Human Rights on private land leased by a Local Council
Cursuswalker
If a Local Council leases land from a private owner in order that it can be
used as public land, does the Human Rights Act 1998 apply to activities
carried out on that land just as much as on land owned outright by the
Council?
Next question:
Can a Council accept a lease that contains restrictions on land-use that
would allow it to deny convention rights effectively on behalf of the
land-owner.
Next question:
Would the answer to the last question be affected by whether or not the
lease were signed before or after the Human Rights Act came into force?
These questions are asked specifically in the context of Article 9 (Freedom
of Thought, Conscience and Religion):
source: http://www.hmso.gov.uk/acts/acts1998/19980042.htm
" 1. Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion;
this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief and freedom,
either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to
manifest his religion or belief, in worship, teaching, practice and
observance.
2. Freedom to manifest one's religion or beliefs shall be subject only to
such limitations as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic
society in the interests of public safety, for the protection of public
order, health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of
others."
For some more specific context please follow this link:
http://www.bardicarts.com/anderidagorsedd/announcements.html
The Public Liability insurance has been obtained since this link was put up.
Please note that I am not interested in a discussion as to the rights and
wrongs of my/our beliefs, just of the potential legal implications in
relation to the Human Rights Act 1998.
--
CURSUSWALKER
...
/|\
Bystander
"Cursuswalker" <urpSPAMMERS_BLOW_GOATS@_I_HAVE_PROOFcursuswalker.co.uk>
wrote in message news:c6gl4n$cut$1...@newsg4.svr.pol.co.uk...
There is none. The Act applies to the actions of the Authority and the land
has nothing to do with it.
Steve Walker
> A simple question (??):
>
> If a Local Council leases land from a private owner in order that it
> can be used as public land, does the Human Rights Act 1998 apply to
> activities carried out on that land just as much as on land owned
> outright by the Council?
By declining you permission to use the land for a religious ceremony,
they are not infringing your right to hold such beliefs. You're
flogging a dead horse imho, ianal.
Peter Crosland
> 2. Freedom to manifest one's religion or beliefs shall be subject only to
> such limitations as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a
democratic
> society in the interests of public safety, for the protection of public
> order, health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms
of
> others."
In other words you do not have an unfettered right to do exactly as you like
without any regard for the rights of other people. The sort of conditions
the Council have proposed are perfectly reasonable within the law. The fact
that the Council lease the land is of no relevance.
Cursuswalker
"Bystander" <marloviann...@fsmail.net> wrote in message
news:408bea64$0$20514$cc9e...@news-text.dial.pipex.com...
>
> There is none. The Act applies to the actions of the Authority and the
land
> has nothing to do with it.
So in other words whether or not they were held to have breached the Act
would not be affected by where the event they acted against took place?
The implication is that the private land-owner COULD take action about
events on their land, but the Council, as leasee of the land, cannot?
--
CURSUSWALKER
...
/|\
Cursuswalker
"Steve Walker" <spam...@beeb.net> wrote in message
news:c6h2oi$bee03$1...@ID-166030.news.uni-berlin.de...
>
> By declining you permission to use the land for a religious ceremony,
> they are not infringing your right to hold such beliefs. You're
> flogging a dead horse imho, ianal.
But what about the right to manifest belifs in public? Every piece of land
is owned by someone, so surely we can only manifest our beliefs in public on
land that is publically owned (or leased)?
--
CURSUSWALKER
...
/|\
Cursuswalker
"Peter Crosland" <g6...@spamcop.net> wrote in message
news:c6hc8a$c0cfh$1...@ID-207161.news.uni-berlin.de...
> Your original post gives the answer.
>
> > 2. Freedom to manifest one's religion or beliefs shall be subject only
to
> > such limitations as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a
> democratic
> > society in the interests of public safety, for the protection of public
> > order, health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and
freedoms
> > of others."
>
> In other words you do not have an unfettered right to do exactly as you
like
> without any regard for the rights of other people.
Where did I say we did? I would suggest following the link
http://www.bardicarts.com/anderidagorsedd/announcements.html
You will note we have addressed all the concerns raised and are specifically
denying the main concerns re. use of the picnic-site.
Having been attending these events for 5 years I know our denials to be
accurate.
As for the parking, we have now been told by the Council that nothing can be
done to stop us parking there, even though this was the initial issue raised
by the Council.
In the light of this can you suggest to me where "such limitations as are
prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society in the interests
of public safety, for the protection of public order, health or morals, or
for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others" applies to what we
do?
> The sort of conditions
> the Council have proposed are perfectly reasonable within the law. The
fact
> that the Council lease the land is of no relevance.
Okay, can you clarify what conditions you mean?
--
CURSUSWALKER
...
/|\
Peter Crosland
> prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society in the
interests
> of public safety, for the protection of public order, health or morals, or
> for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others" applies to what
we
> do?
>
> > The sort of conditions
> > the Council have proposed are perfectly reasonable within the law. The
> fact
> > that the Council lease the land is of no relevance.
All of them as far as I can see. What you don't seem to be able to grasp is
that the Council are not trying to impose any conditions on you that they
would not impose on anybody else who wanted to hold an event there. In other
words they are NOT, repeat NOT, discriminating against you in any way. The
landowner, and the leaseholder, have their own rights that they are entitled
to have respected just as much as you are.
Cursuswalker
>
> > In the light of this can you suggest to me where "such limitations as
are
> > prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society in the
> > interests of public safety, for the protection of public order, health
or morals, or
> > for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others" applies to what
> > we do?
> >
>
> All of them as far as I can see.
I'm sorry, but just to be clear, you are saying that our events are illegal
AND contrary to the interests of public safety, public order, public health
and public morals, and also that they threaten the rights and freedoms of
others?
I know I said "I am not interested in a discussion as to the rights and
wrongs of my/our beliefs" but I am fascinated to see your reasoning on these
points.
> What you don't seem to be able to grasp is
> that the Council are not trying to impose any conditions on you that they
> would not impose on anybody else who wanted to hold an event there.
But if you read the contents of the link you would see that initially they
asked us to apply for permission and to obtain £5 million of public
liability insurance (Which we have). The only problem at that point was the
parking.
They THEN said that the land-owner had added further complaints. My
questions relate to whether they are allowed to accept a lease that allows
them to bow to the personal dislikes of the landowner on a piece of land
that is leased for public-use.
> In other
> words they are NOT, repeat NOT, discriminating against you in any way. The
> landowner, and the leaseholder, have their own rights that they are
entitled
> to have respected just as much as you are.
If this was a piece of private land, not leased to the Council or any other
public-body, then we would not pursue this through the Human Rights Act,
since only a public body can breach that Act. BUT, as I have made clear, it
is leased TO a public-body (the Council), which has to abide by the Act, and
cannot just refuse permission without regard to it, leaseholder or no
leaseholder.
At least that last point is my actual enquiry.
--
CURSUSWALKER
...
/|\
Peter Crosland
judicial review?
Cursuswalker
>
> You really have no chance but as you are so certain why not apply for a
> judicial review?
Watch this space...
--
CURSUSWALKER
...
/|\
Steve Walker
No, you can buy your own - do you think mosques & churches are built on
public land?
Cursuswalker
> Cursuswalker wrote:
> > "Steve Walker"
> >
> >> By declining you permission to use the land for a religious ceremony,
> >> they are not infringing your right to hold such beliefs. You're
> >> flogging a dead horse imho, ianal.
> >
> > But what about the right to manifest belifs in public? Every piece of
> > land is owned by someone, so surely we can only manifest our beliefs
> > in public on land that is publically owned (or leased)?
>
> No, you can buy your own - do you think mosques & churches are built on
> public land?
So how do Church fetes get to be run?
Or Remembrance services?
--
CURSUSWALKER
...
/|\
Peter Crosland
> > judicial review?
>
> Watch this space...
You have the money do you? Budget at least £10,000 as the bare minimum.
