Freedom of association includes either the right of an individual to join or leave the group voluntarily, the right of the group to take collective action to pursue the interests of its members, and the right of association to accept or refuse membership under certain criteria. Freedom of Association, Basic Rights of Human Rights describes the rights that come with other individuals to collectively declare, promote, pursue and/or defend common interests. The Freedom of Association is an individual right and collective right, guaranteed by all modern and democratic legal systems, including the American Bill of Rights, article 11 of the European Convention on Human Rights, the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedom, and international legislation, including clauses 20 and 23 Universal Declaration of Human Rights. The Declaration on Fundamental Principles and Rights at Work by the International Labor Organization also guarantees these rights.
Freedom of association is manifested through the right to join trade unions, to engage in freedom of speech or to participate in public debates, political parties, or other clubs or associations, including religious and organizational denominations, fraternities, and sports clubs. This is closely related to freedom of assembly, especially under the US Human Rights Act. Freedom of assembly is usually associated with a political context. However, (eg the US Constitution, human rights instruments, etc.) The right to freedom of association may include the right to freedom of assembly.
Courts and officials delegated from local jurisdictions may, however, impose restrictions on any of the rights of a criminal convicted as a condition of legal provision. The right to freedom of association and freedom of assembly is ignored in certain circumstances, such as a plea of ​​guilt or conviction, order of detention and search procedures and seizure of the supervisor.
Video Freedom of association
Histori
The general freedom to associate with groups according to individual choice, and for groups to take action to promote their interests, has become an essential feature of any democratic society. Because freedom of association certainly recognizes the source of power and pluralist organizations, in addition to the government, it has become a prime target for repression by all dictatorial societies. In the UK, all forms of "combinations" are prohibited and criminal, especially workers' organizations, until the Combined Law of 1825. Thereafter, it is still not until the Companies Act 1856, the Trade Union Act 1871 and the Criminal Conspiracy and Protection of Property Act 1875 that companies and then trade unions become lawful law. In Germany, a similar set of repressive laws applied to unions and social democratic organizations by the Bismarck government under Sozialistengesetze ("Socialist Story") in 1878. This remained in force until 1890. In 1933, the union labor was once again banned by the Fascist dictatorship of the Hitler Socialist party, and the existing unions were nationalized and merged into a government-controlled German Worker Front. After World War II, the free trade unions were quickly resurrected and secured by the Germans of Grundgesetz. In the United States, trade unions are classified by different state courts, at different times, as trade restraints. Under the Clayton Act of 1914, trade unions were granted public freedom to organize and act collectively to secure collective agreements, but further obstacles were imposed until the 1935 National Labor Relations Act created a comprehensive labor code.
- John Stuart Mill, Freedom (1859) 'freedom to unite for any purpose that does not involve harm to others'
- Otto von Gierke, Das deutsche Genossenschaftsrechts
Maps Freedom of association
Legal
European Convention
Italian Constitution
In Italy, freedom of association is defined in Article 18 of the Constitution, which states:
Citizens have the right to form associations freely and without authorization for purposes not prohibited by criminal law.
Secret associations and associations that, even indirectly, pursue political goals by means of organizations that have a military character must be banned.
Bill of Rights South Africa
The South African Constitutional Rights Act establishes the right to freedom of association in Section 18, which states "Everyone has the right to freedom of association." Further, Article 17 states, "Everyone has the right, peace and unarmed, to assemble, to show, to picket and petition", thereby establishing the right to freedom of assembly. The right of workers to freedom of association in respect of the right to form trade unions and collective bargaining are recognized separately, in Section 23.
United States Constitution
Although the First Amendment to the United States Constitution identifies the right to collect and petition the government, the text of the First Amendment does not specify the right to association. Nevertheless, the United States Supreme Court held at NAACP v. Alabama (1958) that freedom of association is an important part of freedom of speech because, in many cases, people can engage in effective speech only when they join others.
Problem
Intimate relationship
The fundamental element of personal freedom is the right to opt in and maintain certain intimate human relationships. This intimate human relationship is considered a form of "intimate relationship." The paradigmatic example of "intimate relationships" is family. Depending on their jurisdiction, it may also include abortion, birth control and personal, adult, non-commercial and consensual sexual intercourse.
Expressive association
In the United States, expressive associations are the groups involved in activities protected by the First Amendment - speeches, assemblies, press, petitioning the government for compensation for grievances, and religious freedom. In Roberts v. United States Jaycees , the US Supreme Court stated that associations should not exclude people for reasons unrelated to group expression. However, in subsequent decisions of Hurley v. Irish-American Gay, Lesbian, and Bisexual Group of Boston , the Court ruled that a group may exclude people from membership if their presence would affect the group's ability to advocate a particular point of view. Governments can not, through the use of anti-discrimination laws, force groups to include messages they do not wish to convey.
However, this concept does not apply to universities because of the Supreme Court's decision in the Christian Legal Society v. Martinez (2010), which supports the Hastings College of Law policy that the condition of schools in recognizing group students is a neutral and reasonable viewpoint. The policy requires the student organization to allow "any student to participate, become a member, or seek a leadership position, regardless of their status or belief" and so forth, may be used to refuse recognition of the group as an official student organization because the organization has required members to prove written that "I believe: the Bible as the inspired word of God: the deity of our Lord, Jesus Christ, the son of God, the death of Jesus Christ's representation for our sins, the resurrection of the body and the coming of his person; the presence and power of the Holy Spirit in the work of regeneration; ] Jesus Christ, the son of God, is the Lord of my life. "The court reasoned that since this constitutional investigation takes place within the educational context, the same consideration has led the Court to apply less stringent levels of scrutiny to speak in restricted public forums. Thus, the university's all-college policy is a reasonable, neutral-view condition on access to student organization forums.
Limitations
The constitutional rights of the First Amendment implicit in the US Constitution have been limited by court decisions. For example, it is illegal in the United States to consider the race in the manufacture and enforcement of private contracts other than marriage. This limitation of freedom of association results from Section 1981 of Title 42 of the United States Code, as being balanced against the First Amendment in 1976 Runyon v. McCrary .
Runyon's grip is that the private schools of the accused are free to express and teach their views, such as white separatism, but can not discriminate on the ground of race in the provisions service to the general public. So if an African-American plaintiff wishes to attend such a private school, and are clearly qualified in everything (but race) and able to pay the fees, and are willing to attend despite the fact that the recognized principles of the school are inconsistent with their acknowledgment, they are required by Section 1981 to acknowledge them. This doctrine rests on the interpretation of private contracts as a "badge" of slavery when one party considers race in choosing another.
Governments often require adhesion contracts with private entities for licensing purposes, such as with the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority for trading the stock market in 1938 amending the Maloney Act to the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. These contracts often prohibit associations with prohibited members, as may be seen in United States v. Merriam , 108 F.3d 1162.
Organized work
Labor organizations were generally rejected during the 19th century, even with relatively liberal countries like Britain banning them for various periods (in the case of England, between 1820 and 1824).
In the international labor movement freedom of association is a right that is identified by international labor standards as the right of workers to organize and bargain collectively. Freedom of association, in this sense, is recognized as a fundamental human right by a number of documents including the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the C87 International Labor Organization Convention and C98 Convention - two of the eight fundamental international labor standards. 'Freedom of association' may also refer to the legal prohibition on private contracts negotiated between private employers and their employees which require workers in certain workplaces to join unions as terms and conditions of employment. Such religious freedom proponents claim that the right to join a union includes the right not to join the union. In the United States, the term 'right to work' is more common for this type of law.
"The Supreme Court today (1-21-1997) severely limits the ability of trade union organizations to go to employers' properties to distribute literature or to urge workers to join the union.In a 6-to-3 opinion written by Judge Clarence Thomas, the Court said that the National Labor Relations Council has failed to provide adequate protection to the property rights of entrepreneurs when they adopt a rule four years ago that gives union organizers greater access to areas such as shopping malls or factories. "- New York Time
Theory
Democracy and civil society
Jeremy McBride argues that the respect for freedom of association by all public authorities and the exercise of this freedom by all sections of society is vital both to establish "true democracy" and to ensure that, once achieved, it remains "healthy and growing". In this regard he sees the formation of political parties as a significant manifestation of freedom of association.
But freedom of association is not only done in the political sense, but also for various interests - such as culture, recreation, sports and social and humanitarian aid. Jeremy McBride argues that the formation of non-governmental organizations (NGOs), which he likens to civil society, is "the fruit of association activity".
Libertarian
Freedom of association is a popular term in libertarian literature. It is used to describe the concept of absolute freedom to live in a community or to be part of an organization whose values ​​or cultures are closely related to one's preferences; or, at a more fundamental level, to associate with whatever individual or group one chooses.
Under legislation in such a system, business owners may refuse service to anyone for any reason. Opponents argue that such practices are regressive and will lead to greater prejudices in society. The right libertarian sympathetic to freedom of association, such as Richard Allen Epstein, responds that in case of denial of service (which is a case of freedom of contract) unjustifiable discrimination raises costs and hence is a competitive disadvantage. Left-libertarians argue that such rejection would put the business at an economic disadvantage for those who provide services to all, making them less profitable and ultimately leading them to a close.
Libertarian also argues that freedom of association, in the political context, is merely an extension of the right to decide with whom to associate in one's personal life. For example, someone who values ​​good manners or ethics may not be happy to associate with someone who is unfit or disrespectful. Or, those who oppose homosexuality may not enjoy hanging out with gay people. In both cases, a person voluntarily decides with whom to associate, based on will. Libertarians believe that freedom of association, in the political sphere, is not a strange or unrealistic idea, since individual humans have chosen with whom they want to associate for various reasons.
Libertarians also have strong opinions about unions, and some support workers' right to vote in the election of whether to join a union or not. The right to work the law has become a hot topic of debate within the party, with the majority of Libertarians opposed to the law. Among libertarians there is no fixed view of the union outside the principle of freedom of association. Gary Johnson, who won the Libertarian presidency nomination in 2012, presented this principle as a way when he was quoted as saying in a Reddit 2014 interview "No worker is forced to take a job in a guild shop If workers come before they make the decision to organize into union, unfair wages, favoritism, or general inequality at work. "Johnson went on to say" Libertarian love of history, but we do not want to see it over and over, and previous decisions to arrange to be respected by every new employee looking to find work within the store, or to exploit his right to look for work in a non-union store or else the conditions that have been corrected by the presence of the Union will deteriorate. "Libertarians, on the other hand, freedom of association includes the right of bag workers to organize as unions and to withdraw their labor, they also recognize the right of employers to replace the workforce. Libertarian also believes that where trade unions weaken the free market or use coercive or coercive tactics, such behavior would violate libertarian principles. Some critics allege that such violations are common with union activity.
See also
- Civil liberties
- Free attribution
- Free Country Project
- Libertarian socialism
- Right to work
- Self-determination
- The United Nations Special Rapporteur on the right to freedom of association and peaceful assembly
- Volunteering
Note
Source of the article : Wikipedia
0 Comments