Freedom of association encompasses both an individual's right to join or leave groups voluntarily, the right of the group to takecollective action to pursue the interests of its members, and the right of anassociation to accept or decline membership based on certain criteria. It can be described as the right of a person coming together with other individuals to collectively express, promote, pursue and/or defend common interests.[1]
Freedom of association is both anindividual right and acollective right, guaranteed by all modern and democratic legal systems, including theUnited States Bill of Rights,article 11 of theEuropean Convention on Human Rights,section 2 of theCanadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, andinternational law, including articles 20 and 23 of theUniversal Declaration of Human Rights and article 22 ofInternational Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. TheDeclaration on Fundamental Principles and Rights at Work by theInternational Labour Organization also ensures these rights.
Freedom of association is manifested through the right to join atrade union, to engage infree speech or to participate in debating societies,political parties, or any other club or association, includingreligious denominations andorganizations,fraternities, andsport clubs and not to be compelled to belong to an association.[2] It is closely linked withfreedom of assembly, particularly under theU.S. Bill of Rights. Freedom of assembly is typically associated with political contexts. However, (e.g.the U.S. Constitution,human rights instruments, etc.) the right to freedom of association may include the right tofreedom of assembly.
The courts and delegated officers of local jurisdictions may impose restrictions on any of the rights of a convicted criminal as a condition of a legal stipulation. Rights to freedom of association and freedom of assembly are waived under certain circumstances, such as a guilty plea or conviction, restraining orders and probationer'ssearch and seizure procedures. Freedom of association is also legally restricted in certain circumstances such as with theCivil Rights Act, in which private discrimination against certain protected classes was made illegal.[3]
The general freedom to associate with groups according to the choice of the individual, and for the groups to take action to promote their interests, has been a necessary feature of every democratic society. Because freedom of association necessarily recognizes pluralistic sources of power and organisation, aside from the government, it has been a primary target for repression by all dictatorial societies. In theUnited Kingdom, all forms of "combination" were prohibited and criminal, particularly worker organisations, until theCombination Act 1825. After this, it was still not by theCompanies Act 1856, theTrade Union Act 1871 and theCriminal Conspiracy and Protection of Property Act 1875 that companies and then trade unions became generally lawful. In Germany, a similar set of repressive laws was put in place against both trade unions and social democrat organisations by theBismarck government under theSozialistengesetze (the "Socialist Acts") in 1878. These remained in force until 1890. In 1933, trade unions were once again prohibited by theFascist dictatorship ofHitler'sNational Socialist party, and the existing unions were nationalized and combined into a single government controlledGerman Labor Front. InWest Germany afterWorld War II, free trade unions were quickly resurrected and guaranteed by the GermanGrundgesetz. In theUnited States, trade unions were classified by various state courts, at various times, as being inrestraint of trade. Under theClayton Act of 1914, trade unions were given a general freedom to organize and to act collectively to secure collective agreements, however further hurdles were put in place until theNational Labor Relations Act of 1935 created a comprehensive labor code.
Freedom of association is enshrined byUniversal Declaration of Human Rights in Article 20:
1. Everyone has the right to freedom of peaceful assembly and association.
2. No one may be compelled to belong to an association.
Section 2 of the Charter, under the heading of "Fundamental Freedoms", states:
Everyone has the following fundamental freedoms:
...
d) freedom of association.
Under Canadianjurisprudence, freedom of association has three dimensions: the "constitutive" right to form associations with other people, a "derivative" right to collectively invoke other constitutional rights, and the "purposive" right to collectively bargain in order to be on equal footing with other groups and entities.[4]
InItaly the freedom of association is established in Article 18 of theConstitution, which states:[5]
Citizens have the right to form associations freely and without authorization for those ends that are not forbidden by criminal law.Secret associations and associations that, even indirectly, pursue political aims by means of organisations having a military character shall be forbidden.
TheSouth African Constitution's Bill of Rights establishes the right to freedom of association in Section 18, which states "Everyone has the right to freedom of association." Furthermore, Section 17 states "Everyone has the right, peacefully and unarmed, to assemble, to demonstrate, to picket and to present petitions", thus establishing the right tofreedom of assembly. Workers' right to freedom of association in terms of the right to form trade unions and collective bargaining is recognized separately, in Section 23.[6]
While theUnited States Constitution'sFirst Amendment identifies the rights to assemble and to petition thegovernment, the text of the First Amendment does not make specific mention of a right to association. Nevertheless, theUnited States Supreme Court held inNAACP v. Alabama, 357 U.S.449 (1958) that freedom of association is an essential part offreedom of speech because, in many cases, people can engage in effective speech only when they join with others.[7] Other Supreme Court cases involving freedom of association issues include:[8]
A fundamental element ofpersonal liberty is the right to choose to enter into and maintain certain intimate human relationships. These intimate human relationships are considered forms of "intimate association." The paradigmatic example of "intimate association" is the family. Depending on the jurisdiction it may also extend to abortion, birth control and private, adult, non-commercial and consensual sexual relationships.
In the United States, expressive associations are groups that engage in activities protected by the First Amendment –speech,assembly, press, petitioning government for a redress of grievances, and the free exercise ofreligion. InRoberts v. United States Jaycees, theU.S. Supreme Court held that laws banning associations from excluding people for reasons unrelated to the group's expression are constitutional. However, in the subsequent decisions ofHurley 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. The government cannot, through the use of anti-discrimination laws, force groups to include a message that they do not wish to convey.
This concept continues to apply broadly to private groups, notwithstanding the Supreme Court's ruling inChristian Legal Society v. Martinez (2010), which upheld Hastings College of Law policy that a student group on campus could not enjoy university recognition while excluding people from group activities by requiring them to undergo a religious test. The Court found that the school's conditions on recognizing student groups were viewpoint neutral and reasonable. The policy requires student organizations to allow "any student to participate, become a member, or seek leadership positions, regardless of their status or beliefs" and so, can be used to deny the group recognition as an official student organization because it had required its members to attest in writing that "I believe in: The Bible as the inspired word of God; The Deity of our Lord, Jesus Christ, God's son; The vicarious death of Jesus Christ for our sins; His bodily resurrection and His personal return; The presence and power of the Holy Spirit in the work of regeneration; [and] Jesus Christ, God's son, is Lord of my life." The Court reasoned that Hastings sought to treat all student groups equally; the CLS, on the other hand, sought an exemption to apply a religious test to their membership. Thus, the college's all-comers policy is a reasonable, viewpoint-neutral condition on access to the student organization forum.[9]
The implicit First Amendment right of association in theU.S. Constitution has been limited by court rulings. For example, it is illegal in the United States to consider race in the making and enforcement of private contracts other than marriage. This limit on freedom of association results from Section 1981 of Title 42 of theUnited States Code, as balanced against theFirst Amendment in the 1976 decision ofRunyon v. McCrary.[10]
Governments often requirecontracts of adhesion with private entities for licensing purposes, such as withFinancial Industry Regulatory Authority forstock market trading in the1938 Maloney Act amendments to theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934. These contracts often bar association with banned members, as can be seen inUnited States v. Merriam, 108 F.3d 1162.
The organization of labor was commonly resisted during the 19th century, with even relatively liberal countries such as the United Kingdom banning it for various periods (in the UK's case, between 1820 and 1824).[11]
In the international labour movement, the freedom of association is a right identified under international labour standards as the right of workers to organize andcollectively bargain. Freedom of association, in this sense, is recognized as a fundamental human right by a number of documents including theUniversal Declaration of Human Rights andInternational Labour OrganizationConvention C87 andConvention C98 – two of the eight fundamental, core international labour standards. 'Freedom of association' can also refer to legal bans on private contracts negotiated between a private employer and their employees requiring workers at a particular workplace to join a union as a term and condition of employment. Supporters of this sort of private freedom of association claim that the right to join a union incorporates a right not to join a union. In theUnited States, the term 'right-to-work law' is more common for this type of law.
"The Supreme Court today (1-21-1997) sharply limited the ability of labor union organizers to go onto an employer's property to distribute literature or urge workers to join the union. In a 6-to-3 opinion written by Justice Clarence Thomas, the Court said that the National Labor Relations Board had failed to give adequate protection to employers' property rights when it adopted a rule four years ago that gave union organizers greater access to areas like the parking lots of shopping centers or factories." -New York Times[12]
Jeremy McBride argues that respecting the freedom of association by all public authorities and the exercising of this freedom by all sections of society are essential both to establish a "genuinedemocracy" and to ensure that, once achieved, it remains "healthy and flourishing". In this regard he sees the formation of political parties as a significant manifestation of the freedom of association.
The freedom of association is not only exercised in the political sense, but also for a vast array of interests – such as culture, recreation, sport and social and humanitarian assistance. Jeremy McBride argues that the formation ofnon-governmental organizations (NGOs), which he equates withcivil society, is the "fruit of associational activity".[1]
Right-libertarians believe that while freedom of association includes the right for workers to organise as unions and to withdraw their labour it also recognises the right of an employer to replace that labour.[13] They also believe that where unions employ coercive or violent tactics, such behaviours would be in breach of both individual rights and property rights. Some critics of unionism allege that such breaches have frequently been the case with union activity.[14]
| International | |
|---|---|
| National | |
| Other | |
