The ‘sacrifice’ of human rights during an unprecedented pandemic: Reflections on survey-based evidence

IF 0.3 4区 社会学 Q3 LAW South African Journal on Human Rights Pub Date : 2021-04-03 DOI:10.1080/02587203.2021.2009740
N. Bohler-Muller, B. Roberts, S. Gordon, Y. D. Davids
{"title":"The ‘sacrifice’ of human rights during an unprecedented pandemic: Reflections on survey-based evidence","authors":"N. Bohler-Muller, B. Roberts, S. Gordon, Y. D. Davids","doi":"10.1080/02587203.2021.2009740","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract Twenty-five years into our constitutional democracy the Covid-19 pandemic led President Ramaphosa to declare a state of national disaster in terms of the Disaster Management Act 57 of 2002 (DMA). Strict lockdown regulations promulgated under the DMA had a clear bearing on human rights, such as the rights of religious observance, assembly and demonstration, association, movement, trade, and education. In the case of De Beer v Minister of Cooperative Governance and Traditional Affairs (2020), the High Court declared some of the regulations promulgated under lockdown levels four and three irrational and thus unconstitutional. Yet the question we ask is, do ordinary South Africans support the limitation of their rights? To provide insight we analyse data from the University of Johannesburg and Human Sciences Research Council (UJ/HSRC) Covid-19 Democracy Survey, which was administered using a data free mobile platform from April 2020 to January 2021. Over three survey rounds, the willingness to sacrifice human rights remained high. Throughout the pandemic, the role of public opinion has been largely overlooked. The Covid-19 Democracy Survey served as one way to facilitate democratic participation as it allowed people to express their views, opinions and concerns about the virus and living under lockdown. This article discusses human rights ‘sacrifice’ in the specific context of this pandemic. It is argued that limiting certain constitutionally protected freedoms discussed herein may be necessary during a national disaster to ‘flatten the curve’ and protect oneself and others, but that careful attention should be paid to non-discrimination, dignity and the temporary nature of rights limitations.","PeriodicalId":44989,"journal":{"name":"South African Journal on Human Rights","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.3000,"publicationDate":"2021-04-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"4","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"South African Journal on Human Rights","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/02587203.2021.2009740","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"LAW","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 4

Abstract

Abstract Twenty-five years into our constitutional democracy the Covid-19 pandemic led President Ramaphosa to declare a state of national disaster in terms of the Disaster Management Act 57 of 2002 (DMA). Strict lockdown regulations promulgated under the DMA had a clear bearing on human rights, such as the rights of religious observance, assembly and demonstration, association, movement, trade, and education. In the case of De Beer v Minister of Cooperative Governance and Traditional Affairs (2020), the High Court declared some of the regulations promulgated under lockdown levels four and three irrational and thus unconstitutional. Yet the question we ask is, do ordinary South Africans support the limitation of their rights? To provide insight we analyse data from the University of Johannesburg and Human Sciences Research Council (UJ/HSRC) Covid-19 Democracy Survey, which was administered using a data free mobile platform from April 2020 to January 2021. Over three survey rounds, the willingness to sacrifice human rights remained high. Throughout the pandemic, the role of public opinion has been largely overlooked. The Covid-19 Democracy Survey served as one way to facilitate democratic participation as it allowed people to express their views, opinions and concerns about the virus and living under lockdown. This article discusses human rights ‘sacrifice’ in the specific context of this pandemic. It is argued that limiting certain constitutionally protected freedoms discussed herein may be necessary during a national disaster to ‘flatten the curve’ and protect oneself and others, but that careful attention should be paid to non-discrimination, dignity and the temporary nature of rights limitations.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
前所未有的大流行病期间人权的“牺牲”:对基于调查的证据的思考
摘要在我国宪政民主二十年后,新冠肺炎大流行导致拉马福萨总统根据2002年第57号《灾害管理法》(DMA)宣布国家进入灾难状态。DMA颁布的严格封锁规定对人权有着明确的影响,如宗教仪式、集会和示威、结社、运动、贸易和教育的权利。在De Beer诉合作治理和传统事务部长案(2020年)中,高等法院宣布在第四级和第三级封锁下颁布的一些法规不合理,因此违宪。然而,我们要问的问题是,普通南非人支持限制他们的权利吗?为了提供见解,我们分析了约翰内斯堡大学和人类科学研究委员会(UJ/HSRC)新冠肺炎民主调查的数据,该调查于2020年4月至2021年1月使用无数据移动平台进行。在三轮调查中,牺牲人权的意愿仍然很高。在整个疫情期间,公众舆论的作用在很大程度上被忽视了。新冠肺炎民主调查是促进民主参与的一种方式,因为它允许人们表达他们对病毒和封锁生活的看法、意见和担忧。本文讨论了在这一流行病的具体背景下人权的“牺牲”。有人认为,在国家灾难期间,限制本文讨论的某些受宪法保护的自由可能是必要的,以“拉平曲线”并保护自己和他人,但应谨慎注意非歧视、尊严和权利限制的暂时性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
0.70
自引率
77.80%
发文量
17
期刊最新文献
Consulting citizens: Addressing the deficits in participatory democracy Ubuntu, human rights and sustainable development: Lessons from the African Arbitration Academy’s Model Bilateral Investment Treaty Should employees be entitled to legal representation during disciplinary hearings in South Africa? Research handbook on economic, social and cultural rights Augmentative and alternative communication in the South African justice system: Potential and pitfalls
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1