Bulgaria Court Rules in Favour of Woman Who Called All Gay People “Perverts”
October 13, 2023Milena Slavova expressed her opinion about gay parades, and did not discriminate against gays. This was decided by the Supreme Administrative Court in the high-profile case filed against the rock icon due to a Facebook post by two individuals and a youth LGBTQ+ organisation.
According to ‘Bulgaria News’, the Supreme Administrative Court annulled as incorrect the decision of the Administrative Court of Sofia-city in administrative case 6188 of 2022, which annulled the decision of the Commission for Protection against Discrimination (CPC) of 10.06.2022 in connection with a complaint filed against Milena Slavova from two natural persons and the Youth LGBT organisation “Deistvie”, reported the press centre of the court.
Image Credit: Canva
The reason for the complaint through the Civil Code was a post by the singer on her personal Facebook profile, where a text with the following content was published: “I’m sure I don’t support gay parades! Woe to normal people, we are already suffocating from the brazenness and flaunting of various perverts. And I don’t apologize for my words.”
This publication was discussed in an interview with Milena Slavova, which was broadcast on 22.06.2021 on the air of Nova TV during the program “Hello, Bulgaria” (7-9.30 a.m.), in which she explained her opinion using and express: “We look at you, even though we don’t want to,” “Many people see you who don’t want to see you. And children.”, “You push yourself,” “You are arrogant,” “Why does he have to flaunt it? Am I showing off that I like men? Why should he show off? It’s a very personal thing.” “These kids don’t have a choice. Where they take them, there they go.”
It was the publication and statements that were perceived by the two individuals and the Youth LGBT organisation “Action” as containing offensive definitions and baseless accusations of immoral behaviour directed at the LGBT community based on the protected sign of “sexual orientation”, constituting “harassment”, therefore they appealed to the Civil Code with a request to establish a violation of the prohibition of discrimination in the form of “harassment”. After a thorough and comprehensive discussion of all relevant facts, the commission has accepted that the publication and the statement represent the personal opinion regarding “Sofia Pride 2021”, which is not a manifestation of direct discrimination against LGBTI persons, does not contain offensive qualifications, encouragement to commit discrimination, respectively do not constitute harassment, incitement and harassment within the meaning of the Anti-Discrimination Act.
The CCD ruled with its decision that there was no discrimination and because of this the two individuals and the Youth LGBT organisation “Deistvie” filed a complaint against the decision of the CCD before the Administrative Court Sofia – city. The trial court upheld the appeals and remanded the act to the commission for a new ruling. Milena Slavova and the Commission for Protection against Discrimination, for their part, filed cassation appeals before the Supreme Administrative Court against the decision of the Administrative Court of Sofia-city.
The supreme magistrates accept that the overall behaviour of the cassation applicant Milena Slavova demonstrates the distinction she makes between “participants in gay parades” and “persons of homosexual orientation”. In the disapproval of gay parades, expressed in a vivid language, there is no hidden meaning of denying the right to self-determination of some of the participants in gay parades. This is clearly not intended to undermine the dignity of a particular person because of his sexual orientation, and moreover, this disapproval is capable of creating a generally hostile, degrading, humiliating, insulting or threatening environment towards persons of homosexual orientation as a distinct group.
The public position of Milena Slavova does not imply possession or aspiration to acquire official public power, through which she is able to impose her opinion in the regulation of public relations, including regarding the holding of gay parades, unlike, for example, the mayor of Moscow and the mayor of Warsaw, which became the occasion for the ECtHR to file the cases Alekseyev v. Russia and Bączkowski and Others v. Poland.
Her public image of a person with an alternative to public opinion also a priori excludes the possibility of her creating a stereotype of public behaviour that stigmatises a group of persons based on their sexual orientation, instills hostility, intolerance and intolerance towards them. The clearly expressed understanding of the author of the statements about the lack of homogeneity of the LGBTQ+ community and maintaining stable positive personal relations with individual representatives of it are also decisive for the conclusion that the occasional use of individual phrases with a negative content does not reach a “certain level” and “threshold of cruelty’ for defining them as a manifestation of discrimination.
The form and context in which the statements were made, namely their personalisation to individual events (gay parade) and individual participants in them (exact description with appearance and specific action) are indicative of the fact that they are not directed at a fundamental aspect of the identity of the LGBTQ+ community and were unable to affect the human dignity of its representatives. Therefore, in this case, the circle of persons who adopted the publication and speech is irrelevant for their qualification as “harassment” within the meaning of § 1, item 1 of the additional provisions of the Law on Protection against Discrimination.
Having reached an opposite legal conclusion, the ASSG issued an illegal and unfounded court decision, with which it canceled an act of the Commission for Protection against Discrimination, in accordance with the applicable substantive legal norms and international standards for the protection of fundamental rights, including the right under Art. 10 of the ECHR (freedom of expression). The reasons of the CCP regarding freedom of speech are fully in line with the decisions of the Constitutional Court of the Republic of Bulgaria, in which Art. 39, para. 2 of the Constitution of the Republic of Bulgaria, the ECtHR practice under Art. 10 in connection with Art. 14 of the ECHR and of the SAC pursuant to the Law on Protection from Discrimination.
The decision of the SAC in administrative case 425 of 2023 is not subject to appeal.
Read related myGwork articles here:
Bulgarian Officials Ordered To Provide ID For Lesbian Couple’s Baby
Thugs “Led By Bulgarian Presidential Candidate” Destroy LGBTQ+ Center
Politicians Attempt to Stop LGBT+ Exhibit in Bulgaria
Keep up to date with the latest myGnews