Featured Image

LifeSiteNews has been permanently banned on YouTube. Click HERE to sign up to receive emails when we add to our video library.

EDINBURGH, Scotland, March 24, 2021 (LifeSiteNews) – Scotland’s supreme civil court has ruled in favour of a case challenging the legality of church closures throughout the country as part of government-mandated COVID lockdown measures. 

In the first legal victory against COVID-related laws in Scotland, Lord Peter Braid, the Scottish Court of Session judge hearing the case, ruled that the closures were unconstitutional as well as interfering with Article 9 of the European Convention on Human Rights, which delineates a right to manifest religious belief.

The legal case was brought forward by a consortium of leaders from Christian groups in Scotland, including Father Thomas Canon White, a Catholic parish priest based in Glasgow. White was preparing his own legal challenge against the Scottish government’s restrictions on churches before joining forces with Protestant leaders in the appeal.

The two-day hearing earlier this month saw the group petition the court to rule against the measures put in place through the Health Protection (Coronavirus) (Restrictions and Requirements) (Local Levels) (Scotland) Amendment (No 11) Regulations 2021 (SSI 2021/3), deeming them unlawful and therefore declare that an individual may lawfully attend his place of worship.

An official press release from Judiciary of Scotland revealed that the group of Christian leaders argued that banning in-person worship was an occasion of the state interfering in spiritual matters, affairs beyond their competence, thus forming a breach of the constitution and human rights regulations.

Scottish government ministers argued against the charges, claiming that church closures were a matter of public health and “did not involve a spiritual matter.” They added that any interference with worship was limited as online worship formed a suitable substitute to attending public worship.

Braid, however, ruled in favor of the petitioners, declaring that the government did entangle itself in spiritual matters, despite directing their regulations towards public health concerns, a legitimate end. Whilst Braid’s ruling did render the restrictions unlawful, this did not mean that churches must “reopen immediately or that no restrictions are required,” but that the extent to which restrictions have been imposed “amount to a disproportionate infringement of the petitioners’ human rights.”

“All I have decided is that the regulations which are challenged in this petition went further than they were lawfully able to do, in the circumstances which existed when they were made,” he said.

Braid added that the Scottish government’s assertion that online worship was identical with Christian worship was “not for them … to dictate.” 

“That might be an alternative to worship, but it is not worship. At very best for the respondents, in modern parlance, it is worship-lite,” the judge said.

“While some people may derive some benefit from being able to observe on-line services, it is undeniable that certain aspects of certain faiths simply cannot take place, at all, under the current legislative regime,” he said.

Braid also considered the fact that worshippers would be punished with criminal sanctions if they attended services according to the observance of their religious practice in his ruling.

“Were the petitioners to insist on manifesting their beliefs, in accordance with their religion, they would be liable to be met with a fine of up to £10,000, a not insignificant penalty,” he noted.

“The above factors all point towards the conclusion that the regulations have a disproportionate effect.”

As part of his ruling, Braid criticized the government for failing to demonstrate that “no less intrusive means than the Regulations [nationwide church closures] were available to address their aim of reducing risk to a significant extent.”

The judge also said that the government had not demonstrated why there was an unacceptable degree of risk to allow places of worship to remain open for communal services and that their reasons for refusing to allow churches to remain open for private prayer were “insufficient to withstand even the lowest degree of scrutiny.”

Canon White responded to the ruling with great optimism, saying that he was “overjoyed” at the success of the action.

— Article continues below Petition —
PETITION: Say 'No' to COVID 'Vaccine Passports'!
  Show Petition Text
217337 have signed the petition.
Let's get to 225000!
Thank you for signing this petition!
Add your signature:
  Show Petition Text
Keep me updated via email on this petition and related issues.
Keep me updated via email on this petition and related issues.

Powerful nations of the world, including China, the UK, and Canada are discussing plans to require so-called 'vaccine passports' as a condition for travel, and possibly to restrict entry to shopping and entertainment venues.

Israel has already put in place a system to discriminate against those who choose not to take the COVID vaccine, and, in the United States, Joe Biden has signed a new executive order which could pave the way for the implementation of a 'vaccine passport' system. [See more below.]

This kind of medical dictatorship must be resisted, and therefore, we must act quickly before these authoritarian notions take root and spread!

Please SIGN and SHARE this urgent petition to SAY NO to government 'vaccine passports.' Tell your legislators to respect your freedom not to vaccinate without fear of repercussion.

People should not have to live in fear of government retribution for refusing a vaccine which is being rushed to market by Big Pharma and their fellow-travelers in NGOs, like the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation.

It would be intolerable and immoral for the government to coerce someone, and their family, to take a COVID vaccine against their will just so they can do their weekly grocery shopping, go to a high school soccer game, travel on public transport, or visit their relatives who live in a different part of the country, or overseas.

Medical freedom must be respected in principle and also in practice.

So, it is now time that our policy-makers listen to all voices involved in this vital conversation, and start to represent those who will not tolerate being punished, restricted, or tracked for refusing an experimental vaccine.

Simply put, legislatures must begin to act as legislatures again.

Questions must be asked. Hearings and investigations must be held. And, the legislatures of each state and country must return to the business of representing the people who voted for them, assuming their rightful place as the originator of legislation.

We will no longer accept the dictates of executive branches without question. And, neither can we accept the dictates of some doctors who seem detached from reality and from science.

Please SIGN and SHARE this urgent petition which asks national political leaders (as well as state and provincial legislators in the U.S. and Canada) to pledge to respect the rights of those who refuse a COVID vaccine, and NOT introduce 'vaccine passports,' or any other system which would discriminate on the basis of taking the COVID vaccine.


'Biden executive order directs government to evaluate ‘feasibility’ of vaccine passports' -

'China lobbies WHO to develop COVID vaccine passports for all nations' -

'UK advances plans for vaccine passports to travel, enter stores' -

'Canada’s health minister: Gov’t ‘working on the idea of vaccine passports’' -

'European Commission president plans to introduce vaccine passports' -

'Israel’s ‘Green Passport’ vaccination program has created a ‘medical Apartheid,’ distraught citizens say' -

'LA schools to track every kid using Microsoft’s ‘Daily Pass’ COVID app' -

  Hide Petition Text

“This decision highlights the significance of the Church’s role in the very fabric of our society,” White said.

“The court has understood the essential need to protect not only the physical and material health of our society but also its spiritual needs and therefore overturned the disproportionate, unnecessary and now deemed illegal blanket ban on public worship.”

“Now, we can trust that our fragile and damaged communities will never again be left without the Church as a source of hope, comfort, and vital spiritual nourishment in times of crisis,” he continued.

“I’m grateful to people all across Scotland and beyond who have offered their financial support for my case, and who have faithfully prayed with me for church doors to be reopened. Thanks be to God for this wonderful news.”

The January 8 restrictions on churches and religious services imposed by Scotland’s First Minister, Nicola Sturgeon, are due to be lifted on March 26, two days after the ruling was handed down, but in time for Holy Week liturgies to be celebrated publicly.

There will still be a hard limit of 50 persons allowed into churches at any given time, regardless of the actual capacity, which is up from the limit of 20 people that was in force prior to January’s nationwide church-closure edict.


Commenting Guidelines
LifeSiteNews welcomes thoughtful, respectful comments that add useful information or insights. Demeaning, hostile or propagandistic comments, and streams not related to the storyline, will be removed.

LSN commenting is not for frequent personal blogging, on-going debates or theological or other disputes between commenters.

Multiple comments from one person under a story are discouraged (suggested maximum of three). Capitalized sentences or comments will be removed (Internet shouting).

LifeSiteNews gives priority to pro-life, pro-family commenters and reserves the right to edit or remove comments.

Comments under LifeSiteNews stories do not necessarily represent the views of LifeSiteNews.