Denying a man a satellite is a violation of his human rights

A man here in Halifax who's condo forbids satellite dishes has taken the case before the Nova Scotia human rights board. Claiming that denying him the dish (which he wants to pick up arab language stations from the middle east) is denying him access to his culture and religion. Thus violating his rights.

An editorial about, and the first I heard of it. I copied, pasted, and spoiled it.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Satellite rights
by Kyle Shaw





illustration Graham Pilsworth
Ahmed Assal's human rights case was destined to be a media circus. That it happened in the middle of the slow news days of summer only added fuel to the hype. Even Fox News's website picked up the Halifax story, summarizing Assal's position in a particularly lampoonable way: "A man in Canada is claiming that his condominium board's refusal to bend the rules and allow him to erect a satellite dish is a violation of his human rights." To put it another way…well, that first way pretty much sums it up.

For three days last week, a nondescript room in the Dal Student Union Building was transformed into a kind of courtroom, complete with lawyers and witnesses, court reporter and a bible for swearing on. At times media people outnumbered civilians in the audience, and TV camerapeople lounged outside the room. Here the Nova Scotia Human Rights Commission convened its board of inquiry. Serving in the role of judge was the board's chair, Royden Trainor, a bright local lawyer.

The basic facts of the case are clear. Assal, his wife and their three kids

—all Canadian citizens who emigrated from Egypt in 2000—moved into a Clayton Park condo complex in January, 2002. Like most condos, the board at Sutton Gardens puts rules on what modifications the owner-residents can make to their units. Although exceptions are often made to the rules, any request is supposed to be sent in writing through proper condo channels. Among the many restrictions, Sutton Gardens forbids satellite dishes. Assal knew about the dish ban even before he bought his unit, and was reminded of it whenever he casually mentioned the subject to the condo's property managers.

Yet Assal wanted a dish. Not just any dish, but a particular Arabic satellite dish that picks up 18 channels (essentially the public broadcaster from each of 18 Middle East countries). October 25, 2003, without written permission from the condo board, Assal gets the ArabSat version of the cable guy to come to his house. After a six-hour installation job that involves a lot of wandering the grounds to find a strong signal, the dish is fixed to a tree in the common backyard, and the Assals can watch TV in their native Arabic.

Almost immediately, the condo board sends a letter demanding the dish's removal. Assal contacts the Human Rights Commission, and soon the condo board receives a letter from the HRC articulating how the dish supports Assal's Muslim religion (much of the programming is explicitly religious), and is a tie to his Middle Eastern culture. Once the matter becomes an official human rights complaint, the condo board freezes as if in shock: It leaves the dish alone but doesn't try to negotiate a settlement. From then to now—and at least until Trainor's decision, expected some time after September 30—the Assal family enjoys the dish without incident.

If this case was happening in the States, Assal would be in trouble. American law says if everyone is treated the same, there's no discrimination: Nobody gets a satellite dish, nobody gets to complain. Canadian law revels in less obvious examples of inequality, ways the majority is unfair to minorities without even trying. In whitebread Sutton Gardens, which is well served by cable TV, most of Assal's neighbours enjoy effortless access to dozens of channels in their native language. To get anything similar, Assal is asking the condo to make what human rights law calls "reasonable accommodation" and allow his dish. To receive equal treatment, he needs to be treated differently—a perfectly legal Canadian paradox.

But while Assal has a plausible argument, Trainor has to decide if it's plausible enough for human rights legislation. Is a Muslim's right to a telecommunications convenience the same as, say, a Sikh's right to wear a turban? If the people at Sutton Gardens were better neighbours, the rules would have been bent long ago, leaving the Human Rights Commission free to answer other questions.

Original editorial

Yahoo news and CBC reports about it.
http://ca.news.yahoo.com/s/01082006/...uslim-man.html
http://www.cbc.ca/canada/nova-scotia...s.html?ref=rss

Thing is because of the vagracies of Canadian law he probably has a decent case. And a decent chance of his complaint being upheld. Thus forcing the condo board to let him have his dish.

I love this line.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The editorial

To receive equal treatment, he needs to be treated differently—a perfectly legal Canadian paradox.

---

Because it's so true.

Sorry, but this seems like a perfectly sensible case to me. He might or might not win, (in the Uk at least the fact that he voluntarily chose to live somewhere where it would be hard to get his religious programming would be a pretty formidible argument for him to overcome) but I can't see anything intrinsically ridiculous in argung that access to religious material is not a human right (well, nothing other than the intrinsic ridiculousness of the religous material, that is.) The right to practice and manifest a religious belief is (in my view unfortunately) a well established human right. Of COURSE he has to be treated differently to treated equally, what's he supposed to do, watch Billy Graham on cable? Where's the paradox?

Its nice to see you guys hold to your British roots. This could just as easily have happened in Devon.

This is ridiculous! in many cases freedom is restriction! Read on to see what I mean.









IE You go onto someone's land where green shirts are forbidden (don't ask why they just are)...you should have to abide by that because it is his land and he can make the rules for it....no one is forcing me to go on his land. I should go somewhere where green shirts are allowed instead of infringing on that mans rights!


You don't want people carrying guns in your store, fine. They can go somewhere else.

You don't want people with no shoes in your store, fine. They can go somewhere else.

You don't want me in your store, fine. I can go somewhere else.

You don't want minorities in your store, fine. They can go somewhere else.

you don't want whitey in your store, fine. They can go somewhere else.

You don't want satellites on your condo, fine. The renter can go somewhere else.

It's your right as a property owner.

If the government is saying no green shirts then thats a different story:inquisitive:

I think caesar010 has a point, but as EA said it isn't all that ridiculous.

EDIT: Wait a minute, isn't a condo jointly owned by everybody who lives in it?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lars573

Thing is because of the vagracies of Canadian law he probably has a decent case. And a decent chance of his complaint being upheld. Thus forcing the condo board to let him have his dish.

---

I doubt it. If people can be told not to paint their house, a condominium can certainly not allow satellite dishes.

That's pathetic. Perhaps he should go to the Middle East and see how they respect human rights. It might just put things in the right context. Satellite TV?! :inquisitive:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ceasar010

You don't want satellites on your condo, fine. The renter can go somewhere else.

It's your right as a property owner.

---

Doesn't he own the condo ?

I'd like to know who this *board* is and what their authority is and whether or not he is renting or actually owns the condo (owns, the articles say), and whether or not he asked the rest of the residents for permission.

Interesting tibit:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CBC

But he says other rules regarding pets and tree planting are not enforced. So if the board makes exceptions for other condo owners, Assal argued, why shouldn't it do the same for him?

---

Denying me from launching crusades is a violation of my human rights!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by doc_bean

Doesn't he own the condo ?

I'd like to know who this *board* is and what their authority is and whether or not he is renting or actually owns the condo (owns, the articles say), and whether or not he asked the rest of the residents for permission.

---

Generally, when one buys a condo, one must abide by the decisions and regulations of the condo association/board. With condos, the board takes in dues from residents and applies these funds to maintenance, landscaping, snow removal, and community facilities like pools and exercise areas. They also impose rules on the residents, mainly these rules are meant to keep the condo development looking nice and keeping the property values up. Home Owner Associations (HOAs, aka "Neighborhood Nazis") perform the same function in single family home developments. When buying a house/condo in a controlled development, signing a contract with the HOA/condo board is required as part of the property closing.

Disobeying the edicts of the HOA/Condo board will generally lead to unpleasant legal acts against the resident, usually with no recourse. Local governments love HOAs and Condo boards, since they can still reap in property taxes while having to return fewer services to the neighborhood. I do wonder if he went to the board meetings and proposed a change in policy, or maybe tried to get elected to the board himself, before causing this ruckus.

As for the exceptions, he can always file specific complaints against residents breaking rules, if he really wants to get involved in the neighborhood backstabbing politics. If he files formal complaints, the board would probably have to crack down on everyone. Good way to make friends...:no: As GC states, you can usually apply to the board to get approval for changes and improvements.

Note - All of this is based on my experiences with US HOAs, not sure how much relates to our good friends to the North.

See, I believe all of these are different from case to case.
I've signed several lease contracts where it stated clearly that "No pets are allowed in the building". While signing, in one case, I was watching the landlady's dog cuddling in her lap.
In other cases, I asked about pets, and their only concern was "Do you have snakes, crocodiles, etc ?" and when they heard it was just cats, they said it's not a problem. Again, the lease explicitly specifies that no pets are allowed.

Same thing with the dish, or most other rules, imo. Depending on how nazi the board/landlord/landlady are, they may not give a hoot about it regardless of what the contract says. Sure, it's slightly different when it's a condo that you own, rather than a rental, but not that much different.

I think condo regulations which forbid satellite dishes do so for cosmetic reasons just like not allowing drying clothes drapped over balconies. I'm sure cable companies are all too happy about such restrictions and I'm sure they probably some financial arrangement with the condo developers and managers.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ceasar010

This is ridiculous! in many cases freedom is restriction! Read on to see what I mean.

IE You go onto someone's land where green shirts are forbidden (don't ask why they just are)...you should have to abide by that because it is his land and he can make the rules for it....no one is forcing me to go on his land. I should go somewhere where green shirts are allowed instead of infringing on that mans rights!


You don't want people carrying guns in your store, fine. They can go somewhere else.

You don't want people with no shoes in your store, fine. They can go somewhere else.

You don't want me in your store, fine. I can go somewhere else.

You don't want minorities in your store, fine. They can go somewhere else.

you don't want whitey in your store, fine. They can go somewhere else.

You don't want satellites on your condo, fine. The renter can go somewhere else.

It's your right as a property owner.

If the government is saying no green shirts then thats a different story:inquisitive:

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gelatinous Cube

Bravo.

---

Did either of you even read the article?

Quote:

---

If this case was happening in the States, Assal would be in trouble. American law says if everyone is treated the same, there's no discrimination: Nobody gets a satellite dish, nobody gets to complain. Canadian law revels in less obvious examples of inequality, ways the majority is unfair to minorities without even trying. In whitebread Sutton Gardens, which is well served by cable TV, most of Assal's neighbours enjoy effortless access to dozens of channels in their native language. To get anything similar, Assal is asking the condo to make what human rights law calls "reasonable accommodation" and allow his dish. To receive equal treatment, he needs to be treated differently—a perfectly legal Canadian paradox

---

Hence he has a case. Also he was told that the board wouudn't mind as long as the dish wasn't on a roof, wall, or fence. So he put it on a tree. Not the only Sat dish I've seen on a tree in that area.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wigferth Ironwall

Its nice to see you guys hold to your British roots. This could just as easily have happened in Devon.

---

Common law is alive and well here. Just don't tell anyone.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by English assassin

Where's the paradox?

---

Look at Cube and Caesar's reaction. That is what US law and attitude is. And what most of us Canadians would think true. But our law is more....British.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vladimir

That's pathetic. Perhaps he should go to the Middle East and see how they respect human rights. It might just put things in the right context. Satellite TV?!

---

He's from Egypt. He wants the dish to get Arab language channels and Muslim programming. To supplement his kids education. If eastlink could accomodate him this never would have happened.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GoreBag

I doubt it. If people can be told not to paint their house, a condominium can certainly not allow satellite dishes.

---

I don't. As other rules are bent for other residents. And it's Halifax, he'll probably get his dish.

It would be thrown out in the US. He is not a captive audience, he chose to live there knowing the restrictions, and he ignored proper channels. He mentioned the satelite in informal setting but if he had made a request that an exception be made then a condo owner could very well have allowed it. If he had been refused it after making the request and the owner had said something along the lines of "because I don't want the foreign stuff in here" he would have a case.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JimBob

It would be thrown out in the US. He is not a captive audience, he chose to live there knowing the restrictions, and he ignored proper channels.

---

Indeed, it sounds just as ridiculous as if someone moves into an apartment with a no-pets clause in the lease and then sues their landlord for the mental anguish for having to give up their pet. :dizzy2:

It seems to me that he should have known that satellite dishes weren't allowed before he moved in, he should have went to the board and explained his situation and if they still said no then....tough really.

Also, I fail to see how having a satellite dish is a human right, his explanation about access to religious teachings doesn't really hold water, if that was all he was concerned about he would get it through internet access and books. Sounds to me like someone is getting withdrawal symptoms from not getting his Friends fix.

Or maybe something a bit more raunchy ~;)

Lets have a look at Ceasar's list to see how reasonable it is:

Quote:

---

You don't want people carrying guns in your store, fine. They can go somewhere else.

---

or you can leave your gun at home - no problem.

Quote:

---

You don't want people with no shoes in your store, fine. They can go somewhere else.

---

or you can take your shoes off - so far so good.

Quote:

---

You don't want me in your store, fine. I can go somewhere else.

---

Beginning to have difficulty with this. A store is to serve members of the public. It is not a private club. You can't stop being you, so you are excluded from this store. However if you have done somethign to deserve this, ok.

Quote:

---

You don't want minorities in your store, fine. They can go somewhere else.

---

Now unlike wearing shoes and or carrying a gun, you can't stop being from a minority. If it is one store in your town then no problem, but if many stores do this, where are you going to buy the stuff you need. Your freedom to go somewhere else is reduced. This is not fine. It is unfair, and it is reasonable for the state to intervene to stop shopkeepers doing this.

Quote:

---

you don't want whitey in your store, fine. They can go somewhere else.

---

As above.

Quote:

---

You don't want satellites on your condo, fine. The renter can go somewhere else.

---

Yes he can, so I would say he has no case.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xiahou

Indeed, it sounds just as ridiculous as if someone moves into an apartment with a no-pets clause in the lease and then sues their landlord for the mental anguish for having to give up their pet. :dizzy2:

---

Like I said before, it's not that clear-cut.
It would be as you say, IF the rules were actually all in place. In reality, at least in my experience, a LOT of the crap that you sign in there is just that, crap. And not necessarily in touch with reality.

Like I said, I've been through three cases in the last 4 years where I signed leases saying that no pets are allowed, while I was having two cats. So, it's not that simple, or that clear-cut, you know ?

And I can go even further with that, I can give more examples of things that are not exactly as it says in the lease. Extra locks, for instance. Sure, the contract says no extra locks.
But I know people who installed them, and while the management was aware of it, they didn't actually do anything about it. Sure, they'd rather you didn't install them, and they'll do their best to convince you not to do it, but if you just go ahead and do it, they're not gonna sue you, or evict you, or even bring a technician or something to remove it.

So, once more, it's not that clear-cut, or straightforward, all the time. I'll bet he can find a bunch of rules that other tenants are not respecting, and the management isn't really enforcing them, even though everybody signed they would obey those rules when they took the lease...

Maybe he should sue the local cable company for not providing the chanels, rather than his Condo?

Well the local cable company has 1 religious channel. That serves most major world religions. But Indian religions get the bulk of the religious programs. And it's in english. Digital cable doesn't give arabic language channels either. The satellite dish was the best option and since others ignored the condo rules he did too.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wigferth Ironwall

Maybe he should sue the local cable company for not providing the chanels, rather than his Condo?

---

You're joking right? That's just.....pathetic:embarassed:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gelatinous Cube

From the article, it appears that most of these regulations are happily unenforced when the condo owners bother to go through the board. This guy just up and installed a dish, without consulting anyone.

---

Even though he was told before that he couldnt so what exactly is their to argue? he knew he couldnt have one but just decided to call the cable guy anyway and then said it was his civil rights to get sattelite to watch arab tv.

Maybe im not fully grasping this...i barely have an idea of the Canadian government or its civil rights

Regardless of the fact the rules are "crap" and unenforced, they are there and he is a signitory to it.

Does he have rights, but that does NOT mean he can bulldoze what he wants over everything and everyone else merely as he wants things that are far from the normal Canadian culture.

He's happy enough to be Canadian for the safety, schooling, social support, crime etc etc and hence lives there. The minute he haeven forbit has to abide by rules he doesn't like he's squealing like a stuck pig.

~:smoking:

Some questions I would ask as the judge.

1. If Satelite TV is vital to practice your religion Islam then how come Islam predates satelite TV?

2. What programs are you intending to watch? (then inspect the credentials of that program passing Canadian anti-race hate laws)

3. How do Muslims today without Satelite practice their religion which is the same as yours (don't know if that one is too similar to the first one).

Would you all be reacting with so little sympathy if the complainant was a little old lady who could no longer get out to church, but wanted to have Jerry Falwell piped via satellite directly into her living room?

(As a complete aside, but apropos to the above post, would Jerry pass muster against Canada's hate laws?)

Quote:

---

Some questions I would ask as the judge.

1. If Satelite TV is vital to practice your religion Islam then how come Islam predates satelite TV?

2. What programs are you intending to watch? (then inspect the credentials of that program passing Canadian anti-race hate laws)

3. How do Muslims today without Satelite practice their religion which is the same as yours (don't know if that one is too similar to the first one).

---

not one of these points actually has any reference to the article let me summerise his case for you

He speaks arabic, he wants his kids to speak arabic thus he wants arabic TV - the cable company doesnt offer programs in arabic only in english (and maybe french not sure what part of Canada this is) by Canadian law the majority (Enlgish Speakers) are discriminating against the Minority (Arabic Speakers) by not offering the channels thus he has the right to the Satalite so he can get those channels - thats it now its a complete waste of court time but its a valid case - it has nothing to do with his Religon really its the language - this could just as easily be a spanish roman catholic looking to get spanish TV

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Goofball

(As a complete aside, but apropos to the above post, would Jerry pass muster against Canada's hate laws?)

---

Doubtful.

But her theoritical complaint would be shut down quick like. A look at the telecaster for the local stations that you can get without cable shows no less than 4 christian programs on sunday mornings.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Goofball

Would you all be reacting with so little sympathy if the complainant was a little old lady who could no longer get out to church, but wanted to have Jerry Falwell piped via satellite directly into her living room?

(As a complete aside, but apropos to the above post, would Jerry pass muster against Canada's hate laws?)

---

Bieng infirm does not suddenly mean that you can violate all laws. And in that case she's physically incapable of mobilising, where the person in the current case seems to be a selfish git.

If she can't get to church, sell up and move to a granny flat that's closer. After all, it's God that made her so infirm - God works in mysterious ways his wonders to perform.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sir Moody

not one of these points actually has any reference to the article let me summerise his case for you

He speaks arabic, he wants his kids to speak arabic thus he wants arabic TV - the cable company doesnt offer programs in arabic only in english (and maybe french not sure what part of Canada this is) by Canadian law the majority (Enlgish Speakers) are discriminating against the Minority (Arabic Speakers) by not offering the channels thus he has the right to the Satalite so he can get those channels - thats it now its a complete waste of court time but its a valid case - it has nothing to do with his Religon really its the language - this could just as easily be a spanish roman catholic looking to get spanish TV

---

In that case I would ask him why he can't just give his kids Arabic Lessons or arange for someone else to give them Arabic Lessons, and if the shows he wants to watch are things like the Ramadan Series which is essentially the Blood Lible in Arabic then of course it is relevant and is a fair question.

i agree but he does have a case thats all i was saying

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Horatius

In that case I would ask him why he can't just give his kids Arabic Lessons or arange for someone else to give them Arabic Lessons, and if the shows he wants to watch are things like the Ramadan Series which is essentially the Blood Lible in Arabic then of course it is relevant and is a fair question.

---

Because Arabic lessons aren't enough. He plainly wants his family to be able to watch TV from his own country, his own culture and his own religion, instead of what he quite fairly believes to be TV that does not suit his cultural requirements; do you really have a problem with that? Why is it that watching television from the Middle East is synonymous with watching Islamic extremist incitement in some peoples' minds?

Btw, if my crude grasp of the Canadian justice system is correct wouldn't it be the defending barrister asking those questions rather than the judge.

No judge, no offciial court of law at all really. And we don't use that barrister soliciter split at all (or the wigs). Just the human rights commssion. Although it is like a trial it was held in a room in the student union building of Dalhousie university. 3 days of testimony and such then the board of inquiries chair a local lawyer is deliberating until September.