Muslim Council of Britain Challenge Forced Cremations in Sri Lanka

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

A Human Rights political issue about the right to conduct funeral rites in accordance with religious beliefs. Against WHO recommendations, the Sri Lankan government has had a forced cremation policy since April 2020. I appreciate some people on here may not care what happens to a family member's body after the person dies and may think this a fuss over superstitious beliefs. Based on Brexit and other issues, political beliefs seem to also acquire a similar level of sacredness in people's minds - beliefs about souls or sovereignty and patriotism seem to evade agreed definition but have led to violent conflict.

In Sri Lanka, the authorities take away the dead body for testing for Covid-19, and the deceased's family are told to pay for the cremation if the test comes back positive, which the Muslim families have so far refused to do - neither paying for the cremation nor claiming the ashes after the cremation.

The country is majority Buddhist and Buddhist monks have urged the government to cremate Covid-infected bodies, claiming such bodies will pollute the water supply.

According to the monks, the bodies should be cremated at a high temperature in the nearest crematorium without the participation of relatives and friends.

Meanwhile the ordinary people have no jobs, income or food due to Covid-19 restrictions preventing tourism and trade. This forced cremation policy and other government actions against minorities seems to be an attempt by the current government (Rajapaksa family re-elected in 2020 after losing the 2015 election) to provoke a reaction to try to distract voters from focusing on the government's economic failures. The corruption court case against the Rajapaksas, after their previous stint in power until 2015, has had to be put on hold as they have legal immunity while in office. In 2017 the then Sri Lankan government handed over a port and 15,000 acres of land to China for 99 years after being unable to repay China's loans taken out by the previous Rajapaksa government to build the port, which turned out to be economically unviable and barely used. Under Mr. Rajapaksa, the country’s debt had increased threefold, to $44.8 billion when he left office in 2015.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/dec/30/muslim-council-of-britain-challenges-forced-covid-cremations-in-sri-lanka

The Sri Lankan Courts refused to hear legal petitions from Muslims and Christians, including families of the deceased, against the forced cremation policy and Muslim Council of Britain (MCB) is trying to mount an international legal challenge. MCB spokesperson, Sir Iqbal Sacranie, described cremation of Muslims in Sri Lanka as a measure implemented to specifically target the Muslim community, he described it as “a political measure where a collective punishment is given to the Muslim community for political reasons.”

The issue has also been raised in the UK Parliament https://www.theyworkforyou.com/wrans/?id=2020-12-07.126126.h

[Nearly Sane]

There is always difficulty in defining where religious freedoms can be constricted in terms of the law and its implementation of societal mores  - see the bakes and BnB cases here. The issue here seems to be more 1 religion imposing its beliefs on another, and the secularisation of laws is meant to reduce such cases. It won't however get rid of them entirely as already indicated.

I can understand the Muslim Councils based on this prima facie presentation of the  issue but not sure that I am interested enough in the issue to research more on it, given what the issue is and where. 

[ProfessorDavey]

There is always difficulty in defining where religious freedoms can be constricted in terms of the law and its implementation of societal mores  - see the bakes and BnB cases here. The issue here seems to be more 1 religion imposing its beliefs on another, and the secularisation of laws is meant to reduce such cases. It won't however get rid of them entirely as already indicated.

I can understand the Muslim Councils based on this prima facie presentation of the  issue but not sure that I am interested enough in the issue to research more on it, given what the issue is and where.

NS - like you I'd like to see the full details on this.

But as a point of principle if there are genuine public health concerns then the need to deal with those public health issues must trump religious sensitivities over mode of funeral.

And frankly the mode of funeral seems rather less significant than measures that have been imposed, and abided by, in the UK. Measures that have prevented people from seeing their loved ones as they are dying, measures that have prevented all but a handful of people attending funeral, meaning that close family and dear friends have not been able to attend in person.

These are major impositions on our ability to be with, recognise and grief during the final days of someone's life and after death. But as a general public we've accepted (not liked of course), but accepted these measures as necessary due to the public health crisis. I don't see why a desire for a certain way of marking the death of someone should be more significant if is is a religious view rather than an individual view - and I think most individuals would wish to be present in those last days, to be able to attend a funeral etc - but we can't.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

The science - the recommendations from local and international health experts and the WHO - is that burial is safe provided the appropriate health precautions are taken.

The government appointed expert committee headed by Senior Professor in Microbiology Prof. Jennifer Perera and comprising virologists, immunologists and microbiologists has recommended that both cremation and burials can be allowed. Following their report the expert committee is being discredited as a sub-committee! The Sri Lanka Medical Association (SLMA) has announced that burials can also be accepted as a mode of disposal of the bodies of Covid-19 victims. The College of Community Physicians of Sri Lanka (CCPSL) has also supported burial as an acceptable option for Covid-19 victims.

https://island.lk/if-tourists-can-be-allowed-into-the-country-knowing-risks-why-arent-burials-permitted/

The mode of funeral is usually a means of achieving closure and processing grief for the family of the bereaved. So the impact on the bereaved by not being able to hold a funeral together according to their shared social and cultural beliefs is no less a significant concern than the measures that prevent people from seeing their loved ones as they are dying. From what I have observed, the issue of being deprived of shared social and cultural norms and beliefs seem very important to people's well-being, given humans are social animals.

I personally find the social isolation due to Covid-19 restrictions not particularly problematic. The idea of loved ones dying alone without me being there does not trouble me any more than not being able to hold a funeral or a wedding or any other celebration. I don't have a fear of dying alone. However, I accept that many other people feel and react very differently from me to the idea of dying alone, hence the government's duty is to try to manage the process to take into account the feelings and different beliefs of the people they govern.

[ProfessorDavey]

The science - the recommendations from local and international health experts and the WHO - is that burial is safe provided the appropriate health precautions are taken.

The government appointed expert committee headed by Senior Professor in Microbiology Prof. Jennifer Perera and comprising virologists, immunologists and microbiologists has recommended that both cremation and burials can be allowed. Following their report the expert committee is being discredited as a sub-committee! The Sri Lanka Medical Association (SLMA) has announced that burials can also be accepted as a mode of disposal of the bodies of Covid-19 victims. The College of Community Physicians of Sri Lanka (CCPSL) has also supported burial as an acceptable option for Covid-19 victims.

https://island.lk/if-tourists-can-be-allowed-into-the-country-knowing-risks-why-arent-burials-permitted/

I'm not arguing that if there is no scientific evidence that burial is no more risky than cremation that it shouldn't be banned. Hence I started by post with:

'But as a point of principle if there are genuine public health concerns then the need to deal with those public health issues must trump religious sensitivities over mode of funeral.

So I'm not really discussing this individual situation more a point of principle.

[ProfessorDavey]

The mode of funeral is usually a means of achieving closure and processing grief for the family of the bereaved.

Indeed it does and that affects everyone, religious or otherwise.

And if this is so important (and I agree it is) then why aren't you railing against requirements to limit attendance at funerals to very small numbers - which has been the case in the UK since March. That means that many people are unable to participate in the manner they'd wish to help achieve closure and process grief. And similarly others have been unable to be with a loved one in their final days and hours - again heartbreaking for many people and likely to have long lasting impact on the grieving person.

But we accept that (or at least I do) in the interests of public health.

So do you think that religious sensitivities are somehow more important than fundamental human 'non-religious' needs at the time of dying and shortly thereafter.

It seems odd to me that you are raising the issue of curtailing freedom of type of funeral in Sri Lanka, while people in the UK (and throughout the world) are also unable to have the funeral they would desperately want - that is just as much curtailment of type of funeral.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

I'm not arguing that if there is no scientific evidence that burial is no more risky than cremation that it shouldn't be banned. Hence I started by post with:

'But as a point of principle if there are genuine public health concerns then the need to deal with those public health issues must trump religious sensitivities over mode of funeral.

So I'm not really discussing this individual situation more a point of principle.

I know you are not arguing that if there is no scientific evidence that burial is more risky than cremation that it shouldn't be banned. I was just linking to the scientific evidence as you had mentioned it.

[ProfessorDavey]

I know you are not arguing that if there is no scientific evidence that burial is more risky than cremation that it shouldn't be banned. I was just linking to the scientific evidence as you had mentioned it.

Fair enough.

Interestingly I think that the covid regulations in the UK also allow local authorities to determine the type of funeral (cremation vs burial) in the interests of public health. I don't think there is any suggestion this has been actually applied, but the legislation exists.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

Indeed it does and that affects everyone, religious or otherwise.

And if this is so important (and I agree it is) then why aren't you railing against requirements to limit attendance at funerals to very small numbers - which has been the case in the UK since March. That means that many people are unable to participate in the manner they'd wish to help achieve closure and process grief. And similarly others have been unable to be with a loved one in their final days and hours - again heartbreaking for many people and likely to have long lasting impact on the grieving person.

But we accept that (or at least I do) in the interests of public health.

So do you think that religious sensitivities are somehow more important than fundamental human 'non-religious' needs at the time of dying and shortly thereafter.

It seems odd to me that you are raising the issue of curtailing freedom of type of funeral in Sri Lanka, while people in the UK (and throughout the world) are also unable to have the funeral they would desperately want - that is just as much curtailment of type of funeral.

Not sure what you mean by asking why I am not "railing against requirements to limit attendance at funerals to very small numbers". I am not railing against the Sri Lankan government's insistence of cremation either.

The issue was of interest to me so I brought it up on here to make the point that beliefs (religious/ cultural / social) are important to people.

Which is why I wrote "So the impact on the bereaved by not being able to hold a funeral together according to their shared social and cultural beliefs is no less a significant concern than the measures that prevent people from seeing their loved ones as they are dying. From what I have observed, the issue of being deprived of shared social and cultural norms and beliefs seem very important to people's well-being, given humans are social animals."

I did not mention religious sensitivities in the above sentence.

Why is it odd that I am talking about Sri Lanka on this forum? The forum talks about international topics.   

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

There is always difficulty in defining where religious freedoms can be constricted in terms of the law and its implementation of societal mores  - see the bakes and BnB cases here. The issue here seems to be more 1 religion imposing its beliefs on another, and the secularisation of laws is meant to reduce such cases. It won't however get rid of them entirely as already indicated.

I can understand the Muslim Councils based on this prima facie presentation of the  issue but not sure that I am interested enough in the issue to research more on it, given what the issue is and where.

Yes I agree. Though I would argue that this is not just conflict caused by religious differences. I think the issue is also conflict caused by cultural and social difference stemming from the artificial construct of race. These elements can all be used to create political conflict. Respecting the dead is a sensitive issue for most people, not just religious people. I thought it was interesting that people assign so much importance to the treatment of dead bodies. Not sure how non-religious people would react here for example to a policy of forced cremations. Forced cremation would not be an issue for me - I think I would be concerned by a dead body not being treated with dignity but am a registered organ donor. The idea of donating your body to science or being an organ donor is not universally embraced. The Alder Hey organ scandal seemed to trigger widespread outrage. 

In terms of Sri Lanka specifically, much like Trump's populist support or Brexit and regaining sovereignty and protecting British values brought Johnson and the Tories political power, the Rajapaksa government have swept into power in Sri Lanka using populist slogans of preserving a Buddhist heritage.

Government financial mismanagement and its close ties with China and its brand of repression are overlooked so long as the government can find minorities to target and blame. The government does not have to look far for minority scapegoats.

Elements of the Muslim community in Sri Lanka have become more insular and less integrated due to the large number of Sri Lankan migrant workers from poor families who work in the Middle East, send back remittances to their poor families boost the Sri Lankan economy but also bring back Wahabi practices that have created friction with some of the cultural practices in Sri Lanka. Many local Muslims also run successful businesses, which makes them a target for prejudice. 

The minority Tamil community are also a target, after their protracted struggle for autonomy and equal rights. The Tamil Tigers were formed to try to gain rights by force after brutal government repressions and repeated failures to secure equal rights using political means.

I thought the Sri Lankan government policy of forced cremation, which takes away citizens' rights without any rational basis given the scientific consensus is that burial with extra precautions is not going to increase the spread of the virus, raised interesting issues of people beliefs relating to cultural behaviour, governing a population by consent and abuse of government power to curtail freedoms. Especially since similar concerns alleging government abuse of power over citizens' cultural behaviour are being expressed here in Britain about Covid restrictions.

[ProfessorDavey]

The idea of donating your body to science or being an organ donor is not universally embraced. The Alder Hey organ scandal seemed to trigger widespread outrage.

The outrage at Alder Hey (and other places) wasn't because some people don't agree with organ donation on a fundamental level - it was because the organs were removed without the consent, and often without the knowledge, of the parents of the children involved.

[Roses]

In ordinary times I regard dead bodies as waste material, which should be disposed of in a useful way like recycling the organs.  I have heard it is possible to compost dead bodies.

Until the virus is at an end I think all bodies should be cremated as soon as possible as it appears to be a much safer option.

[Nearly Sane]

In ordinary times I regard dead bodies as waste material, which should be disposed of in a useful way like recycling the organs.  I have heard it is possible to compost dead bodies.

Until the virus is at an end I think all bodies should be cremated as soon as possible as it appears to be a much safer option.

'appears to be' is doing a lot of work there.

[ProfessorDavey]

'appears to be' is doing a lot of work there.

Indeed - from what I have read (and frankly it makes sense if you understand anything about the transmissibility of the virus) there is no meaningfully different risk between burial and cremation. And for that reason alone the Sri Lanka approach seems heavy handed and not based on science.

However under circumstances whether there is a serious transmissible disease that poses a grave threat to public health and the mode of disposal of the body makes a significant difference in terms of safety/public health, then the authorities should be able to impose a particular mode of disposal regardless of religious sensibilities. Public health trumps religious views.

And the government actually has this power for Covid although they haven't invoked it, not least because there is no evidence that cremation vs burial is safer or vice versa. However, hypothetically, were evidence to emerge that one mode is significantly safer and reduces disease transmission then that mode should be required until the pandemic is under control.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

You keep focusing on public health trumping religious sensitivities or views. There are lots of beliefs and behaviour that are not related to religion. The point I raised in my posts was the interesting issues of people beliefs relating to cultural behaviour, governing a population by consent and abuse of government power to curtail freedoms. Especially since similar concerns alleging government abuse of power over citizens' cultural behaviour are being expressed here in Britain about Covid restrictions.

So my question is does public health trump cultural and social views, in a government by consent?

[Nearly Sane]

You keep focusing on public health trumping religious sensitivities or views. There are lots of beliefs and behaviour that are not related to religion. The point I raised in my posts was the interesting issues of people beliefs relating to cultural behaviour, governing a population by consent and abuse of government power to curtail freedoms. Especially since similar concerns alleging government abuse of power over citizens' cultural behaviour are being expressed here in Britain about Covid restrictions.

So my question is does public health trump cultural and social views, in a government by consent?

All freedoms have the same value, that some may label a freedom religious or cultural gives it nothing extra. Any restriction of those freedoms is a judgement call. One of the easiest judgement calls is public health versus that freedom in principle.

[ProfessorDavey]

You keep focusing on public health trumping religious sensitivities or views. There are lots of beliefs and behaviour that are not related to religion.

True - but it is rare for more general views to be placed on the pedestal that religious views often are.

So in relation to the current discussion on funerals - we are all (or at least most of us) accepting curtailment of the our cultural and societal beliefs on what kind of funeral and end of life decisions we might otherwise wish for. For example on preventing people being with loved ones near to death, restricting numbers at funerals, preventing singing at funerals etc etc. All these are often non-religious desires that people have for these incredibly important life events.

We might not like it, but we tend to accept it - so in the UK I've seen very little challenge to the actual imposition of highly restricting rules on funerals. However when the government brought forward legislation that included the right (albeit never used) to direct the type of disposal of bodies various religious groups were up in arms - about something that has never been enacted but legally available to local authorities if justified on public health grounds.

[ProfessorDavey]

So my question is does public health trump cultural and social views, in a government by consent?

Yes - as the whole point about public health is that it is about protecting others and therefore sometimes, in extreme circumstances, must over-ride individual freedoms and consent.

Even in the circumstance of government by consent individual freedoms are always limited to some extent - and the most obvious is that we prevent people from engaging in activities that endanger others. So if someone considered that stabbing others was perfectly acceptable according to their cultural and social view (whether religious or otherwise) we would prevent them doing to to protect other. Same with public health - if I feel it acceptable to spit on other people even through I knew I had, or might likely have, a highly infectious and dangerous pathogen then, quite rightly public health restrictions should prevent me from exercising my freedoms in that respect.

[ProfessorDavey]

All freedoms have the same value, that some may label a freedom religious or cultural gives it nothing extra. Any restriction of those freedoms is a judgement call. One of the easiest judgement calls is public health versus that freedom in principle.

True - but I think religious often frame their cultural expectations in a different manner to non religious views, with an implicit or explicit expectation that where there is competing interests religious views and freedoms trump non religious views and freedoms. Hence the language of 'requirement' or 'obligation' to act in a particular manner, often seen in the context of religious cultural norms but rarely in non religious cultural norms where 'desire' or 'wish' tend to be used, for effectively the same thing - a cultural or individual wish that something does or does not happen.

So in the context of funerals and end of life events we are seeing a position where some people consider non-religious cultural norms (e.g. to be able to attend a funeral in person, being able to be with a loved one as they are dying) to be trumped by public health interests while religious cultural norms (e.g. that a person must be buried) trump public health interests.

In saying this I must emphasise that there must be a genuine public health requirement for any such curtailment of freedoms, whether restricting numbers at funerals or dictating the mode of disposal of the body. Of course for covid there is evidence to support the former but not the latter, but this isn't the case for all infectious diseases.

[ProfessorDavey]

Especially since similar concerns alleging government abuse of power over citizens' cultural behaviour are being expressed here in Britain about Covid restrictions.

Can you give some examples please - is this a reference to the anti-lockdown sentiment expressed in certain quarters of society?

[jeremyp]

The country is majority Buddhist and Buddhist monks have urged the government to cremate Covid-infected bodies, claiming such bodies will pollute the water supply.

According to the monks, the bodies should be cremated at a high temperature in the nearest crematorium without the participation of relatives and friends.

Funerals are for the living, not for the dead. As long as it is safe for everybody, the relatives of the deceased can do what they like with  the body as far as I'm concerned. Personally, I can't see any reason why burying a person is any less safe than cremating them.

to me it looks like the monks are doing this to spite the Muslims.

[ProfessorDavey]

Funerals are for the living, not for the dead. As long as it is safe for everybody, the relatives of the deceased can do what they like with  the body as far as I'm concerned. Personally, I can't see any reason why burying a person is any less safe than cremating them.

Depends on the infectious agent - there are plenty of infectious agents where burying would be significantly less safe than cremation ... coronavirus just isn't one of them!

Just as important in many cases are the rituals around funerals, for example washing and touching of the dead body. For some infectious agents this can result in major transmission of the infectious agent.

to me it looks like the monks are doing this to spite the Muslims.

So it would appear as there doesn't seem to be any scientific evidence to justify cremation over burial on public health grounds.

[jeremyp]

there are plenty of infectious agents where burying would be significantly less safe than cremation ... coronavirus just isn't one of them!

It's something I never thought of before reading this thread, but theoretically, buried dead bodies ought to be a health risk if they can contaminate ground water, but, as a rule, we don't seem to worry about it. That suggests to me the risk is not significant.

Just as important in many cases are the rituals around funerals, for example washing and touching of the dead body. For some infectious agents this can result in major transmission of the infectious agent.

I could imagine that touching the face of a dead body, if the person had COVID19 when they died, might be a risk. If ritual requires it, I'm sure you could mitigate the risk with proper hygiene arrangements.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

True - but it is rare for more general views to be placed on the pedestal that religious views often are.

So in relation to the current discussion on funerals - we are all (or at least most of us) accepting curtailment of the our cultural and societal beliefs on what kind of funeral and end of life decisions we might otherwise wish for. For example on preventing people being with loved ones near to death, restricting numbers at funerals, preventing singing at funerals etc etc. All these are often non-religious desires that people have for these incredibly important life events.

We might not like it, but we tend to accept it - so in the UK I've seen very little challenge to the actual imposition of highly restricting rules on funerals. However when the government brought forward legislation that included the right (albeit never used) to direct the type of disposal of bodies various religious groups were up in arms - about something that has never been enacted but legally available to local authorities if justified on public health grounds.

I was not aware of any controversy. Which religious groups were up in arms? Can you link to something please?

[Udayana]

The normal disposal methods can all be used without increased risks of infection, assuming suitable hygiene practices are followed. The numbers attending funerals would pose the most risk, especially considering the personal interactions and conduct normally seen at funerals. But, no doubt, that can also be contained.

IMO, the Rajapaksas are following China, Israel, Myanmar and their own previous actions against the Tamil's, to isolate and keep suppressed an ethnic minority that they find unsettling or can exploit to maintain their power.