No. 07-00-444/2017-02  Date: 25 January 2018

OPINION

The present opinion was issued following a complaint by Association “DSZ” filed on behalf of a group of persons, against psychotherapist J.F. on account of a statement he made when he was a guest in a Television “P.” morning show. In their complaint the complainant stated that when he was a guest in a morning show on  . . . . J.F. had equated same sex orientation with zoophilia calling it unreal and unnatural, that he had also said that same sex oriented persons had no desire to work on their personal and human development, and that with his comments he had suggested that same sex orientation was an illness thus humiliating LGBT community members and perpetrating an act of discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation as a personal characteristic. In his declaration responding to allegations contained in the complaint, J.F. stated, inter alia, that  he rejected all claims made in the complaint, that he had been invited to be a guest in that particular morning show of Television “P” and that the topic of the show was zoophilia, and that if one were to listen carefully to the whole show it would transpire that with his statements he had in no way discriminated anyone on the grounds of a personal characteristic – sexual orientation; that he had stated during the show that “his fellow psychologists should not be so politicized and that if the gay lobby or some other lobby was paying for something to be taken at its face value, then an illusion was created that such conduct was real and natural, while people were not concentrated on developing their human potential.” Further he stated that in the course of the show he had not stated that gay lobby was a uniform one, nor that he had designated same sex orientation as a segment of population which did not wish to use its human potential, but that what he had said related to sexually deviant behavior such as zoophilia, pedophili, etc. He stressed that each person was entitled to choose his/her own sexual orientation, and he was of the opinion that he too was entitled to speak from the standpoint of his profession and science, but he also said that he was sorry if he had inadvertently hurt anybody’s feelings regarding sexual orientation thus making them feel discriminated. The Commissioner for the Protection of Equality pursued the complaint procedure during which allegations made in the complaint, declarations responding to those allegations, recording of the aforementioned morning show as well as the messages sent by J.F. were analyzed. When analyzing those contentious statements, the Commissioner for the Protection of Equality considered, on the one hand, the practice of the European Court of Human Rights, the where and the when of the statements, as well as the importance of the freedom of expression, while on the other hand the Commissioner had to take into consideration the position of the LGBT population in our society. In addition, the fact that J.F.’s statements had been made on national television also had to be taken into account. In the course of the complaint procedure it has been ascertained that when speaking of zoophilia phenomenon and when asked by the TV host whether something like that existed at all, in the section of the show running from 2.50^th  to 3.39^th  minute, the defendant, inter alia, said: “Of course it exists and that is considered as a form of sexual deviation. I have previously spoken about homosexuality being the only thing excluded from this classification, now however we are talking about zoophilia, a topical issue, something that will come to be topical as those are global trends, in much the same way as with pedophila, prostitution, etc.” In addition, during the show he had said: “I do not know the gay lobby, such lobby, pays for all this and an illusion is created that something like this is real. In principle, it is not real, in principle it is not natural.” Bearing in mind the whole context of statements given by J.F. while he was a guest of the morning show, the Commissioner for the Protection of Equality has ascertained that on that occasion ideas and views were expressed which are disturbing and degrading and which insult the dignity of persons of sexual orientation other than heterosexual, resulting in fear or hostile, degrading and offensive environment, due to which the Commissioner has issued its opinion stating that J.F. had violated provisions of Article 12 of the Law on the Prohibition of Discrimination. For this reason, a recommendation was issued to J.F. to extend his both public or written apology through media outlets to complainants on account of discrimination against members of LGBT population within a period of 15 days from receiving the present opinion containing recommendation and to refrain in the future from giving statements which offend the dignity of LGBT population.