Restrictions on these rights, while permitted in certain circumstances, are to be narrowly drawn and strictly interpreted. This mischaracterization of the limitations permitted under Articles 21 and 22 unfortunately reflects the tenor of the Consultation Document as a whole. The emphasis is placed on narrowing the rights guaranteed to the individual. While it is clear that in some circumstances limits may be placed on these rights because of overriding public interests, the burden is on the government to justify these limits as being in conformity with international law, and only such limits as are strictly needed to achieve the necessary aim pursued are legitimate. As discussed below, many of the proposed modifications to the law include language so broad and vague that it is hard to determine what actions do and do not fall foul of the proposals.
None warrants the exceptional measures proposed in the Consultation Document.
If these criteria are not met, the process of registration runs the risk of being so burdensome as to effectively deny the right to freedom of association. Instead, the proposed modification, which greatly expands the grounds on which a society may be refused permission to establish, raises the specter of an executive seeking to control the non-governmental sector. In particular, the proposed grounds for justifying refusal to register are broad and poorly defined. This vagueness effectively leaves the decision of whether to register a society or not to the discretion of the executive. In particular, the reference to national security seems to reflect a misunderstanding of the way in which international human rights law has interpreted this term.