http://threedeadwords.com/2011/07/22/july-2211-uks-masonic-media-police-political-parties-exposed-for-phone-hacking-but-saskatchewans-masonic-corruption-worse/
[ European Court of Human
Rights has on 31-5-2007, notified its Chamber Judgment, which is a landmark
Judgment relating to the Human Rights of Freemasons. The Judgment proclaims,
that Freemasons can not be discriminated against on the ground of their being
members of a Masonic Lodge. There has been discrimination against Freemasons in
some countries. This Judgment is an eye opener and its declaration that such
discrimination violates the Human Rights of Freemasons will ensure, that there
can not be any such discriminations anywhere in the world. The Chamber Judgment
has been notified by a press release issued by the Registrar of the European
Court of Human Rights. The Judgment, which is in French and the notification,
translated in English and other languages can be accessed in
http://www.echr.coe.int . A synopsis of the judgment with the relevant
Articles of the European Convention on Human Rights is posted in this Article.
The corresponding Articles of the International Convention on Civil and
Political Rights have also been included to show that the law is the same in all
the countries, who have ratified that Convention and that they are bound to
enforce the same. There can not therefore be legally any discrimination
against Freemasonry anywhere in the world. There are appropriate forums to
protect the rights of Freemasonry. Please read on . . .]
Grande Oriente D`Italia di Palazzo Giustiniani, which filed Application No.
26740/02, on 7 th June 2000, is a Grand Lodge in Italy functioning
as such from 1805. It had averred that Regional Law No. 1 dated 15 February
2000, of the Autonomous Region of Friuli-Venezia Giulia had laid down, among
other things, the rules to be followed for nominations to public offices, for
which the Region was the appointing authority, the same required candidates for
such posts to declare to the President of the Regional Executive and the
Appointments Board of the Regional Council, whether they were members of a
Masonic or, in any event, a secret association. The absence of a declaration
constituted a ground for refusing appointment.
Grande Oriente D`Italia di Palazzo Giustiniani contended , that
Section 55 of Regional Law No. 1 of 2000 was discriminatory and incompatible
with its right to freedom of association and that the said provision violates
Article 11 of the Convention, taken alone, and Article 13 (right to an effective
remedy). It was further pointed out that a previous application was filed
complaining about a restriction on its freedom of association on account of a
Regional Law enacted by the Marches Region and that, The European Court of
Human Rights on 2 nd August 2001 had delivered a judgment in
Grande Oriente D’Italia di Palazzo Giustiniani v.
Italy in its favour.
The Regional Council of
Friuli-Venezia Giulia in its counter dated 15 September 2005, had urged that
only one of the 237 candidates for a post on the executive board of a company in
which the Region was a stakeholder had declared his membership of a Masonic
Lodge and that nevertheless that person was selected by the Regional Council for
appointment.
The Application was heard by a Chamber of Seven Judges
consisting of the following.
Christos Rozakis
(Greek), President,
Elisabeth Steiner (Austrian),
Khanlar Hajiyev (Azerbaijani),
Dean Spielmann (Luxemburger),
Sverre Erik Jebens (Norwegian),
Giorgio Malinverni (Swiss), judges,
Annalisa Ciampi (Italian), ad hoc judge.
Elisabeth Steiner (Austrian),
Khanlar Hajiyev (Azerbaijani),
Dean Spielmann (Luxemburger),
Sverre Erik Jebens (Norwegian),
Giorgio Malinverni (Swiss), judges,
Annalisa Ciampi (Italian), ad hoc judge.
The majority of Six Judges (there was one dissenting
judgment) held that there had been a violation
of Article 14 (prohibition of discrimination)
of the European Convention on Human Rights ( hereinafter referred to as The
Convention) taken in conjunction with Article 11
(Freedom of Assembly and Association).
[ Article-11. “
Freedom of Assembly and Association
1 Everyone has the right to freedom of
peaceful assembly and to freedom of association with others,
including the right to form
and to join trade unions for the protection of his interests.
2 No restrictions shall be placed on the
exercise of these rights, other than such as are prescribed by
law and
are necessary
in a democratic society in the interests
of national security or public safety,
for the
prevention of disorder or crime,
for the
protection of health or morals or for the
protection
of the rights
and freedoms of others. This
article shall not prevent the
imposition of lawful
restrictions on the
exercise of these rights by
members of the armed forces, of the police or of
the administration of
the
State.”
Article-14. “ Prohibition of Discrimination.
The enjoyment
of the rights and freedoms set forth in this Convention shall be secured without
discrimination on any ground such as sex, race, colour, language,
religion, political or other
opinion,
national or social origin, association with a national minority, property,
birth or
other
status.”
The Court held that, having
regard to the negative effects that the obligation to declare one’s membership
of a Masonic lodge might have on the applicant association’s image and
associative life, it could claim to be a “victim” of a breach of Article 11 of
the Convention. That conclusion meant that there had been an interference with
its right to freedom of association. It followed that the facts in question fell
within the ambit of Article 11 and that Article 14 of the Convention was
applicable to the case.
The Court observed that the
provision in question distinguished between secret and Masonic associations,
membership of which had to be declared, and all other associations. Members of
the latter were exempted from any obligation to make such a declaration when
seeking nomination for public office and could not therefore incur the statutory
penalty for an omission and that therefore, there was a difference of treatment
between the members of the applicant association and the members of any other
non-secret association.
Regarding whether there was
an objective and reasonable justification for such a difference, the Court
reiterated, that it had already held that the prohibition on nominating
Freemasons to public office, which had been introduced in order to “reassure”
the public at a time, when there had been controversy surrounding their role in
the life of the country, had pursued the legitimate aims of protecting national
security and preventing disorder.
The Court further reiterated
that, examining the issue under Article 11 of the Convention taken alone, it had
found that the prohibition on nominating Freemasons to certain public offices
for which the Region was the appointing authority was not “necessary in a
democratic society”. It had observed that penalising someone for their
membership of an association was unjustified, since that fact was not in itself
legally reprehensible.
The Court pointed out that
the present case differed from the previous one in that, under the
Friuli-Venezia Giulia legislation, membership of the Freemasons did not
automatically debar the candidate from nomination for one of the offices in
question. That a Freemason was not automatically debarred had been demonstrated
by the fact, that the only candidate to have declared his membership of a lodge
had been chosen by the Regional Council for the office in question.
The Court found, however,
that those considerations, which might be relevant under Article 11 taken alone,
were not so important, when the case was examined, as in the instant case, from
the stand point of the non-discrimination clause. It considered, that
membership of many other non secret associations might create a problem for
national security and the prevention of disorder, where members of those
associations held public office. This might be the case, for example, for
political parties or groups advocating racist or xenophobic ideas, or for sects
or associations with a military-type internal structure or those that
established a rigid and incompressible bond of solidarity between their members
or pursued an ideology, that ran counter to the rules of democracy, which was a
fundamental element of “European Public Order”.
The Court pointed out that in
Friuli-Venezia Giulia, however, only members of a Masonic Association were under
an obligation to declare their membership, when they sought nomination to
certain public offices for which the Region was the appointing authority. No
objective and reasonable justification, for this difference in treatment
between non-secret and Masonic Associations had been advanced by the Government.
The Court held, that there
had been a violation of Article 14 taken in conjunction with Article 11 of the
Convention. Having regard to the finding in respect of Article 14 of the
Convention, the Court held that there was no need to examine whether there had
in this case been a violation of Article 11 taken alone and/or of Article
13,(extracted below) and that question was left open.
“Article 13 . Right to an effective remedy
Everyone whose rights and freedoms as set forth
in this Convention are violated shall have an effective
remedy before a national authority
notwithstanding that the violation has been committed by persons
acting in an official capacity.”
Under Article 41 of the
Convention, providing for just satisfaction, the Court held, unanimously, that
the finding of a violation constituted in itself sufficient just satisfaction
for the non-pecuniary damage and awarded the applicant association 5,000 euros
for costs and expenses.
Article 43 of the Convention, extracted below,
grants three months time, from the date of a Chamber judgment, to any party to
the case to request that the case be referred to the Grand Chamber of the Court
consisting of 17 Members. In that event, a panel of five judges will consider,
whether the case raises a serious question affecting the interpretation or
application of the Convention or its protocols, or a serious issue of general
importance, in which case the Grand Chamber will deliver a final judgment. If no
such question or issue arises, the panel will reject the request, at which point
the judgment becomes final. Otherwise Chamber judgments become final on the
expiry of the three month period or earlier if the parties declare that they do
not intend to make a request to refer.
“Article 43 . Referral to the Grand Chamber
1 Within a period of three months from the date
of the judgment of the Chamber, any party to the case
may, in exceptional cases,
request that the case be referred to the Grand Chamber.
2. A panel of five judges of the Grand Chamber
shall accept the request if the case raises a serious
question affecting the
interpretation or application of the Convention or the protocols thereto,
or a serious issue of
general importance.
3 If the panel accepts the request, the Grand
Chamber shall decide the case by means of a judgment.
Article 44 . Final judgments
1 The judgment of the Grand Chamber shall
be final.
2 The judgment of a Chamber shall become final
(a) when the parties declare that they will not request that the case be referred to the Grand
Chamber; or
(b) three months after the date of the
judgment, if reference of the case to the Grand Chamber
has not been requested; or
( c) when the panel of the Grand Chamber
rejects the request to refer under Article 43.
3 The final judgment
shall be published.”
We may have to wait for the expiry of the said three month period for the
judgment to become final.
The relevant Articles of The International Convention on Civil and Political
Rights are as follows.
Article –21.
“The right of peaceful assembly shall be recognized. No restrictions may be
placed on the exercise of this right other than those imposed in conformity with
the law and which are necessary in a democratic society in the interests of
national security or public safety, public order (ordre public), the protection
of public health or morals or the protection of the rights and freedoms of
others.”
Article- 22.
1.
“Everyone shall have the right to freedom of association with others, including
the right to
form and
join trade unions for the protection of his interests.
2.
No restrictions may be placed on
the exercise of this right other than those,
which are prescribed
by
law and which are necessary in a democratic
society in the interests of
national security or public
safety, public order
(ordre public), the protection of
public health or morals or the protection
of the rights and freedoms of
others.
This article shall not prevent the
imposition of lawful restrictions on
members of the armed forces and of
the police in their exercise of this
right.
3.
Nothing in this article shall authorize States Parties to the International
Labour
Organization Convention of
1948 concerning Freedom of Association and
Protection of the Right to
Organize to take legislative measures, which would
prejudice, or to apply the
law in such a manner as to prejudice,
the guarantees
provided
for in that Convention. “
Article- 26.
“All persons
are equal before the law and are entitled without any discrimination to the
equal protection of the law. In
this respect, the law shall prohibit any discrimination
and guarantee to all persons
equal and effective protection against discrimination on
any ground such as race, colour,
sex, language, religion, political or other opinion,
national or social origin,
property, birth or other status.”
It is hoped that all illegal discriminations
against Freemasonry will come to an end soon.
No comments:
Post a Comment