Public Employees Restrictions on Political Activity in Canada, Australia, and the United Kingdom

IF 0.4 Q3 LAW
M. O'Brien
{"title":"Public Employees Restrictions on Political Activity in Canada, Australia, and the United Kingdom","authors":"M. O'Brien","doi":"10.1515/icl-2021-0003","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract The political rights of public employees vary greatly in scope and depth across democratic societies. While some countries balance the need for a neutral government with the rights of its employees, others fail to provide meaningful avenues for expression of political activities. As the civil service has grown and become more vocal, the government’s desire for an impartial government has grown with it. Canada, Australia, and the United Kingdom, three Westminster-style governments who evolved from a once singular legal system, have adopted laws and regulations to address their employees’ political activities with varying effectiveness and form. This Article will analyze each country’s legal framework for these restrictions, within their larger free speech regime. In particular, this Article will use candidacy and social media activity as a lens to examine these restrictions and provide examples for how these restrictions most commonly effect civil servants’ political activities. Although each regime has successes and failures at balancing the government’s need for impartiality with the civil service’s rights to expression, Canada has most successfully established a balance between the government’s interests in neutrality with their employee’s rights to political expression.","PeriodicalId":41321,"journal":{"name":"ICL Journal-Vienna Journal on International Constitutional Law","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.4000,"publicationDate":"2021-07-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"ICL Journal-Vienna Journal on International Constitutional Law","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1515/icl-2021-0003","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"LAW","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Abstract The political rights of public employees vary greatly in scope and depth across democratic societies. While some countries balance the need for a neutral government with the rights of its employees, others fail to provide meaningful avenues for expression of political activities. As the civil service has grown and become more vocal, the government’s desire for an impartial government has grown with it. Canada, Australia, and the United Kingdom, three Westminster-style governments who evolved from a once singular legal system, have adopted laws and regulations to address their employees’ political activities with varying effectiveness and form. This Article will analyze each country’s legal framework for these restrictions, within their larger free speech regime. In particular, this Article will use candidacy and social media activity as a lens to examine these restrictions and provide examples for how these restrictions most commonly effect civil servants’ political activities. Although each regime has successes and failures at balancing the government’s need for impartiality with the civil service’s rights to expression, Canada has most successfully established a balance between the government’s interests in neutrality with their employee’s rights to political expression.
加拿大、澳大利亚和英国的公职人员对政治活动的限制
在不同的民主社会中,公职人员的政治权利在广度和深度上都存在很大差异。虽然一些国家在中立政府的需要与雇员的权利之间取得平衡,但另一些国家未能为表达政治活动提供有意义的途径。随着公务员队伍的壮大和呼声越来越高,政府希望建立一个公正的政府的愿望也随之增长。加拿大、澳大利亚和英国这三个威斯敏斯特式的政府都是从单一的法律体系演变而来的,它们都采用了法律法规,以不同的效果和形式来处理雇员的政治活动。本文将分析每个国家在其更大的言论自由制度下对这些限制的法律框架。特别是,本文将以候选人资格和社交媒体活动为视角来审视这些限制,并举例说明这些限制通常如何影响公务员的政治活动。虽然每个政权在平衡政府对公正性的需求与公务员的表达权方面都有成功和失败,但加拿大最成功地在政府的中立利益与雇员的政治表达权之间建立了平衡。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
0.80
自引率
0.00%
发文量
13
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信