Dear Editor,
In its September issue, Evangelicals Now published David Shepherd’s thoughtful treatment of the pre-action letter, supported by the Christian Legal Centre, challenging the government’s handling of church closures. The article, entitled ‘Covid, the Courts and the Magna Carta’, essentially takes the position that the pre-action letter’s legal argument is flawed because ‘human rights jurisprudence has repeatedly recognised religious freedom as individual adherence to propositional belief, with less focus on freedom of religious practice’.
Without wishing to malign Mr Shepherd’s legal knowledge, it is important to first note that his argument about the jurisprudence of the Court of Justice of the European Union post-Brexit is wholly misapplied. It is not the jurisprudence of that Court, which is located in Luxembourg and serves the EU, which informs the interpretation of the Human Rights Act 1998. It is instead the jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg, an organ of the Council of Europe, in which the UK remains post-Brexit, which applies.
Second, the jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights certainly speaks to religious exercise and the importance of collective worship, as much as it does about belief.
The Court has also concluded that a public authority may not interfere with the internal workings of a church or religious organisation and may not impose rigid conditions on the practice or functioning of religious beliefs. So strong is this principle that it has been upheld three times by the Grand Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights.
In perhaps the best-known religious freedom case from the European Court, certainly the most cited, Kokkinakis v. Greece, the court has stated that without the legal safeguarding of all of the elements of religious freedom, including religious exercise, collective worship and evangelism, religious freedom would become dead letter.
At the end of the day however, this reply is to defend the action behind the letter itself. It is possible to protect public health and safety while still respecting religious exercise. This response is not meant to cast aspersions on anyone who believes that the government’s restrictions on church gatherings, or the self-imposed closures of churches even before the regulations were issued, were warranted. This is a defence of all of the other brothers and sisters in Christ who see things differently and want to defend the freedom of churches to govern their own affairs and who believe that church attendance is an essential service in this nation.
May those believers who disagree nevertheless look upon the dedication of the 25 church leaders involved in the pre-action letter, and the churchgoers they represent, with grace and charity. May their zeal for the Lord be looked upon with the eyes of faith and a heart of charity rather than a spirit of suspicion.
Yours sincerely,
Paul Huxley
Christian Concern
