Lives matter more than rights

The global and national lockdown is that moment in our life which clearly defines the hierarchy of the human rights we so often speak about – probably without even properly understanding.

On the face of it, the lockdown is a scientific human experiment to fight a novel virus that has altered human priorities and challenged science to extreme levels.

In political jargon, we can talk about contradictions. In real terms, however, there are no contradictions but a simple reality.

This is a moment when the right to choose does not exist. We cannot choose between life and anything. We are, in real terms, adhering to the hierarchy of human rights.

The entire global spectacle is about protecting the right to life. The right to life has always been a contentious issue when debated in the context of legal punishment.

We have always interpreted the right to life in the narrow and limited context of a death sentence or the termination of a pregnancy.

We have hardly ever considered the right to life in the context of securing life against a natural activity.

Those who died in other natural disasters, such as tsunamis, did not have the benefit that we, who are vulnerable to the Covid-19 coronavirus, have.

It might be that no one can prevent a tsunami from wiping an entire community off the face of the earth or city.

We know that a tsunami can occur at any time and that it can cause devastation. And, afterwards, those affected try to rebuild and accept the suffering that occurred as a result.

But the global health emergency has now resulted in the world trying its best to fight off calamity caused by something we can hardly even define properly.

We do not have a cure yet because we can hardly tell what the virus is. We do, however, know its capabilities.

READ: What does a Covid-19 national state of disaster mean for rights? 

What got the world to react is the real fear of everyone. No one wants to die.

Heads of state and government share the same fear as ordinary people, who are always at the risk of death because of poverty, hunger, war and other preventable natural disasters and human-engineered troubles.

Everyone is equal in the department of fear of death – from those who start and sponsor wars to those who cause environmental degradation that ignites natural disasters and those who neglect and contribute to the vulnerability of the poor.

Suddenly, in moments like this, everyone is scared of losing their lives. The devastation and implication of the virus cuts across everything.

It affects the right to health, political rights, labour rights, freedom of movement and assembly, freedom of speech, children’s rights, the right to education and all other defined human rights.

Governments have had to impose drastic measures, such as lockdowns or states of emergency, which curtail the rights of citizens. Constitutional dispensations and systems have found themselves in a seriously contradictory mode.

One of the most pronounced contradictions has been whether the executive can go as far as implementing measures which drastically curtail rights or upset the separation of powers.

Some have gone as far as attempting to challenge the measures imposed on the basis that the measures negate other fundamental rights.

A fundamental issue was raised on whether citizens should be deprived of the right to challenge the measures in courts or law, or whether the measures are permissible if they encroach upon the rights of citizens to challenge the measures in court.

The primary purpose of the measures is to control movement, including movement to go to court. Courts are affected by the lockdown.

Even judges do not want to be infected. The concept of without fear or favour cannot be interpreted to mean that judges do not fear death.

READ: SA, it's time to end our delinquency

The lockdown has taken away the right to earn a living for many as thousands will lose their jobs as the economy collapses.

No doubt this will violate the right to the human dignity of many, which is defined to include the right to work and feed one’s family.

The encroachment is serious and will leave many humiliated by hunger and poverty. Many will lose their property and many their right to education.

Scenes of police and soldiers frog-marching and kicking people in the streets represents a violation of rights.

The forced quarantine of those infected constitutes a deprivation of freedom to those affected. The men and women who are homeless have been forced into shelters against their will and wishes.

Those who did not have access to water for many years now have water tanks in their villages. Various medical facilities have suddenly become fully operational, and police and soldiers all over the land are trying to improve the safety and security of citizens.

The right to smoke or drink alcohol – if there was ever such a right – has been suspended, as has the right to practise religious beliefs.

On the face of it, the head of state exercised their powers and determined these drastic measures which curtail human rights.

But is the head of state exercising their powers voluntarily or are they just the instrument of this vicious virus? Is the head of state, like all of us, not acting out of fear for this deadly virus which can bring them down? Every head of state – except one who keeps bumbling and fumbling as citizens of his country continue to die – is in a state of automatism.

Heads of state do not have a choice but to promote, protect and fulfil only one right at this time – the right to life.

The right to work, human dignity, education, labour and all other rights now depend on whether we live to exercise them.

We do not have the right to die and we do not want to die.

The heads of state fear that we will die and they fear the same death.

The rich, who depend on us to create and maintain their wealth, do not want us to die and they fear the same death.

We do not want the rich, on whom we depend for jobs and our livelihoods, to die and we fear the same death. We do not want our children to die and we fear the same death.

We are not caught between the devil and the deep-blue sea. We are simply at the mercy of an evil virus that has the potential to wipe all of us off the face of the earth.

There is only one right that really matters now – the right to life. To imagine how a proper balance can be struck between the various rights is unimaginably complex.

The violation of other rights in the process is no small matter.

The simple reality is that the reconciliation of the right to life with other rights might just be a complex impossibility. The virus, like the devil, made heads of state do it. Citizens might have contributed by self-curtailing their rights to minimise encroachments.

Modidima Mannya is an advocate, writer and executive director of legal services at Unisa

Get in touch  City Press

+27 11 713 9001 news@citypress.co.za Media Park, 69 Kingsway Road, Auckland Park

Rise above the clutter | Choose your news | City Press in your inbox

City Press is an agenda-setting South African news brand that publishes across platforms. Its flagship print edition is distributed on a Sunday.