Do the Covid-19 restrictions placed on the UK population constitute a violation of basic civil liberties?
The containment of Covid-19 is proving to be one of the toughest challenges facing our generation. The outbreak has prompted the UK government to take urgent action and we’ve witnessed very stringent measures come into place in the name of Public Health protection. The freedom to assemble, to congregate in places of worship and to exercise free speech has been restricted. While UK restrictions may not look illiberal or authoritarian in comparison with other states such as Italy or China who have adopted more severe and intrusive measures, the fact remains that our individual rights, liberties and freedoms have been, to some degree, compromised, if not entirely suspended (for the time being). The degree to which we can argue this to have been the case depends on whether it can be shown that the state’s response was disproportionate to the actual threat at hand- thus constituting an abuse of discretionary powers.
The COVID-19 outbreak was brought to public attention in December 2019 but it wasn’t until March that the World Health Organisation (WHO) officially declared it a global ‘pandemic’. After this announcement on 23 March the PM announced that the UK would be heading into lockdown. By 25 March 2020 the the Coronavirus Bill received Royal Assent, granting the State a wide range of emergency powers. With these powers now backed by statute, the state could extend their powers to engage the UK police force, allowing them to fine individuals who went outdoors in breach of COVID regulations. These changes happened rather swiftly. Social gatherings were prohibited. Schools, gyms, restaurants, pubs and churches were to remain closed indefinitely while only venues approved and selected by the government were to be left open with limited access.
Following these restrictions, the British public were forcibly left with very few options to exercise their rights. They could only make work and food-related trips. This does raise doubts as to whether the state was acting in line with the libertarian and democratic principles it so heartily espouses. Feldman describes liberty as a ‘responsibility’ on the state. One of these responsibilities is to ensure that citizens are ‘sufficiently informed’ and ‘free’ to participate in public and political affairs (Ewing and Gearty 2000). This is in line with Kantian philosophy which proposes that the capacity for human beings to make free, uncoerced and informed choices is what makes them ‘autonomous citizens’. COVID-19 restrictions greatly undermined these liberties. Citizens were forced to remain home and were deprived of contact with members of their club, religion and community for a questionable duration of time. Perhaps beyond what might be advisable from a clinical perspective. The liberty to assemble is one of the fundamental tenets of a civilised and democratic life.
The freedom of speech is another civil liberty that was undermined by the government’s intrusion into the digital domain. The UK government claims to have partnered with Silicon Valley giants such as Google and Facebook, to stop “harmful misinformation from spreading”. However, in this context, ‘harmful misinformation’ constitutes any information deviating from the governmental agenda. Sadly we’ve witnessed many medics, citizens and alternative health practitioners being silenced on social media; having their videos removed and in some cases having their channels terminated for going against ‘community guidelines’. A question is: which community exactly? Overriding civil liberties in this way not only erodes public trust but it begs the question: what safeguards are in place to stop these abuses of power both in the public sector as well as the private sector?
On the other hand, some argue that the state acted within the powers afforded them by the Public Health (Control of Disease) Act 1984. This Act grants the state emergency powers to enforce regulations without an act of parliament required and also the power to supersede statutory duties when responding to urgent public health/ security threats. Utilitarian philosophy (Bentham & Mill) endorses this state power; stating that individual interests cannot be separated from the interests of society. The state must do what benefit’s the greatest number of people even if individual interests are compromised in the process. According to this viewpoint the UK restrictions, whilst violating certain civil liberties, would be justified.
Conclusion:
In any functioning society (particularly during times of global crises), the state must always balance individual liberties with wider community interests. Yet, state emergency powers should not grant the state authoritarian rule over its citizens. The freedom to voice diverse views, online or in person, is of fundamental importance for the advancement of society. Citizens and professionals should be allowed to critique elected officials and their decisions. Civilians, small business owners and professionals need answers. Many question whether such restrictions on their lives and their businesses’ were wholly justified and necessary. The next generation also need answers.
