In an extraordinary ruling, lawmakers in Strasbourg have warned that banning dishes on listed buildings, social housing and even private homes could breach the right to freedom of expression by preventing people from practice religion.The case they are referring to is KHURSHID MUSTAFA AND TARZIBACHI v. SWEDEN, which was concluded with a judgment by the European Court of Human Rights in December 2008. Yes, nearly three years ago. (Mr. Drury refers to it as a "recent case").
The reason the Daily Mail has only just found out about it is a guidance document issued by the UK's Equality and Human Rights Commission on human rights in social housing.
In the ECHR case, the Court in Strasbourg held that Sweden had violated article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights, which guarantees the right to freedom of expression and the right to receive information "as necessary in a democratic society".
In this particular case, a couple in Sweden of Iraqi origin had been evicted by their landlord after refusing to remove a satellite dish from their rented flat in Stockholm. The ECHR judged that Sweden had failed to guarantee the couple's rights under article 10 because:
- The satellite dish provided the couple and their children with an important link to their country of origin;
- There were no other means available in the flat enabling them to receive the information (internet or cable television);
- The landlord had failed to demonstrate that the satellite dish posed a safety risk in any way;
- The property in question was located in a suburb and had "no particular aesthetic aspirations" (i.e., it was not a listed property or a building of historical or cultural significance)
In other words, there is no question whatsoever that this judgment is "driving a cart and horses" through British planning laws. The judgment specifically mentions that the Swedish case did not apply to listed buildings; that satellite dishes may still be banned if there is a genuine safety risk; and that it would not be in breach of the Convention to refuse permission to mount a dish if the tenants were able to receive the information through alternative ways such as the internet.
Note that the judgment itself is not necessarily concerned with freedom of religion - that angle the Daily Mail has taken from the UK guidance document, which has a hypothetical example about a disabled woman only able to receive information on her religion through the use of a satellite dish.
The article is topped off by a quote from Frits Bolkestein, former European Commissioner for the Single Market and Services, saying that the use of satellite dishes should not be impeded by "unjustified obstacles". This, in the Daily Mail's reading, presumably means that any restriction on the installation of satellite dishes would violate human rights legislation.
Interesting detail: Bolkestein has not been an EU Commissioner since 2004, and the EU and the European Court of Human Rights are separate entities.
The Equality and Human Rights Commission has put out a statement after the publication of the article saying that
“There is no human right to satellite TV. The human right in this example is the right to practise your religion. It is only an illustration of how the law might apply in exceptional circumstances, nor should it be taken out of context. Only the courts can decide if someone’s human rights have in fact been breached.”Pathetic, low-quality scaremongering. A three-year old court case, a selective reading of the facts and a 7-year old quote by an official from an unrelated institution.
