You do realise that the human rights act can be bypassed in certain situations don't you???
The first of these is that rights can be legitimately restricted by governments. Under the ECHR, lawful interference occurs
when rights are restricted for the purposes of “
national security, public safety… the economic wellbeing of the country… protection of health… [and] the protection of the rights and freedoms of others”.
I didn’t realise the European Human Rights Act can be bypassed, although I’m not surprised to hear that the government can.
I guess I’ve never been in the habit of looking through law in detail although that’s a nice booklet you’ve shared here that I may
read later because I’m sure I’ve heard that the UK regretfully signed up to the ECHR upon “leaving’” the EU… (Such a disappointing
decision by the UK on that one)
Your post has made me realise that mistakenly, I’ve omitted to mention the Equality Act 2010 in my post, which as it happens was
more in my thoughts at the time of writing, although the poster is displayed in Canada mentioning “human rights”, of where I know
even less about their laws that they rely upon.
It is of course the people who are medically exempt from wearing face masks that I am considering here that I feel the Canadian
poster is addressing too. As I say I don’t know Canadian rules on mask wearing, but here in the UK you can be medically exempt
from wearing a facemask, in which case one of the reasons can be having a disability (the poster mentions physical or mental disability)
The fact is, retailers in the UK have been in breach of the Equality Act 2010., with regard to their treatment of disabled people,
who are medically exempt from wearing a facemask. Whether they’ve been in breach of the European Human Rights Act also,
I’m not too sure, as I haven’t heard of any lawyer mention this Act specifically.
The second caveat is that articulated by Wendy Parmet, the director of the Center for Health Policy and Law at Northeastern University,
who posits that nobody possesses the right
to do
something that could injure the health of [their] neighbours. In essence, the right to bodily autonomy does not generate a
corresponding right to infringe on the health and safety of others.
So you can moan and bluster all you want.
The realities do not grant anybody the right to refuse to wear a mask when it is mandated. Nor do we have a right to harm others
simply because the wearing of a mask is inconvenient. The bottom line is clear. In accordance with government advice, the law, and
the prevailing scientific evidence, all those who are not medically exempt should be wearing face masks.
I'm not moaning about anything, I'm just doing my best to promote the rights of disabled people in accordance with the law, one being
the Equality Act 2010
It is interesting to note the words of a law firm.
Code:
A face “covering” falls to be regulated under the Consumer Protection Regulations. The Face Coverings Regulations are therefore - prima facie - unlawful and should not be enforced.
In the view of our legal team, the Face Coverings Regulations are ultra vires the Government’s powers but that legal argument is ongoing.
Your article shared by "The New York Times", in my opinion shows a lot of unecessary confrontation between retailers and customers, when if they followed the
good example of the Canadian retailer by just displaying an appropriately written poster serving notice could all be easily avoided. There's
absolutely no need for retailers to confront people, that is and only is the job of law enforcement. (and even then in the UK within the law)