Hiya,

I am hoping someone with knowledge could help fill in the gaps in mine. I'm sorry if my current understanding is way off but what I currently understand from gleamed titbits of information just doesn’t seem to add up. So I am hoping that someone could enlighten me and save me from my shortcomings.

This is how I currently understand it all...

In US law there is this concept called "Freedom of association", great! I love all things to do with freedom. However, over time in speaking with various individuals, I have come to understand that this freedom of association means that it is perfectly lawful for an individual or group to start a club, organisation where they can clearly deny access to a group using particular criteria or any criteria they see fit. I refer to group discrimination, not individual.

If this is true, then to me, the words, freedom of association, just simply means, freedom to discriminate. I'm sure I haven’t understood this correctly because I cannot believe anyone with any intelligence could subscribe to my understanding.

There is always a case for excluding disruptive individuals and please don’t confuse my topic of discussion with that.

I suppose this subject has come to the forefront of my mind due to the recent events in the UK House of Lords where amendments to the human rights bill of equality where the amendments that would of brought everyone to a more level, even and "equal" existence where rights within the law were enjoyed by everyone equally, were rebuked.

I am totally disgusted that the House of Lords saw fit to deny the amendments and allow the continuation of vulnerable people to be denied an equal sense of freedom over the powerful who continue to enjoy a greater share of an equal sense of freedom. That’s a dig at the religious bigots in the house of lords who voted to keep the exclusions of religious organisations to continue to discriminate against anyone they liked because "it was their ethos" to do so. The humans in religion need to realise they are as equal as everyone else and their views are not so religious as bigoted yet they use religion to give their bigotry conviction.

Anyway, back to my understanding of the freedom of association...

It has come to my attention that their are several clubs and organisations in US which clearly exclude sections of society and every time I enquire as to why certain types of people are excluded and I mentioned discrimination the words "freedom of association" were slapped in my face.

Tri-ese? or something similar. Its a club for heterosexual cross dressers. I hear they discriminate against people who aren’t heterosexual and who aren’t cross dressers.

KKK is another example, we all know about the murders and horrific atrocities they have done. Is it a legal organisation in US?

If KKK is legal, then is Al Qaeda and the Communist Party also legal organisations? Because it is their ethos, where the freedom of association is concerned, would be to exclude anyone to do with the American dream, and with my current understanding of the freedom of association, should be a perfectly legal thing to do and be a member of.

How I am hoping someone will correct my understanding of the freedom of association to be...

I start a club up called "one legged people". This club is to help and support one-legged people to live a fulfilling and as best as they can with support and understanding of the difficulties they face. Anyone can join, even if they they have both legs, or no legs, they might have an arm missing. The point is everyone has an "equal" opportunity to join and that is what "equality" means. One doesn’t need to have a missing leg to help support the community of people with missing legs or limbs or whatever. If people loose interested, they have the freedom to leave. To deny access to anyone because of a group they belong or not as the case maybe is exclusion by selection, hence discrimination, and is unethical and immoral.

Someone once said to me, one persons freedom ends where another persons starts. Freedom isn’t ultimate. It is a responsibility to ensure everyone enjoys the same level of freedom.

It just seems that every time I come across the words "freedom of association" it seems that it is a level of freedom that some people enjoy at the expense of other peoples freedom and it just doesn’t seem right.

OK, I've said a few things and I have tried to explain how I perceive things, I hope I have given you a good understanding of how I see it. Please tell me where I am wrong and if I don’t understand the philosophy behind it please explain that too.

I would really like this thread to be an insightful debate.
Love
Penny
x

Penny,
Whilst your sense of justice and freedom is admirable it is however very naive.
"To deny access to anyone because of a group they belong or not as the case maybe is exclusion by selection, hence discrimination, and is unethical and immoral."
Would it therefore be unethical and immoral if a convicted paedophile upon release from prison was refused a job in a pre-school nursery purely on the grounds of their previous convictions?
I think there are (and properly should be) such things as positive and ethical discrimination.

Hiya Janis,
That’s a very good point and something which should be clarified. I have always understood that convicted criminals forfeit their freedom and should expect incarceration and a permanent record of that to inhibit their ability to find pursuits indicative to that crime.

That’s my understanding of how it works and I didn’t expect for one minute a convicted paedophile should be allowed to work in a pre-school nursery. If there are other scenarios that I haven’t covered please bring them up, and you can continue to call me naive if you wish, I wont take it personally.

There always needs to be concessions ie criminals. But also that needs to be measured as well depending on the crime. The point which I am trying to get and which I am trying to get a better understanding of is that some people seem to be able to justify their discrimination because of the "freedom of association" and I find it difficult to believe that it is quite legal to discriminate on a whim.

It just doesn’t make sense and I would really like a better understanding.

Love
Penny
x

Hi Penny

You have started an interesting tread which I have wanted to respond to earlier but did not have the time.

Organizations are not supposed to discriminate of the basis of race, color, religion, sex, national origin, age, disabilities, and recentlysexual orientation. (so far gender expression is not included) But that does not include private clubs, only businesses with more than 15 employees, or that do work for the government federal –state – local, or receive money from the government.

You asked “If KKK is legal, then is Al Qaeda and the Communist Party also legal organisations?” Well the Communist party is legal and runs candidates for various elections including Presidential candidates. Al Qaeda is classified as a terrorist organization by the US government so it is an illegal organization. The KKK is legal as are the similar Aryan brotherhoods, neo-nazi and so forth, and they do discriminate – and as long as they just talk they are legal, if their talk changes to illegal actions then they can as a group be charged with the crime, properties and assets seized, civil and criminal charges files etc.

For a bit of clarification, the KKK is not really a national organization, even if it there are groups across the country that use the KKK designation but most of them are strictly local. Usually most of the rank and file are the poor white, while the leaders are rich and white. The poor do the dirty work and get the blame, but the rich don’t get their hands dirty and go unpunished.

I think most groups are developed for like-minded people or people with common interests. These groups are not all formed for nefarious purposes; most are benign, or even beneficial such as TW. There are many groups that ‘discriminate’ or limit membership. I know of at least one club in the US that all the members must have the same name, it’s like the John Smith Club, you can’t be a member unless that is your name. There is a club for twins, organizations for retired people, for engineers, even mental health workers – they may have criteria for joining but that doesn’t make them illegal.

As much as some things might sicken us, it is impossible for a government to control thoughts or beliefs. I’d rather suffer from the effects of too much freedom than from too little.

Jeri

Hiya Jeri,

Thank you for your response to my question, it was a very informative answer and I really enjoyed reading it. Your explanation and description of the way the freedom of association works seems quite sensible and balanced compared to how I was lead to believe by, I guess, people who like to sensationalise situations to get a reaction.

Take Care
Love
Penny
x

Freedom of Association shouldn't be confused with the Right to Association and it refers to the freedom to associate with others, as on street corners and in bars, and not to form groups. Also, you cannot have freedom in a society based on law. What you can have is rights and equality before the law, but quite often that results in a minority view or lifestyle imposing its will upon a hostile majority. For example, the transgender community seeks acceptance within mainstream society, not something I personally agree with. However, why should society be forced to accept us when we only make up a very small minority? For it to be imposed on them would be a restriction on their freedom to choose. As is the case with recent furore over Church and its employment policy. Because it is seen as equality before the law. Real freedom, as has already been pointed out, is the freedom to discriminate. It would be the freedom to sell my home on the basis of race, to employ someone on the basis of sexuality, or promote someone in the workplace on the basis of gender. To put up signs such as No Dogs, Blacks, or Irish. You say Penny that everyone should share the same level of freedom. At what level do you set that freedom? As in East Germany and the old Soviet Union. Far more people shared a similar level of freedom, economically, socially and culturally, than we do here. And that level was very little freedom at all. We don't actually suffer from too much freedom but an inability, due to our acceptance of the constraints of conventional society, to use the little freedom we have constructively. This is a very big topic, Penny. To truly understand it we have to know who we are and why we are where we are. A good start would be to read Locke, Hobbes, Rousseau, Marx, Hayek, and Keynes amongst others lol

Hiya Porscha,

Nice to see you contribute again, havnt seen you post for a while. x

You raise some interesting points.

I agree that freedom in society shouldnt be controlled by law and I dont believe it is. For me, I see the law as the minimum of my freedom and everything else in life is the maximum of my freedom. I understand the law is there to help protect the vulnerable from those who are aggressive and take for their own want. If it wasnt for the law there would only be knuckle dragging apes beating everyone up on a saturday night, there wouldnt be any intellectual seats of learning, no cures for cancer and no man on the moon.

I would say the law does a job of, to those who find it difficult to receive education, educating the minimum requirements to fit into a stable society. Its a form of education for the hard of learning.


"why should society be forced to accept us when we only make up a very small minority"
and
"Real freedom, as has already been pointed out, is the freedom to discriminate"

I'm sure you only said those in tongue and cheek lol! heres my response and opinion...

If I am to accept that real freedom is having the freedom to discriminate then what was so wrong with what Hitler did? After all, he was just exercising his freedom to discriminate as the KKK. Its not about forcing society to accept us for who we are, I would say, its about everyone aka "society" giving every other human the same and equal level of freedom regardless of who they are or which peer group they come from.

I cant disagree more with you about your comments regarding the USSR. The masses lived in dire poverty while the oppressive dictatorship lived in luxury beyond imagination. I wonder what a Ruskie who died of starvation trying to heat a beetroot to make soup would say about the amber room in the Catherine palace...

http://en.wikipedia.org/w[...]er_Room


"We don't actually suffer from too much freedom but an inability, due to our acceptance of the constraints of conventional society, to use the little freedom we have constructively"

That is so true. It took me a lot to push my boundaries of comfortability, but if I was to live, I had to find a way. I find it frustrating when I hear someone say "I dont mind, but what will others think", said by someone stuck in the prison of society and the biggest form of discrimination I have received because had I not been transgendered I would most likely of received the opportunities that I was denied.

If our freedom was controlled by the law then we would most likely end up with an impoverished society like USSR or China. Our freedom is controlled by the peer pressure of society and in trying to teach society to be less discriminating we are making society freer for everyone.

The most profound message I understood and aspect I felt regarding your post Porscha, is, at what level should freedom be set? What is fair freedom?

For me, fair freedom, is everyone is free to be as free as they want up to the point they start taking away the freedom of another.

And with that, while the House of Lords harbours powerful bishops, aka the church, who discriminate against vulnerable minorities, aka LBGT, the law will never be balanced and fair. If one person has the freedom to pray in church then all people should have the freedom to pray in church.

I guess its a choice between the freedom to discriminate and sharing an equal sense of freedom, and the House of Lords threw equality out the window.

Porscha, you mention some notable philosophers and existentialists. Feel free to quote some of their more defining and poignant aspirations.

Love
Penny
x