Many of the rights of citizens have been violated and temporarily annulled under this pretext, including the right to religious practice:

According to Article 9: Freedom of thought, belief and religion of the International Commission of ‘Equality and Human Rights’. Same article says that under certain circumstances [i.e., public safety; public order; health or morals, and the rights and freedoms of other people] this right to religious practice can be restricted: “Public authorities cannot stop you practicing your religion, without very good reason – there are some situations in which public authorities can interfere with your right to manifest or show your thoughts, belief, and religion.” https://www.equalityhumanrights.com/en/human-rights-act/article-9-freedom-thought-belief-and-religion

Stay at home

The pandemic is an opportunity to reset and to learn some lessons that are critical for sustainable development. If not for the sake of individuals, governments should be persuaded by the need to sustain society as a whole and help it heal from the coronavirus. So human being should be follow all these rights during these crises.

Fundamental rights removed under a COVID-19 curfew or lockdown:

- the right of free movement,

- the right of congregation,

- the right of equal treatment (for businesses and shops),

- the right of schooling for children

- and much more...

The UNHRC denounced "measures to intentionally prevent or disrupt access to or dissemination of information online," stating that they violate international human rights law. The resolution also said that the rights people have offline must also be protected online. The same has been violated in the Kashmir that falls under the Indian rule. This basic human right in this new age and technology has been blocked for the past 7 months now, It was partially restored and now it has been snapped again When I say partially restored I mean, that its only 2g that working in this part of the world, it has disrupted the relief operations that were going on to help the poor survive the pandemic, The whole world is talking about 5g here we are stuck with 2g that too has been snapped for now

A state of emergency is not a justification for a blanket and random limitation of human rights. All emergency rules must pass the test of rationality. Within the context of Covid-19 the only human rights that can be limited are those necessary to prevent the spread of infection. Democratic accountability does not disappear under conditions of a public emergency. All decisions to limit human rights must be explained by decision makers.

I am interested in whether the closure of schools and the compulsory shift to home schooling has affected children's right to education. Of course there are countervailing rights such as the right of school staff to safe workplaces and rights of the community at large.

Section 36 of the Human Rights Act 2019 (Queensland) provides -

36 Right to education

(1)Every child has the right to have access to primary and secondary education appropriate to the child’s needs. (2)Every person has the right to have access, based on the person’s abilities, to further vocational education and training that is equally accessible to all.

At least following rights were (or still are) at least suppressed for a time:

Right to health (persons who came from abroad were forced to undergo quarantine in places provided by the state. There were cases where healthy people became sick because they shared the same room with sick).

Freedom of religion (all churches and similar places were forced to be closed).

Right to marry (all marriages were postponed).

Freedom of assembly and association (there was a limitation of how many people could be gathered).

Freedom of movement (there was a limitation for which reasons a person could go out of his home).

Protection of propriety (a person was not able to enjoy his/her possession, mainly for business activities).

Right to education (online education is not equivalent to standard education in its efficiency, all the more in specific areas of practical education or education of minors plus person was not able to attend the form of education that he/she wishes - the contact form).

Right to strike and right to choose his or her profession (some persons were obliged to stay at work and were not able to strike - like nurses etc.)

In Ghana one right which is affected is the right to privacy.I say this in the sense that government passed an executive instrument which makes the Telecom companies to give contacts of people who have been infected with the covid 19 as a way of contact tracing and there has been arguments all round calling on the validity of such act..

In this pandemic situation, the main question: the individual human being's rights and intersts or the whole society's are the more important. The answer can give the political actors (perhaps after consultation with the voting persons).

Most constitutions allow for "emergency" measures in time of war or great peril. That such measures are backed by coercive power can be considered rational provided the actions of one or a few directly and clearly jeopardise the safety of the majority. [Most agree that the restriction on shouting Fire in a crowded place liable to cause panic is a justifiable restriction on the right to free speech] The test is whether the suppression of individual rights is proportionate to the danger that is being avoided. And whether the assumptions on which the decision is made are reasonable, objective and transparent. The key is transparency of the decision process; time and scope limitations on the powers of the authorities; and accountability of the decision makers and those to whom temporary powers are awarded -eg Health Agencies, police, local authorities, security services.

What is clearly suspect at this time is the deference paid to the Ferguson Imperial College models whose validity is suspect and not seriously challenged. Models and algorithms are only as reliable as the data inputted. The fact that some brilliant mathematicians worked on them notwithstanding. In our case we now know that these models were woefully pessimistic and exaggerated the dangers. Therefore the extent of the rights impingement is NOT justified by the results evidence despite political claims to the contrary. However, one might also reasonably say that the Swedish decision to ignore these lockdown mandating models and go for herd immunity unduly risked the lives of Swedes and was overly deferential to the alternative let nature take its course theory.

أهم حقوق الإنسان التي تم تقييدها بسبب فيروس كورونا: الحق في التنقل، الحق في التسوق الحق في الزيارات، الحق في العمل، الحق في التعليم، الحق في السياحة ، الحق في الخروج والدخول في أي وقت

Maria Isabel Maldonado Garcia

Bengouia Mokhtar , your answer might be understood and welcomed if you have the curtesy to translate in English as it was addressed the question in the first place. Tks!

Dear Lukáš Mareček , your answer is so comprehensive and I thank you for that. To move further with this, with your consent, I would like to ask you about the firsts two positions in your answer: do you believe that the conventional medicine should accept the alternative healing processes and methods coming from religious rituals in this regard, and not banning them as they did while imposing restrictions to religious rituals amid pandemic?

Cosmin Tudor Ciocan thank you, it is an interesting question. I would maybe modify your question - if a state should suppress as a part of its restriction measures also alternative forms of healing. Because question, if conventional medicine should accept alternative methods of healing, is rather a medical than a juristic question.

What is a fact about our situation is that state suppressed all public religious rituals and also some procedures connected with healing (like massages, surgery operations that may be postponed, healing baths etc.). Basically only necessary health acts or acts connected with this coronavirus were provided. Religious healing methods were suppressed along with other healing processes.

However this is an interesting question because these religious may claim, that these methods have also capacity to heal the coronavirus and that this state regulation is discriminatory - is allowing for conventional medicine to operate in connection to coronavirus whereas is not allowing the same for alternative medicine.

I think the answer to this question lies in answer to the question - is a particular alternative form of healing really of the same efficiency as the conventional one? If the answer is yes then the state regulation is discriminatory. If the answer is not, and there is an objective difference between a conventional and alternative method that is a sound basis of the different approach by the state - hence the regulation is not discriminatory (in an unlawful sense).

Once the person alleging discrimination established a presumption of discrimination (prima facie discrimination), the burden then shifts to the defendant, which has to show that the difference in treatment is not discriminatory. So the state has to prove, that the alternative method is not as effective as a conventional one, if the state is not able to, then the state failed to sustain a burden of proof that its regulation was not discriminatory.

Point of information: The Irish High Court has dismissed John Waters and Gemma O’Doherty’s legal challenge against laws introduced by the State due to the coronavirus pandemic.

Mr Justice Charles Meenan, in dismissing their application for leave to bring their challenge, said they had not provided the court with any expert evidence or facts to support the view that the laws challenged by the applicants were disproportionate or unconstitutional.

The laws brought in by the State to help deal with the pandemic, he said in his judgement, are “constitutionally permissible”.

Michael Anderson Interesting. How did the Court dealt with the shift of the burden of proof in anti-discrimination cases?

In Irish law the fast track way to challenge administrative orders Or decrees by government is to apply for judicial review. Here a high court judge examines the case and rules whether it has sufficient substance - an arguable case - to warrant a full hearing. One makes the argument before the judge, usually on an ex parte ( one side only) basis ie no defense argument. The court considered that the case brought by 2 Investigative journalists John Waters and Gemma O’Doherty was based on unsubstantiated assertions and that they failed to establish an “arguable Case”. asserting that one‘s constitutional rights are impinged is not sufficient to prove that the measures are disproportional or unreasonable.

Report by colm Keena in Irish Times “Effort to challenge Government’s Covid-19 restrictions falls at first fence” 13 May 2020.

...and moreover, while watching the latest images of the after-relaxation process [e.g. kids in kindergarten in Tourcoing, France], and also considering the fact that this SarsCoV2 will never disappear as our threat, what if: the States of the entire world would have to consider the possibility of changing from now on some of the human rights and imposing more Legal restriction for good? Our life will never look similar to what was before a few months ago, but can we imagine a world without our most [former] fundamental rights?

As part of the International and Regional Human rights principles and standards States has the responsibilities to ensure that any enjoyment of right that will threaten national security can restricted. Hence, the government takes a preventive measure for restricting individuals to their houses. No movement and the social distances governments reactions was with good intention to prevent lives and should not be counted as denial of rights. But on the contrary, protecting the human right to life. However, where government has failed is the inadequate coverage of food distributions for citizens to cope with lockdown. Thereby violating the right to access to basic need.

great effort sir

Thanks for the commendation sir.

regarding this 'right suppression,' i can say that in our country [Romania] the State expressly asked for some religious rituals to be banned or alter indefinitely. This is not about some particular and secondary acts, but about the crucial one, of Holy Communion for public to be given with personal, single-used means, spoon or chalice. Now, when the lockdown is no longer the case, they specifically interdict the Orthodox Church to communicate Eucharist to the public. It is unprecedented and even if devotees come to Church they still cannot be publically communicated. The Orthodox Church took no stand and it only said to priests to make people wait for a common decision of all Orthodox Churches on June 1st. Awkward!

All of our churches and places of worship are closed by decree in Ireland as far as I know. That includes Mosques, Temples and Synagogues. Strangely no one has protested this or challenged it on moral grounds. Church attendance was once a religious duty that carried a sanction (ie it was a sin punishable by God that may well have prevented one entering Heaven) if one broke it. Either that religious belief is redundant or people feel it is useless to object. They may be too secularised or merely too intimidated by the Liberal media to protest it. It is largely forgotten that blasphemy laws were introduced in England (and Ireland) in 17th century not because of religious sensitivity but as a prophylactic civil protection from the wrath of an irate God. Plague, Great Fire of London, Civil War, Famine and extreme weather were regarded by many as God's punishment for (English) men's offensive behaviour. Now that God has been discounted we popularly blame suspect biological laboratories, unreliable regimes and climate warming for our misfortune. One of our formerly popular nationalist songs talks about "Faith of our Father's living still, in spite of dungeon fire and sword". Changed times and changed beliefs directly change our interpretation of Constitution and Civil Rights..

The ground of this question in my oppinion:

What is the more important for the oerson who has the right and/or possibility to take a decision: a human right or a human (or society) health?

Can make a general rule for it to take the sentences in the real situation or every situations are different, general rules can not use?

“What are the Human Rights that are violated…?”

Violation is one of degree, seldom an absolute. I regret to say, those who suffered the “absolute” violation are those who died from the Covid19 pandemic. The science of rights:

https://www.academia.edu/42973022/The_Science_of_Rights

Dear Michael T Takac , although it is not of this thread to debate on linguistics and create sophism, it is ofcourse necesary - due to your decent intervention - to state that: " To protect human rights is to ensure that people receive some degree of decent, humane treatment. To violate the most basic human rights, on the other hand, is to deny individuals their fundamental moral entitlements. " Therefore, violating rights goes from humiliation to crime and genocide, with all in between, not merely the absolute rank of it. Thank you!

Dear Cosmin, actually many rights are violated and annulled under the pandemia. So, nowadays many countries declared lockdown to control the spread of virus and establish isolation measures. In that context, individual and social rights like free meeting, education, healthy (in developing countries, also, in developed), work and others are annulled because that kind of rights supposed concentration of people. In the other hand, rights like liberty to move are violated by policies, for instance, in my country (Peru) policies and military are controlling the country under "Estado de Emergencia", but the problem is they don't take care about the citizens rights, in some cases, they violated the privacy of address or inviolability of domicile, in other cases, they hit people are walking in the night.

I think the fundamental rights being curtailed are those of Freedom- freedom of assembly - where we have been quarantined and restricted to some sort of home imprisonment;

There is also the freedom of movement when traveling has been curtailed and some cases banned

There has also been an interference in our religious life where the government has stepped in to dictate where and how to worship or to force churches to open under duress of punishment.

The separation between religion and government has been distorted in favor of the government under the fiat of protecting the citizens from infection and death

Freedom of assembly is the main fundamental right that is actually being protested, it is through social norms and mores that when taken away often leads to civil and political unrest. The right to be protected from a viral outbreak appears to be overshadowed by the basic overuse of potential constitutional violations rhetoric. There is a greater benefit to quarantine than is realized at this point. In summary, social beings have a need for social interaction, when then that ability is taken away it can lead to mental degradation

An interesting discussion. I speak only of Australia. The rights of the politicians and bureaucrats who devise the responses appear to be in full flight. We, the others, have certainly lost out freedom of movement. Many more will die from the effects of the shut down. The attempt to put the benefit of the majority ahead of the minority has probably back-fired and more will be hurt by the response than would have been the case had society been warned and requested to act responsibly. Deaths here, directly and indirectly, from bushfires, far exceed those from Covid-19. No doubt there will be many learned papers appearing over the next 12 months or so as responses and experiences around the world have been so different.

Thank you all@ for your wonderful answers and findings, either from your own experience or from research conducted! They constitute very interesting point of view and also a good pointing-start for our readers to lead further to substantiate their research.

Kertész Gábor - your proposal sounds interesting and we can propose it as a beach discussion over, in this thread, even if the ResearchGate platform is not fit for branching discussions. However, from my experience (it would be a religious one), I saw that people, religious-devotees, would rather give the latter mentioned right to indulge the former. in other words, they would preferably renounce on health measures to attending religious services. Can we blame them? Do we (the State, I mean) have the right to choose for them and not let them choose in this regard?

Galimberty R. Ponce Flores, I am sure that your experience legalizes the right to use the term 'violation' contradicted by Michael T Takac .

Emmanuel Ngwang, your experience is also very important and highly involving so that it forced you to state that. In this framework, can you tell us if, after limiting/violating the right to freedom (by quarantine or of religious expression), it isn't consequently 'normal' [read 'right'] for you to protest? Or, this right should also be violated? Are not, all this chain of refrains and restrictions and restraints of rights lead to dictatorial, communist, chauvinist obedience?

Peter MacSporran, and Peter MacSporran , Of course, when confidence in the governing force decreases or does not exist at all, then any measure of imposition is challenged - whatever the 'reason' would be stated. But, even if there were absurdly blind trust in the authorities - which is not the case anywhere, not even in communist countries - could we act like another social species, bees or ants, sacrificing ourselves entirely for the survival of ' the queen ', and this entirely voluntarily, for the sake of a' greater good '?

Good question...👍.

Very good discussions.

My contribution is that safest and more comfortable face masks will be developed. They should be made available to all at little cost or no cost when appropriate. Perhaps companies too can provide best quality masks to workers.

Quality and comfort of masks is a key element for people to wear masks.

To add on the right to move freely and right to practice our religious activities,

- the right to freedom of association

-the right to education as public schools are affected (right to equality as some private schools are having online classes)

Right to freedom of association, movement and religious freedoms.

Right to access to food is affected again as most shops are closed.

The sharing of information through social debates is greatly affected as people are restricted from gathering for whatever purpose.

I would suggest that even right to proper burial is affected as many people are being buried in accordance to WHO/ Country Covid Regulations.

Business in general has also been greatly affected.

Dear Oscar, even if we all saw and witnessed what you said, I have never thought about that specifically. You are right and this is even a strong specification about the 'right to proper burial'. Tks for your comment!

Many rights are annulled indeed. The right to gainful employment and religious expression and congregation is rather frustrating.

Probably more could be done to keep people partially employed.

Instead of full time for a few, perhaps rotation of workers could be implemented to allow at least partial work for many.

Good comment Michael A. Cretacci : "It seems to me (and some others here as well), that the people with the authority to try and impose these restrictions have no problems living their lives to the fullest". Our politicians are less than competent and coherent allover the world.

It is out of doubt that all the basic human rights have been violated (dignity, religion, speech, movement, work, education, and often forgotten! To be considered a healthy being before proved either wise). The main issue I think stands on the population's compliance based on fear conditioning for a pathogen that leads to 0.02 mortality rate (WHO-CDC). Perhaps a different theoretical frame evaluating the paradigms of this type of psychological conditioning could shed light on the worldwide attempts to shut down empirical science, reasoning and critical thinking, ethics and any Theological consideration. Maybe investigating the masses reactions and alienation could lead to a better understanding of the human rights violations easily perpetrated globally. This could only be done on a multiple level of analysis, considering the different powers and intersecting variables of this dramatic global situation. From a scientific point of view unless non-corrupted scientists can demonstrate the uselessness of the implemented measures (such as 80% false positive testing, PCR high cycles etc.) and the risks associated with non-experimented genic therapy, draconian measures will continue supported by mass media narrative and by lay people victims of fear conditioning to the point to be willing to accept the violation of human freedoms.

Something significant that I believe many in the discussion have overlooked is disability Rights specifically. Public washrooms are, in large, closed off, and public benches and other places to sit have been wholly removed. Many places that have qualified under law as "essential businesses" were never made physically accessible to people who use wheels to get around. The implications of qualifying inaccessible businesses as "essential" is that disabled people are not seen as essential to society.

Many rights of disabled people will also disappear after lockdown restrictions are removed en masse. There will always be people unable to leave their homes in order to function, and a society which allows for people to quarantine by working from home, ordering groceries, have interactions (including with doctors, therapists) mainly digital-based, is something I fear people will neglect as an important accommodation going forward. I do personally know disabled people (plural) who had to leave academia because they were told by these institutions that their needs (being able to study and work from home) were impossible to make happen. Only for a year or less later to have the institution move almost instantly into online instruction. This isn't the only instance of widespread hipocrisy regarding accessibility measures either. Plastic straws for example, are a necessary accessibility accommodation for many for whom alternatives aren't compatible; whether due to allergies, inability to wash reusable alternatives, spasms that require soft and durable straws to avoid pain/broken teeth, etc. Outside of a pandemic, the need for things like disposable plastic straws is not understood or accommodated unless by people who need them, and there were huge movements to ban plastic straws at the expense of disabled people who needed them. However, when the pandemic measures were put in place, coffee shops no longer even allowed customers to bring their own cups.

Throughout the pandemic there has also been a significant message put forth that disabled lives are inherently low-quality and expendable. Prominent figures just as much as common people on social media have outright said as much on several occasions.

Many people who do not normally need accessibility accommodations will also tend to use up limited resources for those that do, in ways that weren't as prominent before. There are also situations where standard accessibility accommodations, like allowing a personal aide or interpreter to go with someone to an in-person doctor's appointment, have also been jeopardized. Even in cases when the law is, actually, considerate and supportive of consistent human rights in this regard, average people go to great pains to avoid accomodating, which has become the status quo.

Entrances to buildings that do have multiple accessible exits have also been blocked off, leaving disabled people needing to ask strangers for help, when, normally, they would have the right of independence in this respect. Many stores have also designated certain aisles and entrances to go in directions that do not take mobility aid users into account. Personally, I have been harassed by employees while trying to enter my grocery store because I need wheels to get around, and their designated entrance had stairs (so I had to go in the designated exit). It took months before it got around to the employees that all those with wheels can't go up stairs, and that we still needed to get groceries.

Along with that, are that restaurants have frequently put their outdoor patio seating in areas which block ramps or sidewalks, necessitating that those with wheels travel several blocks (which is very physically painful for many) or even travel dangerously in the street alongside cars in order to get to their destination.

No rights whatsoever have been violated.

When a state of emergency is declared, said rights are abolished and you are to follow orders. If you were a soldier in a war, would you refuse training and how to handle the weapon and equipment that would make it possible for you to survive?

Sure go ahead and claim your rights, which is no longer is in effect and be a bullet magnet on the first engagement with the enemy.

The enemy in this case is called a virus called sars-cov-2.

It is your duty to avoid the virus bullet, and to learn to use the tools and behave in a manner on the battlefield so that you do not get shot = infected.