Property:Contents
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
F
Part II article 35 covers the freedom of association in the Constitution of São Tomé e Principe. The country gained independence from Portugal in July 1975, adopting the constitution November 5, 1975.
CIA World Factbook. São Tomé e Príncipehttps://www.cia.gov/the-world-factbook/countries/sao-tome-and-principe/
Constitution of Sao Tome e Principe. Constitute Project. https://www.constituteproject.org/constitution/Sao_Tome_and_Principe_1990 +
The constitution of 1994 of Tajikistan recognizes the freedom of association in Article 28 and is cited to ‘correspond to democratic norms’. Article 8 of the constitution states citizens may form associations that only function and exist within the framework of the constitution.
Tajikistan, Supreme Assembly. 2016. Constitution of the Republic of Tajikistan.
https://www.constituteproject.org/constitution/Tajikistan_2016.pdf?lang=en. (Orig. pub. 1994.). +
Tanzania’s constitution of 1977 article 20 provides every person the freedom to associate. The article highlights five restrictions to the freedom of association which include: violent associations, tribal or religious political associations, and the breakdown of the United Republic.
Judiciary of Tanzania. 2005. THE CONSTITUTION of the UNITED REPUBLIC of TANZANIA. Www.judiciary.go.tz. http://www.judiciary.go.tz/wp-content/uploads/2015/09/constitution.pdf. (Orig. pub. 1977.). +
Thailand has had multiple constitutions since 1932 after the abolition of the absolute monarchy. Section 42 of the latest constitution of Thailand (2017) highlights the ‘liberty to unite and form an association, co-operative, union, organisation, community, or any other group.’ Provision 14 of the 1932 Constitution also highlighted the right to association.Thailand Constitution. 1932. https://media.bloomsburyprofessional.com/rep/files/thailand-constitution-1932-december.pdf. Constitution Drafting Committee. 2017. Constitution of Thailand. https://www.ilo.org/dyn/natlex/docs/ELECTRONIC/103607/132859/F-1348511433/THA103607%202019.pdf. +
According to Article 24(1) of the 1973 Bahamas Constitution "Except with his consent, no person shall be hindered in the enjoyment of his freedom of peaceful assembly and association, that is to say, his right to assemble freely and associate with other persons and in particular to form or belong to political parties, or to form or belong to trade unions or other association for the protection of his interests." Article 24(2) describes potential grounds or conditions for exception to this right: "Nothing contained in or done under the authority of any law shall be held to be inconsistent with or in contravention of this Article to the extent that the law in question makes provision- (a) which is reasonably required- (i) in the interest of defence, public safety, public order, public morality or public health; or (ii) for the purpose of protecting the rights and freedoms of other persons; or (b) which imposes restriction upon person s holding office under the Crown or upon members of a discipline force, and except so far as that provision or, as the case may be, the thing done under the authority thereof is shown not to be reasonably justifiable in a democratic society."
References:
1973 Bahamas Constitution: https://www.bahamas.gov.bs/wps/wcm/connect/04fb4632-1bd7-414f-b66e-9c499b382480/Chap+3+Protection+rights+and+freedoms.pdf?MOD=AJPERES +
The first assertion of the freedom for association in Gambia was in their Constitution within their Independence Order of 1965, ratified February 18th. The independence order was submitted to Great Britain, and the right to association was included in Section 3, Chapter II, Article 11 (“The Gambia Independence Order 1965”, 1965).
1965. The Gambia Independence Order 1965. February 18. https://citizenshiprightsafrica.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/Gambia-Constitution-1965.pdf. +
The constitution of the fourth republic of Togo adapted in 1992 and revised in 2007 details in article 30 the right of association, assembly, and peaceful demonstration without violence. Togo. 2007. The 1963 constitution does not address freedom of association. “Togo 1992 (Rev. 2007) Constitution - Constitute.” Www.constituteproject.org. 2007. https://www.constituteproject.org/constitution/Togo_2007. +
The Tongan constitution was adopted in 1875 and was last revised in 2020. The constitution does not explicitly state a freedom of association, rather the freedom of assembly in Article 8 which highlights ‘The Freedom of Petition’ in which all people are free to peacefully send letters and petitions to the legislators and king. Kingdom of Tonga. 2021. CONSTITUTION of TONGA. https://www.parliament.gov.to/parliamentary-business/documents/constitution-of-tonga/file/487-act-of-constitution-of-tonga-2020-revised-edition. (Orig. pub. 1875.). +
The Trinidad and Tobago constitution Act of 1976 revised last in 2007 declares the rights enshrined in the constitution in Chapter 1 Part 1 article 4j which details: ) the ‘freedom of association and assembly’.
Trinidad and Tobago. 1978. “THE CONSTITUTION of the REPUBLIC of TRINIDAD and TOBAGO.” https://www.oas.org/juridico/english/mesicic3_tto_constitution.pdf. +
The Tunisian Constitution of 2014 (Arabic: 2014 دستور تونس) was adopted on 26 January 2014, article 35 of the constitution guarantees the freedom of establishment of political parties, unions, and associations while respecting financial transparency and the rejection of any incitement of violence. Tunisia had included the right of freedom of association after independence from France in 1959 as part of Article 8. The original short lived 1861 constitution does not highlight any freedom of association.
Bourguiba, Habib. 1959. “WIPO Lex, Tunisia, the Constitution of Tunisia, 1959.” Www.wipo.int. 1959. https://www.wipo.int/wipolex/en/legislation/details/7201.
National Parliament. 2014. “WIPO Lex, Tunisia, the Constitution of the Republic of Tunisia, 2014.” Www.wipo.int. 2014. https://www.wipo.int/wipolex/en/legislation/details/14847. +
The first instance of the right of freedom of association was the second Turkish Constitution(1924 Türk Anayasası), in Section V which detailed multiple rights including the Freedom of Assembly.
Earl, Edward Meade. "The New Constitution of Turkey." Political Science Quarterly 40, no. 1 (March 1925): 96-97. +
Turkmenistan after independence from the Soviet Union had multiple constitutions; the earliest instance of the right of freedom of association is the 1992 Constitution which states in article 28 'Citizens have the right to form political parties and other social associations which operate within the framework of the Constitution and laws'. There are 3 constitutions which existed as the Turkmen SSR.
Turkmenistan. 1992. “Constitution of Turkmenistan.” Web.archive.org. 1992. https://web.archive.org/web/20150414030847/http://www.uta.edu/cpsees/TURKCON.htm. +
The kingdom of Tuvalu’s constitution first asserts the freedom of association and assembly as part of section 11 of the 1982 constitution revised in 2008, and is developed in more detail in section 25 which describes the provisions and purposes of the freedom. Tuvalu is a part of the Commonwealth.
Parliament of Tuvalu. 1986. THE CONSTITUTION of TUVALU. https://www.ilo.org/dyn/natlex/docs/ELECTRONIC/3899/95791/F656430737/TUV3899.pdf. (Orig. pub. 2008.). +
According to the constitution of the Republic of Uganda article 29 the first instance of the Rights and protections such as the freedom of association which include: “Protection of freedom of conscience, expression, movement, religion, assembly and association.” The Right is then defined in section e; which details the freedom to form and join associations or unions, including trade unions and political and other civic organisations.
Republic of Uganda. 1995. Constitution of the Republic of Uganda. Www.parliament.go.ug. https://www.parliament.go.ug/documents/1240/constitution. (Orig. pub. 2018.). +
The first instance of Ukraine allowing the freedom of association is the Ukraine SSR’s 1937 Constitution which entails the (в) свобода зборів і мітингів,г) свобода вуличних походів і демонстрацій.) which translates to the freedom of c) freedom of assembly and rallies, d) freedom of street marches and demonstrations, which can be equivalent to the freedom of association.
Extraordinary XIV Ukrainian Congress of Soviets. 1937. “Constitution (Basic Law) of the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic .” Wikisource. 1937. +
The United Arab Emirates constitution ‘dastūr’ of 1971 temporarily developed after the unification of the 6 Emirates details in article 33 that the Freedom of assembly and association are guaranteed within the limits of the law. Ras al Khaimah joined the Union in 1972 becoming the 7th Emirate. rulers of the emirates of Abu Dhabi, Dubai, Sharjah, Ajman, Umm Al Quwain and Fujairah. 1971. The constitution was ratified permanently in 1996
“The Constitution of the United Arab Emirates of 1971.” Official Gazette. December 2, 1971 https://www.raalc.ae/wp-content/uploads/2020/09/The-Constitution-of-the-United-Arab-Emirates-of-1971-English-1.pdf. +
The 1990 Human Rights Act protects the Right to assemble and associate, subject to reasonable and proportionate restrictions. The HRA primarily serves to codify the European Convention on Human Rights into British Law (the ECHR and its associated court are not related to the EU, and the UK is still a signatory).
In 1776, Richard Price, a British writer who supported the American revolution published Observations on the Nature of Civil Liberty, the Principles of Government, and the Justice and Policy of the War with America. Unlike other commentaries on civil rights, he includes discussion on free assembly. He describes a prohibition on “associating for any purposes, except when leave should be given us by a Lord Lieutenant or Viceroy” as being part of a “state of oppression which no country can endure.” Though he does not phrase it as a fundamental right, the fact that Price deems draconian restrictions on association oppressive implies a belief in at least a limited freedom of association. This is the first instance I could find of a political theorist invoking the concept of freedom of association (or the lack thereof).
There is a more explicit case for free association in John Stuart Mill’s On Liberty (1859). Mill lays a broad notion of individual liberty. He then argues that “from this liberty of each individual, follows the liberty, within the same limits, of combination among individuals; freedom to unite, for any purpose not involving harm to others: the persons combining being supposed to be of full age, and not forced or deceived (16).”
Before any British thinkers espoused freedom of association as a right, John Locke, Thomas Hobbes, and David Hume addressed the issue (as Boyd helpfully summarizes). Hobbes detested associations, referring to them as “lesser commonwealths in the bowels of a greater, like worms in the entrails of a natural man” (257).
Locke disagreed with Hobbes’ cynical perspective on groups. John Locke’s “A Letter Concerning Toleration” primarily concerns religious associations, but he extends certain arguments to associations in general. The italicized text below is Boyd’s summarization (241), where sections in quotes come directly from “A Letter.” As Boyd notes, though Locke defends policies that allow freer association, he does so because of their practical benefits, not because it is a fundamental right (2008, 241).
“Suppose this Business of Religion were let alone,” Locke hypothesizes, “and that there were some other Distinction made between men and men, upon account of their different Complexions, Shapes, and Features.” Under conditions of differential treatment, such persons, “united together by one common persecution,” would become just as dangerous and disruptive.26 Conversely, if the state eliminated special privileges, on the one hand, or disproportionate burdens, on the other, then supposedly intractable religious or ethnic affiliations would become matters of complete indifference, no more or less contentious than other private decisions about how to spend one’s money, manage one’s estates, or marry off one’s daughter. Finally, David Hume’s “Of Parties in General” (1742) is another important piece of Enlightenment work skeptical of associations. His position is more nuanced that Hobbes; he understands that association may exist for different purposes. Factions “of interest” are deemed less dangerous than factions “of principle.” Regarding factions of principle, he wonders the following: “But where the difference of principle is attended with no contrariety of action, but every one may follow his own way, without interfering with his neighbour, as happens in all religious controversies; what madness, what fury can beget such unhappy and such fatal divisions?”
References:
Boyd, Richard. “THE MADISONIAN PARADOX OF FREEDOM OF ASSOCIATION.” Social philosophy & policy 25, no. 2 (2008): 235–262.
Locke, John. “Letter Concerning Toleration”
Mill, John Stuart. On Liberty
Price, Richard. Observations on the Nature of Civil Liberty. London: Edward and Charles Dilly and Thomas Cadell, 1776.
While there are multiple instance of implied rights of association and petition such as the Magna Carta and the Petition of Right in 1628, the first explicit right to association is Trade Union Act, 1871 which granted the right to form and join trade unions for the purpose of protecting their interests and improving working conditions.
Trade Union Act, 1871. 1871. https://www.ilo.org/dyn/natlex/docs/ELECTRONIC/98373/117044/F1671923749/IRL98373.pdf.
Listed at the bottom of this section is language from the State Constitutions of New Hampshire and North Carolina and the Pennsylvania Declaration of Rights, all from [[Probable year:: 1776]], which articulate the right to assemble (assembly and association are not always interchangeable, but many constitutions group them together). These documents all contain rights to assemble written in remarkably similar language, and they describe the right as politically driven. These were the oldest references to something like the right of association in governing documents.
Despite modern views of assembly as related to association, at the time of America’s founding, it would have been better understood as related to the right to petition. According to Congress’s online annotated Constitution, the assembly clause meant that the people have a right to assemble in order to petition the government. The site says that assembly was initially seen as a “subordinate and instrumental” right ("Freedom of Assembly and Petition"). The aforementioned state constitutions should be interpreted the same way. In fact, this is even more clear in these state constitutions than in the national one. The state constitutions surround the right to assemble with expressly political language, such as the right to petition and advocacy for the “common good,” while the First Amendment’s guarantees are political, but not entirely political (it protects religion, and protected speech and press are often, but not always, political).
As Richard Boyd argues in “The Madisonian Paradox of Free Association,” America’s founders did not explicitly include free association because at least some of them were skeptical of it, worrying that certain associations would be conspiratorial or seditious. He summarizes the British Enlightenment tradition skeptical of associations, which influenced the founders (I describe this in the last few paragraphs of the UK section, on Hobbes, Locke, and Hume). James Madison, the primary author of the Bill of Rights, feared the influence of factions, which private associations furthered. As Boyd notes, Madison viewed association as a “second-order” right (page 258), whose existence is tolerable because institutions can mitigate its worst effects (page 247). The following passage from “Federalist No. 10” illustrates his attitude toward factions arising from free association:
It could never be more truly said than of the first remedy, that it was worse than the disease. Liberty is to faction what air is to fire, an aliment without which it instantly expires. But it could not be less folly to abolish liberty, which is essential to political life, because it nourishes faction, than it would be to wish the annihilation of air, which is essential to animal life, because it imparts to fire its destructive agency.
As Boyd notes, there are several possible reasons why Madison may not have enumerated the right to associate. It is possible that he saw it as implied by other First-Amendment rights, such as free assembly. It also may have been seen as less important or vulnerable than other rights, and Madison may have seen it as the type of auxiliary right protected by the Ninth Amendment. Finally, the right’s exclusion may have been because the founders were too skeptical of it for its inclusion (258).
Since the [[Probable year:: 1950]]s and 60s, SCOTUS has, to an extent, ruled that the speech and assembly rights imply a right to associate, especially for politically expressive purposes. For example, it ruled in NAACP v. Alabama that the NAACP cannot be forced to submit a membership roster to a state government. In [[Probable year:: 2000]], in Boy Scouts v. Dale, the court held that the Boy Scouts could exclude gay members (in violation of state non-dsicrimination laws) because not being able to do so would undermine their ability to express a viewpoint - expressive association.
In Roberts v. US Jaycees, an organization for young business leaders’ ban on female members was challenged because it violated state non-discrimination law. This case is notable because the court identified a new form of association: intimate association. The opinion of the court states that “certain intimate human relationships be secured against undue intrusion by the State because of the role of such relationships in safeguarding the individual freedom that is central to our constitutional scheme.” The opinion places this right under the general aims of the First Amendment. The court ruled against the organization, but in so doing, it established the idea that Americans have the right to free intimate and expressive association. Still, one could argue that in a state with true freedom to associate, any group of people would be able to enact whatever membership restrictions it wanted, regardless of whether or not it falls into the categories of “expressive” or “intimate.”
Although assembly is the First-Amendment freedom that most seems to correspond with association, SCOTUS has not derived free association this way. Rather, it uses a more nebulous combination of various First-Amendment rights. As the majority held in NAACP v. Button, “It is not necessary to subsume such activity under a narrow, literal conception of freedom of speech, petition or assembly, for there is no longer any doubt that the First and Fourteenth Amendments protect certain forms of orderly group activity.”
Article XVIII of North Carolina’s Constitution: “That the people have a right to assemble together, to consult for their common good, to instruct their Representatives, and to apply to the Legislature, for redress of grievances.”
Section 21 of New Hampshire’s Constitution: “The citizens have a right in a peaceable manner to assemble for their common good, and to apply to those invested with the powers of government, for redress of grievances, or for other purposes, by petition, address, or remonstrance. No law abridging the freedom of speech shall be enacted.”
Section XVI of the Pennsylvania Declaration of Rights: “That the people have a right to assemble together, to consult for their common good, to instruct their representatives, and to apply to the legislature for redress of grievances, by address, petition, or remonstrance.
References:
Boyd, Richard. “THE MADISONIAN PARADOX OF FREEDOM OF ASSOCIATION.” Social philosophy & policy 25, no. 2 (2008): 235–262.
The first instance in US constitutional law addressing the equivalent of the freedom of association is the inclusion of the right of freedom of assembly in the First Amendment to the United States constitution adopted in 1791. The amendment states: ‘That Congress make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting its free exercise. It protects freedom of speech, the press, assembly, and the right to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.’ The Supreme Court has asserted in cases such as NAACP v. Alabama (1958) that the amendment includes the right of freedom of association.
The White House. 2023. “The Constitution.” The White House. 2023. https://www.whitehouse.gov/about-the-white-house/our-government/the-constitution/#:~:text=The%20First%20Amendment%20provides%20that.
The first instance of Freedom of Association in Uruguayan constitution is the 1934 constitution which stated in article 38 according to the translation: “Article 38.- All persons have the right to associate, whatever the object they pursue, provided that they do not constitute an illegal association declared by Law.
”“Constituci�N de La Rep�Blica - 1934.” 1934. Web.archive.org. 1934. https://web.archive.org/web/20131216185532/http://www.parlamento.gub.uy/Constituciones/Const934.htm. +
The first instance of the right of association is guaranteed in the 1992 Constitution of Uzbekistan. The 34th article roughly states that all citizens have the right to association and that no one may infringe on the rights, freedoms and dignity of the individuals.
08.12.1992. The Constitution of the Republic of Uzbekistan. 1992. Lex.uz. 1992. https://lex.uz/docs/4032775. +