

And being culpable for over 100,000 deaths won't change that.

Many years ago, I asked (in all innocence) a Tory voter why he voted Tory, and he replied "always have, always will."  I was apolitical then and just wanted to know what intellectual rigour lay behind anyone voting for any party.

Well it's an easy way to think, I suppose, or should I say, not to think.

Wed 27 Jan 2021, 11:46 (last edited on Wed 27 Jan 2021, 11:48)

I was once, many years ago, told by a very elderly man on a polling station during a general election, that you could put a monkey up for election in West Oxfordshire, and as long as it wore a blue rosette, it would get elected. He didn't think the monkey's manifesto and strengths and weaknesses would come into it.  I leave others to draw their own conclusions.

Tue 26 Jan 2021, 22:58 (last edited on Tue 26 Jan 2021, 23:01)

Phil, I don’t like the idea of bumbling around, while Rome burns. 

I used to respect the Lords (or at least those who didn’t just pop in for a large fee, a big lunch and a sleep) but when it got to the stage when Boris installed his relatively unknown brother in there, even though he seemed smarter and more appealing than his brother, the bubble of trust was well and truly burst. And Steve, if our MP is legitimately not bound to reflect his constituents’ views, then how can we express our opposing views to any result? It’s a horrible thought, given the stranglehold of the Tories here.

Tue 26 Jan 2021, 18:27 (last edited on Tue 26 Jan 2021, 18:27)

One very important thing to note, as I perceive a misunderstanding, is that the tradition in the UK (and most other countries) is that we have trustee representatives, not delegate representatives. Delegates are elected on the basis of imperative mandate, and that is not, historically, part of our  system.

It might seem a small thing, but it's not. MPs are not given a job based on simply echoing what the majority opinion might be in their constituency. That would be the job of a delegate. If it was the latter, then capital punishment would have remained on the books a lot longer than it did (to think of one examples).

MPs are elected on the basis of their manifesto, their personal strengths and weaknesses and, of course, party affiliations and not as a mirror of local opinions on any given issue.

Tue 26 Jan 2021, 17:28

Restrictions to freedom must always be related to context.  If I were to walk down Church Street with a shotgun over my shoulder, I would, quite rightly, be promptly arrested. If I were to walk down Main Street in Kansas City with a semi-automatic assault rifle, I could  happily go on my way.

Thankfully, we live in Charlbury, not Kansas City. But the point is made. Freedoms are relative. Nick and Alice make broadly the same point - we have to be vigilant about our freedoms being eroded in a drip-feed way. 

Nevertheless, I agree with Steve that a formal constitution is not the way to go.             A legislated constitution would make us a hostage to the future. It's probably better to bumble along with our very imperfect system of Commons and Lords who largely manage to reach compromise. After all, who would want to be in Joe Biden's shoes right now?

Tue 26 Jan 2021, 16:13

When the political history books are written, we will hardly be mentioned and definitely not as significant, rather like the Indigenous Peoples of the world, approximately 476 million people worldwide. We have written ourselves off. We have accepted that the representation of ourselves is morally unjustifiable, and is reprehensible. We should have proportional representation as a matter of course, but we will never get it in this climate.. Just how have we let this happen? Could it be a perfect storm of arrogance and ignorance?

Tue 26 Jan 2021, 11:09 (last edited on Tue 26 Jan 2021, 11:09)

May I add another restriction on freedom to the list earlier in this thread? That is the right to peaceful protest. We were deeply engaged supporting our family with the anti-fracking protests in Yorkshire and Lancashire a year or two back. We visited an anti-fracking camp in Yorkshire and it was clear that it had a huge amount of local support, giving the lie to the standard political line that it was merely loonies and hotheads who were protesting. One member of our family was arrested for playing his violin outside a fracking site. He was charged and then the case was dropped months later before it came to court. This now seems to be a standard tactic of deterrence. We are aware of others who suffered physical violence from police (off-camera, naturally). The website NetPol has a lot of information about all this. The consultation last year by HMG on criminalising trespass proposed measures which would instantly make law-breakers of many peaceful protesters.

Tue 26 Jan 2021, 07:35

It doesn’t seem very likely to me that the UK government is going to give back any of the powers it has removed from us by codifying rights for us in a constitution. Didn’t the Barons have to declare a state of constant war against King John to get a couple of rights transferred to them? Interesting that people now recognise the importance of having a 2/3’s majority to make really significant changes to the way in which our country is run. Too late I fear and which government is going to propose to reduce its power.

As I understand it absolute constituent power is supposed to be vested in the electorate by parliamentary elections not by referenda. When Mr. Courts failed to represent his constituents, he broke that constitutional principle. His party became more important than the people who elected him. With that principle broken there is no check on the Government by Parliament. The Government is free to do as it wishes and it certainly is.

Two other myths have been destroyed in the last five years – that the Queen and the House of Lords have the final check on the power of the Executive. The Supreme Court is the only remaining defence of our constitutional principles and that requires rich individuals to be sufficiently angry, a sort of modern-day baron.

So here we are – an unaccountable Government supported by an unrepresentative Parliament making major changes to the laws we’ve reached through consensus over many years. Maybe if all the opposition parties worked together on a single issue – introduce proportional representation - it might be worthwhile voting again.

Sat 23 Jan 2021, 21:22

I, personally, do not like constitutions that have a high bar to change. The USA has got itself into the position where it has trapped itself into a constitution that is all but unchangeable. The last substantive amendment to the US constitution is almost 50 years old (it guaranteed votes to everybody 18 years old or more). Other than that, there was just one dealing with the detail of when members of the house got pay rises.

Constitutions can be traps as well, and the USA has now got itself into the position where it's almost impossible to put in place meaningful gun control, it has a bizarre electoral college system for electing the president and the latter has far too many executive powers, such as the granting of arbitrary pardons to political cronies. All essentially beyond reform because a minority can block changes.

Be careful what you wish for, and especially if you come up with something that's next to impossible to change because a significant minority can block it.

I assume that if you favour a two-thirds majority for a constitutional change then you are going to demand that this will only be put into action with a two-thirds majority referendum. It would, after all, only be consistent.

Sat 23 Jan 2021, 18:05

You seem to have cracked it, Sam. Any ideas for positive action?

Wed 20 Jan 2021, 23:06

What we need is a properly written constitution wherein key fundamental citizen's rights are set out and which can only be modified (or new ones inserted) by 2/3 of MPs agreeing. 

Wed 20 Jan 2021, 11:47

Excellent debate, I have only just come across it. Very interesting Nick, thanks for starting this up. Priti Patel is a dangerous woman, and I would not put it past her to reinstate the death penalty. .

Tue 19 Jan 2021, 13:08

Since the discussion has moved to the death penalty, may I make another contribution?I recently stepped down as Chairman of a charity called the African Prison Project. One of APP’s project is running a law degree in maximum security prisons in Kenya and Uganda. Through the magic of zoom, I run a class for them every Monday morning. Our students include “death row “ prisoners. Our students have used their new found legal skills to mount constitutional challenges to the death penalty in both Kenya and Uganda. In both countries they were partially successful and hundreds of prisoners have been moved out of the Condemned Section ( death row) as a result. Never has law teaching felt more valuable.

Tue 19 Jan 2021, 08:39

I went to school with the third last person to be hung for murder - Dennis Whitty - hung in 1963.  I don't claim to have known him well but well enough to sometimes greet him in a local pub. I was away at college when it all happened but the local gossip was that he was led on by others. I had certainly not seen a potential murderer in his character, just a rather simple local lad. I have never been convinced that his execution contributed to the "deterrent factor" in society.

Mon 18 Jan 2021, 08:12 (last edited on Mon 18 Jan 2021, 08:14)

Amanda, I fear that is a rather weak (?) condition for allowing it to be reintroduced. I have little doubt that Patel is a very nasty piece of work indeed, and that she would have no hesitation in pulling the trap door lever, or whatever was required. My main point, however, is that state murder is as wrong morally as the crime for which it would be used.

Sun 17 Jan 2021, 22:57

Back in the 60’s, I was working in a prison when an execution took place.  He was 18 with learning difficulties and saw him being taken for solitary exercise.  I was already an opponent of capital punishment or judicial  murder and I found the experience extremely distressing.  
Nothing and certainly not Patel can make me change my mind.  She has no right to change the law unless she is prepared to carry out the punishment herself.

Sun 17 Jan 2021, 16:09

Charlie, Mark and I share your horror of state murder. We refuse to go to countries that practice it.  

Sun 17 Jan 2021, 16:01

Alice, it is also said that Home Secretary Patel wants to restore State Murder (often euphemistically referred to as "the death penalty"). If that was to happen, then as a country I would *know* that we had gone over the edge, and I am not sure that I could realistically remain a member of it.

Sun 17 Jan 2021, 15:37 (last edited on Mon 18 Jan 2021, 05:32)

Can we describe Mr. Johnson as a ‘libertarian’?

Which Mr. Johnson? The original poster or the Prime Minister? 
Kris

Sun 17 Jan 2021, 15:03

Does the poster only reflect the views of anti-lockdown folk? I had misunderstood it then. I took it to mean all the freedoms we have lost in the last 10 years and had wondered what on earth I could do to respond to the next generations. Nick has reminded us of the shameful identification of minority groups as ‘other’ and the culture of hostile environment.

I would add: the suppression of political debate and opposition through abuse, anger, even violence and a culture of fear; the categorisation of people living and working in the UK with a legal right to do so as scroungers, immigrants and asylum seekers; the removal of freedom for UK residents to work and live in 32 other countries – a third of the world’s markets. Putting a stop to UK residents following the money – making best advantage through service industries, music and arts.

All of these things we have just allowed to happen. Which other population in the history of the world voted to remove their own rights? How can we explain that to our children?

What’s coming next? The Government is consulting on plans to reduce the size of the Supreme Court and curtail the court’s ability to become involved in constitutional issues. This would remove the last remaining check on the power of the Executive. The right to trial by jury to be removed for increasing numbers of cases. All loses of freedoms and the removal of checks and balances on power. How will we explain those to future generations?

Can we describe Mr. Johnson as a ‘libertarian’? What do we know of him – that he is an accomplished actor that changes course with the wind and uses lies, cult and propaganda to support him in his focused and uncaring pursuit of power. Shouldn’t we be using the word “authoritarian”?

Sat 16 Jan 2021, 14:50

Agree Nick, and thank you for putting it so well.

So "easy" for democracy to be subverted.

Sat 16 Jan 2021, 12:59

On my morning walk, I pass the occasional window which has a notice which (roughly) reads, " when this is over, they will ask, why did they give up their freedom so easily?"  A pertinent question which keeps me pondering till I get home. The current restrictions on our…

Long post - click to read full text