DOCSLIB.ORG

You and Your Rights — Assembly and Petition

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
You and Your Rights — Assembly and Petition [ABCDE] VOLUME 11, ISSUE 5 You and Your Rights — Assembly and Petition ■ Introduction: Some Assembly Required ■ Case Study: Petition—Two Case Studies ■ Legal Background: Our Rights Have Limits ■ Discussion Questions: The Freedom of Assembly and the Occupy Movement ■ Introduction: The Continuing Importance of the Right to Petition ■ Case Study: The Right to Petition Is Tested ■ Contemporary Application: The Right to Petition Is Still Exercised protestAND petition February 2, 2012 ©2012 THE WASHINGTON POST COMPANY VOLUME 11, ISSUE 5 An Integrated Curriculum For The Washington Post Newspaper In Education Program YOU AND YOUR RIGHTS Some Assembly Required When you buy a bicycle government might one day or a piece of furniture at a forbid people from forming store like Ikea, you’re used groups if it didn’t like what to seeing the instruction they had to say or what that there may be “Some they stood for. Assembly Required.” You Today, the freedom of know what that label assembly protects religious means: When you get the groups who want to gather box home, you’ll have to together, labor workers who put your new TV stand or wish to form trade unions, bookcase together. The protestors, and student package you get may have groups. Think of the people all the pieces you need, gathered on the National but it’s up to you to make Mall to hear Dr. King’s “I them all work. That same Have a Dream” speech, instruction might have the fans at your school’s been stamped on a manual SCOTT ROTHSTEIN football game, the images containing the instructions The original Constitution of the United States is on display in the Rotunda from political rallies, and for operation of the United for the Charters of Freedom in the National Archives. the collection of tents and States, if such a manual people “occupying” cities existed. across the country. Think also of the many images from the There is, in fact, an instruction manual of sorts, created past year of protest groups in Egypt, Syria, Tunisia, where when our country was founded – the U.S. Constitution, the freedom to assemble has not been protected as it is that contains directions for making our nation function. here. And although it doesn’t explicitly say “Some Assembly Citizens in a nation where government is based on popular Required,” that direction is implied. Since day one, we have consent need a way to express their views. The right to continuously been striving to put the pieces together into the gather peacefully gives meaning to the other protected rights best product possible. in the First Amendment. If people were not allowed to gather, Now, the word “assembly” has two meanings: One meaning, what would be the use of free speech? Government cannot the definition toy and furniture manufacturers intend, is interfere with religious teaching but what if it could abolish the act of putting pieces together into a finished product. the freedom to join together — you could practice your A second definition, and the one most important for this religion alone but not communally. What if factory workers article, is a group of people gathered together for a common facing intolerable conditions could not unite in a strike? Do purpose. As you think about this concept during the rest of you think one person, or even a few people, striking, would your lesson, consider how these different meanings interact have any impact if they had no way jointly to express the with one another. reasons for their strike? In addition to the more familiar rights such as freedom Our government structure is built on the principle of of speech and of the press, the First Amendment to our people joining their friends, neighbors, and co-workers to national constitution declares that the government “shall express ideas. We expect our elected representatives to join make no law … abridging … the right of the people peaceably one another, to debate and discuss their individual opinions, to assemble.” It may seem obvious to you and me that informed by the desires of their constituents, and together groups of people should be able to gather together. When to make the laws and regulations that give order to our our country was founded, however, the writers of the First society. Similarly, the freedom of assembly protects the right, Amendment had a real fear, based on treatment by the and responsibility, of private citizens to join one another to British ruling class, that without protection, the American discuss the problems of the day. ■ VOLUME 11, ISSUE 5 An Integrated Curriculum For The Washington Post Newspaper In Education Program Petition: Two Case Studies Dirk De Jonge’s Story be made a crime.” The Court used very strong language In 1934, in Portland, Oregon, a man to demonstrate how important it is to named Dirk De Jonge was arrested protect our First Amendment rights, after organizing a meeting of the noting that in times of great political Portland Communist Party in order to upheaval, there is an even greater need protest against police mistreatment of to “preserve inviolate the constitutional dockworkers who had gone on strike. rights of free speech, free press and Mr. De Jonge promoted the formation free assembly in order to maintain the of a labor union and sold pamphlets opportunity for free political discussion, about communism. to the end that government may be Even though the meeting had been responsive to the will of the people peaceful, Mr. De Jonge was convicted Pittsburgh Post-Gazette article at the time of the and that changes, if desired, may be by an Oregon court and was sentenced Supreme Court decision, January 6, 1937 obtained by peaceful means. Therein to seven years in prison for advocating a revolution. Three lies the security of the Republic, the very foundation of years later, though, his case reached the United States Supreme constitutional government.” What the Court was saying is that Court in Washington, D.C., and the Justices, in De Jonge v. when government is concerned about political revolution and State of Oregon, reversed the conviction. This meant they the disruption of our civic institutions, it’s more important than were required to set Mr. De Jonge free. The Supreme Court ever for that government to safeguard the rights guaranteed by explained that the right of assembly is fundamental in our the Constitution: The people cannot not protect their rights by society and “peaceable assembly for lawful discussion cannot giving those rights away. ■ Even People With Unattractive The American Civil Liberties Union (the ACLU) hated Views May Meet what the group stood for, but also believed that all Americans had a right to gather and to express their opinions. The The protections of the First Amendment extend, of course, ACLU, therefore, helped Mr. Collin and his group in court. to groups expressing unsavory opinions as well as to those The first courts to hear the case agreed with Skokie village with popular views. Tolerance for even distasteful opinions is a officials and held that the neo-Nazis could not march without hallmark of the American tradition. obeying the government limitations. In 1978, a man named Frank Collin On appeal though, this was overturned tested the patience of his community and a federal district judge declared — and this idea. Mr. Collin was a that, “it was better to allow those neo-Nazi in the Chicago area. He and who preach racial hate to expend their his group were anti-Semitic and anti- venom in rhetoric than to be panicked black, and worshipped Adolf Hitler. into embarking on a dangerous course In the suburb of Skokie, Ill., where of permitting the government to decide many survivors of the Holocaust what its citizens must say and hear.” had settled after World War II, the The government could not limit the neo-Nazis announced plans to hold a freedom of assembly without showing rally in front of Village Hall. a real likelihood that violence would The Skokie government responded ensue. by creating three new rules: Mr. Collin had won in court and was 1. Groups wishing to hold permitted to hold a hate-filled rally on assemblies would have to get ACLU.PROCON.ORG the steps on Village Hall. In the end permits and insurance for Frank Collin though, the freedom of assembly proved property damage; to be both the neo-Nazis’ champion and 2. No group would be allowed to hand out materials that its undoing – the event in Skokie attracted about 200 Nazis would incite racial or religious hatred; and but they were far outnumbered by very vocal opponents who 3. There could be no assemblies by political groups where drowned out the Nazi speeches. ■ the members wore military-like uniforms. VOLUME 11, ISSUE 5 An Integrated Curriculum For The Washington Post Newspaper In Education Program Our Rights Have Limits What does the Right to Assemble Mean for Today’s Citizens? Like all of our rights, the freedom of assembly is not absolute. It is limited in order to protect the rights of In a society like ours, where government is “of the people, others and to ensure the safety of everyone in society. The by the people, and for the people,” the ability of citizens major difficulty encountered with the right to assemble is to assemble is very important. To make our democracy in identifying where the government must stand back and work, we need to be free to gather with our neighbors, where it must step in. our co-workers and other individuals to express our views Limits may be imposed on the right when three conditions without fear.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Facilitating Peaceful Protests
    ACADEMY BRIEFING No. 5 Facilitating Peaceful Protests January 2014 Geneva Academy of International Humanitarian Law and Human Rights Geneva Académie de droit international humanitaire et de droits humains à Genève Academ The Academy, a joint centre of ISBN: 978-2-9700866-3-5 © Geneva Academy of International Humanitarian Law and Human Rights, January 2014. Acknowledgements This Academy Briefing was written by Milena Costas Trascasas, Research Fellow, and Stuart Casey-Maslen, Head of Research, at the Geneva Academy of International Humanitarian Law and Human Rights (Geneva Academy). The Academy would like to thank all those who commented on an earlier draft of this briefing, in particular Anja Bienart and Brian Wood of Amnesty International, and Neil Corney of Omega Research Foundation. The Geneva Academy would also like to thank the Swiss Federal Department of Foreign Affairs (DFAE) for its support to the Academy’s work on facilitating peaceful protests, especially the Human Security Division for its funding of the publication of this Briefing. Editing, design, and layout by Plain Sense, Geneva. Disclaimer This Academy Briefing is the work of the authors. The views expressed in it do not necessarily reflect those of the project’s supporters or of anyone who provided input to, or commented on, a draft of this Briefing. The designation of states or territories does not imply any judgement by the Geneva Academy, the DFAE, or any other body or individual, regarding the legal status of such states or territories, or their authorities and institutions, or the delimitation of their boundaries, or the status of any states or territories that border them.
    [Show full text]
  • Draft General Comment No. 37 (Right of Peaceful Assembly)
    www.icnl.org [email protected] PRESENTED TO UN HUMAN RIGHTS COMMITTEE SUBMISSION Draft General Comment No. 37 (Right of Peaceful Assembly) Introduction ICNL is grateful for the opportunity to provide comments on the revised draft General Comment No. 37 on Article 21 (right of peaceful assembly) of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR). Please find below principal comments relating to the following issues of general significance: (1) the definition of “assembly”; (2) assemblies through digital means; (3) authorization and notification requirements; (4) use of force in the context of assemblies; and (5) the fundamental nature of peaceful assembly rights. Accompanying these principal comments, we have attached a marked-up version of General Comment No. 37 which addresses the text of the Comment in greater detail, indicating proposed edits (including edits on a number of specific or technical issues not raised in our principal comments) and rationales for these edits. We hope the Committee will find these comments helpful in its review of the draft Comment. Principal Comments 1. THE DEFINITION OF “ASSEMBLY” The conception of “assembly” set forth in the draft General Comment, at paras. 4 and 13, is limited to gatherings of persons with a common expressive purpose in a publicly accessible place. In our view, this conception omits historically and currently important forms of assembly that require protection against restrictions, while also 1126 16th Street NW #400 Washington, DC 20036 2/21/2020 leaving insufficient room to encompass evolving and future forms of assembly. We would recommend clarifying that the protections of article 21 apply to gatherings where the participants intend to engage in important civic activities other than common expression; to gatherings in private, non-publicly-accessible places; and to gatherings “by persons,” in various forms, rather than “of persons”.
    [Show full text]
  • CDL-AD(2007)007 Opinion No
    Strasbourg, 19 March 2007 CDL-AD(2007)007 Opinion No. 399 / 2006 Or. Engl. EUROPEAN COMMISSION FOR DEMOCRACY THROUGH LAW (VENICE COMMISSION) OPINION ON THE CONVENTION ON THE STANDARDS OF DEMOCRATIC ELECTIONS, ELECTORAL RIGHTS AND FREEDOMS IN THE MEMBER STATES OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF INDEPENDENT STATES adopted by the Venice Commission at its 70th plenary session (Venice, 16-17 March 2007) on the basis of comments by Mr Christoph GRABENWARTER (member, Austria) This document will not be distributed at the meeting. Please bring this copy. http://venice.coe.int CDL-AD(2007)007 - 2 - Introduction 1. By letter dated 28 September 2006, the Secretary General of the Council of Europe asked for an opinion on the Venice Commission on the Convention on the standards of democratic elections, electoral rights and freedoms in the Commonwealth of Independent States (CDL- EL(2006)031rev). 2. The above-mentioned Convention was adopted on 7 October 2002 and was ratified up to now by Armenia, Kyrghyzstan, Moldova, Russia and Tajikistan. 3. The request by the Secretary General takes place in the framework of the discussion about the possibility to adopt a European convention in the electoral field as a Council of Europe convention. The issue whether the text submitted for opinion could inspire a European Convention will then have to be addressed. 4. The Venice Commission entrusted Mr Christoph Grabenwarter (member, Austria) to prepare the comments which are the basis for this opinion. 5. This opinion is based on a non official English translation of the Convention. 6. A first draft opinion was examined by the Council for Democratic Elections at its 19th meeting (Venice, 16 December 2006).
    [Show full text]
  • The Right to Political Participation in International Law
    The Right to Political Participation In International Law Gregory H. Fox I. INTRODUCTION ................................................ 540 I1. THE EMERGING INTERNATIONAL LAW OF PARTICIPATORY RIGHTS ................. 544 A. ParticipatoryRights Before 1948: The Reign of the State Sovereignty Approach ..... 544 B. The Nature and Scope of Post-War Treaty-Based ParticipatoryRights ........... 552 1. The InternationalCovenant on Civil and PoliticalRights ................ 553 a. Non-Discrimination .................................... 553 b. The Right to Take Part in Public Affairs........................ 555 c. Requirements Concerning Elections ........................... 555 2. The FirstProtocol to the European Convention on Human Rights ........... 560 a. Rights Concerning Elections ................................ 561 b. Non-Discrimination .................................... 563 3. The American Convention on Hwnan Rights ........................ 565 4. Other InternationalInstruments Guaranteeing ParticipatoryRights .......... 568 a. The African Charteron Hwnan and Peoples' Rights ................ 568 b. Council on Security and Co-operationin Europe Accords ............. 568 5. Summary of Treaty-Based Norms ................................ 570 II. INTERNATIONAL ELECTION MONITORING: THE ELABORATION AND ENFORCEMENT OF PARTICIPATORY RIGHTS ......................................... 570 A. Election Monitoring Priorto 1945 .................................. 571 B. Monitoring Under the United Nations System .......................... 572 1. The
    [Show full text]
  • 6. Freedom of Association and Assembly
    6. Freedom of Association and Assembly Contents Summary 161 The common law 163 Protections from statutory encroachment 164 Australian Constitution 164 The principle of legality 165 International law 166 Bills of rights 167 Justifications for limits on freedom of association and assembly 168 Legitimate objectives 168 Balancing rights and interests 170 Laws that interfere with freedom of association and assembly 171 Criminal law 172 Public assembly 176 Workplace relations laws 176 Migration law character test 184 Other laws 186 Conclusion 188 Summary 6.1 Freedom of association concerns the right of all persons to group together voluntarily for a common goal or to form and join an association, such as a political party, a professional or sporting club, a non-government organisation or a trade union. 6.2 This chapter discusses the source and rationale of the common law rights of freedom of association and freedom of assembly; how these rights are protected from statutory encroachment; and when laws that interfere with them may be considered justified, including by reference to the concept of proportionality. 6.3 Freedom of association is closely related to other fundamental freedoms recognised by the common law, including freedom of speech. It has been said to serve the same values as freedom of speech: ‘the self-fulfilment of those participating in the meeting or other form of protest, and the dissemination of ideas and opinions essential to the working of an active democracy’.1 Freedom of association is different from, but also closely related to, freedom of assembly. 1 Eric Barendt, Freedom of Speech (Oxford University Press, 2nd ed, 2007) 272.
    [Show full text]
  • Committee on the Rights of the Child Comments on Human Rights Committee’S Revised Draft General Comment No
    HAUT- COMMISSARIAT AUX DROITS DE L’HOMME • OFFICE OF THE HIGH COMMISSIONER FOR HUMAN RIGHTS PALAIS DES NATIONS • 1211 GENEVA 10, SWITZERLAND www.ohchr.org • TEL: +41 22 917 9000 • FAX: +41 22 917 9008 • E-MAIL: [email protected] 21 February 2020 COMMITTEE ON THE RIGHTS OF THE CHILD COMMENTS ON HUMAN RIGHTS COMMITTEE’S REVISED DRAFT GENERAL COMMENT NO. 37 ON ARTICLE 21 (RIGHT OF PEACEFUL ASSEMBLY) OF THE INTERNATIONAL COVENANT ON CIVIL AND POLITICAL RIGHTS 1. Introduction The Human Rights Committee has invited submissions to inform the drafting of a General Comment (the “draft General Comment”) on Article 21 (right of peaceful assembly) of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (“ICCPR”). The Committee on the Rights of the Child (the “CRC Committee”) takes the opportunity to present its comments on the draft General Comment. This submission • Places emphasis on children’s rights of peaceful assembly; • Compares article 15 of the CRC with article 21 of the ICCPR; • Identifies the various contexts in which children may be involved in peaceful assembly; • Highlights the CRC Committee’s observations on children participating in peaceful assemblies; • Identifies positive obligations on States parties regarding peaceful assembly in relation to children; • Evaluates restrictions on peaceful assembly in relation to children; • Makes recommendations for the Human Rights Committee’s revised General Comment no 37 on article 21. 2. The views of child human rights defenders At the outset, the Committee commends the efforts made by the Human Rights Committee to hear from children through its partnership on this General Comment with Child Rights Connect, who conducted a survey of children’s opinions.
    [Show full text]
  • Guidelines on Freedom of Peaceful Assembly
    Guidelines on Freedom of Peaceful Assembly SECOND EDITION E COMMIS IC SI N O E N V Guidelines on Freedom of Peaceful Assembly SECOND EDITION E COMMIS IC SI N O E N V Published by the OSCE Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights (ODIHR) Al. Ujazdowskie 19 00-557 Warsaw Poland www.osce.org/odihr © OSCE/ODIHR 2010 All rights reserved. The contents of this publication may be freely used and copied for educational and other non-commercial purposes, provided that any such reproduction is accompanied by an acknowledgement of the OSCE/ODIHR as the source. ISBN 978-92-9234-785-7 Designed by Homework, Warsaw, Poland Cover design by Agnieszka Rembowska Printed in Poland by Sungraf Guidelines on Freedom of Peaceful Assembly SECOND EDITION Prepared by the Osce/Odihr Panel of experts on the Freedom of Assembly Nina Belyaeva Thomas Bull David Goldberger Michael Hamilton Neil Jarman Muatar S. Khaidarova Serghei Ostaf Vardan Poghosyan Alexander Vashkevich Yevgeniy A. Zhovtis And by the Council of Europe’s European Commission for Democracy through Law (Venice Commission) Warsaw/Strasbourg 2010 Table of contents Foreword. 9 introduction . 11 SECTiON A. Guidelines on Freedom of Peaceful Assembly . 14 1. Freedom of Peaceful Assembly . 15 1.1. Freedom of peaceful assembly 1.2. Definition of assembly 1.3. Only peaceful assemblies are protected 2. Guiding Principles. 15 2.1. The presumption in favour of holding assemblies 2.2. The state’s positive obligation to facilitate and protect peaceful assembly 2.3. Legality 2.4. Proportionality 2.5. Non-discrimination 2.6. Good administration 2.7.
    [Show full text]
  • Handbook on Monitoring Freedom of Peaceful Assembly of Peaceful Freedom on Monitoring Handbook Handbook on Monitoring
    HandbookMonitoringon Freedom Peacefulof Assembly Handbook on Monitoring This handbook was produced as a guide for organizations and individuals who might initiate independent monitoring of peaceful assemblies in their own country. It draws Freedom of Peaceful Assembly and builds on the ODIHR and Venice Commission Guidelines on Freedom of Peaceful Assembly, which identify core issues in the exercise of freedom of peaceful assembly and set out a number of guiding principles that should govern its regulation. The Handbook also draws on extensive monitoring experience in numerous countries to outline the key human rights principles related to freedom of assembly and provide guidance on organizing monitoring projects, monitoring at assemblies, and producing reports to highlight the issues that are raised. Handbook on Monitoring Freedom of Peaceful Assembly Published by the OSCE Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights (ODIHR) ul. Miodowa 10 00-251 Warsaw Poland www.osce.org/odihr © OSCE/ODIHR 2011 All rights reserved. The contents of this publication may be freely used and copied for educational and other non-commercial purposes, provided that any such reproduction is accompanied by an acknowledgement of the OSCE/ODIHR as the source. ISBN 978-92-9234-814-4 Designed by Homework, Warsaw, Poland Printed in Poland by Agencja KARO Contents Foreword. 5 1. Introduction ............................................ 7 2. Definition of an Assembly .................................. 11 3. International Human Rights Principles ......................... 14 4. Regulating Freedom of Peaceful Assembly ....................... 20 5. The Policing of Assemblies .................................. 24 6. Monitoring: An Overview .................................. 28 7. Principles and Standards in Monitoring ......................... 33 8. Establishing a Monitoring Project ............................. 36 9. Preparing to Monitor an Assembly ...........................
    [Show full text]
  • CERC: Media and Public Health Law
    Crisis and Emergency Risk Communication: Be First. Be Right. Be Credible. CERC: Media and Public Health Law Last Updated: 2014 CERC: Media and Public Health Law The following chapter describes some of the most relevant laws and legal issues that relate to crisis and emergency risk communication (CERC) during public health emergencies, including: Freedom of speech and the press Laws of defamation Copyright law The public’s right to know Freedom of Information Act Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act privacy regulations Public health laws Public health powers and liabilities State public health emergency powers Understanding the Legal Environment During public health emergencies, it is essential for CERC communicators to be aware of the law and comply with it. A multitude of legal requirements may apply to CERC activities, including laws addressing access to information, privacy, and public health powers. If you understand the content of relevant laws and how to apply them, you will be better able to make good communication decisions. You will be more skilled at determining what information can and cannot, and should and should not, be shared with the media and the public. You will also have a better understanding of the legal basis for decisions your organization may make—decisions you may have to explain to the public. Freedom of Speech and the Press The United States Constitution grants strong protections for freedom of speech and the press. The First Amendment states: “Congress shall make no law … abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press ...”1 Freedom of speech and freedom of the press have been recognized as fundamental rights, but they are not absolute.
    [Show full text]
  • Timor-Leste's Constitution of 2002
    PDF generated: 26 Aug 2021, 16:26 constituteproject.org Timor-Leste's Constitution of 2002 © Oxford University Press, Inc. Translated by Gisbert H. Flanz Prepared for distribution on constituteproject.org with content generously provided by Oxford University Press. This document has been recompiled and reformatted using texts collected in Oxford’s Constitutions of the World. constituteproject.org PDF generated: 26 Aug 2021, 16:26 Table of contents Preamble . 8 PART I: FUNDAMENTAL PRINCIPLES . 9 Article 1: The Republic . 9 Article 2: Sovereignty and Constitutionality . 9 Article 3: Citizenship . 9 Article 4: Territory . 9 Article 5: Decentralization . 10 Article 6: Objectives of the State . 10 Article 7: Universal Suffrage and Multi-Party System . 10 Article 8: International Relations . 11 Article 9: Reception of International Law . 11 Article 10: Solidarity . 11 Article 11: Valorization of Resistance . 11 Article 12: The State and Religious Denominations . 12 Article 13: Official Languages and National Languages . 12 Article 14: National Symbols . 12 Article 15: National Flag . 12 PART II: RIGHTS, DUTIES, LIBERTIES AND FUNDAMENTAL GUARANTEES . 12 TITLE I: GENERAL PRINCIPLES . 12 Article 16: Universality and Equality . 12 Article 17: Equality Between Women and Men . 13 Article 18: Child Protection . 13 Article 19: Youth . 13 Article 20: Old Age . 13 Article 21: Disabled Citizen . 13 Article 22: East Timorese Citizens Overseas . 13 Article 23: Interpretation of Fundamental Rights . 13 Article 24: Restrictive Laws . 14 Article 25: State of Exception . 14 Article 26: Access to Courts . 14 Article 27: The "Ombudsman" (The Defender of Human Rights and Justice) . 14 Article 28: Right to Resistance and Self-Defense . 15 TITLE II: RIGHTS, FREEDOMS AND PERSONAL GUARANTEES .
    [Show full text]
  • Freedom of Association and Assembly
    Freedom of Association And Assembly Unions, NGOs and Political Freedom in Sub-Saharan Africa March 2001 ARTICLE 19 The Global Campaign for Free Expression ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS This report was written by Dr. Bonaventure Rutinwa, a consultant to ARTICLE 19’s Africa Programme. It was edited by Njonjo Mue, Legal Adviser to the Africa Programme. Katherine Huxtable copy edited and designed the report. ARTICLE 19 is grateful to the European Commission for its financial support for the research and publication of this report. The views expressed do not necessarily reflect those of the EC. Cover photograph by Jeremy Hartley, Panos Pictures. March 2001 ARTICLE 19 Lancaster House 33 Islington High Street London N1 9LH Tel: 020 7278 9292 Fax: 020 7713 1356 Email: [email protected] Web: www.article19.org ©ARTICLE 19 ISBN 1 902598 35 0 ABBREVIATIONS ACHR American Convention on Human Rights AWC Association of Women’s Clubs CCM Chama Cha Mapinduzi (Revolutionary Party) CIO Central Intelligence Organisation EHRR European Human Rights Reports FES Friedrich Ebert Stiftung GAPVOD Ghana Association of Private Voluntary Organisations in Development ICCPR International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights ICESCR International Covenant on Economic Social and Cultural Rights ILO International Labour Organisation LOMA Law and Order (Maintenance) Act, Cap 65 (Zimbabwe) MINAT Minister in Charge of Territorial Administration NGO Non-Governmental Organisation NOA Non-profit Organisations Act, 1997 (South Africa) OATUU Organisation of African Trade Unions OAU Organisation of African Unit PNDC Provisional National Defence Council RDPC Democratic Assembly of the Cameroonian People SDF Social Democratic Front UDHR Universal Declaration of Human Rights UNDP National Union for Democracy and Progress ZANU-PF Zimbabwe African National Union − Patriotic Front ZCTU Zimbabwe Congress of Trade Unions CONTENTS INTRODUCTION..........................................................................................................1 1.
    [Show full text]
  • Freedom of Association in the Wake of Coronavirus
    Legal Sidebari Freedom of Association in the Wake of Coronavirus April 16, 2020 At least 42 U.S. states have issued emergency orders directing residents to “stay at home,” with many states prohibiting gatherings of various sizes to control the spread of Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID- 19). California’s March 19th stay-at-home order effectively banned public gatherings outside of “critical” sectors and “essential” services. New York’s March 23rd order “canceled or postponed” “non-essential gatherings of individuals of any size for any reason (e.g. parties, celebrations or other social events),” with a maximum penalty of $1,000 for violations added in a later order. Maryland’s March 30th order prohibited “[s]ocial, community, spiritual, religious, recreational, leisure, and sporting gatherings and events . of more than 10 people,” with willful violators facing up to a year imprisonment and/or a maximum fine of $5,000. Texas’s March 31st order directed residents to “minimize social gatherings” except “where necessary to provide or obtain” designated “essential services.” In late March, some lawmakers called on the President to issue a temporary, nationwide shelter-in-place order. Mandatory social distancing measures have prompted constitutional questions, including whether gathering bans, which restrict in-person communication, comport with the First Amendment’s protections for freedom of speech and assembly. There have already been a few legal challenges to COVID-19– related orders litigated on these grounds. On March 25th, a New Hampshire court denied an emergency motion to enjoin that state’s previous ban on scheduled gatherings of 50 people or more.
    [Show full text]