Bulgaria / Commission for Protection against Discrimination / Decision No 170 of 23 April 2018 on case file No 38/2016

Country

Bulgaria

Title

Bulgaria / Commission for Protection against Discrimination / Decision No 170 of 23 April 2018 on case file No 38/2016

View full Case

Year

2018

Decision/ruling/judgment date

Monday, April 23, 2018

Incident(s) concerned/related

Incitement to violence or hatred
Other forms of hate speech

Related Bias motivation

Religion

Groups affected

Muslims

Court/Body type

National Human Rights Body

Court/Body

Commission for Protection against Discrimination (Комисия за защита от дискриминация)

Key facts of the case

The case concerns harassment on the grounds of religion. The defendant (K.F.) was found guilty of harassment on the grounds of religion for posting online an interactive map showing the ‘invasion of hordes of orcs of Islam in Europe’. The map, based on UNHCR data, was showing the ‘exact number of terrorists’ each European country had received between 2012 and 2015.

Main reasoning/argumentation

The defendant argued that his purpose was to express his own opinion on terrorism and to present information about the terrorist organisation Islamic State and about the way it infiltrated its own members among the peaceful refugees so that they could organise terrorist acts in Europe. The Commission for Protection against Discrimination concluded that, irrespective of its original purpose, the project had resulted in humiliating the dignity of the persons identifying themselves as Muslims and could provoke negative attitudes and feelings, ignorance and hatred against such people.

Is the case related to the application of the Framework Decision on Racism and Xenophobia, the Racial Equality Directive?

Key issues (concepts, interpretations) clarified by the case

The key issue clarified by the case is the interpretation of harassment of the grounds of religion. According to the Commission for Protection against Discrimination the purpose of the act had no mitigating effect on the gravity of the offence and despite the alleged purpose to inform the public about a terrorist organisation, the publication contributed to the construction of a stereotype against persons of Islamic religion.

Results (sanctions, outcome) and key consequences or implications of the case

The Commission for Protection against Discrimination declared that the publication was an act of harassment on the grounds of religion and ordered the defendant to refrain from committing similar acts in the future.

Key quotation in original language and its unofficial translation into English with reference details

"Твърдението на ответната страна е, че целта на статия е не да се засегне определен кръг лица, а да се представи информация относно терористичната организация Ислямска държава, която инфилтрира в редиците на мирните бежанци свои представители, които организират терористични актове в държави от ЕС. Според настоящия състав този факт сам по себе си не омаловажава нарушението на ЗЗДискр., тъй като за да изрази собственото си отношение по проблема, авторът на публикацията е използвал изразни средства, като цитираните по-горе, които заклеймяват и внушават враждебност спрямо лицата, изповядващи посочената религия, като им дава оценка за нещо вредно. Използваните изрази (“орди орки на исляма”, “терористи”, ”главорези”) е в достатъчна степен ясен и оскърбителен, за да създаде обидна среда по отношение на всяко лице изповядващо посоченото вероизповедание и да го заклейми като обществено неприемливо."

"The argument of the defendant is that the purpose of the article is not to affect a certain circle of persons, but to provide information about the Islamic State terrorist organisation, which infiltrates its representatives among peaceful refugees in order to organise acts of terrorism in EU countries. According to the present panel, this fact does not in itself diminish the violation of the Protection against Discrimination Act, since the author of the publication has used to expressed his own opinion on the issue using expressions, such as those cited above, that condemn and incite hostility to those who profess that religion, giving them the appreciation of something harmful. The expressions used ("hordes of orcs of Islam", "terrorists", "thugs") are sufficiently clear and abusive to create an offensive environment for any person professing that religion and to brand it as socially unacceptable."

DISCLAIMERThe information presented here is collected under contract by the FRA's research network FRANET. The information and views contained do not necessarily reflect the views or the official position of the FRA.