interesting defence/decision/whatever

[waider]

Portmarnock Golf Club’s defense for excluding women from full membership is that the equal status act interferes with its members’ right to freedom of association. This has been upheld in the High Court. Note that the Irish Constitution (which I imagine would be the overriding legislation here) doesn’t actually grant an unfettered right to freedom of association; it offers such freedom only so long as "public order and morality" are upheld. This little loophole is used by such acts as that which allows you to be arrested if you belong to an organisation such as the IRA. What I find interesting about the ruling, however, is that freedom of association is generally considered to be an inclusive right; that is, it is your right to belong to an organisation. It seems odd, and indeed an unintended use of the right, to construe it as your right not to allow others to associate with you.

I don’t think this one is over, either.

Comments

Constitution

[mopti.livejournal.com]

Portmarnock lost the constitutional element of their case.

And the Constitution provision of freedom of association has indeed been found to grant a right not to associate: in particular closed shop agreements which require you to join a particular trade union (or indeed any trade union) have been found to be in breach of it.

Re: Constitution

[waider.livejournal.com]

Interesting; the article I mentioned seems to indicate that the constitutional element was upheld. Quality in reporting.

The right not to associate that you mention seems like a third case; the first being, obviously, I can join an association if I so wish; the second, I can refuse others access to that association; and thirdly, your example, wherein you cannot force me to join an association. I still think the right to refuse others access to an association is in some sense going against the intent of the article, but that's neither here nor there.