"Sexual or other orientation" - Part 12: the end of the saga - maybe
Those of you who have been reading my blog for a long enough time probably remember the unique Article 14 of the Regulation on Public Order in the Bulgarian town of Pazardzhik prohibiting “the demonstration and expression of sexual or other orientation in public places”. For those of you who are newer here or have forgotten the story, here is the beginning of that legal saga, and here is the most dramatic action-movie-like episode of the protests against Article 14.
Now I see haven’t reported some of the other legal battle that run parallel to the main “plot”: a local court, and consequently the Supreme Administrative Court, ruled against Article 14 on the grounds of some procedural violation at its adoption, which meant that it simply could be proposed and voted anew.
Now here is the latest development on the really important trial: Last Friday, the Supreme Administrative Court finally ruled on the appeal of last year’s ruling of the Commission for Protection against Discrimination that Article 14 was discriminatory.
It’s a long text, so I’m translating only what I feel is most relevant:
The specific provision examined by the Commission contains discriminatory attitude on the grounds of sexual orientation against persons who are not heterosexual. As rightly pointed out by the Commission for Protection against Discrimination, the official position itself of the Municipal Council of Pazardzhik on about its adoption of the controversial text of the Regulation on Public Order contains discriminatory attitude against person with non-heterosexual orientation: "... does not prohibit anyone from expressing their sexual orientation, but does not wish that to happen in public places. Sexual orientation is a deeply intimate personal choice and each display of it leads to violation of rights" ... It is stated in the proponent’s motives that this provision aims to protect the rights of citizens with "normal sexual orientation" by not allowing demonstrations of gay organizations. These data are sufficient to justify the legally founded conclusion of existence of direct discrimination on the grounds of the protected class of sexual orientation. The adoption of this prohibition creates a hostile, offensive or intimidating environment and violates the dignity of a person or a circle of persons with "non-standard sexual orientation." The legitimate purpose is irrelevant in this case. The prohibition pursuant to Art. 5 of the Protection against Discrimination Act is absolute, which means that any treatment undermining human dignity and creating a hostile environment cannot be justified even by a legitimate purpose.
................................................................................................
the Supreme Administrative Court hereby:
REJECTS the repeal by the Chairman of the Municipal Council of Pazardzhik of Decision № 107 of 11 May 2010, stated in Case № 271/2009 of the Commission for Protection against Discrimination.
CONDEMNS the Municipal Council of Pazardzhik to pay the Commission for Protection against Discrimination the trial costs for this case, which amount to BGN 150 (one hundred and fifty levs
This decision may be appealed within 14 days after the Parties are notified of its adoption with an appeal to a five-member panel of the Supreme Administrative Court.
So our “heroes” still have one more chance to appeal the court ruling (as part of their election campaign), although we don’t expect them to have any success.
Here is a not perfect, but decent enough coverage of the court ruling and the whole story in English by a Bulgarian news source.
For those who understand Bulgarian: You can find the full original text of the court decision and a brief overview of the prehistory of the case here.