Why is it that the Scottish government’s Covid restrictions permit people to attend a packed pub or nightclub without a face covering but require one in a place of worship? It’s a question to which there is no obvious answer, not least because Nicola Sturgeon herself is content to sit in a church without one, as she did during the Duke of Edinburgh’s memorial service in Westminster Abbey this week.
Thankfully, the First Minister announced yesterday that this inconsistency will be coming to an end. As of Monday, it will no longer be a legal requirement to wear a face mask in a church, mosque, synagogue, mandir, gurdwara or other places of worship in Scotland.
This is good news. But the fact that the legal requirement to wear face coverings within shops and public transport will be extended shows there are still inconsistencies within the Scottish Government’s response to Covid-19, and these must be called out.
There are still inconsistencies within the Scottish Government’s response to Covid-19
Freedom of religion or belief does not mean faith groups get priority. It means people of faith should be treated equally to those without faith. But with these new restrictions, Scots will rightly be asking why those attending religious services are being prioritised.
This, of course, is a complete flip to what many Scots have been highlighting in the past few months, having argued that the Scottish Government has not given enough priority to those who attend places of worship. But this flip-flopping of the argument does show a deep-rooted problem: the Scottish Government’s lack of literacy on religion or belief. And it is this illiteracy which has resulted in a lack of appreciation for the importance of the fundamental human right of freedom of religion or belief in the first place.
Lord Braid, the judge who ruled that the Scottish Government had infringed upon human rights legislation by closing places of worship during the second lockdown, appears to agree with this. He said:
‘It is not clear that the respondents (the Scottish Government) have fully appreciated the importance of article nine (Freedom of Religion or Belief) rights. They have admittedly paid lip service to article nine by referring to it, but there is no evidence that they have accorded it the importance which such a fundamental right deserves.’
This week, as the First Minister’s Government legally enforced the wearing of face coverings within places of worship in Scotland, she decided not to wear one as she sat in the packed pews of Westminster Abbey.
Of course, this was within the rules because the First Minister was in England, but geographical location is not the subject of debate. This is simply about the hypocrisy and inconsistency of the First Minister. Her Government enforced the wearing of face coverings in places of worship in the name of ‘public health’ so why didn’t she wear a face covering in a place of worship in England? Does she believe English churches are safer than Scottish ones?
If it were not for the PR mistake made by the First Minister in Westminster Abbey, would the legal requirement to wear a face covering in places of worship have been extended alongside shops and public transport? It seems highly likely.
But now to save face, we are in the position where the Scottish Government has prioritised the easing of the requirement to wear a face covering in places of worship above the same requirement for shops and public transport.
This inconsistent approach makes no sense. To uphold freedom of religion or belief, there must be consistency across all Covid regulations.
Comments