A short thread on why I am dubious that the government can lawfully impose charges on travellers entering the UK for quarantine and testing (proposed at £1,750 and £210)

1/

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

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.

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...

There's a tragic irony to Johnson's love of Churchill.

When Churchill became prime minister, he said: "I have nothing to offer but blood, toil, tears and sweat". He was honest about the severity of the situation and what it entailed. He didn't pretend everything would magically be alright.

Johnson's approach is the exact opposite. He runs from bad news like a dog from fireworks. He invents nonsense timetables by which everything will be fine.

He assumes the public need constant good news and sacrifices his own trustworthiness in order to provide it - it'll be over in six weeks, by Easter, by summer, by Christmas, by February, whatever.

It's equivalent to Churchill using his first speech as PM to insist the war will be over by Christmas.

1/8 Britain is in almost complete lockdown. Nine months since the first. Europe is closing its borders to the British. Across Europe the pandemic is worsening. The US has over 300,000 dead. Far from getting better, the situation in the West is getting worse. The West has failed.

2/8 At what point will the West wake up to the fact this is an historic crisis of Western government, society and culture? Without a vaccine, the West has shown that it cannot deal with the virus. It has been forced to admit defeat and live with it. And it is losing the battle.

3/8 The West likes to think it is cosmopolitan. Wrong. It is increasingly provincial in its mentality. East Asian societies have conquered Covid-19. We barely even acknowledge the fact. We desperately try to ignore that China has succeeded where we have catastrophically failed.

4/8 If the West was cosmopolitan it would seek to learn from East Asia, ask why it is successful. Yet the worse things get, the less curious the West has become about East Asia. This is the story of the West as a failing, self-absorbed, inward-looking culture and civilization.

5/8 The success of East Asia, with China at its heart, has many explanations including: 1. Competent and strategic government; 2. Great respect amongst the people for government and authority; 3. A deep commitment to society and social bonds rather than selfish individualism.

An assessment of Johnson's press conference
Pros:
1. He has finally acted (better late than never)
2. He has extended the furlough scheme
3. He recognises test and trace needs to improve

Cons:
1. Even though coming 6 weeks after the SAGE call, with cases, hospitalisations and dealths now some 10 times as high, the measures are STILL weaker than proposed (e.g. no move to online teaching in universities)

2. No acknowledgement of the failures of the testing system, beyond numbers of tests (e.g. the falling proporttion of contacts being traced) and the need to root it in local public health structures.

3. A call for people to self-isolate, but no mention of the support needed to help people to do what is necessary: empty exhortations in the place of practical help.

4. No reversal of the laissez faire approach which simply hands over responsibility to others - employers, owners, head-teachers etc. - to create COVID safe facilities. No help to make this happen, no inspection to ensure it happens.

The DUP is literally entirely at fault for the Irish Sea Border.

Its MPs held the balance of power when the crucial decisions were made, and cast the defining votes which made sure there would be one.

Let us just remember...

1/6

Shortly after the Referendum a DUP MP went on the radio to say there were no checks and the Norway-Sweden border.

He refused to apologise and accept this error even when he was shown pictures of the checks...

2/6

Another DUP MP then *visited* the Norway-Sweden border and argued the UK-Ireland border could be just like it.

Again, she was told clearly that it would only be like it if the UK were as close to the EU as Norway is.

*She then cast votes to make sure it wouldn't be.*

3/6

DUP MPs were then warned *during a parliamentary debate* that too great a distance from the EU could lead to food shortages.

One literally replied: "We'll just go to the chippy".

4/6

The DUP was also constantly warned that any regulatory border for goods would apply in the Irish Sea, because it is easier to apply these things where vehicles are already naturally stopped. Over and over and over again it was told this.

5/6