Article 11 A03 Flashcards
What are the 4 WDPs for Article 11
Qualified Right
Historical importance of Free Assembly
Protection of demonstrators
Freedom of Association
+P1: Qualified right creates
a fair balance between the rights of individuals/groups and the wider community, is safeguarded by interference only allowed under 11(2) if there is a strong legal basis, a legitimate aim and deemed necessary which upholds Art 11
+DP1: Laskey v UK confirms that often issues are treated with a wide MoA
as what might be tolerated in one state may not be in another, but the decision must still be proportionate, such as Ollinger v Austria where despite there being a wide MoA, it was a violation as the state were disproportionate
-WDP1: However, the wide margin of appreciation has led to
concerning developments in certain states such as Turkey giving officers power to carry firearms when regulating demonstrators
+P2: Significant historical importance, led to many positive changes historically such as
universal suffrage and workers rights illustrating its vital significance
+DP2: Peaceful demonstrations under Art have led to
improved equality and fairness for all such as the 2011 equality campaigns leading up to the Marriage (Same-sex Couples) Act 2013
+WDP2: Both Art 11 and Art 10 are closely linked and need to protected for both of them to be protected
it is fundamental that these are upheld as the foundations of a democratic society
+P3: State has a positive obligation to protect the right
ensures that peaceful protestors are safeguarded from violence against them
+DP3: Ollinger v Austria shows how disproportionate restrictions are regarded as a violation
which is effective in stopping police from unnecessarily restrict demonstrators from protesting upholding the right
-WDP3: However, Appleby v UK shows how police can restrict assembly if interfering with the public
practical + justified as it would be unreasonable for police to guarantee safety of all protestors as this would detract from their duties
+P4: not including right to spend time with certain individuals is justified in cases like
McFeeley v UK where convicted terrorists couldn’t contact other prisoners which is a public policy decision
+DP4: Mcfeeley decision = reasoned and valid,
the right to associate is much lower priority than the national security concerns and the potential impact of these communication with dangerous individuals
+WDP4: However, Redfearn v UK shows the
protection of this right when there are not criminal concerns as the bus driver being dismissed from his job for joining the British National Party was a clear violation
