Konstantin Kunev, manager of the career programme of Single Step Foundation, commented on the newly adopted amendment to the Law on School and Preschool Education from the point of view of the risk for teachers and other school staff.
We have seen many and varied positions on the introduction of the amendment to the law, which prohibits “propaganda, promotion and incitement in any way, directly or indirectly, of ideas and views related to non-traditional sexual orientation and/or determination of gender identity other than biological” in and around Bulgarian schools.
Apart from its obvious similarity to laws in Russia or Hungary, it is striking that the law lacks a clear definition or understanding of its practical application, even by its own authors. As an MP put it from the parliamentary rostrum – “You can’t copy from Wikipedia”. Despite the protests and civil reactions against the amendment of the law, we still do not know what the reaction of the European institutions will be to challenge and/or repeal the law that entered into force today.
Let’s explore what the potential impact of the law will be on Bulgarian teachers with a ‘non-traditional sexual orientation’ – a term whose definition is at odds with European and Bulgarian laws – and its impact on the labour market in Bulgaria as a whole.
The application of the law will be extremely difficult due to the vague definitions of the terms “propaganda” and “incitement”. There is a lack of information on which specific actions would lead to sanctions.
The sanctions were not even included in the original bill, but proposed at a later stage by independent MPs (former representatives of the PP Velikiya). There is no clarity on which bodies will impose sanctions, nor to whom we should turn if we suspect “propaganda” is being carried out. There is also no clarity on whom exactly these sanctions are imposed.
The new proposal, tabled in Parliament by independent MPs, includes a financial penalty of up to £5,000, which could be imposed on teachers, staff, visitors or parents for breaches, as well as an administrative penalty for school staff. The following problems arise from this:
- Which authority finds the breach and how?
- If the offender is a school official, how is a financial penalty, administrative penalty, or both chosen?
- How is the financial penalty imposed? The Labor Code is clear on the subject – an employer (even schools) may not impose a financial penalty on employees who are not materially responsible. Deductions from an employee’s pay are not allowed without their written consent.
- If the Labor Code is followed, should the MOE fine the teacher directly? Does it deprive him of the right to practice the profession?
- If an administrative penalty is imposed, what will be its degrees – reprimand, warning of dismissal, disciplinary dismissal?
Let’s demonstrate the ambiguities with the following example – if a teacher is disciplinarily dismissed for a proven violation of the law. In Bulgaria, 95% of all wrongful dismissal litigation is won by the employee, even when the employee has indeed committed misconduct – in this situation we can speculate that the teacher may win the case and be reinstated. If, in conjunction with this, the MOE has taken away his right to practice, what next? There are countless similar scenarios, but the outcome is similar – it is not clear.
I deal with employment law cases every day and ambiguity is something I struggle with every day – ambiguity from employees about their rights but also ambiguity from the employer about what their powers are. There are also those employers who take advantage of their employees’ ignorance when making final decisions and imposing sanctions. The newly adopted amendment to the law creates just such conditions – an ambiguity in which no one knows how to react.
A few things are abundantly clear, however:
- The amendment is in direct contradiction with EU-wide legislation on many levels;
- It is in direct conflict with our Constitution, especially in the segment on the right to speech and the rights and freedoms of the individual;
- It is difficult, if at all, to apply in the context of the Labour Code;
- It is in conflict with the Protection from Discrimination Act.
In Bulgaria, many positive steps have been taken in recent years with regard to diversity and inclusion in the workplace (Diversity & Inclusion). The adoption of this law signals to unscrupulous employers that this topic, specifically in the context of LGBTI+ employees, is not a priority for the government and therefore for society. One obvious signal of this is, of course, that no voices are being heard from the private sector on the subject, and only a month ago there were rainbow-coloured flags and posts on Facebook and LinkedIn.
It is definitely the LGBTI+ students who will suffer the most, who will not be able to get the attention they need from their teachers or from school professionals – psychologists, medical staff, etc. It is also clear that the EU will sanction Bulgaria for these actions, and Bulgarian populists will be able to point to the LGBTI+ community as the culprit for Bulgaria paying for the consequences of this legislation.
When the first negative effects of this law are felt, we at Single Step encourage students to contact our anonymous online chat for emotional support, and working people to contact our VentureOut job support program. To employers, we appeal for vocal community support as changes to the law will result in adverse consequences for all.
VentureOUT offers comprehensive, concrete and practical resources to both companies and LGBTI people in Bulgaria.