Difference between revisions of "Freedom of Assembly" - New World Encyclopedia
(New page: {{unreferenced|date=January 2007}} {{cleanup|date=November 2007}} {{Freedom}} [[Image:Prohibitionprotest.jpg|right|thumb|Group of women holding placards with political activist slogans: "...) |
m |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
{{Freedom}} | {{Freedom}} | ||
[[Image:Prohibitionprotest.jpg|right|thumb|Group of women holding placards with political activist slogans: "know your courts - study your politicians," "Liberty in law," "Law makers must not be law breakers," and "character in candidates" photo 1920]] | [[Image:Prohibitionprotest.jpg|right|thumb|Group of women holding placards with political activist slogans: "know your courts - study your politicians," "Liberty in law," "Law makers must not be law breakers," and "character in candidates" photo 1920]] | ||
'''Freedom of assembly''' is the [[Freedom (political)|freedom]] to take part in any gatherings that one wishes. It is held to be a key [[right]] in [[liberal democracy|liberal democracies]], whereby citizens may gather and express their views without [[government]] restrictions. | '''Freedom of assembly''' is the [[Freedom (political)|freedom]] to take part in any gatherings that one wishes. It is held to be a key [[right]] in [[liberal democracy|liberal democracies]], whereby citizens may gather and express their views without [[government]] restrictions. | ||
| − | |||
The freedom of assembly in order to protest sometimes conflicts with laws intended to protect public safety, even in democratic countries: in many cities, the police are authorized by law to disperse any crowd (including a crowd of political protesters) which threatens public safety, or which the police cannot control. The idenizers in order to prepare emergency services and response. Sometimes this bureaucratic power is abused by lawmakers if the protest is not a popular one in the community or with the local government, with the permit process in some cities taking a great deal of time, organization, and even money required before a permit is issued—and then, when issues, time and location restrictions are sometimes added. | The freedom of assembly in order to protest sometimes conflicts with laws intended to protect public safety, even in democratic countries: in many cities, the police are authorized by law to disperse any crowd (including a crowd of political protesters) which threatens public safety, or which the police cannot control. The idenizers in order to prepare emergency services and response. Sometimes this bureaucratic power is abused by lawmakers if the protest is not a popular one in the community or with the local government, with the permit process in some cities taking a great deal of time, organization, and even money required before a permit is issued—and then, when issues, time and location restrictions are sometimes added. | ||
From time to time, local permit laws collide in court with the freedoms of assembly and of speech, such as in February 2003 when protests were anticipated over the exclusion of women from membership at the [[Augusta National Golf Club]] where [[golf|golf's]] [[The Masters Tournament|Masters Tournament]] is played every year. The [[Richmond County, Georgia]] county commission implemented a new rule requiring 20 days of advance notice before a protest, and giving the county sheriff the power to approve or deny permits, and to dictate the location of demonstrations. The sheriff turned down a permit to protest in front of the golf club but approved a protest half a mile away. Two courts upheld the ordinance granting the sheriff this power. | From time to time, local permit laws collide in court with the freedoms of assembly and of speech, such as in February 2003 when protests were anticipated over the exclusion of women from membership at the [[Augusta National Golf Club]] where [[golf|golf's]] [[The Masters Tournament|Masters Tournament]] is played every year. The [[Richmond County, Georgia]] county commission implemented a new rule requiring 20 days of advance notice before a protest, and giving the county sheriff the power to approve or deny permits, and to dictate the location of demonstrations. The sheriff turned down a permit to protest in front of the golf club but approved a protest half a mile away. Two courts upheld the ordinance granting the sheriff this power. | ||
| + | ==The importance of Freedom of Assembly== | ||
| + | Freedom of assembly is generally recognized recognized as one of the foundations of a democratic society. Protection this right is considered crucial for creating an open and tolerant society, in which different and often competing groups live together in a pluralistic environment. Freedom assembly is also crucial to the development and expression of culture, as well as in the preservation of minority identities. | ||
| + | |||
| + | Freedom of assembly, like other rights, is not absolute, but must be balanced against the need to protect other rights and needs. Thus, only peaceful assemblies are generally protected. On the other hand, peaceful assemblies that express offensive political message or "heretical" religious ideas are generally protected under international law. For example, the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe interprets the “peaceful” to include "conduct that may annoy or give offence to persons opposed to the ideas | ||
| + | or claims that a particular assembly is promoting." | ||
| + | |||
| + | Presumption in favour of holding assemblies. As a fundamental right, | ||
| + | freedom of peaceful assembly should, insofar as possible, be enjoyed without regulation. | ||
| + | Anything not expressly forbidden in law should be presumed to be permissible, and | ||
| + | those wishing to assemble should not be required to obtain permission to do so. A | ||
| + | presumption in favour of the freedom should be clearly and explicitly established | ||
| + | in law. | ||
| + | �� | ||
| + | principle �. The state’s duty to protect peaceful assembly. It is the responsibility | ||
| + | of the state to put in place adequate mechanisms and procedures to ensure that the | ||
| + | freedom of assembly is enjoyed in practice and is not subject to unduly bureaucratic | ||
| + | regulation. | ||
| + | principle �. Legality. Any restrictions imposed must have a formal basis in law. The law | ||
| + | itself must be compatible with international human rights law, and it must be suffi ciently | ||
| + | precise to enable an individual to assess whether or not his or her conduct would be in | ||
| + | breach of the law, and what the consequences of such breaches would likely be. | ||
| + | principle �. Proportionality. Any restrictions imposed on freedom of assembly | ||
| + | must be proportional. The least intrusive means of achieving the legitimate objective | ||
| + | being pursued by the authorities should always be given preference. The dispersal of | ||
| + | assemblies may only be a measure of last resort. The principle of proportionality thus | ||
| + | requires that authorities not routinely impose restrictions that would fundamentally | ||
| + | alter the character of an event, such as routing marches through outlying areas of a city. | ||
| + | The blanket application of legal restrictions tends to be overly inclusive and thus fails | ||
| + | the proportionality test because no consideration is given to the specifi c circumstances | ||
| + | of the case in question. | ||
| + | principle �. Good administration. The public should know which body is responsible | ||
| + | for taking decisions about the regulation of freedom of assembly, and this must be | ||
| + | clearly stated in law. The regulatory authority should ensure that the general public | ||
| + | has adequate access to reliable information, and it should operate in an accessible and | ||
| + | transparent manner. | ||
| + | principle �. Non-discrimination. | ||
| + | |||
| + | a. Freedom of peaceful assembly is to be enjoyed equally by everyone. In regulating | ||
| + | freedom of assembly, the relevant authorities must not discriminate against any | ||
| + | individual or group on any ground such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, | ||
| + | political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth, or other status. | ||
| + | The freedom to organize and participate in public assemblies must be guaranteed | ||
| + | to both individuals and corporate bodies; to members of minority and indigenous | ||
| + | groups; to both nationals and non-nationals (including stateless persons, refugees, | ||
| + | foreign nationals, asylum seekers, migrants, and tourists); to both women and men; | ||
| + | and to persons without full legal capacity, including persons with mental illness. | ||
| + | b. The law must recognize the child’s right to participate in and organize peaceful | ||
| + | assemblies. With due regard to the evolving capacity of the child, the right of | ||
| + | children to organize an assembly may be subject to restrictions such as a certain | ||
| + | minimum age for organizers or a requirement that the consent of their parents or | ||
| + | legal guardians be obtained. | ||
| + | �� | ||
| + | c. Freedom of assembly of police or military personnel should not be restricted | ||
| + | unless the reasons for the restriction are directly connected with their service | ||
| + | duties, and only to the extent absolutely necessary in light of considerations of | ||
| + | professional duty. | ||
| + | Restrictions on Freedom of Assembly | ||
| + | �. Legitimate grounds for restriction. Legitimate grounds for restriction are | ||
| + | prescribed in universal and regional human rights instruments, and these should not | ||
| + | be supplemented by additional grounds in domestic legislation. | ||
| + | �. Restrictions on time, place and manner. A broad spectrum of possible restrictions | ||
| + | that do not interfere with the message communicated are available to the regulatory | ||
| + | authority. As a general rule, assemblies should be facilitated within sight and sound of | ||
| + | their target audience. | ||
| + | Procedural Issues | ||
| + | �. Advance notice. The legal provisions concerning advance notice should require | ||
| + | a notice of intent rather than a request for permission. The notifi cation process | ||
| + | should not be onerous or bureaucratic. The period of notice should not be | ||
| + | unnecessarily lengthy, but should still allow adequate time prior to the notifi ed | ||
| + | date of the assembly for the relevant state authorities to plan and prepare for | ||
| + | the event, and for the completion of an expeditious appeal to a tribunal or court | ||
| + | should the legality of any restrictions imposed be challenged. If the authorities do | ||
| + | not promptly present any objections to a notifi cation, the organizers of a public | ||
| + | assembly should be able to proceed with the planned activity in accordance with | ||
| + | the terms notifi ed and without restriction. | ||
| + | �. Spontaneous assemblies. The law should explicitly provide for an exception from | ||
| + | the requirement of advance notice where giving advance notice is impracticable. | ||
| + | Even if no reasonable grounds for the failure to give advance notice are provided, | ||
| + | the authorities should still protect and facilitate any spontaneous assembly so long | ||
| + | as it is peaceful in nature. Organizers who ignore or refuse to comply with valid | ||
| + | advance-notice requirements may be subsequently prosecuted. | ||
| + | �� | ||
| + | �. Simultaneous assemblies. Where notifi cation is given for two or more assemblies | ||
| + | at the same place and time, they should be facilitated as much as possible. Emphasis | ||
| + | should be placed on the state’s duty to prevent disruption of the main event where | ||
| + | counter-demonstrations are organized. | ||
== Legal validity == | == Legal validity == | ||
Revision as of 15:14, 10 November 2008
| Part of a series on |
| Freedom |
| By concept |
|
Philosophical freedom |
| By form |
|---|
|
Academic |
| Other |
|
Censorship |
Freedom of assembly is the freedom to take part in any gatherings that one wishes. It is held to be a key right in liberal democracies, whereby citizens may gather and express their views without government restrictions.
The freedom of assembly in order to protest sometimes conflicts with laws intended to protect public safety, even in democratic countries: in many cities, the police are authorized by law to disperse any crowd (including a crowd of political protesters) which threatens public safety, or which the police cannot control. The idenizers in order to prepare emergency services and response. Sometimes this bureaucratic power is abused by lawmakers if the protest is not a popular one in the community or with the local government, with the permit process in some cities taking a great deal of time, organization, and even money required before a permit is issued—and then, when issues, time and location restrictions are sometimes added.
From time to time, local permit laws collide in court with the freedoms of assembly and of speech, such as in February 2003 when protests were anticipated over the exclusion of women from membership at the Augusta National Golf Club where golf's Masters Tournament is played every year. The Richmond County, Georgia county commission implemented a new rule requiring 20 days of advance notice before a protest, and giving the county sheriff the power to approve or deny permits, and to dictate the location of demonstrations. The sheriff turned down a permit to protest in front of the golf club but approved a protest half a mile away. Two courts upheld the ordinance granting the sheriff this power.
The importance of Freedom of Assembly
Freedom of assembly is generally recognized recognized as one of the foundations of a democratic society. Protection this right is considered crucial for creating an open and tolerant society, in which different and often competing groups live together in a pluralistic environment. Freedom assembly is also crucial to the development and expression of culture, as well as in the preservation of minority identities.
Freedom of assembly, like other rights, is not absolute, but must be balanced against the need to protect other rights and needs. Thus, only peaceful assemblies are generally protected. On the other hand, peaceful assemblies that express offensive political message or "heretical" religious ideas are generally protected under international law. For example, the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe interprets the “peaceful” to include "conduct that may annoy or give offence to persons opposed to the ideas or claims that a particular assembly is promoting."
Presumption in favour of holding assemblies. As a fundamental right, freedom of peaceful assembly should, insofar as possible, be enjoyed without regulation. Anything not expressly forbidden in law should be presumed to be permissible, and those wishing to assemble should not be required to obtain permission to do so. A presumption in favour of the freedom should be clearly and explicitly established in law. �� principle �. The state’s duty to protect peaceful assembly. It is the responsibility of the state to put in place adequate mechanisms and procedures to ensure that the freedom of assembly is enjoyed in practice and is not subject to unduly bureaucratic regulation. principle �. Legality. Any restrictions imposed must have a formal basis in law. The law itself must be compatible with international human rights law, and it must be suffi ciently precise to enable an individual to assess whether or not his or her conduct would be in breach of the law, and what the consequences of such breaches would likely be. principle �. Proportionality. Any restrictions imposed on freedom of assembly must be proportional. The least intrusive means of achieving the legitimate objective being pursued by the authorities should always be given preference. The dispersal of assemblies may only be a measure of last resort. The principle of proportionality thus requires that authorities not routinely impose restrictions that would fundamentally alter the character of an event, such as routing marches through outlying areas of a city. The blanket application of legal restrictions tends to be overly inclusive and thus fails the proportionality test because no consideration is given to the specifi c circumstances of the case in question. principle �. Good administration. The public should know which body is responsible for taking decisions about the regulation of freedom of assembly, and this must be clearly stated in law. The regulatory authority should ensure that the general public has adequate access to reliable information, and it should operate in an accessible and transparent manner. principle �. Non-discrimination.
a. Freedom of peaceful assembly is to be enjoyed equally by everyone. In regulating freedom of assembly, the relevant authorities must not discriminate against any individual or group on any ground such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth, or other status. The freedom to organize and participate in public assemblies must be guaranteed to both individuals and corporate bodies; to members of minority and indigenous groups; to both nationals and non-nationals (including stateless persons, refugees, foreign nationals, asylum seekers, migrants, and tourists); to both women and men; and to persons without full legal capacity, including persons with mental illness. b. The law must recognize the child’s right to participate in and organize peaceful assemblies. With due regard to the evolving capacity of the child, the right of children to organize an assembly may be subject to restrictions such as a certain minimum age for organizers or a requirement that the consent of their parents or legal guardians be obtained. �� c. Freedom of assembly of police or military personnel should not be restricted unless the reasons for the restriction are directly connected with their service duties, and only to the extent absolutely necessary in light of considerations of professional duty. Restrictions on Freedom of Assembly �. Legitimate grounds for restriction. Legitimate grounds for restriction are prescribed in universal and regional human rights instruments, and these should not be supplemented by additional grounds in domestic legislation. �. Restrictions on time, place and manner. A broad spectrum of possible restrictions that do not interfere with the message communicated are available to the regulatory authority. As a general rule, assemblies should be facilitated within sight and sound of their target audience. Procedural Issues �. Advance notice. The legal provisions concerning advance notice should require a notice of intent rather than a request for permission. The notifi cation process should not be onerous or bureaucratic. The period of notice should not be unnecessarily lengthy, but should still allow adequate time prior to the notifi ed date of the assembly for the relevant state authorities to plan and prepare for the event, and for the completion of an expeditious appeal to a tribunal or court should the legality of any restrictions imposed be challenged. If the authorities do not promptly present any objections to a notifi cation, the organizers of a public assembly should be able to proceed with the planned activity in accordance with the terms notifi ed and without restriction. �. Spontaneous assemblies. The law should explicitly provide for an exception from the requirement of advance notice where giving advance notice is impracticable. Even if no reasonable grounds for the failure to give advance notice are provided, the authorities should still protect and facilitate any spontaneous assembly so long as it is peaceful in nature. Organizers who ignore or refuse to comply with valid advance-notice requirements may be subsequently prosecuted. �� �. Simultaneous assemblies. Where notifi cation is given for two or more assemblies at the same place and time, they should be facilitated as much as possible. Emphasis should be placed on the state’s duty to prevent disruption of the main event where counter-demonstrations are organized.
Legal validity
- OSCE/ODIHR Guidelines on Freedom of Peaceful Assembly
- Universal Declaration of Human Rights - article 20, n. 1
- Council of Europe - article 11 of the European Convention of Human Rights.
- Canada - Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms which is Part I of the Constitution of Canada of 1982
- France - article 431-1 of the Nouveau Code Pénal
- Hong Kong - Basic Law Section 27," Hong Kong residents shall have freedom... of assembly, of procession and of demonstration.."
- Article 27 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Iran (though, not in opposition to Islam)
- Republic of Ireland - Guaranteed by Article 40.6.1 of the Constitution of Ireland, but only when exercised "peaceably and without arms" and not a "nuisance to the general public."
- Turkey - article 33 and 34 of the Constitution of Turkey guarantee the freedom of association and assembly.
- United States - First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States
Notes
See also
- Freedom of assembly in Russia
- Free speech zone
Template:Articles of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights
Credits
New World Encyclopedia writers and editors rewrote and completed the Wikipedia article in accordance with New World Encyclopedia standards. This article abides by terms of the Creative Commons CC-by-sa 3.0 License (CC-by-sa), which may be used and disseminated with proper attribution. Credit is due under the terms of this license that can reference both the New World Encyclopedia contributors and the selfless volunteer contributors of the Wikimedia Foundation. To cite this article click here for a list of acceptable citing formats.The history of earlier contributions by wikipedians is accessible to researchers here:
The history of this article since it was imported to New World Encyclopedia:
Note: Some restrictions may apply to use of individual images which are separately licensed.
