Freedom of Association Is Under Assault Across the West, Conservative Commentator Argues

In a sweeping new essay for American Thinker, commentator J.B. Shurk argues that Western governments are waging a war on their own citizens—and that one of the most overlooked battlegrounds is freedom of association. Shurk’s piece, published August 17, 2026, contends that governments in the United Kingdom, the European Union, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, and among leftists in the United States do not believe in free speech and routinely spy on citizens without warrants or probable cause. But the central complaint is that these states are also infringing on the natural, God-given right of people to meet with like-minded individuals, discuss ideas, and promote shared interests.

A Right That Builds Nations

Shurk argues that freedom of association is not a luxury but a foundational element of liberty. It is, in his telling, the bedrock of religious freedom, freedom of conscience, communal identity, and national self-determination. Countries are born when people of common ancestry, language, history, and customs choose to work together and defend their way of life. Towns rise when like-minded people settle and develop a region. Religious congregations grow through common worship. Schools, trade unions, clubs, sports leagues, and civic organizations all come into being when people cooperate toward goals no single person could achieve alone.

The greatest threat to this right, Shurk writes, is government power. When states prevent people from discussing ideas, worshiping together, or pursuing common interests, they use their monopoly on lawful force to infringe on inalienable rights. Across the West, he argues, the bureaucratic state is imposing its political will in defiance of the collective will of citizens.

Open Borders as an Assault on Association

Perhaps the most glaring problem, Shurk argues, is Western governments’ refusal to secure their national borders. He describes the nation-state’s citizenry as the most natural political association, forged over centuries by tribes who came together to protect land and resources. The rule of law itself, he says, traces its origin to common customs, personal duties, social obligations, religious convictions, and beliefs. Governments, he argues, have two complementary obligations: secure territory from invasion and promote common law.

By opening borders and inviting millions of foreigners to take over parts of their nations, Shurk contends, Western governments have undermined citizens’ self-determination and destroyed natural associations formed over generations. He argues that introducing foreign populations who have no interest in assimilating erodes domestic safety and peace, betraying citizens twice: failing to secure territory and making domestic tranquility impossible.

Governments Silencing Dissent

Because governments are conspiring to facilitate mass migration without citizen consent, Shurk writes, they are invested in preventing their peoples from resisting. Public dissent is being silenced. In Europe, political parties that seek to secure borders and limit immigration are labeled “right-wing,” “fascist,” and “threats to national security”—contradictory insults, he says, since Europeans who wish to protect their nations are simultaneously branded threats to the nation-state. In the United States, he claims, voters who support President Trump’s border security policies risk harassment online, de-banking, job loss, and prosecution by Democratic prosecutors.

Mass migration is not the only sacrosanct policy. Shurk says Western governments continue to threaten and prosecute Christians who oppose abortion. Under the Biden administration, he alleges, the FBI placed concerned parents on domestic terror watchlists for publicly opposing transgender indoctrination in schools. Pro-family organizations that encourage traditional marriage are identified as “hate groups.”

The SPLC and COVID Restrictions

Shurk criticizes the Southern Poverty Law Center for making a fortune by acting as an authority on which associations are acceptable. While celebrating Black Lives Matter as a civil rights group—despite, he says, billions in property damage and dozens of unsolved murders—the SPLC routinely designates conservative organizations as threats, prompting law enforcement investigations, IRS scrutiny, censorship, and de-banking.

He also points to COVID restrictions as a period when freedom of association was effectively eliminated. Families could not celebrate birthdays or comfort dying loved ones. Workers could not make a living. Congregations could not attend church. Students could not learn together. Athletes could not compete. Medical researchers who opposed lockdowns and vaccine mandates were denied opportunities to collaborate. Meanwhile, Shurk charges, violent groups like Antifa and Black Lives Matter were allowed to assemble and burn parts of major cities.

Local and Online Communities Under Attack

Today, Shurk sees freedom of association under attack in two domains: the local community and the online community. He cites Biden-era policies that transplanted over ten million foreign nationals into towns across the United States. In the United Kingdom, he claims, some small villages now have six migrant men to every local woman. After Spanish authorities allowed an influx into Ceuta, foreigners destroyed the enclave in a matter of days. The common feature, he says, is Western governments’ disdain for local self-determination.

Big Tech, Shurk argues, works hand in glove with Western governments to shadow-ban, demonetize, and censor any associations opposed to official policy. Governments claim these attacks are needed to combat “disinformation” and promote online safety, but Shurk says the values being secured are not Western values at all—they are shameless infringements on citizens’ natural, God-given rights.

Shurk concludes that freedom of association is essential to any notion of liberty, and its erosion across the West embodies a broader trend of governments treating citizens as subjects rather than free people. Whether or not readers share his premises, his essay underscores a persistent concern among conservatives that the right to gather—physically or digitally—is increasingly conditional on government approval.

Source: www.americanthinker.com — https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2026/08/governments-don-t-like-it-when-we-gather-without-their-permission/