Thought, expression, association and assembly Flashcards
Freedom of thought
Freedom of conscience, religion, or belief
Freedom of expression
Freedom of opinion, freedom of information, freedom from the press.
Interrelated, indivisible, and complementary freedoms
Thought, expression, association, assembly
Non-absolute freedoms
Individual’s freedoms vs other’s rights and freedoms.
–> Legitimate and is in fact expected
–> Some guidelines to make sure that compromise or balance is followed.
Public interest vs Individual’s freedom(s)
–> The full respect of someone’s freedom might threaten public good.
–> Government can put restrictions on this freedom if it’s necessary to protect some public good or interest.
Principles government limitations or restrictions: Presumption of freedom
By default, freedom must be respected to the fullest. If that doesn’t happen, and some limitations are imposed, it is for the government to justify those restrictions, not for the individual to prove that they have freedom.
Principles government limitations or restrictions: Legality
Those restrictions imposed must not be arbitrary, but based on legislation.
Principles government limitations or restrictions: Legitimate aim
Legitimate aims must be invoked to justify the restrictions
Principles government limitations or restrictions: Necessity and proportionality
It was necessary to impose these restrictions. Even if you show that the only way to get to that goal was to impose restrictions on freedom, proportionality must also be demonstrated. The good obtained by protection public good or rights of other people, must be sufficiently good compared to the harm you’re causing to the individual - it must be worth it.
Freedom of thought: Freedom of religion or belief
Includes freedom to manifest your beliefs: freedom to worship, observance, practice, and teaching. Also imposes prohibitions on forced conversion and conversion as apostasy.
Limitations of freedom of religion or belief (because its a non-absolute right)
- Forum externum (manifestations) can be limited
–> Behaviours such as praying can be restricted if the government can show a legitimate aim. - Forum internet (freedom to hold beliefs) cannot be limited
–> No limitations can be legitimate
–> You have a right to hold beliefs as a racist.
Freedom of expression
Freedom of opinion. Freedom of information: to seek, receive, and impart information and ideas. Freedom of the press: Government has an obligation to put into place institutional safeguards to make sure that agents of the press are able to express their opinion without any illegitimate restrictions (both negative and positive obligations).
Limitations of freedom of expression
- Privacy: To protect another individuals’ right to privacy (one individuals’ freedom of expression vs another individuals’ right to privacy).
- Defamation: Expectation is for governments to impose restrictions to prevent freedom of expression from hurting the honour or reputation of an individual.
- Hate speech: Racism, islamophobia, antisemitism, blasphemy? There is a causal link between that kind of statement (hate speech) and behaviour that may be incited by those public statements. Presumption is that what you did not hurt anyone directly, but it might have a detrimental effect on other people.
Faurisson v. France (HRC 1993/1996): The facts
Robert Faurisson is convicted of the crime of holocaust denial under the “Gayssot Act” (1990)
Faurisson v. France (HRC 1993/1996): The complaint
The Gayssot Act violates his freedom of expression, of opinion and of academic research (Art. 19 of the ICCPR)
Faurisson v. France (HRC 1993/1996): The defence
Holocaust denial/questioning –> Expression of racism –> Threat to the public order - incitement to antisemitic behaviour (racial discrimination)
Faurisson v. France (HRC 1993/1996): The Committee’s views
Faurisson’s statements “were of a nature as to raise or strengthen antisemitic feelings” –> The restriction served to protect the Jewish community’s right to live free from fear of antisemitism (legitimate aim). The denial of the existence of the Holocaust is the principal vehicle for antisemitism in France (necessity). There was no violation of Art. 19 - no dissenting opinions.
