Emergency Covid Measures Can Become Trojan Horses To Erode Human Rights Protections!
Lukman Harees
“The rights of every man are diminished when the rights of one man are threatened.” ~ John F. Kennedy
Although many analysts have been calling this dreaded Corona crisis, as “a great leveller” that does not discriminate in terms of social status and is not deterred by borders, UK’s BBC TV anchor Emily Maitlis, interestingly called it a myth which needs debunking. She has received quite a bit of praise on Twitter for her opening remarks on her latest Newsnight programme. She called out the language surrounding the coronavirus crisis and denounced the suggestion that the pandemic would impact everyone equally. “The disease is not a great leveller, the consequences of which everyone, rich or poor, suffers the same. Those on the front line right now — bus drivers and shelf stackers, nurses, care home workers, hospital staff and shop keepers — are disproportionately the lowest paid members of our workforce. They are more likely to catch the disease because they are more exposed. Those who live in tower blocks and small flats will find the lockdown a lot tougher. Those who work in manual jobs will be unable to work from home.”. Yes! Thus , on a closer look, the ground realities are belying this widely believed phenomenon of being a great leveller. The crisis does not affect all equally; thus ‘the great leveller’ turns out to be a sickly myth that we are all in this together.
Of course, this is the first crisis in our living memory where all of us are truly in it together. Privileged people are feeling very vulnerable for the first time. However, although the virus doesn’t discriminate, we do know that certain groups appear to be at greater risk of severe illness and death. For some, this is a time of grand inconvenience, of undoubted stress, of a self-evident loss of freedom. For others, this is both a national and personal disaster, a present defined by turmoil and of futures snatched away. When risk and uncertainty affects the wealthy, the welfare of vulnerable people may be neglected. According to the WHO, older people and people with pre-existing medical conditions (such as asthma, diabetes or heart disease) seem to be more vulnerable to becoming severely ill with the virus. People living in poverty and homelessness will find it much harder to access preventive measures. They may be working on zero-hour contracts, reliant on benefits and subject to punitive measures for example in the UK, under the system of Universal Credit. Millions of daily wage workers are queuing up to obtain government hand-outs in the developing countries. Wide appeals by the health authorities that people should stay at home if they’re feeling unwell or begin to stockpile food in response to the coronavirus outbreak may be well-intentioned guidance, but it may also fail to take into account the most vulnerable groups of society. It is an amplifier of existing inequalities, injustices and insecurities. As the pandemic spreads far and wide, nations are facing the grim reality of undergoing the devastating impact it is having now on families, friends and communities, and will continue to have into the unforeseeable future, precipitating a serious human rights crisis.
International law underscores the primary responsibility of states to guarantee protection, protects human rights, facilitates humanitarian assistance and promotes durable solutions including through access to effective remedies for international human rights and humanitarian law violations. However, humanitarian crises — including man-made conflicts, natural disasters and pandemics — almost invariably result in immense human suffering, threats and violations of international human rights and humanitarian law..Humanitarian crises often result in or exacerbate human rights concerns. In addition, deteriorating human rights situations may trigger crises and increase humanitarian needs of affected populations.
The protection of human rights is central to ensuring an effective humanitarian response. However, how protection is operationalized in practice is contested in certain contexts. The challenge is to devise strategies to ensure that in all circumstances the protection of human rights and engagement in humanitarian action are mutually reinforcing rather than ‘traded off’ against each other. Recent decades have seen a progressive erosion of hard-won economic and social rights, deepening social inequalities, the expansion of precarious work and the regression of the welfare state in a growing number of countries.This has been accompanied by a backlash against human rights, leading in some cases to the criminalisation of social movements and rising populism, nationalism and xenophobia.
As concerns grow about how the coronavirus crisis might threaten human rights around the world, the United Nations is calling on countries to adopt a more cooperative, global and human rights-based approach to the pandemic, which Secretary-General António Guterres has called “a human crisis”. As Amnesty International said,’ today, human rights are central to the situation we all face. At their heart, human rights are both a protection from the power of the state and a demand that our governments use their considerable power to protect lives, health and wellbeing. It added,(in the UK context) ‘Government ensures human rights are at the centre of all prevention, preparedness, containment and treatment efforts, in order to best protect public health, welfare, and support the groups and individuals most at risk. The government must provide full economic support to protect people’s right to a home, to work and to an adequate standard of living. They will need to take action and extend the arms of state protection and support, perhaps more widely than ever before”. This applies to developing countries as well.
“Censorship, discrimination and arbitrary detention have no place in the fight against the coronavirus epidemic,” said Nicholas Bequelin, Regional Director at Amnesty International. “Human rights violations hinder, rather than facilitate, responses to public health emergencies, and undercut their efficiency.”. Human rights are our roadmap for peace times and times of crisis; our government must thus ensure that its response has these rights front and centre in decision-making and does not make the situation worse. This crisis begs for a bailout for the most vulnerable, a sort of people’s quantitative easing. This is a human rights principle as well: attention to the most vulnerable individuals must be prioritised in times of financial crises and emergencies. But the issue goes beyond human rights. We are talking about what a country wants to be known for, even what it is. Societies that prioritise fairness will do best out of this crisis. NZ can be cited as an example.
The Government has an obligation to take steps to protect people’s lives and this will involve restrictions on individual freedoms. But in times of crisis, states have a habit of ignoring human rights perspectives, reaching for intrusive surveillance and even harsh criminal punishments. Our governments have now headed in that direction too. This is not the answer. It is needed to make sure that no one has to sacrifice their rights and instead fairness, equality and dignity underpin the coronavirus response.
A joint statement of UN human rights experts stated, “Everyone, without exception, has the right to life-saving interventions and this responsibility lies with the government. The scarcity of resources or the use of public or private insurance schemes should never be a justification to discriminate against certain groups of patients. Everybody has the right to health.” On the enjoyment of all human rights by older persons, the statement said, ‘These are the groups among the most at risk in this pandemic; they should not also be at risk because of the response’. In addition to the greater risk of severe illness and death from the virus, discriminatory attitudes and actions threaten older people’s rights. It is alarming that a ‘Telegraph, UK’ newspaper opinion piece about the economic impact of the coronavirus stating that the death of older people could actually be beneficial by “culling elderly dependents.” In a March 22 interview, Ukraine’s former health minister said people over 65 are already “corpses” and the government should focus its COVID-19 efforts on people “who are still alive.”
