.jpg) | |
| Author | Adam Wagner |
|---|---|
| Language | English |
| Subject | COVID-19 lockdown in the United Kingdom |
| Publisher | The Bodley Head ofPenguin Random House |
Publication date | 2022 |
| Publication place | United Kingdom |
| Pages | 222 |
| ISBN | 978-1-847-92746-0 |
Emergency State: How We lost Our Freedoms in the Pandemic and Why it Matters is a book by UKhuman rightslawyerAdam Wagner.[1][2] The book explores how the UK government during theCOVID-19 pandemic and associatedGovernment response had unprecedented powers to make and change legislation at will withoutaccountability and what safeguards could be created to prevent this in the future.[3] Wagner was appointed to work on the Independent Commission on UK Public Health Emergency Powers.[3][4]
In this book, Wagner argues thatCOVID-19 restrictions in the United Kingdom brought the country as close to apolice state as in living memory.[5] Wagner makes suggestions in response to events during the pandemic including suggesting a review of thefixed penalty notices and other penalties issues duringCOVID-19 lockdown in the United Kingdom, for a codifiedconstitution in the United Kingdom, and foroppositionmembers of parliament to be involved in pandemic meetings.[6]
The book comprises a preface and nine chapters:States of Emergency, Very Strong Measures, Take It on the Chin, You Must Stay at Home, The Lockdown Bites, Patchwork Summer, The Darkest Winter, Step by Step, andFreedom Regained?.[1]: 1, Table of contents The second to eighth chapters are ordered chronologically and summarise the number of cases and deaths.
The book has notes, a list of relevant legislation, and index of cases.[1]: 177, 219, 221 It provides an infographic showing how covid cases and deaths progressed during the pandemic and which restrictions were in place at these times and a timeline of restrictions.[1]: 172,173
 | This articlerelies excessively onreferences toprimary sources. Please improve this article by addingsecondary or tertiary sources. Find sources: "Emergency State" book – news ·newspapers ·books ·scholar ·JSTOR(October 2022) (Learn how and when to remove this message) |
The book discusses how during existential threats states reorganize themselves in what Wagner dubsEmergency States to tackle the crisis and equates them to historic precedents.[7] Wagner notes six properties of the emergency state, that it is"mighty" and can marshal very larger resources to a goal; thatpower is concentrated; that the state becomesignorant due to the centralised decision making; that it tends tocorruption; that it isself-reinforcing with people used to absolute power tending to think of excuses to keep it; the final feature is that people often want to be ruled in this manner during emergencies due to a desire for simplicity, strong leadership.[1]: 11–14 Wagner argues that any society can rearrange itself towards a common cause, good or bad, drawing comparisons to thewar on terror following theSeptember 11 attacks and theHolocaust, quotingGeorge Orwell arguing the importance of role of public opinion in influencing the laws that are enforced and created.[1]: 16
He notes the comparison to the ancient Roman emergencydictatorial practice ofJustitium,[1]: 24,23 theBritish State during the second world war,[1]: 28 andElizabethan plague orders in England forbubonic plague.[1]: 35 [7]
In the first chapter, Wagner introduces the concept of theEmergency State, the manner in which theState functions during an existential crisis such as famine, pandemic, or war drawing comparison to other historic crises.[1]: 9,16
Wagner notes that most modern states have legislation to allowemergency powers where constitutional protections for fundamental rights can be suspended. He cites the case ofLiversidge v Anderson where the House of Lords Judges ruled that theHome Secretary need not provide any reason for their decision to indefinitely detain someone for that decision to be reasonable.[1]: 29
Wagner traces the history of the emergency powers in thePublic Health Act to theSARS outbreak of 2002,[8] after which theWorld Health Organization had encouraged states to create emergency legislation.[1]: 31 He notes that there was concern about the breadth of powers during parliamentary debate at the time of reading.[1]: 32
Wagner traces the history oflockdowns, arguing that whilesocial distancing has a long history national lockdowns are new.[1]: 33 He draws comparisons to plague orders in England during outbreaks of thebubonic plague,[1]: 35 and notes thatSierra Leone had a three-day lockdown in response toEbola in 2014.[1]: 38
Wagner discusses the history of theEuropean Court of Human Rights, ECHR, as a means to stop the slide intoauthoritarianism.[1]: 46 He citesPierre-Henri Teitgen, a founder of the ECHR as arguing that the risk authoritarianism was not appreciated before its rise in the 1900s,[1]: 47 and argues that at times authoritarians do not take power by force but are invited.[1]: 48 Wagner discusses the imposition of lockdownsimposition of COVID-19 lockdowns internationally during the early period of the pandemic.[1]: 48–56
In this chapter, Wagner discusses the imposition of lockdowns and stay-at-home orders during the early stages of the pandemic in the UK.
He argues that the lockdown regulations implemented byMatt Hancock fundamentally altered the relationship of the citizen with the state in that they only allowed certain activities rather than banning them and were 'Napoleonic' in nature.[1]: 61 Wagner notes vagueness surrounding lockdown laws and the difference between governmental guidance the law.[1]: 63 He discusses the issuing offixed penalty notices, FPNs, during COVID-19,[1]: 68 and the effects ofDominic Cummings' violation of lockdown guidance.[1]: 70–73
This chapter discusses lockdowns effects on education.[1]: 79–81 Wagner argues that lockdowns affected some such as those who were pregnant, those who lived alone, in cramped flats, without access to a garden, had abusive partners, or had ill relatives and that they widened social and ethnic inequalities.[1]: 82–84 Wagner discusses the fact that COVID amounted to a ban on sexual relations for those who did not cohabit,[1]: 85–89 arguing that it was ironic thatMatt Hancock who approved most covid measures resigned due to having an extramarital affair with an aide in the workplace.[1]: 89
This chapter discusses lockdowns during the summer of 2020.[1]: 90 It gives the example of a local lockdown in Leicester that was imposed and enforced before the legislation approving local lockdowns had been published.[1]: 93–94 Wagner notes that legislation surrounding COVID-19 restrictions changed very quickly, with the laws on averaging changing once a week,[1]: 97 and the chaotic way in which the government communicated legislation.[8] He draws parallels to the covid regulations and the concept of a "dog law" used byJeremy Bentham, a law that it is impossible to know or follow ahead of time.[1]: 95–96 Wagner discusses the prosecution ofprotests against lockdowns and the ethics surrounding the right to protest during pandemics.[1]: 97–100
In this chapter Wagner discusses the Winter of 2020–2021.[1]: 101 Wagner discusses rules to quarantine in hotels,[1]: 132–137 and legal challenges to emergency legislation brought bySimon Dolan.[1]: 119–123
Wagner discusses an exception to covid regulations made that allowed hunting andgrouse shooting.[1]: 103–104 This is given an example[1]: 104 of a form ofbanal corruption that could have arisen from Covid Operations Cabinet Committee having so much power.[1]: 105 The Committee consisted of four membersBoris Johnson,Michael Gove,Rishi Sunak andMatt Hancock as well as a few other key officials.[1]: 105–106 Wagner equates this theHannah Arendt's concept ofbanal evil where officials claim to just follow orders.: 104
This chapter discusses vaccination against covid and the use ofvaccine passports,[1]: 139–142 issues surrounding the policing of the vigil forSarah Everard,[1]: 142–147 who had been murdered by a police officer, and the emergence ofpartygate, the revelation that a number of illegal gatherings had taken place in the houses of parliament during lockdown.[1]: 151–157
In the concluding chapter, Wagner argues thatBoris Johnson's government saw democracy as an inconvenience.[1]: 161 Wagner argues government was able to take over rule from parliament for two years due to a submissive parliament, weak legal protections, politicians who saw democratic process as an inconvenience, and lacked integrity.[1]: 161–162 Wagner notes his lack of scientific qualifications but argues that some form ofsocial distancing is still unavoidable during the initial stages of pandemics.[1]: 165
Wagner argues that thePublic Health Act is a flawed piece of legislation allowing government to legislate without accountability, noting that theCivil Contingencies Act 2004 still gives the government immense power while providing Parliament more scrutiny both in terms of the timeliness of review at the ability for parliament to amend legislation.[1]: 162 Wagner contrasts the United Kingdom legislation to Scotland, Sweden, Finland, New Zealand and Singapore as providing more scrutiny of measures.[1]: 163
He notes a process of "follow the science", where decisions were taken but COVID-19 Cabinet Committees based on advice from theStrategic Advisory Group of Experts presided over by four ministers which were highly secretive.[1]: 163
Wagner offers four suggestions to reduce the power of the Emergency State. Firstly, that the powers of the Public Health Act should be limited in the same way as the civil contingencies act,[1]: 165 secondly that all prosecutions and fixed penalty notices issues under COVID regulation should be reviewed,[1]: 166 thirdly that there should be acodified constitution,[1]: 166 and lastly that human rights should form a central part of decision making during emergencies.[1]: 167
Reviewers said that the book was a definitive regarding, and the 'fullest account' of, law during the pandemic.[8][9] Benjamin Seifert ofThe Law Society Gazette, said that the book was the definitive guide to the law during the pandemic and would serve an important historical account and notes Wagner's perspective as a human rights lawyer and how his role in theReclaim These Streets legal cases give him a first hand perspective.[8] Former UK Supreme Court Judge,Jonathan Sumption, reviewing the book inThe Daily Telegraph, said that book is the 'fullest account' of how the government used legal coercion to restrict basic human freedoms.[9]
Critics commented on Wagner not assessing on the merits of lockdown restrictions. Sumption felt Wagner was qualified to do so and that human rights lawyers had a role in protecting basic freedoms.[9] Stephen Bush, of theFinancial Times, felt that the book should justify lockdowns for fear that readers might view the loss of human rights as justifying the absence of restrictions in future pandemics.[7] Reviewing inThe Critic, Yuan Yi Zhu describes Wagner's lack of comment on the merits as "narrow proceduralism", accusing Wagner of trying to criticise lockdown regulation procedurally while avoiding the public criticism of being seen to criticise the policy.[10] Quentin Letts commented on the books failure to consider the role of the media in lockdowns.[6]
Sumption and Yuan Yi Zhu argue that critique of parliamentary process are not important because of the popularity of lockdown policies and the fact that the opposition supported tougher measures.[9][10]
Jonathan Sumption argues that an attitude of refusing to form opinions due to a claim lack of expertise, as applied by Wagner in the book, contributed to the publics acceptance of restrictions and if applied in the future would result in sacrificing humanity totechnocrats.[9] Bush comments that the situations that resulted in "Covid states" is near certain to happen again and that the book is a vital contribution to a debate about how to ensure the next pandemic does not damage the democratic model.[7] Robert Low ofThe Jewish Chronicle says that it is hard to disagree with the books conclusions that the UK came as close to a police state as in living memory.[5]
Quentin Letts, reviewing the book inThe Times, said that it did not "quite sing" but made valid points. He comments that Wagner's tone is self-righteous and notes the absence of commentary of the media during the lockdowns who he considers complicit in stricter lockdown measures.[6]
{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: location missing publisher (link){{cite web}}: CS1 maint: numeric names: authors list (link).svg)