Northern Europe during Pandemic -- Summers 2020 & 2021 & onwards

[goboatingnow]

By the way this wasn’t Ireland’s first lockdown , during the foot and mouth cattle epidemic here , very severe travel restrictions were in place for people.

For that epidemic we actually restricted movement into and from NI , something not considered during this pandemic !!

At the time cows were important. !!! These days it’s big tech and Pharma both of which of course benefitted greatly from the pandemic

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by goboatingnow

. . . No democratic country should or could abandon its residents ( not just its citizens ) abroad. Ireland most certainly didn’t and actually went to extraordinary efforts to ensure their national residents could get home ( there was a huge tendency for people to want to come home especially at the beginning , I know people left jobs to come home )

The right to leave any country, and the right to return to your own country, is considered one of the most fundamental human rights, enshrined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and in the laws of most civilized countries. See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_of_return; also https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_movement.

[goboatingnow]

Originally Posted by Dockhead

The right to leave any country, and the right to return to your own country, is considered one of the most fundamental human rights, enshrined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and in the laws of most civilized countries. See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_of_return; also https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_movement.

Yes and like all rights it’s not unqualified , governments can and do prevent citizens from leaving or returning under specific circumstances , public health is often one

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by goboatingnow

Yes and like all rights it’s not unqualified , governments can and do prevent citizens from leaving or returning under specific circumstances , public health is often one

Sure, but public health is not enough in many countries, to trump this right. In Finland, for example, the right to freely come and go is actually in the constitution, and nothing short of a state of war justifies abridging it.


Same thing with ordering someone not to leave his home -- not possible outside of wartime, in either Finland or Sweden.

[goboatingnow]

Originally Posted by Dockhead

Sure, but public health is not enough in many countries, to trump this right. In Finland, for example, the right to freely come and go is actually in the constitution, and nothing short of a state of war justifies abridging it.


Same thing with ordering someone not to leave his home -- not possible outside of wartime, in either Finland or Sweden.

Without a comprehensive constitutional survey I don’t think either you or I can make the claim of “ many countries “

I would counterclaim that many constitutions do not offer such unconditional rights in my experience.

[goboatingnow]

While it’s true that Sweden cannot limit individual movements outside of wartime , it can limit gatherings for example

“Freedom of assembly and freedom to demonstrate may be limited in the interests of preserving public order and public safety at a meeting or demonstration, or with regard to the circulation of traffic. These freedoms may otherwise be limited only with regard to the security of the Realm or in order to combat an epidemic.”


I suggest the finish and Swedish models are in the minority and not “ many “ as you mention

Equally this is not a issue of constitutional politics. It’s what did the people want . To me here in Ireland i saw politicians being lead by a combination of public pressure and public health advice not any grand political conspiracy to subjugate their own populations ( in fact the opposite was true )

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by goboatingnow

Without a comprehensive constitutional survey I don’t think either you or I can make the claim of “ many countries “

I would counterclaim that many constitutions do not offer such unconditional rights in my experience.

I used to teach Con Law, and have done a bit of work on this, so I can in fact make this claim.

A different question, however, is the degree to which these rights can be trumped by other public interests (like controlling a pandemic), and that varies from country to country.

Finland and Sweden, where these rights can only be curtailed in actual war time, are certainly at the strong end of the spectrum. Yet no European country curtailed these rights during this pandemic, so they are not meaningless anywhere here.

Freedom of movement is a fundamental right in U.S. con law. This right has been progressively weakened over the centuries, but I believe a Constitutional challenge to Australian style border closing would stand a decent chance of success. The same jurisprudence has been used in a few successful challenges to stay at home orders.

[Baronkrak]

Originally Posted by Seaworthy Lass

Not accurate. For a time Aussie citizens and PRs were banned from returning from India.

I would not use the word banned, but reduced, when more than 30% of planes passengers came back sick with Covid.

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2021-04-...irus/100088968

[Seaworthy Lass]

Originally Posted by Baronkrak

I would not use the word banned, but reduced, when more than 30% of planes passengers came back sick with Covid.

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2021-04-...irus/100088968

Check out what happened a few days after the article you linked was written:
https://www.pm.gov.au/media/flights-...dical-supplies

Not only were citizens barred from entering if travelling from India, they could also have faced up to 5 years in jail and a $50,000 fine if they were caught returning.

There was astonishment expressed worldwide. This is just one of the numerous international reports regarding this issue:
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-australia-56953052

“This will be the first time Australians have been criminalised for returning to their country, Australian media report.”

This is not quickly forgotten.

[El Pinguino]

Originally Posted by Dockhead

Thanks; I hadn't known about South America.


As to Australia's stopping citizens from returning -- there were quotas and months-long backlogs. The freedom of citizens to come home might not have been shut down entirely, but it was severely restricted in a way which did not happen in other developed countries. Whether it was worth it or not, I can't say -- possibly this measure was the very one which produced the excellent outcome in Australia. But would not be legally possible in most developed countries.

I think New Zealand is considered 'developed' by most and they still have hotel quarantine in place for people trying to return home. That ends in a few weeks.

I think Blind Freddy's dog can see that combined with other measures it was a very efficient way of controlling the spread. As noted elsewhere most countries didn't have the luxury of sea borders but it also worked in other island states and nations in the Pacific and elsewhere. Am Samoa I think had one case, Falkland Islands two cases. Do you think that would have been the case if they still had the Latam flight turning up from Punta Arenas every week? The French Polynesian case is interesting.

Do you know how 'restricted' movement was after WW2? A two year wait for a ship to Australia from the UK - and that was as a fare paying passenger. That was due to a lack of ships, this time round it was a lack of quarantine facilities. Nada mas.

[El Pinguino]

Originally Posted by Seaworthy Lass

Check out what happened a few days after the article you linked was written:
https://www.pm.gov.au/media/flights-...dical-supplies

Not only were citizens barred from entering if travelling from India, they could also have faced up to 5 years in jail and a $50,000 fine if they were caught returning.

There was astonishment expressed worldwide. This is just one of the numerous international reports regarding this issue:
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-australia-56953052

“This will be the first time Australians have been criminalised for returning to their country, Australian media report.”

This is not quickly forgotten.

I think most Australians have forgotten it and those that haven't aren't too fussed.

One thing that is also forgotten is that the number of people trying to get home kept on growing.
Rather a lot of people were getting permission to go overseas for weddings, seeing the oldies before they popped off, etc etc. As I have already stated - I had an exit permit to go sailing within 8 hours of applying.

They then complained that they couldn't get a quarantine spot to get back in.
Then when they had that big spike in India didn't the queue grow.

Anyone with half a brain that went overseas in the last two years knew that it would be problematic getting back.

[laird]

9 new billionaires have been created from vaccine supply , biontech and moderna ceos have both gotten very rich from the vaccine

[Wotname]

The whole "banned from returning from India" thing was a storm in a teacup.

A political own goal and a short lived media beat up. Yes, it was announced and it did (rightfully IMO) get strong pushback. Dropped like a political hot potato and never tested in any court; in fact, never even any charges laid. Prolly cause there weren't any flights available anyway.

A one or two week media window that flew off the covid radar faster MH370.

Ask Canberra about either; rendang trumps tikka masala.

[Dockhead]

Denmark has once again declared an end to the pandemic. Or at least to pandemic measures. I guess they really mean it this time: Denmark, Overflowing With Virus Cases, Embraces a ‘Bring It On’ Attitude*https://nyti.ms/34qXePE

[goboatingnow]

Originally Posted by Dockhead

Denmark has once again declared an end to the pandemic. Or at least to pandemic measures. I guess they really mean it this time: Denmark, Overflowing With Virus Cases, Embraces a ‘Bring It On’ Attitude*https://nyti.ms/34qXePE

I think Greece has done this about 3 times. It’s seems however , the Virus doesn’t read government press releases.