Utopia, you are standing in it!

The legality of the Covid-19 lockdown in New Zealand has been thrust into the spotlight, with valuable analysis from colleagues Profs Geddis and Geiringer on this blog, subsequent public airing of that legal debate, and issue of judicial review proceedings to test the regime on the back of that analysis. Questions about the validity of the orders under the Health Act – closing business premises and confining all New Zealanders to their household bubbles, for over 6 weeks now – have been percolating in legal quarters. Those doubts have recently seeped into public discourse and become part of political argument. This risks disrupting the delicate equilibrium of public acceptance that has characterised the lockdown – a lockdown that seems to have been pretty successful, so far, in breaking the chain of transmission and stamping out the virus.

We take a more benevolent view on whether the orders are valid and…

by Greg Mayer

The New York Times‘ ‘1619 Project’, and the critical reaction to it, has drawn attention here at WEIT a number of times. The diversity of the sources of criticism has been notable, ranging across the traditional political spectrum from left to right. In another salvo from the right, conservative political commentator George Will attacks the project in a new column in the Washington Post. The occasion of Will’s critique is that, incredibly, the lead writer of the project, Nikole Hannah-Jones, has been awarded a Pulitzer Prize! (As Brian Leiter notes, the Pulitzer people have not covered themselves with glory in their awards for “Commentary”.)

As his headline (in the title above) shows, Will attacks both the historical account given by the project, and its motivations. He selects “three examples of slovenliness, even meretriciousness, regarding facts”. The examples chosen are the significance of a…

Since I’ve never smoked or vaped, I have no personal interest in the the regulatory battle over vaping and e-cigarettes.

That being said, I started writing about this issue back in 2016 because it involves several important principles.

1. The libertarian argument that people should be free to do what they want with their own bodies
2. Whether the “administrative state” should be able to unilaterally grab more regulatory power.
3. The degree to which “harm reduction” or “zero tolerance” should guide government policies.

From a public health perspective, the third point is most important.

It’s a fight between those who want the Food and Drug Administration to use its self-anointed regulatory authority to ban e-cigarettes (because vaping is worse than not vaping) and those who explain that e-cigarettes are helpful (because vaping is far less risky than smoking).

This fight has a September 9 deadline. The Food and Drug…

The great comedian Jerry Stiller, who often performed with his wife Anne Meara, passed away this morning at age 92. Reporting on his life and comedy, NBC News finished the report with these words:

“Meara passed away five years ago. Now this legendary pair is laughing together again.”

Now if that isn’t a paean to togetherness in the afterlife, you tell me what it is. You might be able to confect a tortuous interpretation, like a Sophisticated Theologian®, but I see the words as a sop to the religious.

We are constantly inundated by these nods towards religion and religionists, and this is one of them. It sounds good, doesn’t it? But it’s a lie.

Let’s just watch them laugh together when they were alive. Here they are on the Ed Sullivan show in 1964, with Meara trying to kiss off her ardent boyfriend.

The New Zealand Government recently lifted its “Level 4” COVID-19 restrictions. Significant restrictions, including coercive powers restricting basic liberties, remain active. Parliament’s Epidemic Response Committee is now planning to issue summonses for the production of legal advice given to the Government for these extraordinary measures. This advice is covered by legal professional privilege, which can be waived by the Government. This note explores the current context of scrutiny of the lawfulness of New Zealand’s lockdown measures, and what could (and should) be done by Parliament, if the Government refuses to waive its privilege.

New Zealand’s lockdown and questions about its lawfulness

The legal status and lawfulness of New Zealand’s lockdown restrictions has recently been discussed on this Blog by Professors Andrew Geddis and Claudia Geiringer. In summary, the Government acted under legislation covering national epidemic and emergency responses, to activate emergency powers, including those conferred to medical officers under…

Having already written several dozen columns on public policy and the coronavirus, it’s time to add my two cents to the debate over Sweden’s (comparatively) laissez-faire approach to the pandemic.

If nothing else, it’s remarkable that the nation Bernie Sanders praised for socialism (albeit incorrectly) is now the poster child for (some) libertarians.

What makes Sweden special, as depicted in this graphic from CNN, is a more lenient attitude about letting ordinary life continue.

Did Sweden make the right choice?

Let’s review several analyses, starting with Hilary Brueck’s article for Business Insider.

In Sweden, bars and restaurants are open to the public, you can go get a haircut, and primary school is in session. …life goes on. …If anyone can have success with such a low-enforcement disease-fighting strategy, it may be Sweden. …The Swedish prerogative asks citizens to act like adults, and then trusts that, left…