Thursday Nov 14, 2024
Thursday Nov 14, 2024
Saturday, 6 August 2016 00:00 - - {{hitsCtrl.values.hits}}
The public exercise of the freedom of association requires a place or site to exercise such freedom
I refer to a news report under the headline ‘No More Political Rallies at 23 Grounds’. A private property owner can take such a decision but can a public property managed by the Colombo Municipal Council take such a decision? There is a right to freedom of speech and association under our Constitution and no one can interfere in the exercise of such freedom.
The public exercise of the freedom of association requires a place or site to exercise such freedom. They cannot be held on the public roads which will interfere with the rights of the pedestrians. Nor can they be held on private property except with the permission of their owners. These private property owners have an absolute right to reject any offer to hold a public meeting in their private premises. But in the case of custodians of public property sites the public interest must prevail.
Fundamental freedoms provided for the Constitution to the people cannot be taken away indirectly by such covert means. The most that the public property custodians can do is to impose reasonable conditions in the interests of the general public. Where can public meetings be held if not in public premises?
The CMC is not the absolute owners of the Municipal premises unlike in the case of the private individuals. They own and hold such properties in trust to the people and cannot deprive the people of their rights to the use of such property for a public purpose which after all is the interest of its owners since the public own such property collectively. They should be available therefore for the collective good.
In any case, what is wrong with political rallies? It is an exercise in the right of free association and to undermine it indirectly or covertly is still a violation of a fundamental right. Any right which is not exercised will atrophy. Is that what the CMC Members elected by the people want to do? They must remember they are elected representatives of the people and the electors of the CMC must not vote to elect such candidates in the future.
All those who vote for violation of such a fundamental right should not be given the vote of the people in future for they are not democrats but totalitarian and despotic in outlook. How then will they take democratic decisions in other matters?
The CMC members have misdirected themselves for one cannot believe that they oppose the people’s right to the fundamental freedoms provided for in the Constitution.
