Indeed. There’s probably a lengthy bureaucratic process one can go through to receive permission to have sex. It isn’t “fascism.” That’s an ugly word. It is “freedom by permit.” Now just make sure you have your permit to carry permits- the EU is looking at a law to restrict the carrying of all the stacks of permits needed because their combined weight could make them useful as a weapon.
* those in the UK or EU- please note I’m poking fun and not insulting you. The USA and everywhere in the world has its own problems- you’ve likely seen me on here talking about the problems in the USA. So it’s only fair and good humor to poke back, I understand that actual law doesn’t ban sex and is a temporary precaution to help stop the spread of Covid.
Some more information about the law.
Tier 2 means how likely a given area is to have an infection spread, basically a measure of how many infected there are there. For reference london is Tier 2.
This law has an exception if at least one of the members of the couple live alone.
The law also makes an exception for couples who live in a "support bubble" which is a bit of an open term, basically if 2 household have household to household socialization then members of those 2 households can also fuck.
Debatable. On the one hand we can argue that restricting personal freedom- even for safety- isn’t the business of the government. On the other hand.... I don’t know many people who would agree that the government has no right to tell a person they can’t build a nuclear reactor or a 1500lb Bomb in their own home. By the same logic, what right does the government have to say that a parent has to send a child to school, or that a local burger joint can’t also run an embalming studio out of the kitchen? If people don’t want to eat there they won’t- and if they do, isn’t it their freedom to?
I would personally agree with that. But in this case- the government has not said anything about boning. The government has said that people living I. Different households who do not live alone cannot go to each other’s houses. They have restricted freedom of travel to prevent a danger to the general public. As a consequence- some people can’t bone.
Well, so long as everyone effected all had their due process and were proven guilty on individual basis of whatever criminal offense warrants such strange terms of imprisonment, I suppose I can't really criticize their internal policies.
No crimes. Due process yes. Their due process was the election of representatives who would se etc their interests in law and the appointment of administrators of government organizations.
So for example: a public park or beach may close down. There may be a flood or fire, or many parks might just literally close at sunset or some pre set time. Even though a member of the public is a co-owner if that public space, they can be told by the appointed agency that administers the space in the public trust that they are not allowed to go there. This is because while each member of the public owns some percentage of the space- the space is held on trust, and the trust administers the space in accordance to the elected representatives or direct vote of the people as a democratic majority.
This same principal applies to all territorial space owned by most countries. One does not strictly speaking “own” land in most any country. One owns a TITLE to land- essentially the rights to that land- the land itself still belongs to the country who has administrative and territorial control of that land. Otherwise you could simply declare your home no longer soul of any country and thusly that countries laws would not apply within your home would they?
The title to land has conditional rights. For example you may not own “air rights” to the vertical spaces immediately above the property, or the airspace above to be able to prevent aircraft from flying through the sky above your home. You may not own mineral or “ground” rights, so any fossils or oil or such found under your home do not belong to you- and in some countries only the state owns all rights to air and underground or water.
Most countries also have some concept of “imminent domain” which allows the state to take land (sometimes compensation is required to the title holder, others not), because the state always owns the land- you only hold a title to the land- so the state can theoretically take it back as they like. Land rights are not a promise of the American Constitution nor a promise of any other country I am immediately aware of. Most countries laws do not have provisions to allow citizens to create their own nations on their soil.
Even Native panda are often administered and “owned” by some state body, so land rights are conditional and subject to approval by the state. What one does on their land within the bounds of the law and where such laws do not impede the exercise of that countries legally protected or constitutional freedoms is ones business.
But the state not only has the land rights in trust but rights to all public spaces in trust including roads made for travel- and travel rights vary by country but are subject to restrictions in most countries. I am unaware of any country which has no internal restrictions and allows completely free travel within its borders.
In countries where voters and or their elected representatives have enacted organizations that act in the public health and well being such as centers of disease control, public health, or emergency response and management- the public had through due legal process given powers to these agencies which include the right to restrict travel through public spaces in the interest of their appointed concern.
In most democratic or representative democratic states- there is a due process to go through when members of the public feel their officials are not acting in their interests, or disagree with actions their representatives have taken. If a sufficient majority of people object and follow the process of appeals, usually these acts can be blocked, overturned, and organization leaders or even the entire organization may be terminated of the public so wishes.
So due process in restricting travel within and outside a country in response to public threat had established due process and has passed the test with precedent and vetting (if the police or national guard close a road because of an accident or bomb- have they violated a citizens rights?) the remaining due process would be for anyone who objects to the measures taken to combat the current pandemic to lobby their representatives for the desired changes in policy, and if unsuccessful to go about the process of removing those representatives and electing ones who will administer to their liking.
Just to be fair- they didn’t REALLY ban sex between tier 2 couples who do t live together. ALL people living within the highest risk areas for Covid have been banned from indoor meetings with those other than who they live with unless they are part of the same “social bubble.” For example- couples who don’t live together or even friends can still hang out at each other’s houses as long as the parties meeting indoors live alone (and therefore cannot catch Covid from or transmit Covid to, other housemates.) These measures aren’t so different than those taken in other places including the United States during “lockdown.” Where I live- all indoor gatherings were banned between people not from the same house, and all outdoor outings were banned unless those people were in the single “social bubble” you were allowed to participate in.
Tier 2 means how likely a given area is to have an infection spread, basically a measure of how many infected there are there. For reference london is Tier 2.
This law has an exception if at least one of the members of the couple live alone.
The law also makes an exception for couples who live in a "support bubble" which is a bit of an open term, basically if 2 household have household to household socialization then members of those 2 households can also fuck.