Detailed Analysis of the 3 Freedoms: Articles 9, 10, and 11 Explained

This assignment provides an analysis of the '3 Freedoms' as outlined in the constitution: freedom of thought, conscience, and religion (Article 9); freedom of expression (Article 10); and freedom of assembly and association (Article 11). The analysis delves into the protections afforded by each article, including the right to hold beliefs, express opinions, and participate in peaceful assembly. It examines the limitations imposed on these freedoms, such as those related to public safety, order, and the protection of others' rights. The document discusses the relationship between freedom of expression and the media, censorship, and the right to form unions and take industrial action, while acknowledging the state's power to regulate these aspects. The assignment emphasizes the importance of balancing individual rights with the broader interests of society and the nuances of each freedom.

The 3 Freedoms :
● Article 9 : Freedom of thought ,consionce and religion . ( Article 40 of the
constitution ).
● Article 10 : Relates to freedom of expression ( Article 41 Constitution )
● Article 11: Freedom of assembly of association ( Article 42 in
constitution)
NB: 3 freedoms tend to overlap .In the sense that a violation of freedom of
conscience can very easily also involve a violation of freedom of expression.
Article 9 : Freedom of thought ,consionce and religion . ( Article 40 of the
constitution ).
This article protects freedom of thought ,conscience and religion,this means that
not only is the right to personaly hold beliefs and opinions but also includes the
right to believe in which religion one thinks.This may seem an obvious statement
but underlying it is the acknowledgment that the state as a general principle and
subject to the limitations here under recognizes all religions weather catholic
,islam etc…
The right to believe includes the right not to believe meaning that a party s under
no obligation to practice any religion as it is often expressed there is the right to
disbelieve as againtst the right to believe. Also this right extends to changing
one’s faith. The articles acknowledge and protect the rights of citizen to publicly
or in private manifest their believes .Therefore this includes the right to public
demostrations of one’s faith and also the public manifestation of practice and
worship and also the right to teach and spread one’s believes .The constitution
adds that any requirement in the case of minor children to follow religious
instruction is not a violation of the right to believe or not to believe provided that
the choice is made by those who are legaly entitled to take decisions for minor
children( Example : normally parents or guardian etc). Like wise the constitution
provides that in the case of those who choose to enter a religiouse life , once this
is done volountarily there can be no question of violation of this article .Meaning
that if a person choses to enter in a religouse order ,one is bound by the rules of
the order and cannot go agiants the right.
The only limitation imposed here is that necisary in the interest of public safety
,public order,public health ,public morality or decency or the protection of rights
and freedoms of others.The oncluding point is that when it was drafted it was
normally considered as a tranquile article but today states have to deal with
fundamentalism which sometimes could be based on extreme religouse bleives.
So this article has now aqucired considrible relivance because of this factor.
Article 10 : Relates to freedom of expression ( Article 41 Constitution ):
The enfasis in article 10 is that the freedom to hold opinions brings with it the
right to receive ideas ,vies and information and also the right to transmit such
ideas and information.A person has the right to express publicly and in private

one’s views to transmit them ,to make them known and similarly the right to
receive in any public or private medium ideas ,opinions,views and information.
This right is linked with 2 important and controversial questions:
1. The relation between freedom of expression and the media.
2. Freedom of expression and information and censership.The relation between freedom of expression and the media: There is the right to
edit and publish a news paper in paper form or online ,a radio station ,or a
television station , as right consequent to this freedom of expression.(because
have the right to express myself this means that I have the right to right in
news papers etc.. NGOs have the right ot have their means of media such as
radio station )However the convention and constitution acknowledge the
right and power of governments to regulate radio , tv licenses ,etc. In other
words the authorities are entitled to impose conditions in the issue of such
licenses and these conditions are subject to the test and scrutiny of the
convention and constitution. Because condition may be so exsesive or
unreasonable that it may effectively prohibit the exercise of such right.Freedom of expression and information and censership: No right is absolute . There
are limits within which a right has to be exercised .Onthe onehand the right
of the state to limit the exercise of this right for the protection of ‘voulnarable
people ‘ is acknowledged . On the other hand this treads is a difficult balance
with freedom of expression. Therefore the power is acknowlged by the
convention and constitution to impose conditions in the public interst (
defence ,public safety ,public order ,public morality or decency or public
health). Like wise the state may impose limitations to protect the reputation
of others .There is a fine distinction between saying that you are incompetent
and attributing certain facts. The law of Libel (when a persons reputation is
said to be prejudiced/damged ) example the EU court held that persons
involed in politics and public life , the test of protecting one’s reputation is
less than that of an ordinary citizen.
Article 11: Freedom of peaceful assembly of association ( Article 42 in
constitution):
This means that every citizen has the right to publicly demonstrate with others
for a particular cause .The limitation imposed here is that it has to be peaceful . In
other words there is no right to demonstrate /break up shops etc.Any such
exercise of this right can only be placed under a reasonable limitation in a
democrati society . Therefore the authoritis may only limit this right in the
interest of public order, national security or safety ,protection of public health
and the rights and freedoms of others.
This right has an other important implication since it garantes the right to
associate for the protection of one’s interest . Including the right to form trade or
other unions.In other words there is the right to take an industrial action, the
right to strike , the descusion here is what about those who are on essential
services ( police etc ). The convention allows freedom for member states to

regulate this aspect domestically/ localy. However the convention does recognize
the right of states to regulate the exercise of such rights.( in our case ergent and
essential medical services cannot go on strike ).