%20(2).png)
In a backdrop of chaos and fear surrounding the outbreak of COVID-19, one thing has remained relatively consistent: evident difference in global responses to the pandemic. Unfortunately, despite the calls of the World Health Organization’s (WHO) Director General for states to develop a ‘comprehensive blended strategy’ to tackling the Coronavirus, the current landscape presents a clear dichotomy in response methods. States are either focusing on the needs and rights of the individual or of the collective.
Following the ever-evolving preventive mechanisms for the outbreak of the coronavirus, the definitions of ‘individual’ and ‘collective’ have become increasingly apparent. China’s stringent and authoritarian measures have attracted both praise and criticism when compared to the individualistic, laissez-faire approach that several leading Western states, such as the USA and United Kingdom, have taken. According to the WHO, China’s ‘effectiveness’ in the prevention of the spread of the virus should be a ‘lesson’ for other countries tackling COVID-19 in Europe. Many qualified rights of individuals in European countries have been stripped to safeguard the general public. However, these draconian mechanisms have pushed human rights activists to question the expense of the human toll of China’s efforts to prevent the spread. One example of this toll is the ‘silent suffering’. As many global platforms are banned in China, Chinese nationals have been unable to disclose information about the spread of coronavirus, shutting them off from the rest of the world. Censorship reached Chinese private messaging apps, where individuals could no longer share stories or express concerns regarding the virus. Such great suppression of the freedom of expression (Art 19(2) ICCPR) leads us to question whether the ends really justify the means.
China’s approach arguably has many parallels with international humanitarian law used in times of crisis, such as the Geneva Conventions: a lessening of human rights standards in times of war or emergency. President Xi Jinping’s early declaration that China was facing a people’s war against COVID-19 quickly established a collectivist mentality to China’s swift and severe measures to contain the virus, such as quarantining the city of Wuhan on the 23rd January 2020. As radical and inconvenient this measure seemed to the 11 million people of Wuhan, this was not a time to focus on the individual needs of citizens but on the collective good of stopping the virus’ spread. Much of Europe has adopted China’s stringency, such as Spain’s application of the ‘Ley Orgánica (4/1981)’ that provides legislative power under Art.4(b) to activate a ‘state of alarm’ in times of medical crisis. Such extreme restrictive measures see individuals receiving fines of up to €600,000 for leaving their quarantines. Such measures have been set in place for the protection of the collective but largely ignore individual needs.
In Italy, which has taken a similar stance to COVID-19, a viral video by the actor Luca Franzese has surfaced. Forced to quarantine alongside the body of his dead sister, Mr Franzese’s experience revealed the reality of government reluctance towards testing for the virus and the lack of empathy towards individual rights.
In light of President Trump’s proclamation of an ‘invisible enemy’ or President Macron’s direct assertion that ‘we are at war’, the question has to be posed as to whether the law should continue to reflect a more martial stance, putting the needs of the collective populace above individual human rights.
Per the WHO, the number of new coronavirus cases in China has fallen to just 39 in comparison to 15,084 new cases across the remainder of the globe. Whilst this shows that the effectiveness of China’s collective method of containing the virus cannot be doubted, the dissenting voices are given credence through lapses in autonomy caused by a loosening of human rights’ standards. Drawing on the now well-publicised silencing of Li Wenliang by the Chinese authorities, Nicholas Bequelin of Amnesty International has stated that such interferences with the individual right to freedom of expression have been a root cause of the pandemic. The suppression of the late Dr Wenliang only served to prevent a transparent fight against the virus in its formative stages through restricting the expressive autonomy of a medical professional. Therefore, to disregard individual rights, such as by suppressing information, may hinder the fight against COVID-19.
The harshly collectivist approach has also backfired in Thailand, where two Thai men were jailed for two years for spreading ‘fake news’ about the coronavirus. Though this can be perceived as a harsh but necessary restriction of human rights to enforce public order in a turbulent environment, it has also been criticised as a gateway to the stifling of dissenting voices and a clearly disproportionate limitation of the freedom of expression. The crime must fit the time, and the reality is that human rights standards are becoming one of the thousands of casualties of the coronavirus, falling by the wayside in the name of collectivism.
Despite the clear flaws in prioritising the ‘collective good’, focusing entirely on the rights of the individual seems to be similarly harmful. Though an excess of authoritarianism blights the approaches of China and others, Western states such as the USA have been slow to act. Such a laissez-faire attitude has left many Americans feeling exposed and rudderless. Consequently, even the International Chamber of Commerce, one of the most prominent symbols of individualism and capitalism, has called for a collectivist approach in conjunction with the WHO.
Starved for choice with regard to response methods for COVID-19, it seems that a collectivist approach is the best option, prizing the best interests of the wider population as opposed to a narrow focus on self-interested individuals. However, if a collectivist framework is to become the universal norm in this turbulent period, we must be wary. Human rights are not a luxury. Though some rights may be qualified, the principles of integrity and respect for the individual should be respected. The pandemonium surrounding the coronavirus is not an excuse to disregard human rights.