Wellbeing is political… experiencing ‘social shock’

by Caroline Bald, lecturer and researcher in the Centre for Social Work and Social Justice, University of Essex 

The sheer speed at which the Covid-19 pandemic has changed our daily lives, bringing with it a new language and daily routine, is of a scale an elderly neighbour, whom I’ve waved to many times but still don’t know by name, considers only akin to his childhood experience during the Second World War, where even then “we could hear the bombs.”  The otherworldliness hit when returning to this blogpost after only a matter of days.  So many have moved to online communication for the first time;  workspaces hastily put together;  empty streets and marked out queues at shops.

Coronavirus has in ways never before in our lifetime highlighted wellbeing and health as a political issue. One might call it the phenomenon of ‘capitalism meets coronavirus’.  Many sit down each evening to hear the British Prime Minister speak in words unheard of just a few weeks ago.  Some, meanwhile, are profiteering in a newly opened market.  Events of the last week have helped to reinforce my view that wellbeing is indeed political and always has been (Bache and Scott, 2017).  The crisis is forcing many, for the first time, to reflect on what previously was taken for granted: access to food, shelter, money and services, reinforcing Maslow’s hierarchy of needs.

 

This article is an attempt to capture and reflect on wellbeing narratives in this historically significant moment, as I venture to ask if we are seeing a collective sea change as a form of ‘social shock’ or a “paradise built in hell”, or is this neoliberal business as usual, with a new face?

 

Wellbeing as a public discourse

In an age of identity politics, resilience is considered a key characteristic, with the ability to bounce back forming a pervasive discourse.  My research has explored wellbeing as a discourse, related to power and privilege.  Never before, in my experience, has wellbeing and collectivity been quite so foremost in discussion and in the media.  Our new-found shared socialism, such as the ‘volunteer army’, supporting the NHS, or the national #clapforcarers campaign, at first glance, appears encouraging.  However, the new language of wellbeing is unsettling; from ‘herd immunity’ to ‘social distancing’ to ‘lockdown’.  It is the language of war and science, with models and mobilisation being presented alongside talk by a Chancellor for whom party political rhetoric now seems a world away.   The unseen Covid-19 virus has become a common enemy, while questions remain about where it came from, and how to ‘turn the tide’ against it.

Workers, who just a few weeks ago were labelled ‘unskilled’, are now heroes, and hotels have given the homeless shelter, with any businesses involved in pandemic profiteering being rejected and policed.  The Government has pledged help for businesses and the self-employed, and following an online campaign, free parking is now being provided for NHS staff, and there are reports of the Government challenging Travelodge’s decision to evict vulnerable homeless families.  Yet still, while it may appear that there is a new age of compassion, there is a need to pause and consider whether change this sudden can last.

When previously presenting on wellbeing, I was often met with attempts to ‘psychologise’ or ‘medicalise’ the subject.  At one point, I advocated taking the ‘woolly out of wellbeing’ after discussions settled on problematising, if not at times even ‘weaponising’, wellbeing from what was essentially an intention that a ‘good life’ should be grounded in human rights.  What constitutes a good life has been the source of debate through the ages, largely centring on individual liberty and collective responsibility, and politics too may be most commonly understood as party political with a dualism between individualism and collectivism.  What we are bearing witness to now is a blurring of political lines and the spectacle of a Conservative Chancellor of the Exchequer using the policies of socialism alongside the language of compassion and kindness.

Reflecting on the right to a social life as fundamental to wellbeing, it is interesting to note that the terms ‘self-isolation’ and ‘social distancing’, may appear to be concepts attached to this current pandemic, but in fact are nothing new.  There has been much discussion in recent years of isolation as a real danger to mental health, with evidence to suggest that loneliness, particularly among the elderly, can kill.  Yet in the last fortnight we have been presented with ‘social distancing’ as a measure that will save lives.  Supermarkets are trialling ‘golden hours’ where vulnerable and older adults, and now NHS staff are able to ‘shop safely’, with the intention of offering them access to products at a time when food supply has never been more challenged.  This also brings with it, however, the concern that supermarkets may become ‘superspreader’ hives of infection, putting essential workers and the vulnerable at risk.

 

Balancing rights with emergency legislative measures

The Coronavirus Act 2020 came into force last week, bringing with it sweeping changes to liberty and collective responsibility.  The necessary speed of the legislative process serves to illustrate what certainly is a time of exceptional circumstance.  However, human rights experts have raised concerns about the breadth of the legislation’s impact.  In addition to the Act giving police greater authority, such as being able to ‘stop and disperse’,  Section 14 (1) of the Act removes the duty on Local Authorities to assess and provide care needs for adults, many of whom will be elderly and from the very groups that the current focus is on protecting.  In the space of just a few months,  wellbeing public policy has shifted from paternalism to patronism to preservation, all to be in place for the next two years, conceding a late challenge from opposition parties to allow for six monthly reviews.

 

Wellbeing and work

The nexus of wellbeing and work has been seen in the public debate about how best to manage the risk to health and wealth.    The current public health narrative of ‘stay safe/stay home’ contrasts with the established ‘wealth before health’ narrative of neoliberal policy, evident in the Government’s initial response to the crisis, which resulted in criticism of the ‘herd immunity’ strategy, and its implications for the vulnerable.  Richard Branson’s request for government help for the airlines prompted a swell of opinion against the billionaire, whose firm announced all staff must take two month’s unpaid leave, highlighting the tension between public and privately held wealth.  And while social gatherings are being dispersed by police, some workers face corporate policies forcing them to risk their health to attend work or lose their income.

As academics we have moved quickly to remote, online working without necessarily considering this as a blurring of the personal and professional.  Increased working in the virtual space has also expanded and enriched opportunities for data harvesting, with the Cambridge Analytica scandal long forgotten.  There are increasing concerns about the loosening of general data protection regulation (GDPR), including the apparent unquestioned move to online resources, like Zoom, a platform the Ministry of Defence now no longer uses, due to security risks.  In the understandable haste to respond, firm boundaries have become fluid, including emergency registration for health and care professionals, possible relaxation of disclosure and barring service (DBS) checks for volunteers and early release from prison.

 

The inequality of wellbeing

Finally, it is important to reflect on the inequality of wellbeing, particularly now.  From the recent ‘Imagine’ Gal Gadot-led penthouse sing-a-long to the wave of personalised emails from big business CEOs, assuring that the wellbeing of their staff is paramount.  What about those on zero-hour contracts or working in sweatshops?  These issues still remain and the plight of those workers is only deepened by this crisis.  The U.S. has reported a sharp increase in gun sales, with queues that paradoxically respect social distancing practices.  Lord Price, former CEO of Waitrose, recommended a relaxation of limits to the number of driving hours to assist with fulfilment of deliveries.  Many are now collating a list of those companies who have responded economically, though not necessarily ethically.

All this has led me to consider whether wellbeing will continue to be collectively understood as political.  I truly hope so, but I suspect business will need a little help to overcome this ‘shock’ into being ‘social’.  After the crisis is over, will health continue to be recognised as trumping wealth?  Will we remember the NHS heroes once the dust settles?  We are seeing the positive impact on the natural world with CO2 emissions declining in China, the ‘Amazonian effect’ being widened as nature ‘fights’ back.  Our right to wellbeing, unharmed by air pollution, policing excesses, street-level bureaucracy or enforced isolation remains paramount.  I ask in the coming months we stay safe, we stay ‘virtually’ social and we reflect on how wealth before health has not served human rights well.

 

ABOUT THE AUTHOR

Caroline Bald is a criminal justice social worker,  post-graduate research student, lecturer and researcher in the Centre for Social Work and Social Justice and Programme Lead for the Masters in Social Work and Human Rights.  Caroline is currently researching how students make sense of wellbeing in social work education with a view to informing care profession critical pedagogy.  As a critical theorist, she writes about social work education and criminal justice practice.  Caroline runs a ‘TwitterChat’ for social work academics and students every Thursday 7-8pm GMT for resources, collaboration and activism #SWjoinin 

 

 

International Human Rights News: Focus on Coronavirus

by  Lauren Ng, Pauline Canham, Alana Meier, Bethany Webb-Strong,  Amita Dhiman

This week the HRC Blog editorial team has been looking at specific areas of rights affected by the accelerating spread of coronavirus around the world.  The challenges we are facing are unprecedented in our lifetimes and after being asked to self-limit our freedoms, the UK Prime Minister went a step further on Monday by ‘instructing’ the British public to stay at home’.

 

Right to Health

Article 12 of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights obligates states to take steps towards ensuring the full realization of the right to physical and mental health for all.

In countries where no public healthcare system is in place, for instance the United States, the disparity in health becomes more apparent, with individuals from lower socio-economic classes being disproportionately affected.  In the USA, 28.6 million people are not covered by any form of health insurance.  According to the World Health Organisation, although the majority infected will recover and not need any treatment, 1 in 6 people will become severely ill and will require emergency medical attention, something that many fear they will be unable to afford.

In addition, the fast-spreading nature of coronavirus has led to the overburdening of even the most robust public healthcare systems.  Italy’s healthcare system, considered one of the best in the world, has been stretched beyond its capacity.  As a result of the lack of resources available, compared to demand, doctors have been forced to make decisions about treatment priorities, based on who has the best chance of survival.

The number of cases in the United Kingdom has been following a similar trajectory to that of Italy and within two to three weeks is expected to be facing the same difficult dilemmas in the NHS.  With the NHS still yet to recover from austerity measures, the right to health will be stretched to the limit with the steadily increasing pressure of the pandemic.

 

Freedom of information

Enshrined within the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights is the right to freedom of expression, which includes the ‘right to …receive and impart information…’  and this is particularly important during a time of global crisis, when events are fast moving and advice is changing on a daily basis.

In Ethiopia, the Government is using the internet and telephone services to raise awareness about the spread of coronavirus.  However, many people are not getting the messages because the Government has shut down these services in areas of military operation against rebel forces, and is refusing to reconnect them.  This is leaving communities unaware and vulnerable.

North Korea, meanwhile is withholding the release of figures of those affected by COVID-19 and a source has reported that deaths likely to have been from COVID-19 are being classified as pneumonia and quickly cremated to avoid scrutiny.

In Brazil, Jair Bolsonaro has attacked what he calls media hysteria, and labelled coronavirus just “a little flu”, claiming that citizens were being “tricked”.  He also criticised officials in some Brazilian states who are taking the pandemic seriously by imposing lockdowns, dismissing such measures as unnecessary.

With fake news and conspiracy theories spreading faster than the virus, accurate and trusted information is critical during this crisis.  ‘The Conversation’, an independent source of information from the academic and research community, talks about how to tell fact from fiction.

 

Right to Water and Sanitation

March 22 was World Water Day, a day designated by the United Nations to celebrate progress towards the goal of ensuring access to water and sanitation for all.  However, at a time when water supplies are increasingly threatened by climate change, overuse, and pollution, the coronavirus has highlighted the immense work that still needs to be done.

Ensuring the human right to water and sanitation – a right recognized by the United Nations through Resolution 64/292 and derived from Arts. 11 and 12 of the ICESCR (as per General Comment No. 15) – is thus critical in preventing the exposure and spread of COVID-19.

“Wash your hands thoroughly and frequently” is one of the key instructions experts are giving to reduce the risk of becoming infected with coronavirus.  The World Health Organization notes that water, sanitation, and hygiene (WASH) are the first lines of defense against infectious disease outbreaks such as COVID-19.  But what if you are one of the 780 million people who lack access to an improved water source, 3 billion who lack basic handwashing facilities, or over half of the world’s population that does not have access to safe sanitation services?

Examples of groups that are disproportionately impacted by a lack of access to clean water and proper sanitation, and thus more susceptible to contracting coronavirus include prison populations, the homeless, households facing water shutoffs, and 30% of the world’s urban population living in overcrowded areas, in shanty-towns, or slum-like conditions.  With this in mind, states must prioritize efforts to ensure the additional needs and rights of already marginalized and vulnerable groups are being considered.

 

Rights for those living in refugee camps

As Europe is hit hard by the outbreak of COVID-19, Greece faces the potential impact on refugee camps.  Social distancing and self-isolation are a luxury not available to those living in overcrowded camps, and the spread of the virus in such poor sanitary conditions, without access to vital healthcare services is deeply troubling.  The only medical provision available is through NGOs and voluntary groups.

Many have called for the evacuation of the camps,  MSF highlighting the lack of a ‘credible emergency plan’, stating that it would be impossible to prevent infection, given the cramped conditions.

Awareness campaigns have begun in camps on the islands of Lesbos and Samos, to reinforce the hygiene and hand-washing message with NGOs working tirelessly to mitigate against the spread of the outbreak; four Afghan women have set up a space to make face masks in the Moira camp and hand sanitisers have been taped to trees outside the Vathy camp.  The Greek government has introduced a lockdown in refugee camps from 7pm-7am but restrictions on movement have been criticised as ‘discriminatory’ as they do not apply to the residents of the islands.

UNHCR has also raised concerns over travel bans and how they may block the right to seek asylum. The UN High Commissioner for Refugees said that state measures to restrict travel should not lead to the prohibition of refoulement.  “In these challenging times, let us not forget those who are fleeing war and persecution. They need..solidarity and compassion now more than ever before.”  That solidarity is now being called for by the UN, who issued an appeal for over $1.5 billion in funding to prepare for outbreaks in refugees and conflict areas

 

Economic Rights

In the words of International Labour Organisation (ILO) Director General, Guy Ryder, the coronavirus crisis is “no longer only a global health crisis, it is also a major labour market and economic crisis that is having a huge impact on people”.  The ILO are urging swift action by leaders to protect workers and stimulate economies, as low-income families and small businesses, in even the most developed nations, face the strain of increasing economic issues.

The right to work is enshrined in Article 6 of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR) but millions around the world are now faced with a stark choice between health and income.   United States Labour Department data from 2019 shows that 29% of workers have no access to paid sick leave, which ‘places an undue burden on poor and marginalized workers’.  The US Government have now introduced a Coronavirus Law , which provides some relief to smaller businesses but does not apply to 48% of American workers who work for larger organisations.

The U.K. Government has pledged to help businesses by covering 80% of their workers’ salaries for at least the next three months.  However, the Government is coming under increasing pressure to support the self-employed along similar lines.

Germany is expanding its Kurzarbeit (short term work) System, described by the Finance Minister as a big “bazooka”, created during the 2008 financial crisis.  The scheme will pay roughly two-thirds of an employee’s salary to keep people in work and maintain their skill levels.

 

Other stories making the news around the world

International

• High street stores challenged on human rights disclosures (Financial Times)
• WHO launches campaign on World TB Day (WHO)
• Medicins Sans Frontiere concerned about those with tuberculosis contracting COVID-19 Relief Web

Africa

• On 21st March, South Africa marked Human Rights Day amid calls for them to end abuses against asylum seekers (Human Rights Watch)
• Human Rights Watch and Belady reveal disappearances and torture of children by Egyptian security forces (Human Rights Watch)

Asia

• Medics in iran forced to work without protective clothing (The Independent)
• Amnesty International concerned about the first executions in India in 5 years  (Amnesty International)
• UN asks for sanctions on Iran to be lifted as countries fight coronavirus (UN News)

Australasia

• Allegations that Australian special forces killed unarmed civilians in Afghanistan (ABC)

Europe

• UN Special Rapporteur on the human rights of migrants raises concerns about the ‘pushback’ of asylum seekers at the Turkey/Greece border (UN News)
• Further steps are necessary to protect the health of prisoners in Italy (Human Rights Watch)

 

Latin America

• Constitutional referendum in Chile delayed due to coronavirus (Guardian)

Middle East

• The UN welcomes the humanitarian pause by warring parties in Libya (UN News)
• Two Red Crescent humanitarian aid workers killed in Yemen (Al Jazeera)
• Concerns rise as war-battled Syria reports their first case of COVID-19 (Al Jazeera)

North America

• Trudeau reverses position on open immigration policy, turning asylum seekers away who enter through unofficial border crossings from the USA (New York Times)
• US Secretary of State threatens International Criminal Court after prosecutor opens investigation into abuses by US troops in Afghanistan (Human Rights Watch)

South and South-east Asia

• South Korea and Singapore among those using an app to tackle coronavirus through tracking 

 

 

 

 

Covid-19: Key human rights questions for the UK

by Judith Bueno de Mesquita, Co-Deputy Director, Human Rights Centre, University of Essex

The emergence and rapid global spread of Covid-19 raises critical human rights questions.  The initial response expressed alarm about a cover-up in China, but as the disease spread and scale of the disaster became clearer, wide-ranging human rights concerns began to emerge.

Meanwhile, UN Special Procedures  and the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights have called for human rights to be at the heart of the response,  while UNAIDS became the first international organisation to issue detailed rights-based guidance on dealing with an epidemic, drawing on the experience of HIV.   The pervasive negative impact of the virus across economic, social and cultural rights, and responses that appeared to pit public health against civil and political rights, initially created the impression of Covid-19 as an utterly intractable human rights problem. These new resources provide much needed clarity.

The first case of Covid-19 was confirmed in the UK on 31 January and by 22 March there were 5,683 confirmed cases and 281 deaths, almost all elderly persons or persons with comorbidities;  although it is thought that the number of suspected cases is much higher.  With the publication on 19 March of the UK  329-page Coronavirus Bill, which includes a raft of sweeping legislative amendments, concerns remain about the inadequacy and tenor of policy responses, with human rights questions increasingly coming to the fore.

The UK Government has international human rights obligations which it must respect, protect and fulfil in its Covid-19 responses under treaties such as the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR) and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), as well as the European Convention on Human Rights.  WHO’s International Health Regulations (2005), which exert binding obligations on states, in the context of global infectious disease responses, also pay due regard to human rights.  What do these instruments obligate the UK to do, and how does the UK’s response fare?

 

The right to health

The “right to the highest attainable standard of health”, known as the right to health, is the primary human right at stake in the context of Covid-19.  Under ICESCR article 12, states must take steps for “the prevention, treatment and control of epidemic…diseases”.

As part of this obligation, states, including the UK, must “create conditions which would assure to all, medical services and medical attention in the event of sickness.”  This implies that the response must maximise the potential of healthcare services to provide Covid-19 testing and treatment to those in need, including intensive care where required, whilst maintaining services for other acute healthcare needs.  Seemingly, in contradiction with available evidence in terms of the experience of other countries in containing the spread of Covid-19, the UK Government initially advocated a  controlled epidemic response amid discussions with its advisors on herd immunity.

Whilst the Government has denied herd immunity was a tactic, its  response elicited alarm from many public health experts, underpinned by fears of a lack of sufficient intensive care beds, and that it would result in many unnecessary deaths.  This, in itself, raises significant questions in terms of the rights to health and life, and is even more troubling when viewed through the prism of equality and non-discrimination, given that the elderly and those with underlying health conditions would be affected disproportionately.

With intensive care units in hospitals across the UK already close to capacity, are we witnessing an escalation, particularly in London, that mirrors the tragedy engulfing northern Italy?  There, health professionals have been left with agonising triage decisions, and where demand outstrips supply, national guidelines recommend “those patients with the highest chance of therapeutic success will retain access to intensive care.”  Non-discrimination and equality also requires duties to address groups at risk. For example, there have been calls for urgent measures to protect prison populations, and homeless persons.

Beyond the field of healthcare, the right to health includes access to information and education about evidence-based ways to prevent transmission through hygiene and staying at home if symptoms develop, in addition to details on how to access care if needed.  This information has been widely distributed across community venues and through the press but it does require monitoring to filter out fake news and misinformation.

The right to health also includes a right to social determinants of health, such as the neighbourhood environment.  This requires that Government response minimises the risk of transmission in the community.  Social (ie physical) distancing measures including closures of restaurants and pubs, school closures and home working, alongside the provision of information and facilities to promote hygiene in public and private spaces, are examples of policy measures being adopted in the UK.  Ensuring compliance with social-distancing is currently under discussion.

Widespread testing and contact tracing has not been adopted in the UK as yet, though it has been viewed as central to limiting the spread of the virus, and saving lives in other countries, including South Korea, and is also recommended by the WHO, with its “test, test, test” mantra.  Strategies must be in place to to support people who need to self-isolate, whilst the difficulties faced by some individuals, including the elderly and others with home care needs, must be recognised and addressed by the State.

The Covid-19 response must be grounded in human rights principles, including transparency, participation, and accountability.  Transparency means there must be clarity about the aims of responses, as well as the medical and epidemiological evidence underpinning them, and yet this has  been lacking in the UK response.  The input of affected groups is essential in supporting a robust, rights-sensitive and sustainable response, yet the degree to which this is occurring is unclear.  Accountability requires a range of independent oversight procedures and already we are seeing calls for a review, in due course, of the Government’s handling of the outbreak.  In the meantime, the Joint Committee on Human Rights has launched an inquiry into the Government’s response.

 

Restrictions of human rights

Most human rights are not absolute.  Under the ICCPR, public health is one of the grounds for permissible limitations to freedoms of movement, assembly, association and expression.  The Siracusa Principles on the Limitation and Derogation of Provisions in the ICCPR stress these limitations should be used as an option of  last resort and that any limitations must be:

• provided for and carried out in accordance with the law;
• in the interest of a legitimate objective of general interest;
• strictly necessary in a democratic society to achieve the objective;
• based on scientific evidence and not drafted or imposed arbitrarily i.e. in an unreasonable or otherwise discriminatory manner.

The self-isolation and quarantine policies already in place are voluntary measures, and, as such, do not raise particular concerns according to these criteria.  They also reflect the notion that human rights embrace duties to the community (Universal Declaration on Human Rights art 29).

Of greater concern, however, is the Coronavirus Bill which sets out open-ended powers of detention, by police & public health professionals, of individuals who may be infected and might infect others.  Experience from the control of other infectious diseases, such as HIV, Ebola and TB, suggests that such measures are often ineffective as prevention policies, particularly where there is no effective treatment,  and may discourage some individuals, particularly from marginalised groups, from seeking care.  Access to community testing (still not available in the UK) and voluntary treatment are the mainstays of healthcare responses to infectious disease, whilst compulsory approaches should only be used as a last resort, if at all, and only where voluntary approaches have failed.

The far-reaching public health response, as well as the response of businesses and individuals, also runs the risk of severely compromising other social and economic rights in a litany of ways.  The closure of schools to protect public health not only poses obstacles for the right to education, but it can also disrupt the right to food for families that benefit from free school meals, and leave vulnerable children at risk.

The right to work is threatened by economic precarity and if people are not paid, or cannot work, whether due to ill-health or redundancy, they may have difficulty in paying their mortgage or rent, or buying food.  Panic buying of groceries threatens the ability of vulnerable groups, including the elderly, to access to food, with food banks also struggling to operate.  Attention also needs to be given to the broader disproportionate impact on particular groups such as women, who more often assume caring roles in the event that schools are closed, limiting their work and economic opportunities.

A public health crisis is not a carte-blanche to trade economic and social rights off against each other.  Governments have a positive obligation to protect other economic and social rights affected during public health crises, particularly for the most vulnerable groups.  Though some issues remain unresolved, the UK government has loosened its purse strings and adopted wide-ranging measures intended to protect an adequate standard of living and income, for those employed by businesses.   The self-employed, however, are yet to see the same level of protection.

 

International cooperation

Lastly, and certainly the biggest challenge of all, is international cooperation, an often-neglected dimension of international human rights obligations.  The pandemic response requires global cooperation by countries and international organisations, through the sharing of expertise and resources.  Leaders, experts and the wider community must look outwards as well as inwards in their crisis response, not only to learn from the good practice of others, but equally to support preparedness and response elsewhere.  Dire predictions of the impact of the virus on countries in conflict,  in refugee camps, and on the continent of Africa which “faces a catastrophe to dwarf all others”, all require immediate action.

 

Concluding remarks

Experience with other infectious diseases shows that, alongside appropriate public health and economic measures, human rights are an essential part of any effective strategy for preventing, treating and controlling infectious disease.  As clearly summed up by UNAIDS, “responding to an epidemic is not a question of balancing public health and human rights but rather that a successful and effective response requires us to adhere to human rights principles.”  Though human rights were largely absent from discourse in the early stage of the UK’s response, it is encouraging that the human rights community has found its voice.

As we await the development of vaccines and other treatments, which are in themselves entitlements of the right to health, the human rights community’s  guidance can complement public health evidence to support a more robust response going forwards. This will be most successful where the two communities work closely together to ensure that human rights standards underpin public health interventions, and evidence underpins how human rights standards are interpreted and applied.

ABOUT THE AUTHOR

Judith Bueno de Mesquita is Co-Deputy Director of the Human Rights Centre and a Lecturer in International Human Rights Law at the University of Essex.  Her research focuses particularly on health and human rights, and economic, social and cultural rights. She has worked closely with public health organisations over many years, notably WHO, UNFPA, and UNAIDS.

UN austerity and human rights report highlights Big Data risks in the UK

By Carmel Williams

Big Data and artificial intelligence are, perhaps surprisingly, a featured highlight in the UN expert’s report on extreme poverty in the UK. Technology is frequently proffered as a solution to poverty and other social rights failings (see for example the recent Astana Declaration on Primary Health Care). However, Philip Alston, the UN Special Rapporteur on extreme poverty and human rights, focuses instead on its potential to erode democracy.

UN envoy is correct to call for greater social rights protections in the UK – says former rapporteur

By Paul Hunt

This blog originally appeared on The Conversation

For 12 days, Philip Alston, the UN envoy on extreme poverty and human rights, and his tireless team, have travelled the length and breadth of the UK. They’ve listened to hundreds of people who have experienced poverty. Many of these stories were heartbreaking, as I witnessed when attending a public meeting in Jaywick, Essex, organised by Unite Community, for the international visitors.

Big Brother Watch and Others v. the United Kingdom – Some initial thoughts

By Daragh Murray & Vivian Ng

On Thursday, 13 September 2018, the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) handed down their decision in Big Brother Watch and Others v. the United Kingdom. This decision addressed the legality of the United Kingdom’s (UK) bulk interception programme, intelligence sharing, and the obtaining of communications data from communications service providers and was prompted by the 2013 Snowden revelations.

This is a complex decision which is likely to have significant ramifications for mass surveillance programmes. As such, it is too early to offer detailed analysis, and this post intends to highlight some of the interesting elements that we will be thinking over in the coming weeks and months. Our focus here is on the bulk interception programme.

For an excellent initial post on the implications for the UK’s Investigatory Power’s Act, please see ‘Big Brother Watch v UK – implications for the Investigatory Powers Act?’ at Cyberleagle.

Quick Comment on UK Draft Data Retention and Acquisition Regulations 2018 and the definition of ‘serious crime’ for bulk surveillance powers

By Daragh Murray and Pete Fussey

The UK Government has published the Draft Data Retention and Acquisition Regulations 2018, which propose changes to the Investigatory Powers Act 2016 (IPA) and the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 (RIPA). Both the IPA and RIPA provide a legal basis for Government surveillance, including bulk surveillance techniques.

The changes included in the draft were brought about, in large part, as a result of adverse findings by the Court of Justice of the European Union in the Watson case, which held that the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights:

…must be interpreted as precluding national legislation governing the protection and security of traffic and location data and, in particular, access of the competent national authorities to the retained data, where the objective pursued by that access, in the context of fighting crime, is not restricted solely to fighting serious crime, where access is not subject to prior review by a court or an independent administrative authority, and where there is no requirement that the data concerned should be retained within the European Union. (para 125)

Police are using big data to profile young people, putting them at risk of discrimination

By Daragh Murray and Pete Fussey

This blog originally appeared on The Conversation

Amnesty International has raised a series of human rights issues in connection with the “gang matrix” developed and run by London’s Metropolitan Police, in a recent report. According to the report, appearing on the database could affect the lives of 3,806 people, 80% of whom are between 12 and 24 years old.

There are no specific details about how the matrix operates and is used by police. It exists, at least in part, to address the difficulties in policing gang activities across different districts. But it’s suspected that – because of government data sharing – appearing on the database will “follow” young people around, affecting their access to housing, education or work.

The Met said in a statement, “The overarching aim of the matrix is to reduce gang-related violence and prevent young lives being lost”, but added that it was working with Tottenham MP David Lammy, Amnesty International and the Information Commissioner’s Office to “help understand the approach taken”.

The European Court of Human Rights exercises due deference to Great Britain: Ireland v United Kingdom redux (2018)

The Long Read Series

By Aoife Duffy

Just over 40 years after its famous Ireland v United Kingdom judgment, the European Court of Human Rights ruled on the Irish government’s request to review its 1978 finding that the United Kingdom had committed an Article 3 violation of the European Convention on Human Rights. Article 3 states that “[n]o one shall be subjected to torture or to inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.” The historical context of the original ruling was violent conflict in Northern Ireland; the contemporary context of the revision judgment is intense debate about European institutions and standards following the Brexit referendum. Whereas the European Commission found that the United Kingdom’s combined use of five techniques – hooding, wall standing, exposure to white noise, reduced diet and sleep deprivation – amounted to torture, the European Court categorised the system of interrogation not as torture, but inhuman and degrading treatment. In 2014, the Irish government submitted a revision request under the Rules of the Court on the basis of fresh evidence – a dossier of declassified files released under the 30 year rule that seemed to corroborate the Commission’s finding of torture. In short, the Irish government argued that had these facts been known at the time, the European Court would not have diverged from the Commission’s finding of torture. This post will demonstrate that the revision judgment was settled along weak procedural lines, which can easily be picked apart by reference to the declassified files that triggered the revision request. In addition, it will question the utility of situating history making in this type of legal forum.

Members of HRBDT Project Submit Evidence on Proposed Amendments to Investigatory Powers Act

 

On 30 November 2017 the Home Office issued an open consultation regarding proposed amendments to the UK Investigatory Powers Act 2016. These amendments were proposed in response to an adverse judgment by the Court of Justice of the European Union in Joined Cases C-203/15 and C-698/15.

The full scope of the proposed amendments are discussed in the Government’s Consultation Document.

Dr. Daragh Murray, Prof. Pete Fussey, and Prof. Maurice Sunkin QC, members of the Human Rights Big Data & Technology Project, based at the University of Essex Human Rights Centre, submitted written evidence. Their submission focused on the Government’s proposal to amend the statutory purposes for which communications data may be retained or acquired. It argues that the Government’s proposals are overly broad, add uncertainty to the law, and have not been adequately justified.