CIVIL RIGHTS

Political liberties are effectively protected in Finland, and Finland has for decades now received the highest scores concerning political rights and civil liberties in Freedom House surveys. Finnish law provides for freedom of speech, and this freedom is upheld in practice. Finns also enjoy freedom of religion, and freedoms of association and assembly are upheld in law and in practice. Workers have the right to organize, bargain collectively and strike; approximately 80% of workers belong to trade unions. Women enjoy equal rights and liberties in Finland. The criminal code covers ethnic agitation; human trafficking is a criminal offense. The constitution guarantees the indigenous Saami population (less than 1% of the population) cultural autonomy and the right to pursue their traditional livelihoods.

Iceland’s constitution guarantees every individual’s right to speak, think, assemble, organize, worship or petition without government or private interference or restraints. These basic individual political rights and liberties cannot be threatened by any state institution without violating the constitution, and cannot be changed without amending the constitution.

All the usual political liberties (of assembly, association, movement, religion, speech, press, thought, unreasonable searches and seizures, and suffrage) are guaranteed by the constitution. the Netherlands is signatory to all pertinent major international treaties (Universal Declaration of Human Rights, International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, European Convention on Human Rights). The Economist Intelligence Unit Democracy Index for 2006 and the Freedom House ranking of political liberties for 2009 list the Netherlands as one of the most free countries in the world.

The Bill of Rights Act 1990 guarantees unlimited political rights to think, speak, assemble, organize and petition without interference. Those who think that their rights have been infringed upon can file a suit before the High Court. In addition, the New Zealand council of civil liberties is an active, nongovernmental organization that promotes these liberties.
The Human Rights Committee of the United Nations in 2009 put a list of questions to the New Zealand government as part of their periodic reporting, among other things expressing some concerns with regard to the country’s counterterrorism measures. These were answered in the same year. Freedom House assesses the situation of political rights in New Zealand as excellent.

Political liberties and human rights are written into the constitution. As an advanced democracy, the judicial system and legislative institutions in Sweden effectively sustain these liberties .

Political liberties are well protected in the United States. The protection includes all of the recognized political and religious freedoms of speech, association, voting, and pursuit of public office, and extends almost unconditionally, even to freedom of speech for extreme groups such as neo-Nazis. Religious freedoms are protected even for religious fringe groups. In contrast with most of the developed democracies, the freedom of speech provision of the U.S. Constitution has been held to invalidate laws proscribing hate speech. In one significant limitation of political rights, convicted felons are barred from voting in nearly all states, although usually not permanently. Local police sometimes confine demonstrators to locations far removed from the target events (e.g., G-8, G-20, or WTO meetings), which is arguably an infringement of freedoms of speech and assembly. But these episodes are irregular and fairly marginal, and are connected with genuine risks of property damage, disruption of international meetings, and the like.

Individual liberties are protected in Austria by constitutional guarantees. With the exception of National Socialism, all political creeds are treated equally by the law. The right to articulate specific opinions, including the right to organize movements and political parties, is provided and exceptions (e.g., in the interest of public security) can be considered very restrictive, never general.
With respect to public worship, the guarantee the Austrian system gives all major religious denominations is tentatively contradicted by an increasing anti-Islamic sentiment among the population, which has been articulated in the protests against the building of mosques, especially minarets. Legally, Islam has the same rights as the major Christian faiths. But due to social trends and specific responses by some political parties, guarantees of equal treatment might be jeopardized in the future.

The major concern in this area is the work of human rights tribunals, which have on certain occasions censured persons for views allegedly promoting hatred of certain groups. Certain right-leaning journalists have encountered problems because of their writing on Islam. For example, one journalist was censured for reprinting the infamous Danish cartoons that some felt denigrated Islam.

Political liberties are well codified and respected, and are protected by the state. However, there are some restrictions on the registration of parties and on free speech. The 1991 law on political parties and movements forbids the establishment of parties that lack democratically elected organs, break the law, aim to remove the democratic foundations of the state or to take power for themselves, restrict the freedom of other parties, or threaten morality and public order. These provisions were invoked by successive governments in 2008 and 2009 to ban the Workers’ Party (Dělnická strana), a far-right organization that received over 1% of the votes in the European Parliament elections of 2009. An amendment to the penal code in November 2008 introduced penalties for denying the crimes against humanity that took place under fascism and communism.

The Danish constitution protects the civil and political rights and liberties, including freedom of speech, freedom of association and freedom of assembly. Elections are free. The government is accountable to the elected parliament.

Freedom House 2009 gave Denmark top scores for civil liberties and political rights, but the report did include some critical remarks. These mostly concern ethnic tensions in Denmark, especially involving the country’s Muslim population, and alleged ill-treatment by the police. Some of these situations were exacerbated when leading newspapers reprinted the controversial Muhammad cartoons.

The latest human rights report from Amnesty International is also critical of the behavior of police and security forces in Denmark as well as the treatment of refugees and asylum-seekers. The country’s tight immigration policy, introduced in 2002 after the liberal-conservative government of Anders Fogh Rasmussen came to power in 2001, with the support of the anti-immigration Danish People’s Party, continues to raise concerns. Some asylum seekers in Denmark have been returned to their home countries, contrary to the recommendations of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR).

The sensitivity of public opinion to any infringement of political liberties or attempts to limit them is such that their violation would provoke popular outrage. Freedom of opinion, freedom of speech and freedom of protest are perceived as vital by the people. However, it is important to underline that some measures which are supported by a vast majority of the population, such as the ban of the Islamic headscarf at school, would be considered as an infringement on political liberties in some other legal systems or cultures.

Political liberties enjoy the utmost protection of the German Basic Law. Given the historic experience of Nazism, there is a high awareness on the part of all governmental organizations that limitations of the right to speak, assemble, organize, worship or petition must be kept to an absolute minimum.
Political pluralism is in general guaranteed, but is constrained by laws restricting the far left and far right. Nazism is illegal, but the government’s attempts to ban the NDP failed in 2003. Freedom of expression is protected in the Basic Law, though there are exceptions for hate speech and Nazi propaganda such as Holocaust denial. Except in the case of opposition to the democratic order, the right to assemble peacefully is guaranteed and not infringed upon. In this context, the Federal Constitutional Court overruled the newly established Bavarian Assembly Act on the basis of doubts as to the stated obligations of disclosure. The freedom to associate and to organize is generally respected. Non-governmental organizations operate freely. Every person has the right to address requests and complaints to the “competent authorities and to the legislature” (Article 17 of the Basic Law). Freedom of belief is also protected by the Basic Law, but some churches are provided with particular advantages. As “corporations under public law,” they fulfill public duties, but this role also hinders a complete separation of church and state. Furthermore, public sector workers are not allowed to wear prominent religious symbols such as headscarves, as these are considered to be contradictory to the employees’ secular tasks. Aygül Özkan (CDU), minister of social affairs in Lower Saxony and the first minister with a Turkish migration (and Moslem) background, provoked a storm of protest when she highlighted as contradictory the fact that religious symbols such as the crucifix remained in public school classrooms while headscarves were banished. Nonetheless, religious communities without a long tradition in Germany, such as Muslim communities, are allowed to build houses of worship. Legal disputes sometimes emerge over the particularities of these buildings, but these disputes emanate from the administrative rules governing new buildings in general, and any discriminative administrative praxis is hard to identify.
A new data-retention law requiring firms to store information such as emails and telephone conversations for up to six months went into effect at the beginning of 2008, but was overturned by the Federal Constitutional Court. The data storage “represents an especially grave intrusion” into citizens’ privacy and could “cause a diffusely threatening feeling of being under observation that can diminish an unprejudiced perception of one’s basic rights in many areas,” said the president of the court as he read out the decision. While not annulling the legislation entirely, the court asked for immediate deletion of stored data and for a massive modification of the law, ensuring that the use of stored data must be limited to a proven “concrete danger.”

The Greek constitution of 1975 (as amended in 1986 and 2001) guarantees a wide range of political liberties, which since the 1974 transition to democracy have flourished in Greece. There is no government or private interference with individual freedoms of thought, expression, worship or petition. There are no constraints on collective rights of organization, assembly or public protest. There are many channels through which individual and collective citizen preferences can be expressed, including petitions and demonstrations, the latter of which frequently take place without any interference.
However, this does not mean either that civil society has flourished or that interest groups and civic associations are equally capable of organizing and exerting pressure on the government. Public sector unions and party-dominated interest groups, including large confederations of labor and farmers’ associations, are much more vocal than other interest groups, while business associations and associations of liberal professionals (medical doctors, lawyers and engineers) find it easier to attract the government’s attention. This and other power inequalities are attributable to longstanding preferential relations between the state and well-placed, powerful groups such as those mentioned above. These groups enjoy better access to decision makers than do social movements and voluntary associations active in environmental, human rights or other post-materialist policy sectors.

In addition, the restrictions on religious freedom noted above (see Civil Rights) are relevant here as well.

In Hungary, the freedom of expression, the right to assembly and other political liberties are almost unrestricted. The Constitutional Court has taken an extremely liberal position and has rejected a number of attempts to penalize hate speech. The activities of the Hungarian Guard, a paramilitary organization of the right-wing party Jobbik, have raised concerns that the legal provisions might be too liberal. In December 2008, the Hungarian Guard was forbidden. However, enforcing the ban has turned out to be difficult. In the period under review, referenda became an important additional means of articulating interests.

Freedom of speech, freedom of assembly, and the right to form unions and associations without religious, political or class discrimination are enshrined in the Irish Constitution. These rights have been protected and upheld by the Irish courts over the years, subject only to normal restrictions regarding sedition, blasphemy and breaches of the peace.
The most important issue in this area has been the historical restriction on the ability of the Irish Republican Army (IRA) in its various manifestations to recruit members or to be represented through normal parliamentary channels. The IRA is classified as a terrorist organization and holding membership in it is illegal. More controversially, restrictions have been placed on Sinn Féin (the political wing of the IRA). Under Section 31 of the Broadcasting Act (1960), the relevant minister has powers to “direct the [Broadcasting] Authority in writing to refrain from broadcasting any particular matter or matter of any particular class, and the authority shall comply with the direction.” In 1971, these powers were used to prevent Sinn Féin and IRA spokespersons from broadcasting or being interviewed on the airwaves. This directive was repealed in 1994. No group is presently excluded from access to the airwaves.

Political liberties are guaranteed and effectively protected by the constitution and by an independent judiciary. Individuals of different political, religious and cultural positions enjoy substantial freedom of expression. The ability to assemble, organize and demonstrate for political purposes is largely used without major limitations.

The freedoms of speech and of the press are guaranteed under Article 21 of the constitution. Reported abuses are quite rare, though it has often been claimed that the police and prosecutors are more lenient toward vocal right-wing groups than toward left-wing activists.

Political liberties are protected in the constitution and in law, although explicit protections of minority rights are not strongly articulated in the constitution. The right to free expression was strengthened through a constitutional amendment in 2004. Norway has ratified all international conventions on human and civil rights. The European Convention on Human Rights is incorporated into national law. The right to free worship is ensured, but the Lutheran state church enjoys a privileged status, including political influence. Political liberties are respected by state institutions.

Political liberties are well codified, and are respected and protected by most state institutions. There are no meaningful restrictions on the freedom of association or assembly, and the freedom of expression is also secured. However, President Kaczyński showed a certain disrespect for political liberties, most notably by questioning the right of homosexuals to hold a gay parade.

There are widely agreed-upon political liberties. These are guaranteed by the constitution’s basic provisions and subsequent regular legislation, and they function well.

As noted above (see Candidacy Procedures and Voting and Registration Rights) in the electoral context, the 1978 Spanish constitution specifies political liberties that are respected by all state institutions. So-called fundamental rights and public freedoms (included in Section 1, Chapter 2, Part I of the constitution) receive special protection against infringements. These political liberties particularly protected against government (or even private) interference or violation include: (1) the freedoms of ideology, religion and worship on the part of individuals and communities, along with the guarantee that no one may be compelled to make statements regarding his or her ideology, religion or beliefs (Article 16); (2) the right to freely express and spread thoughts, ideas and opinions through words, in writing or by any other means of reproduction, without any form of prior censorship (Article 20); (3) the right to peaceful unarmed assembly, with no need to notify local authorities in advance unless demonstrations are being held in public places, and no need of prior authorization (Article 21); the right of association (Article 22); the right to freely join a trade union (Article 28); and the right to individual and collective petition (Article 29).
There are some restrictions to the freedom of association and the right of petition in the case of members of the armed forces and the Guardia Civil police force, which is subject to military discipline (a recent piece of legislation, Organic Law 11/2007, sought to clarify the rights of Guardia Civil members, but they have not proved particularly happy with this new regulation).

Political liberty is strongly protected by the courts. As in most other Western countries, the main challenge to political liberty has come from anti-terrorist legislation. The Anti-Terrorism Act 2005 allows for a variety of measures, including detention for up to 14 days, and restrictions on the movement, activities and contact of persons subject to “control orders,” whether or not those persons had been accused or convicted of any offense. In addition, the legislation makes illegal any act of sedition, such as urging the overthrow of the government by violence or force, and outlaws any organization that advocates the use of violence or force for to that end. One of the main criticisms of the legislation is that it lacks sufficient judicial oversight.
Freedom of political expression is generally respected, but is not unrestricted. The design and administration of defamation laws in particular are regarded by some to hamper political liberties, because they in practice act to protect governments, companies and powerful people from scrutiny.

Belgium is a mature democracy, in which political rights are generally very well protected. Weaknesses in the system however, have started to appear as a result of tensions between the Dutch-speaking (Flanders) and French-speaking (Wallonia, Brussels and periphery) communities.
To reinforce the usage of Dutch in Flanders, the Flemish regional government passed a law that, in effect, largely bans the use of French in political communications within Flemish territory, even in cities where a large majority of the population speaks French. This created problems when some mayoral candidates chose (quite provocatively) to speak French nonetheless. They won their elections by a large margin, but the Flemish region never agreed to confirm their victory because of the language law violation.
It is also difficult for French speakers to set up cultural organizations (such as libraries or leisure groups) with French as the main language of communication in the Flemish region.
Along similar lines, in a few municipalities in the Flemish Brabant (around Brussels), local authorities have pushed businesses (including restaurants specializing in French cuisine) to use only Dutch names and labels.
It is clear that the country’s linguistic challenges, which may appear superficial to some extent and which probably affect only some 200,000 people out of more than 10 million, have raised some serious issues.
Another distinct issue is the difficulty for Muslims to build appropriate places of worship (mosques) as such groups face a lot of local resistance (both public and private). However, as compared to most other European countries, arrangements are usually smoother after negotiations.

In general, political rights are protected by the constitution and legislation, and are enforced by government policy and practice.

No infringements of the right to speak, think, assemble, organize, worship or petition have been reported during the period under review.
Rather marginal anticlerical forces demand the separation of church and state and criticize the state’s subsidies for churches, particularly the Catholic Church, which is dominant in Luxembourg. They denounce the offer of Catholic religious education in public schools. As a reaction to this pressure, the 2009 government program promises the creation of so-called houses of secularism, following the Belgian model.

Switzerland is in many ways a role model for the exercise and protection of political liberties. However, with the adoption of the ban on construction of new minarets represents a severe violation of the right to worship, even if this in practice means little for the free practice of any religion. Before the November 2009 decision, there were only four minarets in Switzerland.

Without a written constitution and the protection thus afforded, citizens of the United Kingdom have no fundamental rights in the sense that they enjoy special protection against the powers of the executive and Parliament. Citizens’ rights in the United Kingdom can thus be said to be residual and negative in nature: Citizens can do anything not expressly prohibited by law, but there are no positive rights they are able to assert against the government unless the government concedes them.

Since disputes about political liberties always arise over contested issues, this means that UK citizens have little recourse within the political system, especially when compared to continental European political systems. The Human Rights Act of 1998 (HRA) represented an attempt to create a “higher law” to which all other laws must conform. It offers individual and minority rights, and empowers judges to hold the executive to account and review acts of parliament. But its effectiveness is constrained by the fact that the government can temporarily annul the HRA if it considers this necessary for the benefit of the country; and it remains contested.

Political liberties are largely respected and protected by the state. They were violated in 2009 when the government banned a protest against the Chinese president’s state visit, a ban later declared illegal by the Bratislava Regional Court. Moreover, the Fico government substantially weakened public and NGO participation in decision-making regarding highway construction and environmental issues. The European Commission fiercely criticized this development several times, which led to the Commission threatening to cut financial support in February 2010.

In theory, there is a high level of political liberty in Mexico. In practice, the majority of Mexicans enjoy sufficient legal protection to enable them to participate actively in the political process. Minority groups, such as homosexuals, can press their views in public without fear. However, there is more tolerance of political difference in urban areas than in rural ones, and traditional thinking remains strong among relatively less-educated Mexicans. This means that intolerant or authoritarian politicians can enjoy some success at the subnational level. Overall, the general trend is toward greater degrees of civil liberty; but again, violence related to organized crime constrains citizens’ opportunity to articulate their demands and concerns in one of the most important areas of policy.

Political liberties are protected by the constitution, but infringements do take place. The freedoms of opinion and of the press are constitutionally guaranteed, but recent illiberal trends give cause for concern (see also Media Freedom). The freedoms of association and assembly are respected in principle. However, South Korea has not signed four of the basic conventions of the International Labor Organization, including two on the freedom of assembly. The government has repeatedly denied selected groups of employees – most recently migrant workers – the right to form unions. It is very difficult to call a strike that would be legal by official definitions. Demonstrations also require approval, which can be hard to come by as anti-government protestors learned in spring and early summer 2008.
Indeed, demonstrations are often declared to be illegal because they disrupt traffic or business. According to Amnesty International, the use of force by police at the candlelight protests against the import of U.S. beef was excessive.
Labor unions are allowed to operate in the private sector, but remain restricted in the public sector. However, labor union members are frequently imprisoned and fined for organizing “illegal strikes” or for “obstruction of business.” Businesses also sue labor unions for compensation for “lost profits” during strikes. On May 23, 2010, 183 teachers (most of them members of the Korean Teachers and Education Workers Union, KTU) were dismissed by the Ministry of Education, Science and Technology for allegedly joining the Democratic Labor Party (DLP), an opposition party, based on the fact that the individuals made private donations to the DLP. The authorities interpreted these contributions as membership fees, despite the protests of the individuals concerned to the contrary.

In addition to fundamental rights such as freedom of expression, freedom of association, and the right to hold meetings and demonstration marches, the 1982 constitution (Chapter Four) describes political rights, including the right to vote, to run for office, and to engage in political activity (Article 67); the right to participate in political parties (Articles 68-69); the right to enter public service (Articles 70-71); the constitution of the national (military) service (Article 72); the obligation to pay taxes (Article 73; and the right of petition (Article 74).
In practice, however, Turkey is said to be a graveyard of political parties. The Constitutional Court has banned 25 parties since it was established by the constitution of 1961. Almost all outlawed parties were accused of pursuing Kurdish nationalist or Islamist politics. However, the court did not close down only radical Kurdish or Islamist parties. The court accepted the assertion of the existence of a distinct Kurdish people as sufficient evidence for a ban, and in August 2008, it stopped just short of outlawing the Justice and Development Party (AKP) that had ruled Turkey singlehandedly since its landslide electoral success, winning reelection with 47% of the votes counted in the 2007 parliamentary elections. In December 2009, the court closed down the pro-Kurdish Democratic Society Party (DTP), thus putting an end to the sixth successive party associated with the pro-Kurdish political movement that had been linked in one way or another to the outlawed Kurdish Workers’ Party (PKK). Leading members of outlawed parties face the danger of losing their right to join or carry out functions for political parties for the next five years. The national 10% electoral threshold for political parties, applied since the military coup of 1980, constitutes another instrument for the limitation of political liberties.
Although the European Court of Human Rights has decided that the 10% threshold is not a violation of human rights, this represents the most significant legal obstacle to fair political representation. Although the Venice Commission of the Council of Europe published its opinion on the Turkish legislation governing the banning of political parties, both Article 69 of the constitution and the relevant articles of the Political Parties Act have not yet been amended. As a result, six years after the banning of the People’s Democracy Party, its successor, the DTP, was banned by the Constitutional Court in 2009.
Despite the relative liberalization of associational life, associations have to notify authorities before receiving financial support from abroad, which imposes a bureaucratic burden. It is also claimed that members of local human rights groups have received death threats and sometimes face trial due to their connection with alleged terrorist organizations. Relatively marginal political groups like feminists, environmentalists, lesbians and gays, and vocational groups fighting for their particular interests tend to choose one or two venues for political demonstrations: Istiklal Street and Kadiköy Square in Istanbul, and Kızılay Square in Ankara. There are few demonstrations in other Turkish cities, although in the mainly Kurdish southeast, demonstrations often result in clashes with the police. Every political march carried out by opposition groups in Ankara and Istanbul is accompanied by at least as many police personnel as demonstrators.
During the last few years, the implementation of freedom of religion and worship for minority Muslim and non-Muslim communities has made smooth progress.