Run query: Country query

https://constitutionnet.org/sites/default/files/Belarus%20Constitution.pdf

- there is total freedom of association for lawful purposes, but any paramilitary association is prohibited;

- creation of associations and, as set forth in law, of cooperatives, requires no authorization, prohibiting state interference in their operations;

- associations may be compulsorily dissolved or their activities suspended only by a judicial decision, which in the former case must be a final and unappealable decision;

- no one can be compelled to join an association or to remain in one;

August 11. The right comes in Title XI, Article 109 (“Constitución de 1869”, 1869). The current Constitution, ratified in 2008, asserts the right in Article 66 (“Ecuador 2008 (rev. 2021) Constitution”, 2021). 1869. “Constitución de 1869.” ConstitutionNet. August 11.

Article 123: “All Germans have the right to assembly peacefully and unarmed without giving notice and without special permission.”

“Freedom of association is truly respected when assemblies of people can discuss even revolutionary projects, the State relying upon the force of public opinion and the civil police, not the savage military at its disposal, to crush any actual outbreak of revolution that is designed to confound public opinion and the State representing it…. The fight for swaraj means a fight for this threefold freedom before all else."

“Côte d’Ivoire 2016 Constitution.” Constitute. Accessed July 19, 2023. https://www.constituteproject.org/constitution/Cote_DIvoire_2016.

Mali. “Mali 1964 (rev. 2016) Constitution.” Constitute 1964

Mauritanie. “Constitution du 20 mai 1961” Digithéque MJP 1961 https://mjp.univ-perp.fr/constit/mr1961.htm MENA Rights Groups. “Mauritania’s human rights record examined by UN Member States” MENA Rights

Monaco. “Constitution of the Principality of Monaco” Council of Europe 1911

“Constitution of the Republic of Montenegro” 1992 https://www.venice.coe.int/webforms/documents/?pdf=CDL(2005)096-e Montenegro. “Montenegro 2007” Constitute 2007

“The Constitution of the People’s Republic of Mozambique.” 2023. Mozambique History. https://mozambiquehistory.net/justice/constitution/19800000_english_constitution.pdf.

Namibia. 1990 “Namibia 1990 (rev. 2014)” Constitute

Nepal. 1951 “The Interim Government of Nepal Act, 1951” Constitutionnet

Freedom of association is enumerated in the first constitution of independent Nigeria, enacted in 1960. Under Article 25, “every person shall be entitled to … associate with other persons and in particular he may form or belong to trade unions and other associations for the protection of his interests.” The article subsequently lays out broad reservations on this article, precluding its application to laws “reasonably justifiable in a democratic society” that are in the interest of “defense, public safety, public order, public morality, or public health,” as well as those “for the purpose of protecting the rights and freedoms of other persons.”

“Constitution of the Federal People’s Republic of Yugoslavia.” World Constitutions Illustrated, July 24, 2023, https://heinonline-org.ccl.idm.oclc.org/HOL/Page?collection=cow&handle=hein.cow/cyugo0001&id=11&men_tab=srchresults.

Constitution of Saint Vincent and the Grenadines 1979. Organization of American States. http://www.oas.org/es/sla/dlc/mesicic/docs/mesicic4_svg_const.pdf

Declaration of Citizens Rights and Fundamental Principles of San Marino. Rights of Assembly. https://www.rightofassembly.info/assets/downloads/1974_Constitution_of_San_Marino.pdf

CIA World Factbook. Senegal https://www.cia.gov/the-world-factbook/countries/senegal/#government

Tajikistan, Supreme Assembly. 2016. Constitution of the Republic of Tajikistan.

Bourguiba, Habib. 1959. “WIPO Lex, Tunisia, the Constitution of Tunisia, 1959.” Www.wipo.int. 1959. https://www.wipo.int/wipolex/en/legislation/details/7201.

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 1950s 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 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 Constitution of the People’s Republic of Angola.” World Constitutions Illustrated, Heinonline. Accessed July 19, 2023. https://heinonline.org/HOL/P?h=hein.journals/rsl2&i=197

In accordance with English Common Law, Australia’s Constitution does not clearly guarantee freedom of religion. However, Article 116 of the document orders the “Commonwealth not to legislate in respect of religion.” Additionally, multiple Australian states have adopted laws and constitutions protecting the right.

“The Australian Constitution.” Parliament of Australia. Accessed July 19, 2023. https://www.aph.gov.au/constitution

International Labour Organization. Constitution of Cameroon 1972. https://www.ilo.org/dyn/natlex/docs/ELECTRONIC/43107/133753/F868661776/CMR-43107%20(EN).pdf

Constituteproject. Constitution of the Republic of Chad. 1996. https://www.constituteproject.org/constitution/Chad_2005

U.S. Department of State. Report on International Religious Freedom. 2021. Comoros. https://www.state.gov/reports/2021-report-on-international-religious-freedom/comoros/

International Labour Organization. Constitution of Cyprus 1960. https://www.ilo.org/dyn/natlex/docs/ELECTRONIC/47927/136251/F-1750868360/CYP47927_LEG_Constitution%201960.pdf

U.S. Department of State. Report on Religious Freedom. 2022. Democratic Republic of The Congo. https://www.state.gov/reports/2022-report-on-international-religious-freedom/democratic-republic-of-the-congo/

“Constitucion de la Nacion Dominicana” 1963 acnur.org

“Constitución de 1897” 1897. Consitutenet.org

“Constitucion de 1886” 1886. Jurisprudencia

U.S. Department of State 2019. “ERITREA 2019 INTERNATIONAL RELIGIOUS FREEDOM REPORT”

Eswatini 2005. “Eswatini 2005” Constitute Project

“Constitution du 14 novembre 1960” 1960. Digithèque MJP

“India - United States Department of State.” U.S. Department of State, June 10, 2022. https://www.state.gov/reports/2021-report-on-international-religious-freedom/india/.

Article 24 of Mexico’s 1917 Constitution, which is still in use today, contains the first assertion of freedom of religion in the country’s post-revolutionary history. However, prior to the 1910 Revolution, the first amendment to the country’s 1859 Constitution (also known as the Law of September 25, 1873) did state that the legislature should not adopt any law that established or forbid a religion.

“Constitution.” World Constitutions Illustrated, Heinonline. Accessed July 27, 2023. https://heinonline.org/HOL/P?h=hein.cow/zzmx0010&i=1