Corona’d out
As a strong believer in individual freedoms, I’ll state that Corona (“rona”) virus, has affected our freedoms, but in order to highlight those, we need to confirm the given facts. Since January 2020 we’ve been hearing about this virus, its new name Covid 19, Wuhan, etc, and it’s enough to make Mr/Miss/Mrs Joe/Jane Average want to avoid the media entirely. There are several other issues that have been occurring in the background that affect our freedoms, as occurred after the 11th of September 2001, shortly after, the Patriot act was enacted in the USA and similar legislation across the globe. We are now in similar territory. I’d like to cover the issues that the mainstream media have considered, and apply the role of “devils advocate” to the discourse.
Given [1], “the virus” originated in china, and was first discovered in persons with a relationship to the Wuhan wet markets (https://www.nature.com/articles/s41591-020-0820-9) which trades exotic meats, even today (https://www.bbc.com/news/world-australia-52391783). The virus must have come from china, let’s take that as fact. We also know for a fact that china spread the virus to the world, putting their provinces into lockdown in late January, meanwhile still allowing flights out to other countries, the chinese communist party (“CCP”) even admitted to knowing about the seriousness in early to mid February, one month later the WHO called it a pandemic (https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2020/01/timeline-china-coronavirus-spread-200126061554884.html). From the aforementioned, we can attribute the inception and spread of the virus to the CCP.
Why haven’t we called out china earlier? Very simple, Australia called early on for an independent investigation, and is now suffering the economic consequences (https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2020/may/26/chinas-trade-bans-are-retaliation-to-covid-19-inquiry-more-than-half-of-australians-say). Unfortunately, most products are made in china, as are chemicals. So, we really need to broaden our supply side, or as I like to call it, dechinafy our economy.
Given [2], the obvious impact of social distancing, self isolation, quarantine is that parts of the economy such as aviation, tourism and hospitality will suffer greatly as we stay at home, and will take a long time to recover the economy (https://www.marketwatch.com/story/restaurants-and-hotels-devastated-by-coronavirus-face-long-and-painful-recovery-2020-04-15). The most optimistic modelling for 2021 is a strong recovery that will see the world bounce (snap) back (https://grattan.edu.au/news/covid-19-the-imf-should-remove-its-rose-tinted-glasses/). The likelihood isn’t a global “V” snapback, but a set of W’s that progressively approach the pre virus levels (https://www.mercurynews.com/2020/05/27/coronavirus-what-is-a-v-shaped-economic-recovery-and-how-likely-is-it-really/); however, that’s conditional on the lockdowns being lifted and the virus not returning, causing governments to reinstate lockdowns again. The virus has decimated millions of small businesses and national economies across the globe that will take years, if not decades to recover. I had plans to travel overseas and see a sick relative, who I will most likely never see again because of the impacts of this virus. I also have friends that own restaurants that are facing untold economic loss.
We knew that this was coming, if we bothered to see the news coming out of china, but chose to let our economy plod along and await the first cases like a child watching a wave come at them at the beach. Why didn’t we stop all international flights? That would have prolonged the tourism impact and possibly affected our relationship with china negatively, sooner.
Given [3], the sudden economic downturn has created millions across the globe being involuntarily frictionally unemployed. In Australia, the structural unemployment rate or NAIRU (non accelerating inflation rate of unemployment) was sitting at 5.1% (https://www.abs.gov.au/AUSSTATS/abs@.nsf/allprimarymainfeatures/3B32329B34FDEB91CA25854B002213A4?opendocument). Australia’s historical rates of unemployment have been above 10% on 4 occasions, the great depression of the the 30s, the early 80’s oil shocks, the 90’s recession we had to have and the GFC; however, only once over 20%, which was during the great depression (https://percapita.org.au/wp-content/uploads/2018/05/Unemployment-Report_Final-1.pdf , https://www.researchgate.net/publication/4737408_Avoiding_Recessions_and_Australian_Long-Term_Unemployment). It is expected that the virus will lead to a temporary increase unemployment in Australia to between 10–15% (https://grattan.edu.au/report/shutdown-estimating-the-covid-19-employment-shock/). The Reserve Bank of Australia (“RBA”) remains bullish in late May about the government policies and economic results, but is adamant that the situation is constantly changing and policy should be reviewed at regular intervals (https://www.abc.net.au/news/2020-05-28/rba-governor-philip-lowe-says-downturn-may-not-be-as-bad-as-fea/12295954). Unemployment rates across the world will reach near great depression levels and will affect almost every family, but at least interest rates will remain low for years to come. Most of us feel like we are on a knifes edge because of this virus and could lose our livelihood or already have.
Hats off to the RBA and the Federal government for promptly preparing a pathway to absorbing the shock and preparing for recovery. We have been managed well, thus far, and relatively to the rest of the world. The challenges for a large portion of society remain, and the way forward is still like driving through a dirt road without headlights. The biggest challenge for resolving the unemployment rate, will be managing the media and the oppositions traditional spendthrift approach.
Given [4], in order to combat this virus, we as a society are forced by our governments to physically (social) distance ourselves from others, practice good hygiene, avoid going out, crowds and cash (https://www.health.gov.au/news/health-alerts/novel-coronavirus-2019-ncov-health-alert/how-to-protect-yourself-and-others-from-coronavirus-covid-19/social-distancing-for-coronavirus-covid-19). I’m surprised that good hygiene seems to be required to be asked of citizens, at this supposedly modern day and age. However, these practices have worked across the globe, currently during the virus, and also we have seen it be effective with previous viruses (https://www.cebm.net/covid-19/what-is-the-evidence-for-social-distancing-during-global-pandemics/). While these efforts aid in reducing the impact of viruses, there is a psychological toll when the distancing is prolonged (https://www.sciencenews.org/article/coronavirus-covid-19-social-distancing-psychological-fallout). If we were to forecast the existing suicide rate in Australia of 0.0187% (2320) for males and 0.005% (726) for females in 2018 (https://lifeinmindaustralia.com.au/about-suicide/suicide-data) and then assume other impacts such as the economic impact citizens, that’s a further 10% as 1500 over 5 years is 300 per year (https://www.sbs.com.au/news/australia-s-suicide-rate-could-surge-due-to-economic-fallout-of-coronavirus), what when we consider the impacts of parents being unable to see their children due to the virus, increase in substance abuse and exacerbated mental health triggers, the estimates are of 10–50% increase (https://www.abc.net.au/news/2020-05-07/national-suicide-register-needed-coronavirus-surge/12208668). That mental health impact comes at a cost to the entire community, apart from the loss of a loved one, research has estimated that we’d be impacting the economy in the billions, with 2000 suicides = $12b (https://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Committees/Senate/Community_Affairs/Completed_inquiries/2008-10/suicide/report/c02). Social distancing works, but it comes at a cost, that cost is both economic and a mental health impact to some portions of population that could lead to a further economic cost.
My feelings on this are that we’ve dropped the ball on mental health years ago. We are picking up our game, but the media still fail to bring a balanced argument, with their regular portrayal of feminist views that claim that all domestic violence is perpetrated by males. When we have approximately 6 males a day committing suicide, yet claim that 1 woman a week being murdered by their partner or ex partner is the biggest issue, we as a society need to consider the maths as 1 female to 42 males is substantial. With that said, every life, regardless of sex or gender, is important and we must bring balance to journalism rather than tokenism.
Given [5], Racism is bad, as is any form discrimination and the use of some terms. I’ll spend more time here because of its sensitive nature. The terms that have caused furore to some commentators across the globe are: social distancing (it’s physical distancing, not social), unprecedented times (it’s not unprecedented, we’ve had SARS, swine flu, ebola in the last few decades), flatten the curve (if we had funded our hospitals sufficiently, stopped all international travel or a myriad of options, we wouldn’t have a curve to flatten), ccp/chinese virus. The first three have been frustrating to hear over the last few months but it is the last two that seem to have attacked the sensibilities of many. President Trump used “chinese virus”, commentators claimed that it would provoke racism, did racist incidents occur? yes. Could his comments be considered racist? arguable yes and no (https://theconversation.com/donald-trumps-chinese-virus-the-politics-of-naming-136796). Was the racism as pervasive as the media claimed? unlikely, else we would have hundreds of dead Asians across the globe at the hands of this racism. We have seen greater violence perpetrated against police and commerce (via looting) from cases of police brutality in the USA, such as the most recent (https://www.nytimes.com/2020/05/28/us/george-floyd-national-guard.html), than racism towards Asians (https://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2019/04/09/race-in-america-2019/). Again, not to downplay racism, it is bad and not permissible, in the Australian context, we have the Racial Discrimination Act 1975, of which section 18C is key, but equally it could be argued that the legislation doesn’t stop racism or protect people from it (https://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-09-13/hrc-accepts-18c-complaint-lodged-by-leyonhjelm/7838770), it merely affords limited freedom of speech defences in section 18D (of which this discussion would be covered by (b)) and the sword of common law remedies that aim to put an aggrieved party in the same situation as they were before the incident, generally via damages (money) paid to the aggrieved (https://humanrights.gov.au/about/news/opinions/ahrc-and-racial-discrimination-act-setting-record-straight).
The reality is that I haven’t found any correlation of racism towards the Spanish post 1918 and the naming of the Spanish flu. I’ve searched long and hard for it, and am happy to be corrected. The key racism during the early part of the 20th century, during the Spanish flu was aimed at African Americans, not the Spanish (https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2020-03-16/los-angeles-spanish-flu-coronavirus). We have seen the chinese people are being racist towards Africans in china (https://www.hrw.org/news/2020/05/05/china-covid-19-discrimination-against-africans), and not to mention the treatment of Uighurs in china by the ccp (https://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-china-rights-un/u-n-says-it-has-credible-reports-that-china-holds-million-uighurs-in-secret-camps-idUKKBN1KV23P). But, as we know too well, two wrongs don’t make a right.
Racism or hate speech is representative of ignorance by those who use or perpetuate it, just try to read what they say and your inner grammar police will make you twitch. Ignorance is essentially a lack of knowledge or exposure, thus it drives our inner xenophobe. In this case, get more Asian friends, read more about their similarities and differences. Thus, the solution to racism is that people be properly informed by the media (or their own instruction), so that they are informed and don’t direct their negative emotions to those who are not responsible. In short, this virus and its spread to the globe is not the fault of any individual person with Asian heritage that crosses your path, it is more than likely the fault of the ccp, and partly the governments of other nations for failure to fund their hospitals or react promptly ahead of the WHO (let’s not go there just yet). My view is that any incident of racism against the chinese for the virus is borne out of the frustration of the global community with the ccp’s action and inaction, partly that of local governments in their handling of the matter and the media.
It could be argued that the media has an important role to play in their portrayal of the facts (https://www.abc.net.au/news/2020-05-08/how-to-deal-with-racism-psychological-residue-coronavirus/12216236?nw=0), and need not back down purely because they may call racism (china). Yes, the virus came from china (see Given 1), but not all Asians come from china and more importantly, not all the chinese people are to blame for the virus. While the media struggles with its commercial approach, it is inevitable that bias creeps into their writing and affects their readers (https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/1461670X.2016.1199486). It isn’t sufficient to point out, look at what party A did, but also to disassociate party A from those related to party A, where there is no causal link. In short, don’t blame all the chinese people for what the ccp has done, just like Iranians don’t blame all people from the USA for the policy of the USA (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=voA0cS1JiGQ). I’d go as far as to say that the unbalanced reporting by some media outlets, of itself drives up emotions to obtain readership, is the causal link to racism by their click-bait or failure to provide a balanced article. A One liner at the bottom disclosing that B isn’t at fault for what A did, even though they live in the same household, isn’t enough. In the course of reaching the truth, it is necessary to not lay blame on a generalisation, but to proportion the right blame to all the wrongdoers. My approach to the media has always been that variety is the spice of life, so a little CNN, Fox, the conversation/guardian, ABC, Doug Wead or other libertarian media. As you absorb the same news from various sources, you’ll get a feel for which slant they are taking.
There is a general perception that the acceptance of the (p/m)aternalistic restrictions imposed on us (ISO life 2020), because of this virus, will lead to a protracted erosion of our civil liberties. To date, we have seen protests across the globe occur, mainly in the USA (https://www.abc.net.au/news/2020-05-27/coronavirus-us-protests-on-the-rise/12288686), in France (https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/europe/paris-suburbs-protests-villeneuve-la-garenne/2020/04/25/55f5a40c-85a1-11ea-81a3-9690c9881111_story.html), Brazil (https://www.news.com.au/national/antilockdown-protesters-crowd-sao-paulo-streets-as-covid19-cases-rise-in-brazil/video/f7507f9e0fa85a997d5cced869ddf1d2), even Australia (https://www.theguardian.com/world/live/2020/may/10/australia-coronavirus-live-updates-nsw-victoria-qld-restrictions-latest-news-update). We know for a certainty that western societies value their individuality, and thus the freedoms that permit those individual traits to flourish. Thankfully some of these restrictions are being cautiously lifted. We know that some of these protests are borne out of several reasons, such as a need to earn an income to pay for necessities, the inconsistent and arbitrary application of laws and regulations across states and the degradation of our personal liberty. In order to discus this, first we need to cover off what civil liberties we perceive are owed to us, enshrined in law to us or just in our minds because of too much TV.
Civil liberties:
Many amongst us would proclaim that here in Australia we are free, more importantly that we supposedly have a few freedoms, such as: 1) freedom of speech (“FOS”), 2) freedom of religion (“FOR”), and 3) freedom of assembly (“FOA”). I’ll deal with these in a separate article as to put it simply, the only freedom we have in Australia is that of professing and practicing our religion (s116 of the Australian Constitution). The other two are both implied and subject to regulations that can change over time and on the different jurisdictions that a person may live in.
FOS was considered in the case of Lange (http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/journals/MurUEJL/1998/3.html) and then as a litmus test for Australia’s implied freedom of political communication. This means, if what you are saying is not factually correct and not for the purpose of promoting the communication of the discourse of politics, then that commentary may not be covered by the implied freedom. There are obviously more nuances, but, it means that the statement must have a purposive act and its purpose is to promote the discourse for an election or an impending election. This is certainly light years away from the perceived freedom of speech that most citizens believe that they are entitled to. The reality is that whilst their speech is not defamatory, it is still free, to a point. That point being that if it at some stage impacts the income, or future income of a person, it then becomes capable of being pursued for a defamatory cause. Either way, in Australia, there is a limited FOS and that limit is defined by the purpose of that speech.
FOR was ingrained in section 116 of the Australian Constitution; however, details were not prescribed within it that allow for exceptions and therefore were derogated / permitted to be determined by the states or other parties. FOA was granted by the Fair Work of Australia 2009 and Australia’s adopting of International Covenants (https://www.ag.gov.au/RightsAndProtections/HumanRights/Human-rights-scrutiny/PublicSectorGuidanceSheets/Pages/Righttofreedomofassemblyandassociation.aspx), thus not constitutionally ingrained, but granted to citizens nonetheless. These last two have been limited by the Covid-19 restrictions (covered below).
Earning an Income
With the growing unemployment, many casual workers that don’t fall into the categories that the government is offering assistance via job keeper (https://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliament/Parliamentary_Departments/Parliamentary_Library/pubs/rp/rp1920/StatisticalSnapshotCasualWorkersAustralia) are falling into greater financial troubles. When we consider international students or working holiday makers (https://www.abc.net.au/news/2020-04-11/coronavirus-migrant-workers-international-students-australia/12130784), they receive nothing, but entered the country on the proviso that they could work for up to X number of hours per week, and the longer the lockdown continues, the worse that they are impacted.
The aforementioned impacts Australians or persons in Australia, but when we consider the poorer nations who don’t have unemployment benefits, we can understand the magnitude of the impact of the lockdown (https://scroll.in/article/958366/covid-19-in-india-community-kitchens-spring-up-across-cities-to-feed-stranded-migrants) and are grateful to those who make an effort to help. While the most populated nation on earth struggles with feeding their poor, Argentina, one of the most fertile, who together with Australian and Canada, were considered the “Golden Triangle” during the post WW2 era, struggles to feed their approximately 30% of the population that live under the poverty line (https://www.clarin.com/zonales/coronavirus-argentina-ejercito-reparte-comida-moreno_0_USE81xsPO.html). The struggle to work for the daily bread for you and your family is definitely real in many countries, so the sooner we can end the lockdowns, the better it is for the economy.
Inconsistent laws and regulations & Loss of personal liberties
We have Covid-19 restrictions that are changing almost on a daily basis, from state to state. Today in late May, the state of NSW they are 5 visitors at home, 10 people outdoors maintaining 1.5m apart from another person, home inspections or auctions with the physical distancing indoors, hairdresser or beauty salons with 4 square metre rule, funerals for 20 indoors and 30 outside, placed of worship are limited to 10 persons, restaurants only 10 patrons with 4 square metres (https://www.nsw.gov.au/covid-19/what-you-can-and-cant-do-under-rules). Confused? I sure am, and try to avoid listening to the daily and sometimes hourly news.
Our FOA and FOR has been curtailed by these “temporary” measures, given that this virus continues to affect us. Till now, Gyms are still closed, there were beaches that were shut and then there was the increase in the issuing of fines for breaching the ISO regulations. The fines seem to have reached inconsistent application, most particularly in the state of Victoria (https://www.theage.com.au/national/victoria/ahead-on-penalties-victoria-leads-nation-on-covid-19-lockdown-fines-20200527-p54x0d.html?fbclid=IwAR2X9YcalCR6g7oRvt_mIP1gsrcXXhe4hwTmVp4D8PelT70sQ7s-lhpwP5g).
Can we really believe that a person in the state of Victoria is 5 times more likely to break the law? Or is it more likely that the police in Victoria are 5 times more likely to fine someone? Let’s not forget that fines went out for as little as eating a kebab alone while seated on a park bench (https://www.theguardian.com/law/2020/apr/03/man-eating-kebab-on-bench-among-50-people-fined-in-nsw-and-victoria-for-violating-coronavirus-laws). Laws should be applied uniformly, across the nation, and where not, the states that stray from the reasonable must be redirected to work with the Commonwealth for the common good of the nation as a whole. (Yes, this opens up a pandoras box, to be dealt with in the future.)
What did we miss?
In short, not much. Now that we’ve touched on all things “rona”, let’s smear the toast of truth with what our parliament is working towards. There are currently 145 bills, of which at least 30% are administrative in nature, possibly another 30% that have not been passed and little hope of passing and the remainder, that need investigating. The bill I’m referring to is the Currency (Restrictions on the Use of Cash) Bill 2019 (https://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_LEGislation/Bills_Search_Results/Result?bId=r6418). The second reading suggests that the intention is purely noble, to try to slow down the “black economy”, criminals and terrorists (the magic word of the new millennium to bolster acceptance), and convenience as most transactions (or so we are told) are using electronic funds transfer (“EFT”). The average reader would consider using less cash as no more sinister than no longer needing to sign their name on a deposit or withdrawal slip at the bank, and they would be right in saying that for the everyday person.
My greatest concern with the removal of cash, or prohibition on transactions of a certain sum, is that it then becomes a slippery slope to reducing the sum over a period of time. Whether it be a fear of law enforcement knowing your every expenditure, or your significant other; the reason for wanting cash, which stays legal tender no matter what happens to the electricity grid or banking information technology infrastructure, remains valid. Moreover, the bill that sits before parliament seems to have appeared shortly after a discussion at the International Monetary Fund - IMF about the effectiveness of negative interest rates and less cash (https://blogs.imf.org/2019/02/05/cashing-in-how-to-make-negative-interest-rates-work/). Negative interest rates essentially mean that if you have your life savings in a bank, you will need to pay the bank, in turn the government, for storing your wealth in a bank in electronic form.
Negative interest rates are not of major concern when the rate is minuscule. It is when rates take sudden shifts, as they did in the late 1980’s in an upward trend, hitting 17% (https://www.loansense.com.au/historical-rates.html), which is concerning. To put this into practical perspective, let’s assume a fictional bank account of $100, the current cash rate of 0.5%, which would earn 50 cents over an entire year, leaving you with a balance of $100.50. If there was negative interest rates and the cash rate was -0.5%, you would have $99.50. This is entirely academic, but then lets factor bank fees, transaction fees and whatever new charges are implemented in the future. The average punter ends up worse off. Now consider the proposed world where as a retiree, you have hundreds of thousands of dollars in the bank, negative interest rates would erode your savings faster. Thus the consideration of this bill, no matter how well thought out and academically viable, it is a further assault on our freedoms (https://www.loansense.com.au/historical-rates.html).
Conclusion:
It is evident from the news in both Australia and the world, anti ccp sentiment is growing. It has unfortunately led to some deplorable incidents of racism by some individuals, but has not reached the systemic levels that china employs towards Africans or Uighurs. The key issues dealt with are that this virus has created long lasting economic, health and trust issues in the world. Economies negatively affected, health systems overworked and under-resourced, trust issues with governments and the media. It will certainly take us months to return to a near pre virus normal and years to recover completely. At the same time, as Winston Churchill used to say, “never waste a good crisis”, governments around the world have curtailed freedoms of citizens, and some are realising this and demanding action. Let’s trust our government and journalists, but also hold them to account when they are failing us. Have we lost freedoms? Yes, but we can get them back. Let’s not forget to read more, cast the net widely and absorb as many different opinions to collectively approach an optimal truth, in line with John Stuart Mill’s marketplace of ideas.
Next planned article will be: Has capitalism failed?
