A Question of Legitimacy: Australian Government and British Possession

 On the 22nd of August, 1770, Lieutenant James Cook wrote in his Journal:

"Notwithstand[ing] I had in the Name of his Majesty taken posession of several places upon this coast I now once more hoisted English Coulers and in the Name of His Majesty King George the Third took po session of the whole Eastern Coast from … Latitude [38° South] down to this place by the Name of New South Wales together with all the Bays, Harbours Rivers and Islands situate upon the said coast after which we fired three Volleys of small Arms which were Answerd by the like number from the Ship."
(Quoted from https://www.nma.gov.au/defining-moments/resources/cook-claims-australia)

This is arguably (along with other claims of possession by Cook and later Arthur Phillip) the most racist act in Australia's history.  It is racist because it purported that European law and custom automatically overruled the laws and customs of the native people of the land simply because it was the law agreed to among Europeans; and on that basis Europeans could claim possession of any terra nullius (or 'uninhabited land') on the basis of that law, regardless of the fact that the law had not been agreed to by other civilized peoples (such as those of the Middle East, India and China).  It was further racist because in a land clearly inhabited, and in which Cook had met (and shot, and killed) several of the inhabitants, it made the assumption that the land was uninhabited for legal purposes because the inhabitants did not farm in the manner of Europeans.

The claim of possession was not the last racist act directed towards indigenous Australians in Australia's history; and certainly not the most directly vicious.  It was, however, the most consequential.  The founding of English colonies in Australia, and later the Federation of Australia by an Act of the English Parliament derive their legitimacy from the legitimacy of that original claim of possession.  If that claim had no legal force in Australia; then neither did any Act of the English Parliament have legal force in Australia - and if they did not have legal force, neither could they establish legitimate government in Australia.  And if we assert the legitimacy of the Australian government in law; then by that act we logically also assert the legitimacy of that original act of dispossession and with it the racism entailed by it.

I am certain that many will claim that the legitimacy of the Australian government rests on some other foundation than the initial racist act of claiming possession of Australia for the English Crown.  An obvious candidate for an alternative principle is the Jeffersonian claim that "... governments deriv[e] their just powers from the consent of the governed ...".  The problem with such a claim' is that it is not the basis of Australian law.  Rather, Australian law cannot come into effect unless it receives the 'Royal Assent'; ie, the signature of the Queen's representative at State or Federal level.  There was an attempt to correct that flaw in our Constitution in referendum on becoming a Republic in 1999 - but the Australian people rejected it; and it remains the case in Australian law that Australian governments can make laws they have never proposed to the people, and which the majority of the people disagree with - provided they have royal consent.

An alternative ground for legitimacy might be found in Realpolitik - whatever the merits of the initial dispossession, Australia now exists as a functioning society, and that fact alone grants its government and its laws legitimacy.  In practical terms, we are more or less forced to this position.  Whatever the merits, Australians are simply not going to abandon this continent as a whole; and if they did, it would not help the indigenous people - for some other power would immediately seize so wealthy (and effectively empty, in this scenario) a land.  However, that is a constraint only on how we proceed.  If we make it the founding principle of the 'legitimacy' of our government - we have thereby declared that our government is based on the principle of might makes right.  In doing so, we also declare that if some foreign power were to conquer Australia, and make good their possession; then by that fact alone they would have justified their aggression.  We would be declaring, in fact, that not just power, but morality comes from the barrel of a gun.

A third, and more reasonable, suggestion would be to accept the illegitimacy (and immorality) of the original act of dispossession - but argue that it is now history and cannot be altered.  Consequently we must accept the legitimacy of the English Parliament granting Australia a Constitution as a legal fiction; and do our best to ensure our laws are moral and principled going forward.  The problem with this position is its narrow view.  While as a practical matter, we must currently accept the legal fiction of the legitimacy of the act of dispossession; it is not the only legal fiction we have available to use in grounding our society.  While we cannot go back in time and establish a Treaty with the indigenous peoples of Australia; we can establish now a legal framework such as the indigenous peoples would have accepted in a Treaty has a treaty been signed with them; and, with the consent of their descendants, establish that framework in the Constitution - making it the basis of legitimacy of Australian society.  Too me, this is far superior.  If we must have a legal fiction at as the foundation of our law and governance - let it at least be a just legal fiction rather than one that appeals to ultimately immoral principles.

This is an approach I find very desirable.  I want there to be a Treaty with the indigenous peoples of Australia, adopted as a Constitutional Amendment, and made part of our Constitution.  Ideally, it would include a clause making it only possible to alter the language of the Treaty by the consent of the majority of Australian indigenous people in Australia; and ideally, also, it would include a bill of rights.  At this time, however, that is not a practical aspiration.  However, we can alter the laws of Australia (and where necessary, the Constitution) to give the indigenous peoples of Australia the protection for them and their descendants against the tyranny of the majority that a genuine treaty process in the past would have provided.  Which is, of course, the purpose of the Voice to Parliament and Makarrata Process.

What proportion of CoV-SARS-2 infected people are asymptomatic?

This is my third attempt to examine this question.  The previous two versions died in draft because the results from various studies were in significant disagreement, so that I could come to no firm conclusion.  Fortunately I have now come across a meta-analysis that should give a clearer answer.  That meta-analysis is by Wenquing He, Grace Yi and Yayuan Zhu, all of the University of Western Otario.  Their paper is "Estimation of the basic reproduction number, averageincubation time, asymptomatic infection rate, and casefatality rate for COVID-19: Meta-analysis andsensitivity analysis" published by medRxiv.

When did the virus responsible for COVID-19 jump species?

With the Australian government following the US government in trying to impute culpability to Chinese handling of the outbreak of COVID-19; and with the Chinese trying to exonerate themselves, and implausibly shift the blame to the Americans, the exact timing of the jump of the virus responsible for COVID-19 (SARS-CoV-2) from animals to humans has become politically fraught.  Fortunately, some information about that event can be gleaned from phylogenetic data from the virus itself.  The determination of the event cannot be exact for a number of reasons; but it has the advantage of being free from politics, and of possible suppression of data.

So far as I have been able to determine from an extensive search of Google Scholar, there has been just one peer reviewed paper tackling that subject - "Evolutionary history, potential intermediate animal host, and cross‐species analyses of SARS‐CoV‐2" by Li et al.  They state in the abstract, "Based on Bayesian time‐scaled phylogenetic analysis using the tip‐dating method, we estimated the time to the most recent common ancestor and evolutionary rate of SARS‐CoV‐2, which ranged from 22 to 24 November 2019...", and more precisely, in the text, "Our results also suggest that the virus originated on 24 November 2019...".  The purpose of this post is to discuss in more detail those results, and what they actually mean.  I will also discuss the results of Andrew Rambaut of the University of Edinburgh, which were directly published to the web (and hence only subject to informal peer review).

Updated:14/5/2020

Did the Chinese report only 1 in 100 COVID-19 cases?

Did the Chinese report only 1 in 100 COVID-19 cases?  It seems like an extraordinary question, but that is the implication of an article (Tsang et al) published by a group of scientists from Hong Kong.  They write: 

"Among the 127 000 cases that we estimated in Wuhan by Feb 20, we estimated that there could have been approximately 11 000 infections (95% CrI 7000–21 000) that met version 5 of the case definition with illness onset by Jan 1, 2020. In the observed data, there were 114 confirmed COVID-19 cases with illness onset by Jan 1, 2020, corresponding to around 1% of our estimated total. Before Jan 23, we estimated that 92% (95% CrI 88–95) of cases were undetected." (My emphasis.)

The article was published in the Lancet, so it needs to be taken seriously.  Never-the-less, I think they are clearly wrong.  In the first instance, I think they are wrong because their model predicts approximately approximately 90 cases with disease onset on December 2nd, six days prior to the onset of symptoms in the first known case.  If that had been the case, the disease must have jumped to humans in early November at the latest; and cases would have started to find their way into intensive care units by late November - something clearly contradicted by the testimony of Chinese whistle-blowers.   

I have other, more direct criticisms which will be the subject of my post.  The most crucial of these criticisms is that when we confine the analysis to Wuhan patients, the logic of the definitions together with known clinical data show Tsang et al to massively over-estimate the effect of changes in the 'case definition' on the number of patients diagnosed with COVID-19.  

Before going further, however, I must clarify that the authors of the article do not suggest that any under counting was deliberate, or fraudulent; and nor do I suggest that there was no under counting.  Of necessity, in a new disease which can manifest in a mild form, there will be initial under counting of the disease.  That is because people with mild symptoms will likely not go to a doctor, and if they do, may dismissed as having an aberrant form of some other disease.  Therefore, in the case of COVID-19 there must have been under counting due to ignorance; and the authors do not suggest any other reason for the extent of the under counting.  Where we disagree is that I think they radically over estimate the level of under counting; and that they do so in part due to logical flaws in their paper.

Data and Anti-Chinese Jingoism around COVID-19

Short, skinny - The statistics of the spread of COVID-19 show that recent demands of an inquiry into China's response to COVID-19, led chiefly by Donald Trump and echoed by his allies around the world are based on a jingoistic attempt to find a foreign scapegoat for Trump's own policy failures in response to COVID-19.

The Religious Discrimination Bill (Part 2)

In Part 1 of this series, I discussed the motivations behind, and the core problem with attempts to secure religious people from discrimination in the manner of the Religious Discrimination Bill, 2019.  To summarize, the key protection being instituted is not a protection against discrimination, but rather grants to religious people only, exceptional privileges when it comes to disseminating their views.  In this post, I will look at fundamental flaws in the particular implementation of the law related to the definitions used in the bill.  These flaws have far reaching implications, including a potential for it to become mandatory for the courts to determine what is, and what is not reasonable doctrine or practice in a religion.  In that eventuality, the government, through the courts, will be mandating what is, and is not permissible to believe in any given religion, ie, the exact reverse of freedom of religion.

The Religious Discrimination Bill (Part 1)

 The Australian Parliament is currently considering the Religious Discrimination Bill, 2019 - which is currently on its second exposure draft.  The Bill is motivated by what some Christians view as increasing discrimination against religion and the religious, and specifically Christianity in Australian society.  The two factors motivating the Bill at this time have been the passing of Marriage Amendment (Definitions and Religious Freedom) Act, 2017; and the Israel Folau incident, in which Israel Folau was sacked by the Australian Rugby Union for making claims on his Instagram account about about supposed fate of homosexuals and atheists (among others) in the hands of a purportedly good God.