LBGT group prematurely claims victory against Polish print shop
“The
court protects LGBT consumers. The first such verdict in Poland!” proclaimed Campaign
Against Homophobia (CAH), a Polish LGBT group, but
a closer look reveals that claims of a victory are premature if not downright
false.
The group’s website explains that a printing
shop employee who refused a service to the LGBT Business Forum was found guilty
of a misdemeanor. The employee declined to work with the organization’s
graphics, writing in an email, “We will not participate in promoting LGBT with
our work.” The District Court in Łódź-Widzew in central Poland fined him $50
(200 zł).
CAH is one of the most vocal organizations of
its kind in Poland. The group boasts several sponsors and partners, among them
the U.S. Embassy, George Soros’ Open Society Foundation, and the Rosa Luxemburg
Foundation (named after a Communist revolutionary who wanted “to destroy
capitalism once and for all”).
The plaintiff, LGBT Business Forum, described
itself on its website as “a Polish non-governmental organization raising
awareness and working for equality and non-discrimination of LGBT people in the
workplace.” Interestingly, unlike CAH, LGBT Business Forum does not mention the
case on its website.
Attorney Jerzy Kwaśniewski, whose Ordo Iuris
Institute for Legal Culture is defending the accused, was surprised by media
attention in the case because the verdict was not even valid at the time of
CAH’s announcement on its website. This announcement appeared July 25 and the
ruling had been no longer in force since July 1.
Kwaśniewski added that the legal weight of the
infraction is similar to a petty misdemeanor, akin to traffic ticket or failing
to pay a restaurant bill, neither of which is considered a crime in most
circumstances. Kwaśniewski said the legal proceedings happened without the
knowledge of the accused and without a prosecutor. The police petitioned the
court, which automatically found the accused guilty and ordered a small fine
(in this case $50). Only then was the verdict delivered, giving the accused a
chance to defend himself.
According to Kwaśniewski, the police acted
after government Advocate for Citizens’ Rights Ombudsman Adam Bodnar got
involved. Bodnar was once the vice president of the Helsinki Foundation for
Human Rights. The foundation has a strategic litigation program aimed “to
attain breakthrough judgments that alter existing legal practice
or regulations in relation to specific legal issues that are of particular
concern from the standpoint of the protection of human rights.”
LifeSiteNews asked why the interests of LGBT
should trump economic freedom and the freedom of conscience. Anna Mazurczak of
Bodnar’s office wrote that the refusal of a publicly offered service to a LGBT
group is a form of discrimination. She quoted the Polish Constitution, which
states that nobody can be discriminated against in political, social and
economic life for any reason. Mazurczak wrote that economic freedom, as well as
the freedom of religion or belief, are limited. In this case, the economic
freedom is limited by non-discrimination and by respect for inherent and
inalienable human dignity.
Interestingly, an antiquated law written
decades ago by a government notorious for abusing human rights and limiting
freedoms is now being used by the LGBT group claiming their rights. Kwaśniewski
points out that the plaintiff used a law written in 1971 by the Communists to
“fight the speculators.” The law served to punish entrepreneurs who sold
products “at too high prices” and “refused a promised service.” In fact, the
law, considered a dead letter, is itself discriminatory toward business people,
long considered enemies of Communism.
The daily Rzeczpospolita reported
that the case was brought to the attention of the Minister of Justice and
Prosecutor General Zbigniew Ziobro. He will oversee the proceedings to ensure
an objective ruling. Ziobro said this [preliminary and now invalid] verdict was
a dangerous precedent that “destroys the freedom of thought, beliefs and
opinions, as well as economic freedom.”
The Minister of Justice wrote on its website
that the courts are obligated to protect the freedom of conscience guaranteed
by the Constitution. The courts have to protect the rights and freedoms of the
citizens, he said. “No ideological motives justify violations of those
fundamental rights.”