This year Jews and Christians have had their usual expectations for Passover and Easter turned upside down, and given the aggressive trajectory of the Covid-19 development, the same looks set to be true for Ramadan later this month. Nevertheless, faith communities have found creative ways to respond, adapting practices and seeking positives in a strange situation. Furthermore, most religious groups have been actively promoting compliance with government guidance, as would be expected, given that measures to prevent unnecessary suffering and death are not merely permitted, but actively required, according to mainstream interpretations of most faiths. As a result, the UK has not faced serious protest over the impact of social distancing measures on worship and religious gatherings, and even in contexts with a very different religious culture, like the United States, only a small minority of Churches and other religious communities have been resistant. Fortunately, the Florida-based pastor who refused to suspend worship on the grounds that his community are not “pansies” is not typical.
Governments in liberal democratic States have introduced unusually restrictive measures in a period of global emergency, and the vast majority of people are on board with that, whether or not they happen to have a faith. As the reasonableness of limiting what people do, when their behaviour might have a direct impact on spreading this coronavirus, is unquestionable, citizens have regarded these harsh decisions as necessary. More sticky, however, is the question of how far it is appropriate to restrict what people say. Although deciding where to draw the line between freedom of expression and public harm is a perennial problem, it has renewed urgency in a time of pandemic, both in relation to individual human rights and the wider public good.
The TV Network London Live is being formally investigated by Ofcom after televising an interview with conspiracy theorist David Icke, in which he implicitly linked 5G mobile networks and coronavirus. Previously, You Tube had taken down a similar interview on their platform and tightened their misinformation rules, after Icke had been even more explicit in his claim and hinted that people would be wise to take direct action. In light of arson attacks which had already taken place on network masts because of an alleged link between them and Covid-19, the risk of these comments causing serious problems was beyond doubt. It goes without saying, encouraging people to smash up and set fire to other citizens’ property is always unacceptable, but it is also unquestionable that damaging communication networks and tying up the emergency services is particularly dangerous in these challenging times. On balance, the moves to stifle the flow of this false information were probably justified. However, it is worth pausing to reflect: Icke is an ex-football player famous for claiming that the world is run by sinister human alien-reptile hybrids, meaning that he isn’t exactly high in the public credibility and respectability stakes. Consequently, there is a real risk that public efforts to silence him could potentially add fuel to the conspiracy fires, ironically making his bizarre claims sound more credible to the tiny minority of people who buy into this ideology.
We are at pains to stress that we are not opposing decision-makers trying to restrict Icke’s ability to spread false information about Corvid-19, either on conventional or social media. We would also like to point out though that a different outcome might also have been defensible, as these are difficult judgement calls being made in the throes of an extreme crisis. It is also interesting, from a human rights perspective, that these decisions were taken by a commercial entity (You Tube) and a regulator (Ofcom), rather than the Government or Parliament. The difference is far from insignificant, as the latter could be theoretically challenged, but it would be harder going with the former, unless Icke were to try to make a discrimination claim based on religious equality.
The question to be addressed is at what point religious or spiritual claims become dangerous enough to justify silencing the maker, and who should decide this. A Church in London faced investigation by the Charity Commission and criticism from Southwark Council, after selling coronavirus protection kits for £91 a pop, consisting of some red yarn and special oil. Nevertheless, the minister responsible, Bishop Climate Wiseman, protested that he was not encouraging his followers to disregard government advice, as these were to be used alongside social distancing. Understandably, the visceral reaction of most citizens to a group making vast profits by selling “protection” to frightened individuals in the midst of a pandemic is one of repugnance, but if we take action to prevent this (assuming for a moment that the claim about not promoting any behaviour dangerous to wider public health is truthful), should we look more closely at what faith groups do more widely? Should we do more about religious organisations selling healing water, oils or charms, or requiring followers to reject conventional medicine? The law does address exploitation where goods are being sold on the basis of unverifiable claims, but mainly through the mechanism of consumer protection legislation, which clearly does not provide a response to many other scenarios. For instance, it cannot assist where the case does not involve payment for a product or specific service, and in any event, financial exploitation is not the only troubling aspect of these situations. There are other forms of abuse and exploitation.
In terms of the wider social questions, these issues need to be debated calmly, and it must be acknowledged that it is possible for reasonable people to disagree about where and when we should draw the line between respecting religious freedom and shielding the vulnerable from harm. Whilst immediate responses to particular scenarios in very unique circumstances should certainly not provide a template for future regulation, they do flag up issues which law-makers might wish to consider, more thoroughly, in due course.
Moreover, irrespective of how judges and legislatures might attempt to consider all possible angles of these debates, human experience will always throw up something new. For instance, the same Florida pastor who made the “pansies” comment, also went on to suggest that the Lord would aid the faithful by miraculously causing the toilet-rolls in their bathroom cupboards to multiply. We suspect that this almost certainly does not fall far enough along the spectrum of harm to justify legal intervention, but we fully understand individuals feeling somewhat miffed if this doesn’t come to pass. Encouraging reliance on a future miracle is a dangerous path to tread (and one which many Christians would actually find as disrespectful towards the Almighty, as well as risky, hence the Western Church withdrawing its cooperation from trial by ordeal in 1215).
We would wish all of you, who like us, celebrate Easter, every blessing at the time. Good wishes to those celebrating other festivals, and whatever your spiritual and ideological outlook, we hope that you and your loved ones stay safe and well.
Related Articles
Coronavirus: Ofcom formally probes David Icke TV interview BBC News 9/4/20
UK Phone masts attacked amid 5G coronavirus conspiracy theory The Guardian 4/4/20
Conservative US Pastor Who Refused To Close Church Amid Coronavirus Pandemic Suggests God Will Help By Multiplying Toilet Rolls Newsweek (3/29/20)
