Commission for Protection against Discrimination (CPD) did not respect the legally prescribed period for responding on the submission and verification of the facts and application of the laws, assessed Macedonian Association of Young Lawyers in analyzing the opinion of the Commission for Protection against Discrimination in the case of use of offensive, disrespectful and demeaning speech to persons with a homosexual orientation to teaching aids (script) used in the Philosophy Faculty.
The analysis states that the Association for critical approach to gender and sexuality “Subversive Front – Skopje” and the Association for Social and Multicultural Development “Women’s Alliance – Skopje”, with support from USAID’s project for support of human rights, implemented by the Macedonian young lawyers Association, on July 13, 2015 submitted a complaint to the Commission for protection against discrimination against Philosophy Faculty – Skopje and against professor Blagoja Janakov, a professor at the Faculty of Philosophy because of the script “Personality (Psychology of personality)” authored by Janakov. The Commission, exceeded the legally prescribed deadline for opinion by four times.
“The statutory period within which the Commission is obliged to give its opinion on the complaint is 90 days (art. 28 para. 1 of the Prevention and Protection against Discrimination) without the possibility of extension of this term. The complaint was duly filed on July 13, 2015, and the opinion was delivered on July 1, 2016 and one year later. Such undue delays in the procedure introduced reasonable doubt in the commission’s capacity to protect citizens from discrimination “reads the analysis.
Macedonian Young Lawyers Association points out that the Commission also violated the regulations by the rationalization of the declaration of Faculty of Philosophy – Skopje and author of the article submitted seven months after expiry of the legal deadline.
“The person against whom a complaint may declare the allegations within 15 days of receipt (Art. 27 para. 2 of LPPD). The Commission submitted a request for a statement on July 24, 2015 which is answered on April 8, 2016, seven months after the legal deadline. The deadline for submission of a statement on the complaint is contained in a mandatory provision and as such is mandatory and does not allow stretching and optional application. The statement is therefore untimely and as such should not be considered when determining the facts and decision of opinion, “the document said.
The Association contest the part of the Commission’s opinion stating that the disputed text does not contain words that refer to offend or incite hatred. They note that the author distorting the facts offends people with homosexual orientation. The association points to the next part: “Well, as is it so, there isn’t impediment for marriage between man and beast (including if you are of the same sex, for example male elephants and male person). Gays and other will require the “legalization of child prostitution and legalize marital relationships with androids, virtual creatures, artwork, pots etc …” and the sentence “if anyone freely opted for a homosexual relationship let them enter into such a relationship and let them enjoy it. If if anyone freely opted for love and marriage with hippopotamus – let them do it and let them enjoy it… “.
The analysis states that the Commission decision in the opinion is guided by assumptions, not facts, so stated that the author used appropriate research results and refer appropriate scientific authorities that underpins the presented scientific arguments.
“The text contains exclusively personal, unscientific based views and above all prejudices of the author, against homosexuals and so called developed democratic and free world. The author does not present any research on which he came to the attitudes he is presenting nor he refers relevant literature (excluding Nicolosi for the part for the treatment of homosexuality). The author does not explain the use of any harsh words nor he present argumentative attitudes, backed up based on the use of any method of research that is inherent in science, “states the analysis.
The Association reminds that the majority of science have a clear and consistent position on homosexuality and that the World Health Organization, American Association of Psychologists and the American Association of Psychiatrists do not consider homosexuality a disease.
“Any dissent from this must be justified and supported by research results. The disputed text isn’t and therefore can not be taken seriously as a scientific text” it’s said by the Association.
At the end of the analysis states that the submission of the petition to the CPD, proved ineffective because it does not achieve the aim of an objective assessment of the content of the script, and thereby the protection of those who are discriminated against and encouraging hate speech because of their sexual orientation, taking into account the fact that this script educates and will educate students and future psychologists.