Protesting in a Pandemic: Balancing Human Rights and Public Safety
In the Star Trek film, ‘Wrath of Khan’, Spock states ‘logic clearly dictates that the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few’. His mother and him later come to a consensus – on occasion, humans are illogical (since his friends went on the run just to save him). This idea pervades through society. Alongside this, humans face looming challenges frequently. Thus, should we be prioritising matters revolving around public health or ensure that the right to expression is our main concern? Do we, or rather, can we wait for the pandemic to be over before defending our fundamental right to free speech?
The pandemic that began around the beginning of 2020 asked a lot from humanity as we know it to be. Topics such as working from home and climate change were thrust into the spotlight, having spent years at the back of our minds. Nevertheless, let us turn our attention to what has happened in the last two weeks in the United Kingdom.
Currently, questions are being asked, regarding how we balance the right to freedom of expression against the need to protect public health. Additionally, surrounding these questions are concerns related to public safety, misogyny, trust in the public authorities as well as police protocol and procedures. Therefore, society must prioritise their concerns, to avoid the dark and gloomy path lies ahead of both a lack of concern regarding public health and human rights. The tragic murder of Sarah Everard has sparked a discussion on the current state of matters in the United Kingdom.
Sarah Everard was declared missing by her boyfriend on the 4th March 2021. A search operation was mounted by the police and about five days later, the Metropolitan Police announced the arrest of a serving police officer, Wayne Couzens. Her remains were found the next day, 10th March, in a woodland area near Ashford, London. Couzens had been accused of indecent exposure three days before Everard’s disappearance. He is currently charged with the kidnapping and murder of Sarah Everard, and is awaiting trial, scheduled for October 2021.
Examining this situation, murder of an innocent young woman is an unimaginable to any community. Furthermore, the mere idea that a police officer was the one that committed the crime seriously undermines the authority of the Metropolitan Police. The organisation that was supposed to be the epitome of safety and protection has been scarred and belittled. It begs the question, if there were allegations of indecent exposure by Couzens prior to the alleged kidnapping and were there investigations ongoing and why was he not put on suspension. In relation to the alleged incident of Couzens committing indecent exposure, the police were investigating but did not take any further action. No further comments were given due to the ongoing investigations. It is paramount for the correct steps to be taken in any incident so accountability and any further negative effects can be mitigated. Consequently, public confidence in the police force is crucial and might lead to a deteriorating public perception of the judicial, executive and government’s power too.
A vigil for Sarah Everard was supposed to be held on Saturday, 13 March 2021, by the organisation, ‘Reclaim These Streets’. It was subsequently called off by the organisers and the Metropolitan police advised against the attendance of the vigil. This was in addition to the High Court not approving the event. Nonetheless, the event, although not official, continued. Those who participated had different goals. Some wanted to emphasise safety in public spaces while others may have seen it as a safe space to pay their respects to Mc Everard. From a broader perspective, this vigil, as a result of the atrocities committed by an individual, brought together a community expressing their hopes and endeavours for their society.
Unfortunately, the scale of the gathering during the national lockdown due to the global pandemic led to further problems down the road. The Metropolitan Police held that the vigil was unlawful. With police officers attempting to disperse the crowd, a series of scuffles ensued, with police officers using aggression against members of the public and arrests occurring. PM Boris Johnson called for an inquiry into the incident after reviewing the images caught of the vigil. Meanwhile, the Independent Office for Police Conduct (IOPC) is conducting an investigation to review if the actions taken by the police were according to procedure and if it was dealt with correctly.
Taking a step back to confront the steps the Metropolitan Police took is essential to understanding the events of that day. There are multiple reasons that could account for the actions taken by the police at the vigil.
Firstly, the Metropolitan Police had an enormous decision to make that would have led to consequences, no matter which side of the coin it landed on. If the police had not intervened, there would not have been any enforcement of social distancing measures. Larger crowds were gathering towards the evening with people not complying with measures in place to prevent the spread of the virus. The United Kingdom has had around 126,000 deaths (as of 21 March 2021) as a result of the coronavirus disease. Secondly, the Home Office reinforced the regulations that it is illegal for individuals to leave their homes without a reasonable excuse until any changes that might occur on 29 March. Hence, if the vigil was considered to be unlawful, it would require the law enforcement officers to take action in pursuance of public safety.
However, by intervening, it caused a huge amount of distress to a community that was grieving over the loss of a young woman. Moreover, the loss was caused by an officer inside the very organisation that was supposed to be protecting them. Underlying emotions of betrayal and hatred may have fuelled any aggression that was displayed towards the police officers.
It seems, at the crux of this matter, there are conflicting interests. It arose from the government's failure to reconcile human rights concerns as well as regulation surrounding the COVID-19 regulations. The question remains, whether the Metropolitan Police have handled the situation with more empathy to neutralise the matter in a manner that could have potentially avoided violence and incurring more problems.
Local authorities should have had the foresight to recognise the significance of the event and any implications involved if any disruptions were to occur. Organisers of the vigil blamed the Metropolitan police for a lack of practical discussions on the matter to ensure that a vigil that adhered to the social distancing regulations could prevail. As a result, there was no formal vigil held but organisers managed to hold a fundraiser and encouraged people to participate in the ‘vigil’ by holding a candle at their doorstep instead. More engagement and awareness to deal with any physical vigil being held could have been dealt with more urgency to potentially prevent any further public distress and develop more understanding from the public.
There have been recent calls by Ministers of Parliament and peers for protests to be allowed during the national lockdown. Meanwhile, other ministers have urged for any demonstrations on the matter to be done more appropriately, taking the pandemic into consideration. A lack of clear guidance has created uncertainty for other police constabularies as well as for rights advocates. It calls into question the right to the freedom of expression and essentially, human rights.
“It is important that women come together. We can do that virtually and recognise the ongoing issue there is with violence against women and girls, perpetrated by men, but do it in a Covid-safe way.”
For now, until 29th March, the current government’s stance is clear: one should not leave your home unless obtaining a reasonable excuse. In essence, the government is looking to prioritise public safety and interest in containing the coronavirus and its variants. Without doing so, the United Kingdom is bound to face the virus spreading quickly and uncontrollably, leading to more economic uncertainties and unemployment rising with non-essential premises continuing to be closed. National lockdowns may become the norm in trying to reduce the number of COVID-19 cases. Physical and mental health issues, involving anxiety, depression and stress, due to the loss of jobs and increased periods of prolonged isolation are becoming substantial concerns with lockdowns. Bereavement and the loss of income may contribute to more mental health issues too if the situation worsens. The UK Office for National Statistics depict a worrying increase of 9% for adults reporting symptoms of depression before and after the pandemic spread and lockdowns were implemented.
The pandemic has asked humanity many hard questions. On one hand, we see a society and government trying to stay resolute and undaunted by this unprecedented event. On the other, society is attempting to achieve some sense of normality in the face of hardship and cruelty. Tackling the COVID-19 head on and with full force may be the only viable course of action for society to undertake. To some extent, we are fighting the same fight, merely on different fronts. Unity, if ever it existed, is paramount in our fight for ourselves and our loved ones.
