Most rights end at a nation's border and most rights are a balance of conflicting interests. The former may be wrong, but it is the way of the world. The latter means that one person's rights may have to be restricted to protect the rights of another. Failing to recognize this by painting everything as contrasts is your choice, but it most certainly does not mean you are right.
Police investigative powers are an example of this balancing of rights. They need investigative powers to enforce the laws which protect our freedoms. The flip side is that investigative powers can easily be twisted to become surveillance, then be used to take away our freedoms. I don't know what the solution to this conflict is. I don't think anyone knows, which is why the state automatically seeks overreaching powers and the opposition seeks prohibition rather than offering solutions.
Fundamentally disagree. Locking citizens in their own homes nationwide is terrible precedence for “balance of rights”. If that’s what “balance of rights” looks like then I have a history book to sell you.
I am trying to figure out whether you are arguing that rights must be absolute or that rights do not exist. If it is the former, I will point out that the rights of one person can infringe upon the rights of other people or the rights of one person can be used to repress other people. Simply put, rights are never absolute. In the latter case, I will simply point out that rights are a social construct. As a social construct, they very much exist yet society will be in an eternal struggle to define what rights are.
At the most basic level: if people don’t leave, they can’t come back with the virus.
Also, we’ve instituted mandatory hotel quarantine for anyone coming to Australia. But hotel quarantine only has a certain number of places; if less people leave Australia, then less people will come back and fill up hotel quarantine spaces.
I think the real reason is even more nefarious - by making this change they are dissuading expats from coming back at all. Why come back and use up a quarantine slot when you know you'll have trouble leaving again. Better just skip Christmas this year (again).
Indeed. It’s kind of amazing that Singapore, often accused of being overly authoritarian, took a much softer approach to Covid than Australia.
You could always leave. Citizens and PRs could always come back (although if they left after a certain date they had to pay for their care if they got Covid).
Even immigrants workers could leave. You needed permission to come back, but unless Covid was raging they took in quite a lot of workers.
This is true however return for foreigners was never guaranteed. It has opened up only very recently. I've been stuck in Singapore for 2 years as of last weekend.
Sure, but plenty of foreigners have left and returned and many new foreigner workers have entered.
You are right there was no guarantee you could return if Covid cases exploded, but there was at least a decent pathway. Australia from what I gathered put up as many obstacles as possible AND requires permission to leave.
Nope - because the rich are all sorts of capable of being granted the 'exemptions' to do as they wish anyway. (I'm an Australian citizen with family in Melbourne who has lived in the US for 15 years).
Exemptions have been granted for people who were told "if you can fly charter, not commercial, you can be exempted", and other things that are (while certainly risk reducing) very much "show me the money". i.e. exactly the people who will be engaging in tax minimization/avoidance/dodging.
Me? Best hope my elderly parents don't get unwell.
I have mocked the anti-maskers and especially anti-vaxxers, but this crosses a line on the other end of the spectrum.
I would only support an actual ban on mobility if it were to quarantine the virus in one place, like if the Chinese had locked down Wuhan before it managed to get out.
That ship has sailed of course. It’s all over the damn place, so there is not much to be gained by travel bans.
Police investigative powers are an example of this balancing of rights. They need investigative powers to enforce the laws which protect our freedoms. The flip side is that investigative powers can easily be twisted to become surveillance, then be used to take away our freedoms. I don't know what the solution to this conflict is. I don't think anyone knows, which is why the state automatically seeks overreaching powers and the opposition seeks prohibition rather than offering solutions.