6,337 New Covid-19 Infections 7/30, Extended Quarantine..?

[garryl]

Dictatorship? You're getting a little (or a lot) carried away. No state of emergency has been declared. The prohibition is for gatherings of 10 people/family members or more according to Clarín, which is not unreasonable. Also, 2 out of the 3 national papers are sympathetic to the opposition. The other day I was sitting on a park bench in Belgrano and a nice police officer explained to me why I can't sit there and asked me to move along. In the US the cop would have tasered me on the spot (I am a person of color, after all).

The current government has its faults, but please, do not compare Argentina with China. Even Videla didn't come close to disappearing as many people as China has in just the last two years alone.

China is bad.

 

[Moe]

The other day I was sitting on a park bench in Belgrano and a nice police officer explained to me why I can't sit there and asked me to move along. In the US the cop would have tasered me on the spot (I am a person of color, after all).

Sounds like you are the one getting a little carried away.

 

[antipodean]

Dictatorship? You're getting a little (or a lot) carried away. No state of emergency has been declared. The prohibition is for gatherings of 10 people/family members or more according to Clarín, which is not unreasonable. Also, 2 out of the 3 national papers are sympathetic to the opposition. The other day I was sitting on a park bench in Belgrano and a nice police officer explained to me why I can't sit there and asked me to move along. In the US the cop would have tasered me on the spot (I am a person of color, after all).

The current government has its faults, but please, do not compare Argentina with China. Even Videla didn't come close to disappearing as many people as China has in just the last two years alone.

• Eventos sociales o familiares en espacios cerrados y en los domicilios de las personas, en todos los casos y cualquiera sea el número de concurrentes, salvo el grupo conviviente.

Not really. The problem is that the DNU is not about groups of 10 or more, even inviting one person into your house is considered “criminal” and punishable by prison. Regardless if this “law” is enforced or not, the fact that it is unconstitutional, issued by decree and goes against one of the most basic human freedoms is like a tool of dictatorship. Making it an infraction that can be fined is one thing, but giving people a criminal record and threatening the most extreme form of punishment available in this country is an entirely different matter. In what other country in the world could inviting someone into your home lead to your imprisonment?

Usually dictatorships don’t go around disappearing or murdering their entire populations, but what they do do is oppression of the majority of their population with arbitrary curbs on basic freedoms of movement and association. I am pretty sure that if I lived under Videla I would not be disappearing and would lead a day to day life of comfort, but I can be sure that I would need to watch what I say I would be subject to less freedom of movement and association as the consequences of not doing it could more than just a fine and land me labeled as a criminal and put in prison. Legitimate parallels to dictatorships are not always about mass murder.

For foreigners here who do not have permanent residency or citizenship.... remember those local criminal certificates you need to provide when you apply for things? Well the fact that this “delito” would end up on your record could lead to your deportation, denial of renewal or entry from the country and other countries in the world who have a “no criminal record” character requirement.

 

[Bajo_cero2]

https://www.infobae.com/politica/20...-coronavirus-viola-el-derecho-a-la-intimidad/

Meanwhile the government is under fire for the unconstitutional presidential decree that punishes meeting with other people including family members, even in ones own home, with up to two years imprisonment. Yes you read that right, you let someone into your home and you are liable to go to jail for two years at the request of President / General Alberto Fernandez.

Amazing that under the leadership of a supposedly freedom pushing, anti-dictatorship regime we have ended up in some kind of democratic dictatorship, with broader and more severe restrictions on personal liberties than even China during this crisis.

For those of us who did not know already, now we know what it feels like to live under a pretty extreme dictatorship where the most basic rights and freedoms can be denied - the only "missing" element of the experience is censorship... but some in the government and their "para-militancies" are already working on that it seems in past months.

Methinks that the first prosecutions for violating this decree will unleash a real shit storm against the oppressors given the other incursions on the basic rights of Argentines in the past months. You never come between an Argentine and their family or friends!

-----------
"But now privacy breaches come on the scene.What is being restricted is the right to privacy, that is, what can or cannot be done within your own home. They are coming to get us in our homes, ”warned the specialist. He also warned that the government with all these quarantine extension decrees is incurring in a normative custom that worries in the post-quarantine stage because it is giving itself powers to get to a high level in regulatory matters. "I think that is typical of the DNA of populist governments. Populist governments do not believe much in individual freedoms and responsibilities, "said Lonigro.

For his part, the constitutional lawyer Daniel Sabsay questioned the rule, pointing out that it is not possible to legislate in criminal matters through decrees of necessity and urgency. "You cannot say that this is similar to something else and assign it to a crime in the Penal Code, which is what is being done here: a crime was created and associated with article 205," said Sabsay. "The President legislates by decree in criminal matters even though the Constitution prohibits it. Social and family gatherings are assimilated to crimes against health. It violates the principle of typicity and creates crimes by analogy, "said Sabsay.

Sabsay is clueless about the subject he suppouse to know.
Even it is true that the President cannot enact crimes, he is not doing it. Decrees has 2 functions: a) to give orders to his employeds and b) to clarify the law. The crime already exist but people does not know the criminal code so the President make them know it (just read art. 205).

 

[antipodean]

Sabsay is clueless about the subject he suppouse to know.
Even it is true that the President cannot enact crimes, he is not doing it. Decrees has 2 functions: a) to give orders to his employeds and b) to clarify the law. The crime already exist but people does not know the criminal code so the President make them know it (just read art. 205).

View attachment 7175

The question here is if meeting one person inside your own home can (or should) be linked to article 205 or 206.
Article 205 does not prescribe that this or any "medida" to be treated as a prohibited activity nor is there any obligation for the President to declare any specific activity as being prohibited. This is why the "medida" is causing concerns and is considered unconstitutional.

This rule does not exist in any other countries as something linked to a criminal code, except for in some parts of China and perhaps other dictatorial or authoritarian regimes with poor human rights records, and of course Argentina.

 

[ben]

The question here is if meeting one person inside your own home can (or should) be linked to article 205 or 206.
Article 205 does not prescribe that this or any "medida" to be treated as a prohibited activity nor is there any obligation for the President to declare any specific activity as being prohibited. This is why the "medida" is causing concerns and is considered unconstitutional.

I mean, I’m happy to dunk on both bajo and this government, but they both appear to be in the right here.
The fact is that the plain text of the code makes clear that violating measures taken by the competent authorities to stop the spread of an epidemic, can indeed be punished with prison.
It does not state which measures these will, because that would be absurd. That is left to the “competent authorities” to decide based on the facts at the time.

I am not sure that this shouldn’t be the law, either. One can say that the authorities are overreacting in a given case, but having the ability to enforce the rules is important, particularly so in a nation of vivos.
The minimum sentence would seem to be a problem, because it doesn’t allow for prosecutorial discretion: not all violations are the same.
Then again, I know little about criminal procedure in Argentina; there may conceivably be other tools available (like plea bargaining) to impose a lesser punishment.

This rule does not exist in any other countries as something linked to a criminal code, except for in some parts of China and perhaps other dictatorial or authoritarian regimes with poor human rights records, and of course Argentina.

This is flatly untrue. Canada - hardly a dictatorship - allows up to a $750,000 fine (C$ - over 500,000 USD) and/or 6 months in prison for violating measures taken under the Quarantine Act.
This goes up to 1,000,000 and/or 3 years, and can be treated as indictable (i.e. a felony) if said violation results in someone actually getting sick.
(In practice, a US couple that had broken the terms of their 14-day quarantine were fined $1000 each; this is why the minimum sentences in the Argentine code appear problematic to me).

 

[Bajo_cero2]

View attachment 7175

The question here is if meeting one person inside your own home can (or should) be linked to article 205 or 206.
Article 205 does not prescribe that this or any "medida" to be treated as a prohibited activity nor is there any obligation for the President to declare any specific activity as being prohibited. This is why the "medida" is causing concerns and is considered unconstitutional.

This rule does not exist in any other countries as something linked to a criminal code, except for in some parts of China and perhaps other dictatorial or authoritarian regimes with poor human rights records, and of course Argentina.

Art. 206 has no relation, that is why I clarified “read only art. 205” because when I cut a picture there is a minimum size.
The President in Argentina under an emergency is able to enact a DNU that is alike a law no matter what the rules of other countries says.
In Argentina we have crimes regarding breaking a quarantine and spreading a disease in the chapter of crimes against the public health no matter how are the rules in other countries.
We are, no doubt under a major emergency.
You miss the point, it is not about privacy rights because people for arriving to your home needs to break the quarantine and before you talk about privacy rights you should read how they are regulated in the art. 19 of the NC because it says something like “unless harms other people rights” that is a good definition of spreading a disease.
If you see something nazi about this quarantine it is because nazism is all about the permanent emergency but a pandemic is, in fact, a real transitory emergency.
If you see nazism because the quarantine and the pass system is militar law, you are right. It is transitory military law and most of the countries behave like they are in war, perhaps we are, if it is true that it is a bio weapon.

 

[Bajo_cero2]

I mean, I’m happy to dunk on both bajo and this government, but they both appear to be in the right here.
The fact is that the plain text of the code makes clear that violating measures taken by the competent authorities to stop the spread of an epidemic, can indeed be punished with prison.
It does not state which measures these will, because that would be absurd. That is left to the “competent authorities” to decide based on the facts at the time.

I am not sure that this shouldn’t be the law, either. One can say that the authorities are overreacting in a given case, but having the ability to enforce the rules is important, particularly so in a nation of vivos.
The minimum sentence would seem to be a problem, because it doesn’t allow for prosecutorial discretion: not all violations are the same.
Then again, I know little about criminal procedure in Argentina; there may conceivably be other tools available (like plea bargaining) to impose a lesser punishment.



This is flatly untrue. Canada - hardly a dictatorship - allows up to a $750,000 fine (C$ - over 500,000 USD) and/or 6 months in prison for violating measures taken under the Quarantine Act.
These penalties - both the fine and the prison term - rise dramatically if said violation results in someone actually getting sick.
(In practice, a US couple that had broken the terms of their 14-day quarantine were fined $1000 each; this is why the minimum sentences in the Argentine code appear problematic to me).

We have plea bargaing where you accept you are guilty and we have “suspencion de juicio a prueba” that is a second chance. If you don’t commit any crime for the maximum of the penalty (in this case is 2 years), your record is clean again.
However, even found guilty in a full trial, you need a sentence of over 3 years to go to jail so to be found guilty is a seriour warning, nobody is going to go to jail unless they defiance the law.

 

[antipodean]

I mean, I’m happy to dunk on both bajo and this government, but they both appear to be in the right here.
The fact is that the plain text of the code makes clear that violating measures taken by the competent authorities to stop the spread of an epidemic, can indeed be punished with prison.
It does not state which measures these will, because that would be absurd. That is left to the “competent authorities” to decide based on the facts at the time.

I am not sure that this shouldn’t be the law, either. One can say that the authorities are overreacting in a given case, but having the ability to enforce the rules is important, particularly so in a nation of vivos.
The minimum sentence would seem to be a problem, because it doesn’t allow for prosecutorial discretion: not all violations are the same.
Then again, I know little about criminal procedure in Argentina; there may conceivably be other tools available (like plea bargaining) to impose a lesser punishment.



This is flatly untrue. Canada - hardly a dictatorship - allows up to a $750,000 fine (C$ - over 500,000 USD) and/or 6 months in prison for violating measures taken under the Quarantine Act.
These penalties - both the fine and the prison term - rise dramatically if said violation results in someone actually getting sick.
(In practice, a US couple that had broken the terms of their 14-day quarantine were fined $1000 each; this is why the minimum sentences in the Argentine code appear problematic to me).

The issue is that this DNU this is a universal measure of not allowing people to visit the homes of others. The issue is not article 205 or 206. The DNU is not targeted in any way, hence it oversteps the mark of being something strictly to avoid infection especially when people are still permitted to go to a supermarket (and other enclosed spaces) where they are far more likely to be infected or infect others. This measure even applies in provinces without any cases which has led to the governor of Corrientes saying he will simply defy it and refuse to enforce it.

The need for a targeted quarantine after travel or exposure to the virus or other similar measures is totally different - which many countries impose steep fines or even prison sentences for breaking is a fact, but it is a limited measure with a clear logic. No other countries threaten everyone with prison for visiting the house of another person independent of any other factor involved.

I would go further to question the feasibility of such a law in this society for example if someone with a new born child has complied with this measure, if say a grandparent of that child followed their social and biological instincts to visit and to see it, and thus made all of those people criminals according to Argentine law. Hence with such an unlimited catchment and no room for personal responsibility and mitigation in ones own home, how effective can such a law possibly be other than to yield arbitrary authority over people to use as a "gotcha" incase you don't like your neighbour or get on the wrong side of things.

 

[ben]

The issue is that this DNU this is a universal measure of not allowing people to visit the homes of others. The issue is not article 205 or 206. The DNU is not targeted in any way, hence it oversteps the mark of being something strictly to avoid infection especially when people are still permitted to go to a supermarket (and other enclosed spaces) where they are far more likely to be infected or infect others. This measure even applies in provinces without any cases which has led to the governor of Corrientes saying he will simply defy it and refuse to enforce it.

The need for a targeted quarantine after travel or exposure to the virus or other similar measures is totally different - which many countries impose steep fines or even prison sentences for breaking is a fact, but it is a limited measure with a clear logic. No other countries threaten everyone with prison for visiting the house of another person independent of any other factor involved.

I would go further to question the feasibility of such a law in this society for example if someone with a new born child has complied with this measure, if say a grandparent of that child followed their social and biological instincts to visit and to see it, and thus made all of those people criminals according to Argentine law. Hence with such an unlimited catchment and no room for personal responsibility and mitigation in ones own home, how effective can such a law possibly be other than to yield arbitrary authority over people to use as a "gotcha" incase you don't like your neighbour or get on the wrong side of things.

I absolutely agree with your sentiments on the one hand, and completely dismiss them as rational arguments on the other.

There is no way of separating the flexibility needed to battle a pandemic, from the capacity for overregulation. How “targeted” the regulations need to be, depends completely on the facts on the ground. And if you start making exceptions for people following “their social and biological instincts”, you’re well on your way to neutering any kind of regulation. A public-health emergency clearly calls for some regulation that may well conflict with people’s “social and biological instincts”. Nobody wants to be absent from the birth - or death, for that matter - of a loved one. But it is completely reasonable to require extra protection for a hospital of all places. Other examples abound. That’s why epidemics suck.

As for the capacity to overregulate? That is what the political process is for. The assumption is that one will try to act wisely, knowing that they are accountable to voters. Presumably there are ways to challenge a specific measure on a legal level. And there are judges at every point, who presumably - one hopes? - can do something about a clear overreach (again, don’t know enough about Arg criminal procedure to know how that works).

One can criticize the government’s handling of the pandemic on many levels. It was, at the same time, both draconian and utterly ineffective. (Prohibiting any gatherings in a locale with no cases at all would appear to be a good example of a measure that is both). I just don’t think the legal angle - painting necessary police powers as unconstitutional - withstands much scrutiny.