🚨The new lockdown regulations are here: coming into force on Thursday

The Health Protection (Coronavirus, Restrictions) (England) (No. 4) Regulations 2020

Analysis below as I read them (thread)

https://t.co/adPk9PsE0j

32 pages, 13,891 words...

As expected, "No person may leave or be outside of the place where they are living without reasonable excuse" - back to the language of the Mar 2020 regulations

Again, there is a *non-exhaustive* list (because: "include") of reasonable excuses, now referred to as "exceptions"

What are the exceptions? There are many. There are 13 listed, but a number have sub-categories of exception, particularly Exception 1 (leaving home necessary for certain purposes). Here they are, except I can't fit them into four screen grabs!

Here's number 5

You might notice that these are many more than in the first lockdown [screen shot from first lockdown regs below] - though some have made a reappearance. Basically this is a more detailed and complex set of reasons for people to not stay at home.

This is a thread on human rights and the Coronavirus.

It will be a mixture of discussion, ideas and links and I will try to keep adding to it as things progress (THREAD)

I have been thinking about how human rights values and laws can help us traverse the next few months of deep crisis - across the planet.

We could 'suspend' or ignore human rights as a 'peace time nicety' as has happened in the past.

But to do so would be a huge error /1

As a preliminary, it is really, really important to understand that looking at the potential response to Coronavirus through a human rights lens does not generate any easy answers. I’m not going to offer any. /2

Another preliminary: as with response to terrorism (there are similarities here) it is natural that when people are frightened, critical voices raising ‘niceties’ like individual rights are seen as annoying and beside the point. They. Are. Not. We know that from history. /3

What can human rights offer? Well, for one thing this is exactly the kind of crisis which the modern human rights system was designed for.

I’m going to start with the general and then move onto the specific /4

A short personal reflection on what happened yesterday.

I wanted to wait a bit before saying this as I think yesterday was for those who experienced the sharpest end of the disastrous breakdown between the Labour Party and Jewish people during the past 5 years.

I started talking about Labour antisemitism here in 2017 I think. My key aim was to try and act as a bridge between the left of the Jewish community and the left of the Labour Party. I used my platform on social media to do it and quite quickly I developed some back channels...

... to who I thought were sensible people in Jeremy Corbyn's office and Momentum. I kept those channels going for quite a long time. I found this paragraph from emails I exchanged in Spring 2018 with Laura Murray in Corbyn's office. It now seems quite prescient.

As I delved more into the issues and heard, privately, what was going on in the movement itself, I slowly and regrettably came to the conclusion that the issue was so serious it needed an "independent body" to come in. It was in Autumn 2018 that @antisemitism approached me...

... to assist in making a submission to the @EHRC to try and persuade them to enter the fray. I was skeptical, given the the UK's human rights organisations had stayed almost entirely silent (to this day, to their shame) on the issue, though I knew it was utterly necessary...

Here is the terms of reference and panel for the "Independent Review of the Human Rights Act"

Some initial thoughts

Terms of reference:

- Entirely expected that the "take into account" duty, which has been interpreted by the UK courts as a duty to follow the European Court of Human Rights where it has clearly and constantly taken a particular line, is under review...

"The impact of the HRA on the relationship between the judiciary, executive and Parliament, and whether domestic courts are being unduly drawn into areas of policy"

This is such a diffuse and difficult question to answer and ultimately depends on your definition of "policy"...

The framing of the question gives lie to this being a neutral 20-year "review". It's not, because the government plainly wants the outcome to be a finding that the HRA has led to courts "unduly" being drawn into areas of "policy"

There will be certain members of the panel, e.g. Sir Stephen Laws of the Judicial Power Project, who will argue strongly that the HRA has led to courts being "unduly" drawn into areas of policy.