Edita Stejskalová on the Czech draft housing support law and the ROMEA TV debate: "A guest in your home is akin to God"

AUDIO VERSION OF THE ARTICLE (CZECH ONLY)

The saying “A guest in your home is akin to God” probably best captures the need for the existence of a law on social housing here and its purpose from the start. For at least 10 years experts, especially from the nonprofit sector, have been lobbying for a law that would more effectively and specifically solve the risk of endangered groups in the population losing their housing, or the situation of homeless persons. They currently are about to see that effort come to fruition. As of 2025, a housing support law could come into effect here.

The basic argument made by nonprofit organizations addressing access to housing is and always has been the applicable, binding legislation flowing from both domestic and international law. The state, the territorial self-administration units and the entities on the real estate market must be governed by law. In practice it has long been demonstrated that too loose an interpretation of the laws which can be applied to housing has systematically prevented specific groups in the population not just from succeeding on the free market for objective reasons for quite some time now, but has also prevented their access to municipally-owned housing. People who are unable to arrange for and maintain their own housing through the free market constitute an ever-larger group of citizens (e.g. the working poor, the lower middle class), chiefly due to their low incomes or lack of income entirely.

Discrimination can also be labelled as a cause of lack of access. At the level of municipally-owned housing, the reasons for this state of affairs can be the rules for awarding access to apartment units, bidding procedures on rents, or the lack of such units entirely. In the recent debate with the minister, access to justice was less discussed, but for all that it was rejected strongly. At both the individual and systemic levels, providing access to justice would cause a rectification of the state of injustice from which housing policy has chronically suffered for a long time (discrimination, inactivity or low-intensity activity by municipalities and the state when it comes to housing policy implementation, segregation). The situation in this debate was all the more interesting in that addressing discrimination through audits and lawsuits was even doubted by some of the non-governmental organizations which have been appealing against the fact that the laws are not being upheld here. These organizations prefer building good relations, collaborations, and providing services in the form of guaranteed rents for landlords and intensive social work with tenants. They allege that such approaches have been tried and tested over X years of practice and that they work. According to them, the problem is that this practice is not being disseminated republic-wide. That’s my summary of the conclusions drawn from the discussion with Ivan Bartoš, Czech Minister for Regional Development.

VIDEO RECORDING OF THE DEBATE (CZECH ONLY)

The debate also sent the message that NGOs such as the Platform for Social Housing and Romodrom have participated in drafting the bill on housing support, as did the Government Commissioner for Roma Minority Affairs. The Czech Government Council for Roma Minority Affairs also got an opportunity to submit input. The civil society members of Romani origin on the Council did not contribute to that work, confirming yet again what most Romani people in this country claim, namely, that if the Council’s Romani members are not able to work on these issues, then the Council itself is useless.

The only person to deviate from the main line of the discussion was the “chronically disobedient” Míra Brož of the Konexe organization. He correctly defended the perspective that the state of injustice in this area can only be corrected by enforcing and upholding the Act on Antidiscrimination, for example. He also indicated that the bill being presented does not provide citizens enough legal protection.

Not every guest is welcome

Everybody participating in the discussion agreed discrimination is a problem. Nobody doubted that Roma are very frequently the victims of discrimination in access to housing. Romani people who “have incomes and are respectable” are subjected to discrimination, and logically those who “have no incomes and are not respectable” are also subjected to discrimination. In the case of rent defaulters, nationality or skin color is not determinative, because people of all color combinations can be considered “risky”. The claim was made that discrimination on an ethnic basis is declining, and that in such cases it is not discrimination at all, actually – and that was the beginning of the disintegration of the discussion as a whole.

Stories of individual, personal failures, including repeated failures, came to the forefront of the debate, as is typical. My favorite was the story told by the minister as follows: “Two years ago I personally addressed the case of a Mr. Miko – which is not the job of a minister. Thirty years in prison. Released. A bit of an odd gentleman, who abused and threatened me. He didn’t know what a mobile phone was, because when he went to prison, he’d never seen one…”.

Here I will just mention that the minister spoke of his experience with Miko the weirdo when the emancipation of the Roma was called for in the debate, something that the minister had naturally supported even as a “young” member of the Pirates. I admit that I still do not understand what lessons were supposed to be drawn from the story he told or what this experience meant. The only point on which I can agree is that is not the job of a minister to solve just Mr. Miko’s problems. The job of a minister, in my opinion, is to submit high-quality bills and conceptual measures in the housing policy sphere. A woman named Aranka who has 11 children was also mentioned by the minister during the debate, and she was handed over to the Czech Government Commissioner for Roma Minority Affairs, which probably means she’ll be taken care of, too.

Who are the “houseguests” in the bill on housing support?

The bill on housing support would just secondarily target those people who “have no incomes and are not respectable”. Thanks to intensive social work, they will all be re-educated to “have incomes and be respectable”, and that fact will then ameliorate the current housing shortage as well the risk of anybody losing their housing, republic-wide. The issue of “Roma with incomes who are respectable” and who also have a problem accessing housing remained on the sidelines of the entire debate. It is exactly that group of Roma, afflicted by discrimination on an ethnic basis, who demonstrate the absurdity of all the housing support bill’s measures, such as assistance, counseling, and rent guarantees to landlords.

Compassion and solidarity are being sold – but for whom?

I cannot help but believe that the “houseguests” of this bill on housing support will not be individuals, but first and foremost the NGOs providing social services here. That conclusion corresponds to the way the law was presented by both Minister Bartoš and by the director of the Agency for Social Inclusion, Martin Šimáček, accented by the Czech Government Commissioner for Roma Minority Affairs Lucie Fuková, the director of the NGO Romodrom, Nikola Taragoš, and the guests in the studio audience.

The welcome “houseguests” under the bill on housing support will primarily be NGOs specially entrusted with providing social services, and then the owners of real estate. During the debate, those discussing the bill said they anticipate that guaranteed rents will increase the numbers of landlords willing to rent even to people who are a bit “odd”, like Mr. Miko or Aranka and her 11 children. Why would they do that? During the discussion, what was heard from different quarters was that landlords are essentially nice people who are just interested in rents being paid properly and regularly. Minister Bartoš was deaf to those who spoke up, such as David Beňák (director of the Department for Integration at the Labor and Social Affairs Ministry and a Romani man) or Czech Government Commissioner for Roma Minority Affairs Lucie Fuková (a Romani woman), or the other Romani people sharing their personal experiences of the fact that neither Christian love, nor their educations, nor their incomes, nor their respectable social credit have ever convinced private real estate owners that they were civilized and decent enough to become tenants. These Roma were unable to persuade those landlords that they had the competencies and skills required for the art of renting housing. In short, they actually failed!

The crude, exploitative owners of overpriced, substandard apartment units and residential hotels remain in place on the real estate market here irrespective of all applicable laws. Everybody knows private real estate owners are independent, as businesspeople, and are under no obligation to collaborate with anybody. For a long time now, they have been performing a “service” not just to the state, but essentially to the NGOs as well. They perform the least amount of service to the towns and villages where they own property. The families and people who would otherwise live on the street are a secondary matter to them. The bill on housing support will not transform that practice, but that is exactly the transformation needed by low-income families, society in general, the state, the towns and the villages.

NGOs will continue to provide social services, including social welfare transfers from the state to private property owners irrespective of who they are. Welfare has not been anything other than their guaranteed income since the 1990s here. The bill on housing support perfects this service to the owners of real estate. The state will guarantee not just the payment of rents, but will also assess private property in cases where tenants cause damage (the bill counts on this happening a priori). We taxpayers will pay for all of this “goodness”. I have a genuine problem with the fact that all of those participating in the debate were selling compassion and solidarity with NGOs and with the rich. I have even more of a problem with the fact that this was presented as being part of something higher, more functional and more moral. We are meant to believe that through this bill, we will actually be giving the gift of affordable housing, of an approach based on empathy, of decent treatment and of a home itself to the groups in need here.

Who will pay for the houseguests’ tolerated visits, and from which finances?

We must pay attention to where all of the financing for this “goodness” is coming from. Anybody who could avoid this crucial question during the discussion, did so. The minister described the financing of these “support measures”, gradated according to the evaluation of the seriousness of a client’s situation, with the words that “it will be resolved somehow, or it will be fine”.

The entire process of re-education in the form of assistance and counseling to tenants will be paid for by the taxpayer. The budget of the state itself will have to finance the housing support bill’s implementation. The state will pay almost CZK 1.5 billion [EUR 61 million] annually (see the table below). The biggest cost is meant to be assistance and counseling in localities. Why? Currently social programs, e.g., the projects on social housing, are EU-financed to a significant extent. In the near future that EU financing will dry up, the expectation is as of 2027.

I spoke about this situation on 8 December 2020 in relation to the draft Czech Government Strategy on Roma Equality, Inclusion and Participation 2021+. None of the engagé members of the Romanonet NGO umbrella organization or the volunteer civil society members of the Council who are of Romani origin listened to me. Why was I raising it? What was I drawing attention to? If the reader makes the effort to look at the part of the Strategy that sets out the tasks, specifically the column called “how this measure will be paid for”, he will ascertain that the main source of financing the most essential, most significant tasks regarding Romani social inclusion is the EU. It is likely, therefore, that a significant proportion of the measures meant to aid Romani people with transforming their position in Czech society will either not be fulfilled or will stop being fulfilled for economic reasons.

Director of the NGO Romodrom, Nikola Taragoš, calls the bill on housing support a “game changer”

Even given all of the above, I consider a discussion in this format about the bill on housing support to be necessary, and this one was unique. For example, the director of Romodrom boosted the self-confidence of Ivan Bartoš, Minister for Regional Development, to dizzying heights when he called the bill (in English) a “game changer”. Loosely translated, that means “something that changes the world”. I must admit I do need more of an explanation as to how this bill on housing support is going to change the world, but I will content myself with an explanation of how it will change the Czech Republic.

According to Taragoš, the beauty of the bill is marred only by the fact that it does not count on introducing a housing ombudsman. He then immediately offered his aid to the minister with designing such a post, free of charge. The minister rejected the offer. He may have done so because one housing ombudsman at the local level was set up by Brno City Hall in 2017, and the Municipal Department of Prague 6 had one back in 2011. As minister, he has the opportunity to receive information directly from the state administration if an “idea” interests him from the local level. Moreover, the Constitution and other laws regulate interference with municipal and municipal department self-government by the state. Romodrom’s super-capability and super-knowledge are not enough, I dare say. The existing ombudsman, whose scope is country-wide, naturally concentrates on the field of housing at the level of the state.

Bartoš, as the “host” of the bill on housing support, conceived of this discussion as some kind of bad re-election campaign

I admit that after listening to this debate more than once, I kept asking myself: Why should citizens of Romani nationality vote for the Pirates in the upcoming local and parliamentary elections? I do not see one rational reason to do so after this debate. Shouldn’t it be enough for us that by casting our vote, we will better block any influence of the “Freedom and Direct Democracy” party of Tomio Okamura (SPD Tomia Okamury) in Government, as is frequently heard from Roma across the republic? What we should be demanding from those who manage political parties here are leaders who will not dare say to our faces that our experiences with ethnic discrimination are just a matter of our own individual, personal feelings. Bartoš literally said the following in reaction to Brož (of Konexe) during the debate: “…law enforcement does not work on prejudice”, “…this has been built up over generations… it’s a feeling that’s been built up for generations. We can’t do anything about feelings through legislation.” That was followed by the justification that Bartoš has been a Government member for just two years now, as he literally said in the discussion.

Essentially the same thing has been shamelessly said by all of the ministers who have been participating in this debate series on ROMEA TV so far, such as Interior Minister Vít Rakušan (Mayors and Independents – STAN) and Justice Minister Petr Blažek (Civic Democratic Party – ODS). The reactions of the Romani men and women who have been listening to these statements has always been absurdly humble, and for most of them, sufficiently explanatory. These have been conclusions and opinions which were highly insulting and they have remained without any adequate response. The fact that the Romani people who have been participating in these discussions have failed to react to these remarks discredits them. This is a problem both of their own consciences and of their lack of professional preparation.

Legal protection of the Roma is the only solution on which the Government must base any housing policy impacting the Romani national minority

The harmful impacts of stigmatization are shown through this discrimination on an ethnic basis and influence the convictions, experiences, perceptions, self-acceptance and self-worth of those being stigmatized at the level of the individual human being. The extent of a problem such as biased behavior can be documented by both the Government’s own reports and through the international reports on Romani people’s situations in all areas of life. Biased behavior does not remain just at the level of latent racism, or of a “feeling”, but displays itself through the breaking of many laws. Discrimination on an ethnic basis is actually banned (even in the Czech Republic, naturally) from the perspective of both domestic and European (international) law. During the debate, however, it was repeatedly stated that obtaining a court injunction against discrimination is not the most appropriate instrument to use for this problem. According to those who participated in this discussion, a much more effective instrument will be this proposed bill on housing support. I disagree. I will now give several examples as to why.

David Beňák, director of the Department of Integration at the Labor and Social Affairs Ministry, said that we have just a minimum of court decisions on these issues. I dare say it does not depend on the number of such decisions, but on the fact that they exist in the first place. Be that as it may, there are actually more court decisions in the field of housing discrimination than there are in the field of education.

In the field of education there is the European Court of Human Rights judgment, D.H. and Others vs. the Czech Republic from 2007 which, on the basis of statistical data, inferred that the Act on Education was causing the indirect discrimination of Romani children in their access to education. The consequence of that judgment is that the practice in the Czech Republic has to be transformed at the level of the system. At the individual level, this judgment protects the rights of any Romani person who is discriminated against when accessing education, whether directly or indirectly. It is possible to refer to this judgment when bringing antidiscrimination lawsuits and to enforce the ban on discrimination that already exists. As an example, I will mention here the case of Jaroslav Suchý, who referred to the D.H. judgment in his own lawsuit claiming he had been assigned to a “special school” solely because he is ethnic Roma. The Czech Republic decided to pay him compensation. He settled out of court for CZK 100,0000 [EUR 4,000].

In cases of discrimination in access to housing, we already have several breakthrough court decisions at the level of the Czech Republic. It is even possible to state that we have been more successful at enforcing justice when it comes to access to housing than in any other area of Romani social inclusion. The Czech Republic is familiar with judicial practices and methods for proving discrimination. It is primarily necessary to work with these and refer to them when introducing measures that are systemic. Last but not least, we do have a whole set of institutions which are legally obliged to perform supervision of the ban on ethnic discrimination. These are, for example, the Constitutional Court, the Czech School Inspectorate, the Czech Trade Inspection Authority, the Labor Inspectorate, the Office for the Protection of Economic Competition, the Public Defender of Rights, the Supreme Administrative Court and the Supreme Audit Office.

The first verdict I will briefly present here is from 11 August 2015. The Constitutional Court issued finding N 138/78 SbNU 159 – discrimination when awarding access to housing on the basis of membership in the ethnic group of Roma. Its full wording is available online. Two Romani families who lived in Kladno in the Masokombinát residential hotel, one of the worst ghettos in the Czech Republic, sued the City of Kladno, Czech Republic, the Czech Interior Ministry and the Czech Labor and Social Affairs Ministry for their illegal interference with their personality rights because they were subjected to discriminatory and segregatory behavior on the basis of their Romani nationality when attempting to meet their housing needs. The Constitutional Court came to the conclusion in this matter that a first-instance court decision had not been convincingly or properly justified because the lower courts had not sufficiently dealt with the plaintiffs’ allegations that they were indirectly discriminated against by the City of Kladno’s housing policy on the basis of their ethnicity. According to the Constitutional Court justices, the right of the Romani plaintiffs to a fair judicial proceedings had been violated under Article 36 paragraph 1 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights and Freedoms. Kladno never demonstrated in any of the subsequent proceedings that it could explain the ethnic composition of the inhabitants of Masokombinát on any basis other than that of their “race”. The case was closed through out-of-court settlement in the amount of approximately CZK 200,000 [EUR 8,000] and a public apology. The plaintiffs were then awarded “normal” apartment units on a housing estate in Kladno. Another effect of the lawsuit was the closure of the “Masokombinát” facility while the case was still being heard. A socially excluded locality managed, therefore, to be disrupted on the basis of the fact that its aim had been to segregate Kladno’s Romani residents away from the rest of society into substandard, undignified units not fit for human habitation. More than 200 Romani people lived in that ghetto, a significant proportion of whom were children.

Another example is the abolition of provisions in the law on aid to those in material distress allowing for the creation of so-called “benefit-free zones”. The Constitutional Court justices abolished that provision on 31 August 2021. This halted a practice in which several persons in material distress were denied their right to housing support even though they were eligible for it. The measure also caused indirect discrimination on the basis of ethnicity, enacted by local politicians. The “measures of a general nature”, as they were called, contravened the constitutional right to have one’s basic living conditions provided for in the housing sphere. According to the Constitutional Court justices, the “benefit-free zones” were an unsystematic reaction to the problem of social exclusion, which has long not been resolved in any satisfactory way here, and this reaction has not had any longer-lasting effect on that problem. Their constitutional incompatibility was derived from the fact that they contravened the principle of equal dignity according to Article 1 paragraph 1 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights and Freedoms.

A third important example is the lawsuit brought by the activist Lenka Balogová in collaboration with the Public Defender of Rights (the ombudsman). The office of the ombudsman tested real estate brokers and their willingness to lease apartments to Romani people. In 2013, Balogová called advertisements for rental housing in Lovosice and was rejected by a real estate broker who told her that a landlord did not want to lease his property to Romani people. The judge decided Balogová had been discriminated against on the basis of her Romani nationality. Given that she had placed the calls as part of a survey, the judge did not award her compensation, but did order that she receive a public apology. This case is important namely for its method of proving discrimination on the basis of ethnicity by an institution, using “testing”. I personally consider that investments from the state budget into the provision of such perpetual testing would be economically more interesting and more effective in systemic terms than the measures in the bill on housing support.

The EU is fighting prejudice based on racialization primarily by enforcing the right to dignity and protecting both civil and human rights. Since the year 2000, the Czech state is obliged to fulfill and respect EU Directive 2000/43/ES in its legislation and policies, which introduces the principle of equal treatment of persons irrespective of their ethnicity or “race”. According to a decision by the European Committee for Social Rights (hereinafter the “Committee”) in the case of the European Roma and Travellers Forum (ERTF) vs. the Czech Republic, this country is not fulfilling this obligation in the field of housing. According to the Committee, since 2016 the Czech Republic has been in violation of Article 16 of the European Social Charter for its lack of essential guarantees when evicting families of Romani origin, its failure to provide adequate housing to Romani people, the territorial segregation of Romani people, and their overall substandard housing conditions.

I have briefly introduced several examples from judicial practice here to show that racist (anti-Roma) biases can be successfully addressed by enforcing the Act on Antidiscrimination through auditing and through lawsuits.

In conclusion, I would like to inform Minister Bartoš that antigypsyism and racism are not just a “feeling” in the Czech Republic, but have fatal impacts on individual lives. Discrimination against Romani people in all areas of their lives is a fact that applies to both history and the present, and it is incorporated into the system of this society. Antigypsyism as a structural matter persists above all as a consequence of the fact that politicians ignore and minimize its destructive influence on the basic civil and human rights of the Roma. I am convinced that there is no more effective instrument for transforming the position of the Romani minority than enforcing our equality before the law.

It is in that sense that I am calling on Minister Bartoš not to submit this bill on housing support to the Government. On the contrary, I appeal to him to instead arrange for the enforcement of the Act on Antidiscrimination to become an affordable matter by investing into advocacy (e.g., arranging for the financing of discrimination “testing”), that he aid with the expansion of pro bono law practice in the cases of discrimination which are brought under the Act on Antidiscrimination, and that he use his influence as a politician to educate both bureaucrats in the state administration and his fellow politicians regarding their obligation to uphold the EU Race Directive, which in this country introduces the principle of equal treatment irrespective of ethnicity or “race”.