Part of a series on
Freedom
Concepts
Liberty positive negative social Rights Free will Moral responsibility
By type
Academic Civil Economic Intellectual Political Scientific
By right
Assembly Association Bear Arms Education Information Movement Press Religion Speech (public) Speech (schools) Thought
v t e

Freedom of association is the individual right to come together with other individuals and collectively express, promote, pursue and defend common interests.^[1] The right to freedom of association has been included in a number of national constitutions and human rights instruments, including the United States Bill of Rights, European Convention on Human Rights and the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

Freedom of association in the sense of workers' right to organize is also recognized in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and International Labor Organization Conventions, and the latter also protects collective bargaining in the conventions on freedom of association.

The right to freedom of association is sometimes used interchangeably with the freedom of assembly. More specifically the freedom of assembly is understood in a political context, although depending on the source (constitution, human rights instrument, etc.) the right to freedom of association may be understood to include the right to freedom of assembly.

Concept[link]

Democracy and civil society[link]

Jeremy McBride argues that respect for the freedom of association by all public authorities and the exercising of this freedom by all sections of society are essential both to establish a "genuine democracy" and to ensure that, once achieved, it remains "healthy and flourishing". In this regard he sees the formation of political parties as a significant manifestation of the freedom of association.

The freedom of association is however not only exercised in the political sense, but also for a vast array of interests - such as culture, recreation, sport and social and humanitarian assistance. Jeremy McBride agues that the formation of non-governmental organizations (NGOs), which he equates with civil society, is the "fruit of associational activity".^[1]

Libertarian[link]

Freedom of association is a term popular in libertarian literature. It is used to describe the concept of absolute freedom to live in a community or be part of an organization whose values or culture are closely related to one's preferences; or, on a more basic level, to associate with any individual one chooses.

The libertarian concept of freedom of association is often rebuked from a moral/ethical context. Under laws in such a system, business owners could refuse service to anyone for whatever reason. Opponents argue that such practices are regressive and would lead to greater prejudice within society. Right-libertarians sympathetic to freedom of association, such as Richard Epstein, respond that in a case of refusing service (which thus is a case of the freedom of contract) unjustified discrimination incurs a cost and therefore a competitive disadvantage. Left-libertarians argue that such refusal would place those businesses at an economic disadvantage to those that provide services to all, making them less profitable and eventually leading them to close down.

Libertarians also argue that freedom of association, in a political context, is merely the extension of the right to determine with whom to associate in one's personal life. For example, somebody who valued good manners or etiquette may not relish associating with someone who was not decent or was uncouth. Or, those opposed to homosexuality probably would not enjoy associating with gay people. In both instances, a person is voluntarily deciding with whom to associate, based on his/her own volition. Libertarians believe that freedom of association, in the political sphere, is not such a fanciful or unrealistic notion^{[citation needed]}, since individual human beings already choose with whom they would like to associate based on a variety of reasons.

Constitutions[link]

This section requires expansion.

South African Constitution - Bill of Rights[link]

The South African Constitution's Bill of Rights enshrines the right to freedom of association in Section 18, which states “Everyone has the right to freedom of association.” Furthermore Section 17 states “Everyone has the right, peacefully and unarmed, to assemble, to demonstrate, to picket and to present petitions”, effectively enshrining the right freedom of assembly. Workers' right to freedom of association in terms of the right to form trade unions and collective bargaining is recognized separately, in Section 23.^[2]

United States Constitution[link]

While the United States Constitution's First Amendment identifies the rights to assemble and to petition the government, the text of the First Amendment does not make specific mention of a right to association. Nevertheless, the United States Supreme Court held in NAACP v. Alabama that the freedom of association is an essential part of the Freedom of Speech because, in many cases, people can engage in effective speech only when they join with others.

Intimate association[link]

A fundamental element of personal liberty is the right to choose to enter into and maintain certain intimate human relationships. These intimate human relationships are considered forms of "intimate association." The paradigmatic example of "intimate association" is the family. Depending on the jurisdiction it may also extend to abortion, birth control and private, adult, non-commercial and consensual sexual relationships.

Expressive association[link]

Expressive associations are groups that engage in activities protected by the First Amendment—speech, assembly, press, petitioning government for a redress of grievances, and the free exercise of religion. In Roberts v. United States Jaycees, the Supreme Court held that associations may not exclude people for reasons unrelated to the group's expression. However, in the subsequent decisions of Hurley v. Irish-American Gay, Lesbian, and Bisexual Group of Boston, the Court ruled that a group may exclude people from membership if their presence would affect the group's ability to advocate a particular point of view. The government cannot, through the use of anti-discrimination laws, force groups to include a message that they do not wish to convey.

Limitation[link]

However, the implicit First Amendment right of association in the U.S. Constitution has been limited by court rulings. For example, it is illegal in the United States to consider race in the making and enforcement of private contracts other than marriage or taking affirmative action. This limit on freedom of association results from Section 1981 of Title 42 of the United States Code, as balanced against the First Amendment in the 1976 decision of Runyon v. McCrary.^[3]

The holding of Runyon is that the defendant private schools were free to express and teach their views, such as white separatism, but could not discriminate on the basis of race in the provision of services to the general public. So, if the plaintiff African-American children wished to attend such private schools, and were clearly qualified in all respects (but race) and were able to pay the fees, and were willing to attend despite the fact that the school's professed principles were inconsistent with admitting them, then the schools were required by Section 1981 to admit them. This doctrine rests on the interpretation of a private contract as a "badge" of slavery when either party considers race in choosing the other.

Governments often require contracts of adhesion with private entities for licensing purposes, such as with Financial Industry Regulatory Authority for stock market trading in the 1938 Maloney Act amendments to the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. These contracts often bar association with banned members, as can be seen in United States v. Merriam, 108 F.3d 1162.

Organized labour[link]

The organization of labor was commonly resisted during the 19th century, with even relatively liberal countries such as the United Kingdom banning it for various periods (in the UK's case, between 1820 and 1824).^[4]

In the international labour movement, the freedom of association is a right identified under international labour standards as the right of workers to organize and collectively bargain. Freedom of association, in this sense, is recognized as a fundamental human right by a number of documents including the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and International Labor Organization Convention C87 and Convention C98 -- two of the eight fundamental, core international labour standards. 'Freedom of association' can also refer to legal bans on private contracts negotiated between a private employer and their employees requiring workers at a particular workplace to join a union as a term and condition of employment. Supporters of this sort of private freedom of association claim that the right to join a union incorporates a right not to join a union. In the United States, the term 'right to work' is more common for this type of law.

See also[link]

Human rights portal

• Civil liberties
• Free State Project
• Freedom of assembly
• Libertarian socialism
• Right to work
• Self-determination
• Free association
• Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organise Convention

References[link]

Warren Thomas Farrell
Warren Farrell in 2011
Born	June 26, 1943 (1943-06-26) Queens, New York
Occupation	Author
Nationality	American
Ethnicity	Caucasian
Citizenship	U.S.
Education	Ph.D from NYU in Political Science, M.A. from UCLA in Political Science, B.A. from Montclair State University in Social Sciences
Alma mater	NYU, UCLA, Montclair State University
Period	Contemporary
Genres	Psychological Social Political
Subjects	Men's, Women's, fathers' issues, gender; couples' communication; child custody; boy crisis.
Literary movement	Women's movement men's movement fathers' movement
Notable work(s)	The Liberated Man (1974) Why Men Are the Way They Are (1986) The Myth of Male Power (1993) Women Can't Hear What Men Don't Say (1999) Father and Child Reunion (2001) Why Men Earn More (2005) Does Feminism Discriminate Against Men? (2008)
Notable award(s)	• California Association of Marriage and Family Therapists (CAMFT) Award for Outstanding Contribution to the field of psychology, Santa Barbara, CA, 1988 • Financial Times: one of 100 top Thought Leaders world-wide • Renaissance Weekend member • Onstep Institute for Mental Research, “Pioneer in the Psychology of Fatherhood Award”, 2000 Honorary Doctorates: • Professional School of Psychology, San Diego, 1985 • Montclair State University, 2011[1]
Spouse(s)	Liz Dowling
Children	Alex and Erin
Relative(s)	Tom Farrell (father) Muriel Farrell (mother) Gail Farrell (sister) Yvonne Waring (cousin) Pat and Daisy Flavahan (cousins)
warrenfarrell.com

Warren Farrell (born June 26, 1943) is an American author of seven books on men's and women's issues. His books cover twelve fields: history, law, sociology and politics (The Myth of Male Power); couples’ communication (Women Can’t Hear What Men Don’t Say); economic and career issues (Why Men Earn More); child psychology and child custody (Father and Child Reunion); and teenage to adult psychology and socialization (Why Men Are the Way they Are and The Liberated Man). All of his books are related to women and men’s studies; consistent to his books since the early 90's has been a call for a gender transition movement.^[2]

Education[link]

Warren Farrell holds a Ph.D. from New York University, a M.A. from UCLA in political science and a B.A. from Montclair State University in the social sciences.

Warren graduated from Midland Park High School in New Jersey in 1961, where he was student body president. He was chosen by the VFW as his town's (Waldwick's) selection for New Jersey Boys' State. As a college student, Warren was a national vice-president of the Student-National Education Association, leading President Lyndon B. Johnson to invite him to the White House Conference on Education.^[3] While completing his Ph.D. at NYU, he served as an assistant to the president of New York University.^[4]

University teaching[link]

Farrell has taught in five disciplines (psychology; women's studies; sociology; political science; gender and parenting issues). These were at the School of Medicine at the University of California, San Diego; the California School of Professional Psychology; in the Department of Women’s Studies at San Diego State; at Brooklyn College; Georgetown University; American University, and Rutgers.^[5]

Feminist Foundation[link]

When the second wave of the women’s movement evolved in the late 1960s, Farrell’s support of it led the National Organization for Women’s New York City chapter to ask him to form a men’s group. The response to that group led to his ultimately forming some 300 additional men and women's groups and becoming the only man to be elected three times to the Board of Directors of the National Organization for Women in N.Y.C. (1971–74).^[6] In 1974, Farrell left N.O.W. in N.Y.C. and his teaching at Rutgers when his wife became a White House Fellow and he moved with her to D.C.^[6]

During his feminist period, Farrell wrote op-eds for the New York Times and appeared frequently on the Today show and Phil Donahue show, and was featured in People, Parade and the international media. This, and his women and men’s groups, one of which had been joined by John Lennon, inspired The Liberated Man.^[6] The Liberated Man was written from a feminist perspective, introducing alternative family and work arrangements that could better accommodate working women and encourage care-giving men. The Liberated Man was the beginning of Farrell's development of parallels for men to the female experience: for example, to women's experience as "sex objects," Farrell labeled men's parallel experience as "success objects."^[7]

As a speaker, Farrell was known for creating audience participation role-reversal experiences to get both sexes "to walk a mile in the other's moccasins." The most publicized were his "men's beauty contest" and "role-reversal date."^[8] In the men's beauty contest, all the men are invited to experience "the beauty contest of everyday life that no woman can escape." In the "role-reversal date" every woman was encouraged to "risk a few of the 150 risks of rejection men typically experience between eye contact and intercourse."^[9]

Integrating men's issues into gender issues[link]

[edit] Why Men Are The Way They Are

Farrell's books each contain personal introductions that reveal how the public consciousness and his personal growth led to the current book. By the mid-1980s, Farrell was writing that both the role-reversal exercises and the women and men’s groups allowed him to hear women’s increasing anger toward men, and men’s feelings of being misrepresented.^[10] He wrote Why Men Are The Way They Are^[11] to answer women’s questions about men in a way he hoped rang true for the men. He distinguished between both sexes' primary fantasies and primary needs, observing that "both sexes fell in love with members of the other sex who are the least capable of loving: women with men who are successful; men with women who are young and beautiful."^[12] Women feel disappointed because, "the qualities it takes to be successful at work are often in tension with the qualities it takes to be successful in love." Men feel disappointed because, "a young and beautiful woman ('genetic celebrity') often learns more about receiving, not giving, while older and less-attractive women often learn more about giving and doing for others, which is more compatible with love."^[13] Due partially to Oprah Winfrey’s support, Why Men Are the Way They Are became his best-selling book.^[14]

[edit] The Myth of Male Power

By the early 1990s, Farrell was writing that he felt the misunderstandings about men had deepened and become dangerous to the survival of families and love.^[15] He had spent five years re-examining everything he thought he knew about the sexes. The result was The Myth of Male Power.^[16]

In The Myth of Male Power, Farrell offered his first in-depth outline of the thesis he would weave through his subsequent books: that for men and women to make an evolutionary shift from a focus on survival to a focus on a balance between survival and fulfillment, that what was ultimately necessary was neither a women's movement nor a men's movement, but a "gender transition movement." He defined a gender transition movement as one that fosters a transition from the rigid roles of our past to more flexible roles for the future.^[17]

As the book's title implied, The Myth of Male Power challenged the belief that men had the power—in part by challenging the definition of power. Farrell defined power as "control over one's life." He wrote that, "In the past, neither sex had power; both sexes has roles: women's role was raise children; men's role was raise money."^[18]

Farrell documented how, cross-culturally, men's experience of powerlessness involved being socialized, even as boys, to become "the disposable sex."^[19] He argued that virtually every society that survived did so by training a cadre of its sons to be disposable—in war, and in work. The paradox of masculinity, he proposed, is that the very training for traditional masculinity that created a healthy society created unhealthy boys and men.^[20]

The Myth of Male Power is most ardently challenged by some academic feminists, whose critique is that men earn more money, and that money is power. Farrell concurs that men earn more money, and is one form of power, but adds that "men often feel obligated to earn money someone else spends while they die sooner--and feeling obligated is not power."^[21] This perspective was to be more fully developed in Farrell's Why Men Earn More.

Farrell says heterosexual men learn to earn money to earn their way to female love. And that this in turn leads to psychological problems for both sexes: that "men's weakness is their facade of strength; women's strength is their facade of weakness."^[22]

Perhaps Farrell's most controversial contribution to gender politics is The Myth of Male Power's confrontation of the belief that patriarchal societies make rules to benefit men at the expense of women. Farrell feels this misses many realities—such as the registration of only our 18-year-old boys for the draft, or men constituting 93% of workplace deaths.^[23]

Analyses such as these led The Myth of Male Power to become both his most-praised and most-controversial book. In the discipline of men's studies, it is considered to be a classic.^[24] In the new academic journal, New Male Studies: An International Journal, in-depth interviews with Dr. Farrell focusing on The Myth of Male Power are the main features of two issues in 2012.^[25] This book, however, led to Susan Faludi writing in Backlash that Farrell had recanted his original feminist position.^[26]

[edit] Women Can’t Hear What Men Don’t Say, and Father and Child Reunion

The increase in divorces in the 1980s and 1990s turned Farrell’s writing toward two issues: the poverty of couples’ communication;^[27] and children’s loss of their father in child custody cases.^[28]

In Women Can’t Hear What Men Don’t Say,^[29] Farrell asserts that couples often fail to use couples' communication outside of counseling if the person receiving criticism does not know how to make her or himself feel safe. Farrell develops a method called “Cinematic Immersion” to create that safety and overcome what he posits is humans' biological propensity to respond defensively to personal criticism.^[30][31]

To address children’s loss of their father in child custody cases, Farrell wrote Father and Child Reunion,^[32] a meta-analysis of research about what is the optimal family arrangement for children of divorce. Father and Child Reunion's findings include some 26 ways in which children of divorce do better when three conditions prevail: equally-shared parenting (or joint custody); close parental proximity; and no bad-mouthing.^[33] His research for Father and Child Reunion provided the basis for his frequently appearing in the first decade of the 21st Century as an expert witness in child custody cases on the balance between mothers' and fathers' rights needed to create the optimal family arrangement for children of divorce.

[edit] Why Men Earn More

By the turn of the century, Farrell felt he had re-examined every adult male-female issue except the pay gap.^[34] In Why Men Earn More: The Startling Truth Behind the Pay Gap—and What Women Can Do About It,^[35] he documents 25 differences in men and women’s work-life choices. Common to each of men’s choices was earning more money, while each of women’s choices prioritized having a more-balanced life.^[36] These 25 differences allowed Farrell to offer women 25 ways to higher pay—and accompany each with their possible trade-offs.^[37] The trade-offs include working more hours and for more years; taking technical or more-hazardous jobs; relocating overseas or traveling overnight.^[38] This led to considerable praise for Why Men Earn More as a career book for women.^[39]

Some of Farrell's findings in Why Men Earn More, such as his analysis of census bureau data that never-married women without children earn 13% more than their male counterparts; or that the gender pay gap is largely about married men with children who earn more due to their assuming more workplace obligations, led to Farrell receiving criticism by some feminists who challenged that the pay gap is more about gender discrimination.^[40]

Themes woven throughout Why Men Earn More are the importance of assessing trade-offs; that "the road to high pay is a toll road;" the "Pay Paradox" (that "pay is about the power we forfeit to get the power of pay"); and, since men earn more, and women have more balanced lives, that men have more to learn from women than women do from men.^[41]

[edit] Does Feminism Discriminate Against Men?

Farrell’s most recent book, Does Feminism Discriminate Against Men? (ISBN 978-0195312836), published by Oxford University Press in 2008, is a debate book with feminist co-author James Sterba. Farrell felt gender studies in universities rarely incorporated the masculine gender except to demonize it. This book was Farrell’s attempt to test whether a positive perspective about men would be allowed to be incorporated into universities' gender studies curriculum even if there were a feminist rebuttal.^[42] Farrell and Sterba debated 13 topics, from children's and fathers' rights, to the "Boy Crisis."

Reception[link]

Farrell’s books, published in fifteen languages, tend to make both international news^[43] and controversy. However, his recent collaborations with Ken Wilber,^[44][45] John Gray,^[46] and Richard Bolles,^[47] have introduced his messages to more diverse and receptive audiences. Farrell's claims on gender relations have attracted the interest of English academic Rory Ridley-Duff, who has integrated Farrell's perspectives into curriculum materials, academic papers and a book^[48][49] and developed Attraction Theory to capture the gendering dynamics implicit in Farrell's work.^[50]

Current activities[link]

Farrell addressing world conference of spiritual leaders, 2010

Farrell’s current foci are conducting communication workshops;,^[51] being an expert witness^[52] in child custody cases;^[51] and researching a forthcoming book (Boys to Men), to be co-authored with John Gray. In 2010-11, he keynoted, along with Deepak Chopra, a world conference on spirituality (the Integral Spiritual Experience),^[53] addressing the evolution of love. He was then invited by the Center on World Spirituality to be one of their world leaders.^[54]

In 2009, a call from the White House requesting Dr. Farrell to be an advisor to the White House Council on Women and Girls led to Dr. Farrell creating and chairing a commission to create a White House Council on Boys and Men. The multi-partisan commission consists of thirty-five authors and practitioners (e.g., John Gray^{[disambiguation needed ]}, Gov. Jennifer Granholm, Michael Gurian, Michael Thompson, Bill Pollack, Leonard Sax) of boys' and men's issues. They have completed a study that defines five components to a "boys' crisis," which has been submitted as a proposal for President Obama to create a White House Council on Boys and Men.^[55]

Warren Farrell has created a number of words and phrases, such as 'success object', 'genetic celebrity', 'pay paradox', 'from role mate to soul mate', 'death professions', 'glass cellar', 'financial womb', 'the three-option woman and the no-option man', 'men's ABC rights', 'the disposable sex',^[56] and most recently 'iSocial'^[57].

Bibliography[link]

• Farrell W (1974). The Liberated Man. New York: Berkley Books. ISBN 0-425-13680-9. 
• Farrell W (1988). Why Men Are The Way They Are: The Male-Female Dynamic. New York: Berkley Books. ISBN 0-425-11094-X. 
• Farrell W (1993). The Myth of Male Power: Why Men Are The Disposable Sex. New York: Berkley Books. ISBN 0-425-18144-8. 
• Farrell W (2000). Women Can't Hear What Men Don't Say: Destroying Myths, Creating Love. New York: Jeremy P. Tarcher Inc.. ISBN 1-58542-061-1. 
• Farrell W (2001). Father and Child Reunion: How to Bring the Dads We Need to the Children We Love. New York: Jeremy P. Tarcher Inc.. ISBN 1-58542-075-1. 
• Farrell W (2005). Why Men Earn More: The Startling Truth Behind The Pay Gap--And What Women Can Do About It. New York, N.Y: American Management Association. ISBN 0-8144-7210-9. http://books.google.com/books?id=Bi-h6Ro-L-cC&printsec=frontcover. 
• Farrell W; Sterba JP; Svoboda S (2008). Does Feminism Discriminate Against Men?: A Debate. Oxford [Oxfordshire]: Oxford University Press. ISBN 0-19-531283-X. 

References[link]

External links[link]

Wikiquote has a collection of quotations related to: Warren Farrell

• Warren Farrell Site
• The Myth of Male Power Site
• Why Men Are the Way They Are Site
• Father and Child Reunion Site
• Women's Can't Hear What Men Don't Say Site
• Why Men Earn More Site
• The Liberated Man Site
• Commission to Create a White House Council on Men and Boys
• Save the Males! Article from Salon.com
• Warren Farrell Profile Page at BigSpeak

Daniel Hannan MEP
Member of the European Parliament for South East England
Incumbent
Assumed office 14 July 1999
Personal details
Born	(1971-09-01) 1 September 1971 (age 40) Lima, Peru
Nationality	British
Political party	Conservative
Spouse(s)	Sara Hannan (née Maynard)
Children	2 [1]
Alma mater	Oriel College, Oxford
Profession	Journalist Politician
Religion	Christian
Website	www.hannan.co.uk Conservative Party website

Daniel John Hannan (born 1 September 1971)^[2] is a British journalist, author and politician who is a Member of the European Parliament, representing South East England for the Conservative Party. He is also the Secretary-General of the Alliance of European Conservatives and Reformists (AECR). An advocate of localism and a Eurosceptic, Hannan earned worldwide fame for a speech in the European Parliament criticising Gordon Brown.^[3]

After stints as a speech-writer for Michael Howard and William Hague, Hannan was elected to the European Parliament at the 1999 election. He led the campaign to withdraw the Conservative Party from the EPP–ED, and was expelled from the group in 2008. Hannan joined the European Conservatives and Reformists (ECR) with his Conservative colleagues when it was formed in 2009 and became Secretary-General of its sister Europarty, the AECR. He currently serves on the Committee on Constitutional Affairs and the delegation to the ACP–EU Joint Parliamentary Assembly.^[2] He is also President of the Young Britons' Foundation.

Hannan's ideology is localism, and he has written several books arguing for democratic reform. He is a Eurosceptic and is strongly critical of European integration. Besides politics, Hannan is a journalist, having written leaders and currently authoring a blog for The Daily Telegraph and several books on both the EU and localism. Having been born in Peru, Hannan speaks Spanish, as well as French, fluently.^[4]

Early life[link]

Upbringing[link]

Hannan was born on his parents' farm near Lima, Peru.^[5] Hannan's father served in Italy during the Second World War with the North Irish Horse. Hannan has indicated that his father's Irish Catholic origins made him more sensitive to issues related to Northern Ireland and The Troubles.^[6]

Growing up, he made regular trips to the family's cotton farm in Santa Cruz, Bolivia.^[5] After spending his childhood in Peru, Hannan was educated at Marlborough College, and Oriel College, Oxford, where he studied Modern History.^[5] He speaks English, French and Spanish.^[4]

Early political career[link]

Hannan was President of the Oxford University Conservative Association (OUCA) in 1992. When standing in OUCA's committee elections for Michaelmas 1991, his strongly Eurosceptic views prompted accusations of "xenophobia" in the Oxford student paper Cherwell, prompting Hannan to threaten them with legal action.^[7] He also served as national vice-chairman of Conservative Students from 1992-3, and then chairman of Conservative Graduates from 1994.^[8] He had earlier established the Oxford Campaign for an Independent Britain, and on 12 September 1992 led a members' protest at a European financial summit held in Bath, which was widely televised and, he has since light-heartedly claimed, led to the withdrawal of the Pound Sterling from the European Exchange Rate Mechanism a few days later.^[9]

Through the CIB he became involved with the Bruges Group, and after he graduated he became, in 1994, director of a Eurosceptic political think-tank, the European Research Group. In 1996 he was hired by the Daily Telegraph as a leader-writer,^[8] and has since contributed to The Spectator and many other newspapers and magazines around the world. In 1997 he became an adviser and speechwriter to Michael Howard, then Shadow Foreign Secretary,^[10] and in 1998 he was given a place on the Conservative candidates' list for the following year's European Parliament election. He later became a speechwriter for party leader William Hague.^[5] In 1999 he stood down from his posts at the European Research Group and Conservative Graduates.^[8]

Member of the European Parliament[link]

Hannan speaking to a conservative group in Washington, D.C. in February 2012.

Hannan was first elected to the European Parliament in 1999.

A year after his first election, Hannan courted controversy when he appeared to be using the Conservative Party's central office as headquarters for a campaign to persuade Danish voters to block the introduction of the European Single Currency; however, he was able to show that the campaign was actually being run from his Westminster flat.^[11]

In his first term, he served on the Committee on Fisheries and the Delegation for Relations with Afghanistan.^[2]

He was re-elected at the top of his party's list for the South East England constituency in 2004.

Hannan led the campaign to withdraw the Conservatives from the European People's Party–European Democrats (EPP–ED) group in the European Parliament and form a new anti-federalist group.^[12] Hannan welcomed David Cameron's promise during Cameron's successful 2005 leadership campaign to withdraw: even promising to leave the EPP–ED unilaterally if the party didn't.^[13]

In April 2009, he criticised an EC Directive that would end the exemption in British law for religious groups to discriminate on grounds on conscience.^[14]

In April 2008, Daniel Hannan was elected to the top position of the Conservative list for the 2009 European elections in the constituency of South East England, and in June 2009 he was re-elected to the European Parliament.^[15]

Campaign against the Lisbon Treaty[link]

Hannan opposed ratification of the Lisbon Treaty in the European Parliament, and was one of several MEPs who took part in a demonstration in the chamber after Parliament voted to endorse the Treaty. He has continued to speak against the Treaty, and in the manner of Cato the Elder's famous call, Carthago delenda est, he ended every speech, whatever its subject, with a call for the Lisbon Treaty to be put to a referendum: "Pactio Olisipiensis censenda est".^[16][17]

Expulsion from the EPP-ED[link]

Hannan at the 20th anniversary of the Bruges Group in October 2008, which commemorated Margaret Thatcher's eurosceptic Bruges Speech.

Attempts by several MEPs to disrupt the work of the Parliament caused sufficient annoyance for a majority of Members to endorse a rule change giving the Speaker/President the discretion to limit the use of filibustering procedures where he "is convinced that these are manifestly intended to cause, and will result in, a prolonged and serious obstruction of the procedures of the House or the rights of other Members" (Rule 20, para 1). In the parliamentary session just before the new rule was to be presented by the President of the European Parliament Hans-Gert Pöttering,^{[citation needed]}

Hannan criticised what he termed a deviation from the rule of law. He continued speaking after his allocated time had ended by quoting Edmund Burke, but was interrupted mid-quote and had his microphone cut off by Luigi Cocilovo, one of the 14 Vice-Presidents.^[18] He then responded by damning, without vocal amplification, what he claimed were Parliament’s deviations from its own rules:^[19][20]

An absolute majority is not the same as the rule of law. I accept that there is a minority in this house in favour of a referendum. That there is a minority in this house against the ratification of the Lisbon Treaty. But this house must nonetheless follow its own rulebooks. And by popular acclamation to discard the rules under which we operate is indeed an act of arbitrary and despotic rule. It is only my regard for you Mr. Chairman and my personal affection for you that prevents me from likening it to the Ermächtigungsgesetz of 1933 which was also voted through by a parliamentary majority.

Pöttering is a German national and a member of the same political group (EPP-ED) as Hannan. Hannan's remarks were attacked by other MEPs from the EPP-ED. The head of EPP-ED, Joseph Daul, responded by initiating proceedings to expel Hannan immediately from their Group. Daniel Hannan left the EPP-ED on 19 February 2008. He sat, for the remainder of the five-year term as a Conservative without pan-European affiliation (Non-Inscrit).^{[citation needed]} Following his 2009 re-election, he sits with the new eurosceptic European Conservatives and Reformists along with his Conservative Party colleagues.

YouTube hit[link]

On 24 March 2009, after Gordon Brown had given a short speech to the European Parliament in Strasbourg in advance of the G20 London summit, Hannan followed up by delivering a 3-minute speech criticising in very strong terms the response by Gordon Brown to the global financial crisis.^[21] He finished the speech:

You cannot spend your way out of recession or borrow your way out of debt. And when you repeat, in that wooden and perfunctory way, that our situation is better than others', that we are well placed to weather the storm, I have to tell you, you sound like a Brezhnev-era apparatchik giving the party line. You know, and we know, and you know that we know that it's nonsense. Everyone knows that Britain is worse off than any other country as we go into these hard times. The IMF has said so. The European Commission has said so. The markets have said so, which is why our currency has devalued by thirty percent. And soon, the voters too will get their chance to say so. They can see what the markets have already seen: that you are the devalued Prime Minister of a devalued government.^[22]

The final phrase, "the devalued Prime Minister of a devalued government", was a quote from a speech by Labour Party leader John Smith criticising then-Prime Minister John Major in 1992.^[23]

A video clip of the speech went viral on YouTube that evening,^[24][25] attracting more than 630,000 views in 24 hours.^[21][26] It became the 'most viewed today' YouTube video worldwide two consecutive days.^[26] Hannan was invited to appear on several shows on American cable news channels, including Fox News and MSNBC: he appeared on television program Hannity via video link at 9pm EST on the same day,^[27] and on the Glenn Beck Program the following day.^[28][29] He also appeared on Your World with Neil Cavuto, where he stated he would have voted for Ron Paul in the 2008 presidential election had he been an American citizen.^[30] The main British television channels, particularly the BBC and ITV, gave the speech fairly limited coverage, for which they faced some criticism from Conservative MPs and "a handful of viewers";^[31] Conservative MP Nigel Evans stated that their lack of coverage rendered YouTube the 'ultimate in public service broadcasting'. As of July 2010, there have been 2.7 million views of the clip. Nearly all of the hits are from the UK and US.

ECR and AECR[link]

Hannan was re-elected in the 2009 European election, having been voted by party members to top the Conservatives' list in South East England. After the election, the Conservatives united with other anti-federalist, centre-right parties to form the European Conservatives and Reformists, for which Hannan had campaigned. Hannan was appointed the group's legal spokesperson. He resigned this position on 5 November 2009, after David Cameron announced that he wouldn't hold a referendum on the Treaty of Lisbon,^[32] saying that he wanted to concentrate on campaigning for a referendum.^[33] However, he accepted Cameron's decision, provided that a referendum on European integration was held.^[34]

Hannan became the first Secretary-General of the ECR-affiliated European political party – the Alliance of European Conservatives and Reformists (AECR) – when it was founded on 1 October 2009.

He criticised a ban on blood donation by people who had visited the United States less than one month previously, a measure instituted due to the risk posed by West Nile fever following the 2003 US epidemic.^[14]

Political positions[link]

Localism[link]

Hannan's main idea is the promotion of localism.^[5] He believes that local government independence is impossible without giving local government self-financing.^[35] To that end, he supports replacing Value Added Tax with a local sales tax, set by local councils.^[5]

Electoral reform[link]

Hannan argues in his writings and in the media (for example, during an appearance on Question Time on BBC television on 28 May 2009) for ballot initiatives (whereby electors can directly enact legislation as happens in Switzerland), a power of recall (whereby a sitting Member of Parliament can be forced to submit to re-election if enough of his local electorate support this), fixed term parliaments, local and national referendums, open primaries and the abolition of party lists.

Economic policy[link]

Hannan wrote in March 2011 criticizing anti-austerity protesters, stating that that they "have decided to indulge their penchant for empty, futile, self-righteous indignation." He remarked, "After “No Cuts!” the marchers’ favourite slogan was "Fairness!" Alright, then... How about being fair to our children, whom we have freighted with a debt unprecedented in peacetime?"^[36]

Foreign policy[link]

Hannan has a 'deep admiration' of the United States,^[37] and describes himself as an Atlanticist with inherently positive views of the United States as well as other English-speaking nations.

Hannan supports the British efforts in the Afghanistan war after the September 11th attacks, pointing out that "more British subjects died in the Twin Towers than in any terrorist atrocity in our history – more than at Lockerbie or Omagh" (see Pan Am Flight 103 and Omagh bombing). He also supports a timetable for set military withdrawal from the country. He wrote in June 2010, "there comes a point when our presence is doing more harm than good, serving to destabilise Pakistan rather than to stabilise Afghanistan. We are reaching that point now."^[38] He opposed the 2003 invasion of Iraq undertaken during the premiership of Tony Blair.^[39] He was one of few British politicians that opposed British intervention in Libya.^[37]

He endorsed then-Democratic candidate Barack Obama for President on 18 October 2008. He stated that a McCain presidency would mean an "imperial overstretch", particularly arguing that the U.S. should have been preparing to leave Iraq immediately. He labeled Obama's opponents as symbolic of "big federal budgets, protectionism, crony capitalism and, for that matter, the socialisation of failing banks."^[40] On 14 June 2010, Hannan took back his endorsement, which he called his "single most unpopular post" in his blogging career. He argued, "Any American reader who wants to know where Obamification will lead should spend a week with me in the European Parliament. I’m working in your future and, believe me, you won’t like it." He also accused the Obama administration of straining the special relationship between the U.S. and the U.K., particularly over the Falkland Islands.^[41]

Social policy[link]

Hannan is opposed to the concept of "victimless crimes", and he favours drug decriminalisation: "I'd start with cannabis, and if that worked I wouldn't in principle be against decriminalising heroin."^[5]

Healthcare[link]

In April 2009, he criticised claims that the National Health Service was the greatest British invention, saying that it is clearly eclipsed by the inventions of parliamentary democracy, penicillin, and common law, the discovery of DNA, or the abolition of slavery.^[42] He also argued that the NHS has left Britain with low survival rates for cancers, strokes, high chances of becoming iller in hospital, and constant waiting lists. David Cameron, who had said that his priorities were "three letters: NHS", distanced himself from Hannan's remarks, saying that Hannan has "some rather eccentric points of view".^[43][44]

Writing in The Telegraph, Mr Hannan said of the media storm around his comments:

On a visit to the US, I was asked by an interviewer whether I would recommend a British-style health-care model, paid for out of general taxation. I replied that all three parties were devoted to the NHS, and that it had public support (although I added that this was at least partly the result of the inaccurate belief that free health care for the poor is a unique attribute of the British system). But I didn't want to dissemble: I have for years argued that Britain would be better off with a Singapore-style system of personal health-care accounts. So I cautioned against nationalisation, citing international league tables on survival rates and waiting times.^[45]

Also making the wider point that: "we seem to have lost the notion that a backbencher speaks for himself. I like David Cameron, and want him to be Prime Minister, not least so that Britain stops racking up debt. But the idea that I therefore agree with him on every issue is, when you think about it, silly."^[45]

Enoch Powell[link]

It was reported in August 2009 that Hannan had praised the anti-immigrant Conservative politician Enoch Powell as "somebody who understood the importance of national democracy, who understood why you need to live in an independent country and what that meant, as well as being a free marketeer and a small-government Conservative."^[46][47]

However, he is also on record as saying "For what it’s worth, I think Enoch Powell was wrong on immigration. The civil unrest that he forecast, and that many feared in 1968, didn’t materialise. Britain assimilated a large population with an ease that few countries have matched. Being an immigrant myself, I have particular cause to be grateful for Britain’s understated cosmopolitanism."^[48]

Writing in on The Telegraph website, Mr Hannan said: "I’m surprised that no one has picked up on the thing that I most admire about Enoch Powell, namely his tendency to ignore conventional wisdom and think things through from first principles. Like Rowan Williams, he always did his hearers the courtesy of addressing them as intelligent adults. Both men regularly got into trouble in consequence, either because they were genuinely misunderstood or because their detractors affected to misunderstand them. Neither responded by dumbing down. That, in politics, takes a special kind of integrity."^[49]

UKIP[link]

In spring 2012, Hannan suggested that an accommodation be made between the Conservative Party and UKIP. The fielding of candidates by the Eurosceptic minority party against Conservatives has effectively led to both losing elections to Europhile left-wing candidates. Indeed, had UKIP backed the Conservatives at the 2010 General Election, David Cameron would have been Prime Minister of a majority Conservative Government, rather than in a coalition with Europhile Liberal Democrats. In 2010, UKIP endorsed four Conservative candidates, all of whom secured swings well above the national average.^[50]

Publications[link]

Hannan has been a leader writer for the Daily Telegraph since 1996.^[51] He has also written for various other newspapers, including The Wall Street Journal, the German daily Die Welt, the Swiss weekly Weltwoche, The Sunday Telegraph, The Catholic Herald, Freedom Today, the Brussels Journal and The Spectator.

He is the author of Time for a Fresh Start in Europe (1993) A Guide to the Amsterdam Treaty (1997), The Euro: Bad for Business (1998), The Challenge of the East (1999), What if Britain Votes No? (2002), The Case for EFTA (2004), and The New Road to Serfdom: A Letter of Warning to America (2010) and contributed to Treason at Maastricht (1994), by Rodney Atkinson and Norris McWhirter.^[52]

He was the co-founder of Direct Democracy and co-author, along with 27 Conservative MPs elected in 2005, of Direct Democracy: An Agenda for a New Model Party, which proposes the wholesale devolution of power and the direct election of decision-makers. These ideas were developed further in a series of six pamphlets, The Localist Papers, serialised in The Daily Telegraph in 2007. In 2008, he published the book The Plan: Twelve Months to Renew Britain together with Douglas Carswell.

Awards and prizes[link]

In 2009, Hannan was awarded the Bastiat Prize for Online Journalism for his Telegraph blog.^[53] He was shortlisted for the Orwell Prize in blogging in 2011.^[54]

He won Speech of the Year at the 2009 Spectator Awards, for his Gordon Brown speech in the European Parliament.^[55]

He has been named by The Telegraph as one of the 100 most-influential people on the centre-right in the United Kingdom for the last four years: peaking as the tenth-most influential in 2009.^[56] This was up from 86th in 2008.^[57] He fell to 33rd in 2010,^[58] followed by 38th in 2011.^[59]

Bibliography[link]

• Daniel, Hannan (1993). Time for a Fresh Start in Europe. London: Bow Publications. ISBN 978-0-86129-073-4. http://books.google.co.uk/books/about/Time_for_a_Fresh_Start_in_Europe.html?id=qscZAAAACAAJ. 
• Daniel, Hannan (1994). Towards 1996: Britain in a Multi-Speed Europe. London: Institute for European Defence & Strategic Studies. ISBN 978-0-907967-54-5. http://books.google.co.uk/books/about/Towards_1996.html?id=U1AKAQAAMAAJ. 
• Daniel, Hannan (1996). The Challenge of the East. 
• Daniel, Hannan (1997). A Guide to the Amsterdam Treaty. London: European Research Group. http://books.google.co.uk/books/about/A_guide_to_the_Amsterdam_treaty.html?id=x1qeQwAACAAJ. 
• Daniel, Hannan (1998). The Euro: Bad for Business. London: European Research Group. 
• Daniel, Hannan (2002). What if Britain Votes No?. 
• Daniel, Hannan (2004). The Case for EFTA. London: Bruges Group. ISBN 978-0-9547087-3-3. http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=AXBmAAAAMAAJ. 
• Carswell, Douglas, et al (2005). Direct Democracy: An Agenda for a New Model Party. ISBN 978-0-9550598-0-3. 
• Daniel, Hannan; Carswell, Douglas (2008). The Plan: Twelve Months to Renew Britain. ISBN 978-0-9559799-0-3. http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=LJ5aYhMYRCsC. 
• Daniel, Hannan (2010). The New Road to Serfdom: A Letter of Warning to America. London: HarperCollins. ISBN 978-0-06-195694-2. http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=WY_XtgAACAAJ. 
• Daniel, Hannan (2011). Why America Must Not Follow Europe. New York: Encounter Books. ISBN 978-1-59403-560-9. http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=MHeKOSJucOMC. 

References[link]