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 in to place in the name of Public Health protection. The freedom to assemble, to congregate in places of worship and even 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 validity of the statement in question depends on whether it can be shown that the State's response was disproportionate to the actual threat; constituting an abuse of its 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 on a statutory footing, the state could extend these powers to the police, allowing them to fine individuals for being in breach of COVID regulations. Social gatherings were prohibited. Schools, gyms, restaurants, pubs and churches were to remain closed indefinitely while only venues selected by the government were to be left open with limited access.

The minimal allowances left available to the British public following these restrictions (i.e. work and food-related travel only) did raise doubts as to whether the state was acting contrary to libertarian principles. 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 and free, uncoerced and informed choices is what makes them autonomous citizens. COVID 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 durations of time beyond what might be clinically advisable. 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 of the digital domain. The state's aim behind partnering with Silicon Valley giants such as Google/Facebook was purportedly to stop "harmful misinformation from spreading". However, in this context 'harmful' simply meant 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. 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?

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 seen as justified.

Conclusion:

In any functioning society (particularly during times of crises), the state must always balance individual liberties with wider community interests. Yet emergency powers do 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 societal ideals. Given that the elderly were most vulnerable- not the youth- then citizens and professionals should be allowed to critique elected officials' decisions and question whether such restrictions on individuals lives were justified and necessary, granted that young people were not the ones posing serious existential threats to the life of the nation.