Posts by Graeme Edgeler
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
Graeme, why are you referring to a case about Icelandic cabbies when the ECHR has specifically ruled (at least three times) on compulsory student unions and found them to be legal?
Because I wasn't using it to bolster my case. I was using it to attack the specious argument that the right to freedom of association didn't include the right to freedom from association. That is all. It is the perfect case to demonstrate that point.
I would note that in one of the cases you refer to the body was found not to even be an association, and in the second I could access, it was found to be a public body, and thus exempt from that article of the ECHR.
It's not the law that makes them compulsory (except insofar as it sets out a framework as to when they can or can't be; it's an agreement between university and student association).
It is now. That universities came to an arrangement with students' association many years before the Bill of Rights Act was even contemplated - let alone in effect - is not a matter I find particularly persuasive.
A number of laws have had to change as a result of our new-found appreciation for human rights - the Lawyers and Conveyancers Act, for example, removed the requirement of lawyers to members of a district law society. The Law Society has regulatory powers, but membership itself is now voluntary. I suspect that wouldn't have been the case if we hadn't passed the Bill of Rights.
So, why not repeal the whole of section 16A of the Education Act, so that student association membership becomes a matter for contract between universities and students? That would put universities in the same position as any other business - being able to offer a service on the terms they choose
Except, as bodies exercising public power, they'd still have to abide by the Bill of Rights. And I'd strongly argue that would include their amendment their enrolment statute to make membership of a students' association compulsory.
-
Of course if Aucklanders really wanted Maori Seats at the table they could get off their arses and set up a referendium on the subject
I believe the present law allows that at the momentPlus, it's probably not true. There is no-one who can actually sign the petition to present to the Auckland (Super) Council.
-
Again, their are no absolute freedoms or rights. More of one necessarily limits others.
I disagree.
The right not to be subjected to torture is absolute. That someone's not being tortured might mean someone else's right to life is endangered is tough.
Why? Because the right to be free from torture is absolute - it is a right that cannot possibly be limited in a way that is demonstrably justifiable in a free and democratic society.
-
Keir - my last post was a response to George's point, rather than yours.
I really do think this comes down to whether or not you think students' associations are part of a university, or merely coincidental. I think they are, so I think it is entirely justified to have universal membership, you don't, so you don't.
I'm not sure there's quite the dichotomy you suggest - 'part of' vs 'merely coincidental' - but that may well be the case. You can't go to a university without being a member of the student body, but I'd argue you could without being a member of a students' association.
It's not about powers - I've indicated I don't have a fundamental human rights objection to other universities that have student-run academic disciplinary systems. But I think it is about membership.
A law giving a committee elected by majority from residents of each street powers to decide where on the road residents cars can be parked would not meet an objection from me on human rights grounds. But a law that would allow a majority of residents in a street to decide whether everyone was a member of an organisation formed for exactly the same purpose would.
-
And in my imaginary New Zealand, members of Kauri Street, Tokoroa, get to decide whether they have compulsory membership of the church up the street.
And residents of Wellington, vote on whether people charged with sex crimes in their courts get fair trials.
That cannot be how a (liberal) democracy works.
The rights contained in the Bill of Rights are not collective rights. They are individual rights. If I have to ask someone else's permission, and that permission can be declined, then what we are talking about is not a right in any meaningful sense of the word.
-
Universities are not liberal democracies.
Quite right. I'm not objecting to universities. I'm objecting to sections 229A ~ 229D of the Education Act 1989.
I'd object just as strongly to a law giving the residents of every street the power to decide whether membership of a neighbourhood association should be compulsory for all street residents.
-
So. Because of a technicality arising from an amendment in the law in Iceland pertaining to taxi drivers appeared to breach regulations under the European Court of Human Rights we have to let Rodger 1% Douglas dictate the right of students to vote on the status of membership of their Association?
No. Because of a case arising in Iceland, the argument that freedom of association does not include freedom from association is bunk.
That is the sole reliance I place on case.
One argument put forth by you ("over and over again") has been debunked. It still leaves the question of whether the law currently in place in New Zealand is a reasonable limitation on the right to freedom of association. It's just that the argument that it's not even a limit is much harder to sustain.
-
The other point has been covered over and over again, it is "Freedom of Association" not "Freedom FROM Association"
Okay - I'll address this directly this time. With precedent even.
The protection of freedom OF association in Article 11(1) of the European Convention on Human Rights is in similar terms to our section 17:
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.
The case of Sigurjonsson v. Iceland is directly on point. The headnote carries the salient facts:
The applicant, an Icelandic national, was a taxi driver resident in Reykjavik. He refused to join an automobile association which, [among other things], protected taxi-cab drivers’ rights. Membership of the association was, under Icelandic law, a prerequisite for acquisition of a taxi-cab driver’s licence. The applicant complained that the subsequent refusal by the relevant authorities to grant him a licence violated his right not to join an association which he claimed was protected by Articles 11, 9, 10 and 13 of the Convention.
By a majority of 8 to 1, the European Court of Human Rights held that Sigurjonsson's rights under Article 11(1) had been breached.
The full decision is available here.
-
Ahhh, we've got to the nub of the issue, the so-called mission creep of students' associations. Were they simply academic and welfare advocates, and sometimes providers, you'd have no objection, is that right?
No.
I don't care if their sole function is conducting book clubs. It's the forced membership that gets me, not the nature of the organisation that's forcing it.
-
Suppose I grant this, does it then follow Parliament passing Douglas's bill the best solution to this?
No it doesn't. And it's not something for which I argued.
I want what I see as an unreasonable limitation of the right to freedom of association removed. Feel free to replace it with a reasonably limitation. Paul suggest one earlier. I noted above that that would almost certainly meet my objection.
In this case, if a majority of students want out, they can get out; the part of the university directly affected (i.e the student body) has the ability to take that decision.
The part of the university most affected is the undergraduate who doesn't want to be a member. A liberal democracy is one is which the fundamental rights of minorities are not subject to majority veto.
I don't see why this should be a matter for governmental interference.
I'm prepared to respond to this, but are you really serious? It would be interesting to see what would happen if the express power for student bodies to require membership was removed, and universities were instead able to use general powers to decide for themselves, but I'm not sure it addresses the real question.