Helga Law Journal - 01.01.2021, Side 108

Helga Law Journal - 01.01.2021, Side 108
Helga Law Journal Vol. 1, 2021 112 113 is in accordance with the fact that domestic laws in Iceland are interpreted in light of international commitments. The constitutional guarantee regarding the right to protest has not been adapted explicitly as to apply to national social movements but rather due to international commitments. The Convention had considerable influence on the amendments and the official aim of the changes made in 1995 was in fact to make the provisions consistent with international commitments, in particular the Convention.15 It is evident from the fact that these are the only amendments to these provisions of the Constitution that they were not made in relation to pressure from national social movements but rather for the purpose of fulfilling international commitments. It is relevant to note here that from 2010 until 2013 there was a process in place regarding the rewriting of the Constitution. This came in the aftermath of the collapse of the Icelandic banks in 2008 and was an attempt to address the repercussions of the economic breakdown and the extensive distrust towards the political parties.16 A large protest referred to as the “Pots and Pans Revolution” had taken place in 2008, which resulted in the government resigning.17 The Icelandic parliament passed a law in 200018 establishing a consultative Constitutional Assembly, whose purpose was to empower citizens to come together in drafting a new constitution. The process was not without complications and there were considerable setbacks along the way. In March 2011 the parliament appointed a new body, called the Constitutional Council to finish the task of making a new constitution. The Council submitted its draft in July 2011. This process concluded in 2013 when a bill based on the Council’s proposals was blocked in the parliament.19 In the draft made by the Council the right to association and the right to assembly were split up into two separate provisions, in the Article on the right of assembly the right to protest was taken as an example of the rights guaranteed by the Article.20 This would have been the first time that the right to protest was explicitly identified in the Constitution. 15Alþingistíðindi. A 1994-1995. Document, 389. 2104, 2108. 16 Björg Thorarensen, ‘Why the making of a crowd-sourced Constitution in Iceland failed’ (Constitution Making & Constitutional Change, 26 February 2014) accessed 18 June 2018. 17 Thorvaldur Gylfason, ‘Constitution on Ice’ (SSRN, 24 November 2014) accessed 18 June 2018. 18 Act No. 90/2010 (ICE). 19 Björg Thorarensen, ‘Why the making of a crowd-sourced Constitution in Iceland failed’ (Constitution Making & Constitutional Change, 26 February 2014) accessed 18 June 2018. 20 Article 21 of the Proposal for a new Constitution for the Republic of Iceland: “All shall be assured of the right to assemble without special permission, such as in meetings or to protest. This right shall not be abridged except by law and necessity in a democratic society.” lack clear legal basis, they were deemed to be in violation of the protestors right to freedom of expression. The constitutional protection of the right to protest was further confirmed when the Supreme Court addressed a similar issue in 2014. The case regarded a protest by a group of people who were protesting what they saw as the irreversible damage to the environment caused by constructions taking place in Gálgahraun, an area in the neighborhood of Reykjavik. While the protest was peaceful, the presence of the protesters prevented the work from taking place, since they were situated on the construction site and did not obey orders to leave the premises. This concluded with the police forcefully removing them from the construction site, while this took place some protesters were arrested. Just as in the case from 1999 mentioned above, the Supreme Court found that the actions of the protesters were expressions of thought guaranteed in Article 73 para 2 of the Constitution. In addition to this the Court found that the general right to protest was guaranteed in Article 73 para 2 and Article 74 para 3. The Court nonetheless came to the conclusion that these limitations on the right to protest were justified in the case and that the conditions set forth in Article 73 para 3 were fulfilled. It is clear from these cases that the Icelandic Constitution guarantees everyone’s right to use their freedom of expression to gather in protest. It is furthermore equally clear that this right is not without limitations. Certain conditions need to be met in order for an obstruction on the right to protest to be lawful. An interference with the freedom of expression, protected under Article 73 will be justified only if the conditions specified in Article 73 para 3 are met, where it is stated that the freedom of expression may only be restricted by law in the interests of public order or the security of the State, for the protection of health or morals, or for the protection of the rights or reputation of others, if such restrictions are deemed necessary and in conformity with democratic traditions. In summary the restrictions need to be prescribed by law and in the interest of one of the aims specified in the Article. Furthermore, and most importantly the restrictions must be necessary in a democratic society, and in this respect special emphasis is laid on the requirement of the principle of proportionality All limitations need to meet all of these three conditions.13 The same applies to the right to peaceful assembly guaranteed in Article 74 para 3.14 Peaceful assembly may be restricted and public gatherings in the open may be banned if there is a threat of riots. In addition to this, similar conditions as the one’s that pertain to the limitation on freedom of expression apply, according to Article 11 para 2 of the Convention. There it is stated that no restrictions shall be placed on the exercise of the right of peaceful assembly other than such as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security or public safety. The Supreme Court of Iceland looks to these conditions in its decision making as they did in the cases mentioned above, this 13 Schram, 581. 14 Schram, 601. International Legal Research Group
Side 1
Side 2
Side 3
Side 4
Side 5
Side 6
Side 7
Side 8
Side 9
Side 10
Side 11
Side 12
Side 13
Side 14
Side 15
Side 16
Side 17
Side 18
Side 19
Side 20
Side 21
Side 22
Side 23
Side 24
Side 25
Side 26
Side 27
Side 28
Side 29
Side 30
Side 31
Side 32
Side 33
Side 34
Side 35
Side 36
Side 37
Side 38
Side 39
Side 40
Side 41
Side 42
Side 43
Side 44
Side 45
Side 46
Side 47
Side 48
Side 49
Side 50
Side 51
Side 52
Side 53
Side 54
Side 55
Side 56
Side 57
Side 58
Side 59
Side 60
Side 61
Side 62
Side 63
Side 64
Side 65
Side 66
Side 67
Side 68
Side 69
Side 70
Side 71
Side 72
Side 73
Side 74
Side 75
Side 76
Side 77
Side 78
Side 79
Side 80
Side 81
Side 82
Side 83
Side 84
Side 85
Side 86
Side 87
Side 88
Side 89
Side 90
Side 91
Side 92
Side 93
Side 94
Side 95
Side 96
Side 97
Side 98
Side 99
Side 100
Side 101
Side 102
Side 103
Side 104
Side 105
Side 106
Side 107
Side 108
Side 109
Side 110
Side 111
Side 112
Side 113
Side 114
Side 115
Side 116
Side 117
Side 118
Side 119
Side 120
Side 121
Side 122
Side 123
Side 124
Side 125
Side 126
Side 127
Side 128
Side 129
Side 130
Side 131
Side 132
Side 133
Side 134
Side 135
Side 136
Side 137
Side 138
Side 139
Side 140
Side 141
Side 142
Side 143
Side 144
Side 145
Side 146
Side 147
Side 148
Side 149
Side 150
Side 151
Side 152
Side 153
Side 154
Side 155
Side 156
Side 157
Side 158
Side 159
Side 160
Side 161
Side 162
Side 163
Side 164
Side 165
Side 166
Side 167
Side 168
Side 169
Side 170
Side 171
Side 172
Side 173
Side 174
Side 175
Side 176
Side 177
Side 178
Side 179
Side 180
Side 181
Side 182
Side 183
Side 184
Side 185
Side 186
Side 187
Side 188
Side 189
Side 190
Side 191
Side 192
Side 193
Side 194
Side 195
Side 196
Side 197
Side 198
Side 199
Side 200
Side 201
Side 202
Side 203
Side 204
Side 205
Side 206
Side 207
Side 208
Side 209
Side 210
Side 211
Side 212
Side 213
Side 214
Side 215
Side 216
Side 217
Side 218
Side 219
Side 220
Side 221
Side 222
Side 223
Side 224

x

Helga Law Journal

Direkte link

Hvis du vil linke til denne avis/magasin, skal du bruge disse links:

Link til denne avis/magasin: Helga Law Journal
https://timarit.is/publication/1677

Link til dette eksemplar:

Link til denne side:

Link til denne artikel:

Venligst ikke link direkte til billeder eller PDfs på Timarit.is, da sådanne webadresser kan ændres uden advarsel. Brug venligst de angivne webadresser for at linke til sitet.