At a time where anything and everything is politicised, it is perhaps unsurprising that something as trivial as a face mask has become the latest hot button issue of the day. In the wake of Covid-19, numerous European states have made it compulsory to wear masks in shops, including Germany, Spain, the UK, Italy, and Belgium. On the other hand, Donald Trump has refrained from federally mandating face masks. When questioned as to the rationale behind this position, he replied "I want people to have a certain freedom". As the world witnesses a proliferation of mask mandates, it is therefore crucial to address the question: is this really a rights issue? 

A QUESTION OF RIGHTS? 

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) provides that everyone has “the right to life, liberty, and security of persons”. Similarly, the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) details that “everyone’s right to life shall be protected by law”. Intrinsic to this notion of a right to life is the idea of bodily autonomy; that an individual should be the final arbiter in decisions relating to their body. At first glance, therefore, there is a legal basis from which to derive a right to not wear a mask. 

There are, however, significant caveats. The first of these is that rights can be legitimately restricted by governments. Under the ECHR, lawful interference occurs when rights are restricted for the purposes of “national security, public safety… the economic wellbeing of the country… protection of health… [and] the protection of the rights and freedoms of others”. 

The second caveat is that articulated by Wendy Parmet, the director of the Center for Health Policy and Law at Northeastern University, who posits that nobody possesses the right to do something that could injure the health of [their] neighbours. In essence, the right to bodily autonomy does not generate a corresponding right to infringe on the health and safety of others. 

WHAT DOES THE SCIENCE SAY?

Those who oppose face masks largely argue against those caveats on the same ground: that the science does not definitively demonstrate that wearing masks drives down the rate of infection. On the 20 July 2020, a group called Keep Britain Free organised a protest against compulsory face masks in Hyde Park. One of the protest’s organisers, Clare Wills-Harrison, explained that “the imposition of masks sixteen weeks after the pandemic… does not make scientific sense”.

Statements such as these, however, fail to recognise that the novel coronavirus is, by name, unfamiliar, and scientists are learning more about it every day. The World Health Organisation changed its guidance regarding face masks - recommending their use - in line with the developing scientific evidence. Moreover, one only need look at the statistics to see the difference face masks can make. States which implemented a mask mandate earlier have more effectively combatted the pandemic than those countries lacking an equivalent mandate. In Germany, face masks were made compulsory in late April and the country has seen only 9202 deaths. The UK, whose mask mandate was introduced almost three months later, has witnessed approximately 45,000. 

The rhetoric of individualism that protestors have expressed when arguing against face masks is also misplaced when given its scientific context. Face masks are primarily designed to protect others. When someone who is infected talks, coughs, or sneezes, they release respiratory droplets which can infect others with the virus. Wearing a mask traps these droplets before the virus can be transmitted. 

Former Major League Baseball player Aubrey Huff argued that he would rather catch coronavirus than wear “a damn mask”. This misses the point. A recent review found that as many as 41% of Covid-19 cases were asymptomatic. Aubrey Huff could already have coronavirus, but be asymptomatic. By going outside and refusing to wear a mask, he is not necessarily harming himself, but he could be condemning innumerable people to an illness which, beyond the more minor symptoms of a cough and a high temperature, can cause strokes, seizures, and ultimately prove fatal.

WHAT IS THE ANSWER? 

The reluctance to wear masks is understandable. They are uncomfortable, although it is important to note that masks do not prevent an individual from breathing. Masks are also a physical manifestation of a fear many have not yet confronted, and act as a reminder that despite the sacrifices already made, our efforts to defeat the pandemic have not yet proved fruitful.

Nevertheless, these realities do not grant anybody the right to refuse to wear a mask when it is mandated. Nor do we have a right to harm others simply because the wearing of a mask is inconvenient. The bottom line is clear. In accordance with government advice, the law, and the prevailing scientific evidence, all those who are not medically exempt should be wearing face masks. 

Bethany is a law student with a keen interest in human rights, especially as relating to women and intersectionality. Having just completed her law degree at the University of Bristol, she will begin the LPC in September before embarking on a training contract in late 2021. 

LinkedIn