Thoughts on economics and liberty

I believe lockdowns are a form of imprisonment, so habeas corpus applies

1. Lockdowns are not quarantine.
2. Therefore they are a form of imprisonment
3. Habeas Corpus applies
How do we know that lockdowns are a form of imprisonment? As noted in my 8 October 2020 Samuel Griffith paper:
Lockdowns are not a quarantine. This is big discovery I made only yesterday while starting to read the 14 September 2020 judgement of Judge William Stickman who struck down the lockdown orders of the Governor of Pennsylvania. Basically, we quarantine sick people but lock down prisoners.

The Pennsylvania Disease Prevention and Control Law of 1955 defines quarantine in this manner:

Quarantine. The limitation of freedom of movement of persons or animals who have been exposed to a communicable disease for a period of time equal to the longest usual incubation period of the disease in such manner as to prevent effective contact with those not so exposed. Quarantine may be complete, or, as defined below, it may be modified, or it may consist merely of surveillance or segregation.

I assume a similar definition applies to Victoria. Judge William Stickman then unpacked the meaning of this:

A quarantine requires, as a threshold matter, that the person subject to the “limitation of freedom of movement” be “exposed to a communicable disease.” Moreover, critically, the duration of a quarantine is statutorily limited to “a period of time equal to the longest usual incubation period of the disease”.

The [Pennsylvania] lockdown plainly exceeded that period. Indeed, Defendants’ witnesses, particularly Ms. Boateng, conceded upon examination that the lockdown cannot be considered a quarantine.[1] (emphasis mine.)

Lockdowns are unambiguously a form of mass imprisonment.




Please follow and like us:
Pin Share

Sanjeev Sabhlok

View more posts from this author
Social media & sharing icons powered by UltimatelySocial