Homophobia and Hate Speech in Serbian Public Discourse: How Nationalist Myths and Stereotypes Influence Prejudices Against the LGBT Minority

Home , Kurir, Obraz (organization), Pogledi, Politika, Pravda (Serbia)

Homophobia and Hate Speech in Serbian Public Discourse: How Nationalist Myths and Stereotypes Influence Prejudices against the LGBT Minority

Isidora Stakić1

1. Introduction

In June 2001, almost a year after the down- human rights NGOs and the international community, and it became evident that Ser- bia would not be able to make any further abandonedfall of Slobodan half-way Milošević’s through due authoritarian to violent progress in European integration with- attacksregime, Serbia’sby members first ever of PrideSerbian Parade ultrana was- out substantial changes to its LGBT rights tionalist groups. Eight years later, in March policy.3 Therefore, when the LGBT activists 2009, the Serbian Parliament adopted the announced a new attempt to hold a parade in October 2010, the Serbian political elite law – Law on the Prohibition of Discrimina- showed a considerably changed attitude tionfirst 2009 comprehensive (the Anti-Discrimination anti-discrimination Law), towards LGBT issues, and a much stronger prohibiting discrimination on a number of commitment to providing the necessary grounds, including sexual orientation. En- couraged by the adoption of this law, the on 10 October 2010. However, during the Serbian LGBT community announced plans security. The 2010 Parade was finally held to organise the second Pride Parade on 20 off the parade venues, repeatedly clashing September 2009 in Belgrade. However, the withParade, far-right thousands extremists of police who officers tried to sealed burst 2009 Parade organisers were met with through the security cordons, while chant- strong opposition, not only from far-right ing “Death to fags!”4 Although the Serbian groups, but also from some political parties police managed to protect the 2010 Parade and the Serbian Orthodox Church. After a participants from the extremists’ attacks, long anti-Pride campaign, the 2009 Parade the battle between the police and the right- wing groups, in which dozens were injured, assurances. The police announced that they provides a strong indication of how deeply couldwas finally not guarantee called off the due safety to lack of theof security march- ingrained homophobia is in Serbian society. ers and urged the organisers to change venue from the main Belgrade streets to Serbia is a party to the various internation- another location. The organisers found that al and regional human rights conventions proposal unacceptable. The cancellation, or which prohibit discrimination against mi- rather banning,2 of the 2009 Pride Parade norities, and has enacted anti-discrimination was strongly criticised by both domestic and hate speech laws in accordance with its

The Equal Rights Review, Vol. Seven (2011) 45

international obligations. However, in to- 2.1. International Legal Framework for day’s Serbia, discrimination and violence LGBT Rights: Right to Equality and Non- against LGBT people still present a serious Discrimination problem. This raises the question as to the relationship between homophobia and the The rights of LGBT people have been de- general political culture, which is largely fended from two distinct human rights po- dominated by nationalist ideas. right to privacy, guaranteed by Article 17 of This article responds to that question, by: thesitions. International The first Covenant position ison basedCivil and on Po the- litical Rights (ICCPR), while the second posi- (1) analysing the portrayal of the LGBT tion is grounded in the right to equality and minority in Serbian public discourse, and determining whether and how Serbian na- principle that all human beings are entitled tonon-discrimination, equal protection ofand, human as such, rights reflects regard the- homophobia;5 less of, inter alia, their sexual orientation. Ar- tionalist myths and stereotypes influence ticle 2(1) and Article 26 of the ICCPR require (2) identifying whether any elements of the state parties to ensure equal enjoyment of Serbian public discourse constitute hate human rights for all people regardless of speech; and their “race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social ori- (3) examining the ways in which the pres- gin, property, birth or other status”.6 Similar ence of homophobic hate speech in public protection is afforded by Article 2(2) of the discourse represents a violation of Serbia’s International Covenant on Economic, Social human rights obligations. and Cultural Rights (ICESCR).

The analysis focuses on three mainstream Although neither sexual orientation nor public discourses: (i) the discourse of the po- gender identity are explicitly mentioned as litical elite; (ii) the discourse of the Church; prohibited grounds of discrimination in the and (iii) the media discourse – with the aim above-mentioned legal provisions, UN bod- of demonstrating that homophobia is not a ies and international human rights experts characteristic of the far-right alone, but also are in consensus on the need to interpret permeates the voices that represent the ma- these provisions as including sexual orienta- jority in Serbian society in a manner which tion and gender identity. In the landmark de- must be addressed in order for Serbia to ful- cision in Toonen v Australia, the UN Human Rights Committee – the treaty body which has the authority to interpret the ICCPR – af��- 2.fil itsConceptual human rights Framework obligations. - ed by the treaty’s anti-discrimination provi- Before embarking on an analysis of the par- sionsfirmed as that a protected sexual orientation status.7 Despite was implicat the fact ticular situation in Serbia, this section pro- that this decision focuses on the State Party’s vides an overview of the international legal framework for the protection of LGBT rights, that sexual orientation is a protected ground and the different approaches to the concep- ofviolation discrimination of the right is of to exceptional privacy, its findingimpor- tualisation of hate speech. It also sets out tance. Moreover, the UN Committee on Eco- Serbia’s legal obligations in this regard. nomic, Social and Cultural Rights (CESCR) –

The Equal Rights Review, Vol. Seven (2011) 46

the body authorised to interpret the ICESCR proach with a range of laws, policies and pro- – has expressed concern over discrimination grammes, including temporary special meas- on the grounds of sexual orientation and, ures. States parties should consider using even more importantly, has established that incentives to encourage public and private Article 2(2) of the ICESCR should be inter- actors to change their attitudes and behav- preted as including sexual orientation.8 iour in relation to individuals and groups of individuals facing systemic discrimination, Serbia is also bound by obligations under or penalize them in case of non-compliance the regional human rights instruments of (…) Given the persistent hostility towards the Council of Europe. Article 14 of the Eu- some groups, particular attention will need ropean Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) to be given to ensuring that laws and policies prohibits discrimination “on any ground such as sex, race, colour, language, religion, practice.”12 political or other opinion, national or social are implemented by officials and others in origin, association with a national minority, While these recommendations were given in property, birth or other status”.9 The formu- relation to the protection of economic, social lation “other status” allows the European and cultural rights, they should be under- Court of Human Rights (the Court) to ex- - tend the protection under Article 14 to other der the right to be free from discrimination asstood it appears as a reflection elsewhere. of state obligations un Convention. Thus, in its decision in Salgueiro Dagrounds Silva Mouta not specifically v Portugal mentioned, the Court instated the Moreover, the Yogyakarta Principles empha- that “sexual orientation [is] a concept which sise that the obligations of states extend be- is undoubtedly covered by Article 14 of the yond the legislative function, encompassing Convention”10 and, consequently, a difference the adoption of not only anti-discrimination in treatment based on sexual orientation laws, but also various policy measures, ad- represented a violation of ECHR. Further, in ministrative procedures and programmes of Alekseyev v Russia, the Court reiterated that education that will secure an adequate ad- sexual orientation was implicated by Article vancement of persons affected by discrimi- 14 as a prohibited ground of discrimination, nation.13 The Yogyakarta Principles elabo- and also stated that the margin of apprecia- rate on how a broad range of human rights tion afforded to member states in this regard standards apply in relation to LGBT persons. was narrow.11 Although the Principles as such are not le-

In its General Comment No. 20, CESCR has expressed its view that state obligations thegally already binding, existing they reflect obligation the provisions of states to of in respect of the right to be free from dis- protectinternational human treaties rights. and, in that way, affirm crimination include not only the adoption of anti-discrimination laws, but also an ac- In a similar manner, the Declaration of Prin- tive approach to eliminating discriminatory ciples on Equality, while not legally binding, practices. In that sense, the CESCR has established that: on the right to equality, and sets out the posi- tivereflects obligation a moral of and states professional to ensure consensusfull enjoy- “Tackling [systemic] discrimination ment of the right to equality.14 The Declara- will usually require a comprehensive ap-

tion also affirms that “[s]tates have a duty to

The Equal Rights Review, Vol. Seven (2011) 47

raise public awareness about equality, and to stance, Noam Chomsky, in his defence of the ensure that all educational establishments French academic Robert Faurisson, who was (…) provide suitable education on equality as a fundamental right.”15 argues that genuine support for free speech impliesprosecuted the andsupport fined for for free Holocaust expression denial, of 2.2. Hate Speech - fensive.19 Chomsky approaches freedom of Hate speech, the prohibition of which is a speechthe views as onea value disagrees per se , withdetached and findsand en of- limitation of freedom of expression, is an is- tirely independent from the actual content sue highly relevant to LGBT rights in Serbia of speech. Thus, by employing a formalist ap- since it is one of the fundamental ways in which LGBT rights are being violated. Free- human rights and social sciences, in general, dom of expression is guaranteed by all major cannotproach, behe seen neglects as content-neutral. the fact that the By field point of- international, regional and national human ing out that freedom of speech ought not to be dependent on individual preference and Court in Handyside v The United Kingdom, taste, Chomsky fails to acknowledge that freedomrights legal of instruments.expression “constitutes As affirmed oneby the of there are values – such as human dignity – the essential foundations of a [democratic] which should be given priority over individ- society, one of the basic conditions for its ual preference, and which therefore deserve progress and for the development of every universal respect. man”.16 On the other hand, freedom of speech can be limited to the extent necessary to As stated in Article 19(3) of the ICCPR, free- protect other important values, such as hu- dom of expression carries with it special du- man dignity and non-discrimination.17 There ties and responsibilities and, therefore, may is, however, no universal agreement on the be subject to those restrictions which are need for limiting freedom of speech, or on provided by law and are necessary: “(a) For the scope of the potential limitations. respect of the rights or reputations of others; and (b) For the protection of national secu- One of the most prominent classical de- rity or of public order, or of public health or fences of freedom of speech is given by J. S. morals”.20 Further, Article 20 of the ICCPR Mill in his treatise On Liberty in which Mill prohibits any propaganda of war, as well as argues that the government has no right to any advocacy of national, racial or religious “prescribe opinions to its citizens, and to de- hatred.21 The ECHR also emphasises that termine what doctrines or what arguments the exercise of freedom of expression car- they shall be allowed to hear”.18 On the other ries with it duties and responsibilities, and hand, Mill introduces the so-called “harm therefore might be subject to certain restric- principle”, according to which people have tions which are necessary for, inter alia, “the the right to do anything they like, but only as protection of the reputation or rights of oth- long as it does not cause harm to the rights ers”.22 of others. However, the notion of harm itself has been subject to various interpretations Although many states have adopted legisla- and, consequently, it does not provide a solid tion prohibiting hate speech, there is no uni- base for determining the scope of freedom of speech”.23 According to the Council of Eu- a number of 20th century authors. For in- rope’sversally Committee accepted definition of Ministers, of the hate term speech “hate expression. Mill’s liberalism has influenced

The Equal Rights Review, Vol. Seven (2011) 48

covers “all forms of expression which spread, evil, e.g. the danger of riots or any other kind incite, promote or justify racial hatred, xeno- of violence.29 The second test – the “bad ten- phobia, anti-Semitism or other forms of ha- dency” test – no longer requires danger to tred based on intolerance”.24 Although the be imminent. The government is permitted to set limitations on free speech “if its natu- hate speech, in order to determine if an ex- ral tendency and probable effect was to bring pressionCourt has constitutes never given hate a precise speech, definition the Court of about the substantive evil”.30 Hence, the focus will examine: (i) the purpose pursued by the shifted from the effect of speech to its intend- speaker; (ii) the content of the expression, ed consequences.31 and (iii) the context in which it was disseminated.25 The targets of hate speech are individuals or the question the Court asks is whether the groups who are considered by the speaker to speaker’s When intention considering is to thedisseminate first criterion, rac- be inferior on the basis of some characteristic ist or other superiority ideas, or to inform that is constitutive to their identity and, gen- the public on a public interest matter. ��Fur- erally, innate (e.g. race, ethnicity, sexual ori- ther, with regards to the second criterion entation etc.). Therefore, by being based on which addresses the content of the speech, such characteristics, hate speech represents the Court insists on the distinction between Katharine statements of facts and value judgements. Gelber draws upon Jürgen Habermas’ “valid- For instance, in Garaudy v France, the Court itya specific claims” form model of discrimination.in order to demonstrate found that the denial of the Holocaust, as a the force of hate speech. In Habermas’ theo- clearly established historical fact, was not ry of communicative action, “validity claims” supported by historical and factual research are claims made by speakers, and they rep- and, consequently, was not protected by the resent “the rules by which agreement may ECHR.26 Finally, regarding the context of the be reached on the meaning of a communi- expression, the Court takes into account a cation”.32 In every utterance, three “valid- variety of factors, namely: (i) the social sta- ity claims” are simultaneously raised: (i) the tus of the speaker; (ii) the status of the tar- claim to truth; (ii) the claim to rightness of geted person; (iii) the potential impact of the norms and values; and (iii) the claim to the speech; and (iv) the (dis)proportionality of speaker’s sincerity. In hate speech, these the interference to the freedom of expres- three “validity claims” appear as: (i) the sion.27 claim to inequality in the objective world; (ii) the claim to the rightness of discrimination Martha Zingo focuses particularly on hate against certain groups; and (iii) the claim of speech against LGBT people, who she de- a sincere hater towards the targeted group.33 scribes as “sex/gender outsiders”.28 She re- Pointing out the “systemic power asymme- fers to the legal practice of the US Supreme try” which favours the hate-speaker, Gelber Court, which has historically taken a restric- concludes that a hate-speech-act is a discur- tive view of hate speech, and discusses two sive act of discrimination which propagates different tests employed in freedom of ex- and perpetuates inequalities.34

present danger” test, according to which the Having established the legal and conceptual governmentpression cases. is Theallowed first oneto limit is the freedom “clear and of framework relating to the issue, the follow- expression only in cases when speech rep- ing section proceeds with an analysis of the resents an immediate danger of substantive

specific characteristics of the Serbian context

The Equal Rights Review, Vol. Seven (2011) 49

– including the national legal framework, the right to equality and non-discrimination; dominant political myths, and the prevalent (ii) ensure effective implementation of that approach to gender and homosexuality. legislation; and (iii) take positive measures to restrict practices which are incompatible 3. The Serbian Context with the right to equality (e.g. hate speech). Article 21 of the Serbian Constitution guar- More than a decade after the fall of the au- antees equality before the law and prohibits both direct and indirect discrimination on numerous grounds. Although the Constitution orientationthoritarian and regime alignment. of Slobodan Heavily Milošević,burdened does not explicitly prohibit discrimination bySerbia the islegacy still struggling of its recent to defineethno-nationalist its political on the basis of sexual orientation and gen- past combined with unfavourable economic der identity, the list of prohibited grounds in circumstances, the Serbian Government is Article 21 is left open. Article 21 establishes, endeavouring to balance its commitment to inter alia, that “all direct or indirect discrimi- EU integration, on the one hand, and pro-na- nation based on any grounds, particularly on tionalist politics, on the other. In 2009, faced race, sex, national origin, social origin, birth, with the country’s economic collapse and religion, political or other opinion, property the global crisis, the Government adopted a status, culture, language, age, mental or physi- series of legislative and policy measures that cal disability shall be prohibited”. (Empha- represented a step forward in the process sis added.) The inclusion of the wording “on of European integration.35 However, at the any grounds” in Article 21 suggests that the same time, the anti-European block compris- list of prohibited grounds is not exhaustive, ing nationalist parties, the Church, various and that the protection could be extended to right-wing groupings, a part of the scholarly elite and some media was growing stronger the Constitution. The test set out in Principle and gaining new supporters.36 5other of the grounds Declaration not specifically of Principles mentioned on Equal in- ity provides a solid basis for the conclusion The next three sections will seek to analyse that Article 21 of the Constitution should be the situation in present-day Serbia, in terms interpreted as including sexual orientation, of the legal framework for LGBT rights, the as it is a characteristic that has historically political myths which dominate public dis- resulted in discrimination against LGBT persons which: homophobia. course and, finally, the gender order and “(i) [C]auses or perpetuates system- 3.1. The Prohibition of Discrimination ic disadvantage; (ii) undermines human dig- and Hate Speech – Legal Framework for nity; or (iii) adversely affects the equal en- LGBT Rights joyment of a person’s rights and freedoms in a serious manner that is comparable to [the Serbia is a party to the key international and other listed grounds of] discrimination”.37 regional human rights treaties referred to above: ICCPR, ICESCR and ECHR. Therefore, After years of preparation, in March 2009, Serbia has an international legal obligation to the Ministry of Labour and Social Policy protect LGBT persons from discrimination. - This obligation requires the Government hensive anti-discrimination law in Serbia, to: (i) adopt legislation which incorporates whichintroduced sought the to draftbuild ofupon the the first protections compre

The Equal Rights Review, Vol. Seven (2011) 50

provided in the Constitution. However, the belonging or not belonging to a certain race, draft was withdrawn from the parliamen- religion, nation, ethnic group, gender, or on tary procedure in response to the objections the basis of their sexual orientation, regard- raised by the Church and other religious less of whether the publication at stake con- denominations to several of its provisions stitutes a criminal offence or not.”41 including the prohibition of discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender iden- Hence, Serbia clearly belongs to the group tity. The withdrawal of the draft law sparked of countries that have thoroughly regulated strong criticism by numerous national and hate speech. Nevertheless, hate messages international human rights NGOs, as well as in public narratives are frequent, and, as is EU representatives. Due to the fact that the evident in the lack of response from the au- adoption of a comprehensive anti-discrim- thorities to the discourses discussed in sec- ination law was a necessary condition for tion 4 below, the chances that offenders will further advancement in European integra- be prosecuted are slim. It should be noted that targets of hate speech in Serbia are nu- adopted – however, not without changes to merous, and sexual minorities are only one thetion, disputed the Anti-Discrimination provisions. Gender Law identitywas finally as of them. a prohibited ground of discrimination was omitted, and Article 21 of the Anti-Discrim- 3.2. Serbian Politics and Nationalist Myths ination Law was adopted with the following wording: Despite legislative reform which represents a strong move towards the implementa- “Discrimination on the grounds of tion of European human rights standards, sexual orientation: Sexual orientation shall Serbian society is still deeply imbued with be a private matter, and no one may be called nationalist ideas, most obviously expressed to publicly declare his/her sexual orienta- in various political myths. One of the most tion. Everyone shall have the right to declare dominant national myths in contempo- his/her sexual orientation, and discrimina- rary Serbia is the “Kosovo myth”. As Darko tory treatment on account of such a declaration shall be forbidden.”38 “Kosovo myth” is a myth about borders and Gavrilović42 According and Ana Ljubojevićto this myth, argue, the Ko the- Regarding hate speech regulations, Article sovo battle of 1389 between the Serbian and 49 of the Serbian Constitution prohibits “any sacrifice. inciting of racial, ethnic, religious or other inequality or hatred”.39 Further, Article 387 ChristianOttoman armiescivilisation. was a sacrificeHence, themade “Kosovo by the of the Criminal Code establishes that viola- myth”Serbian has people established for the Serbs benefit as of“the the keepers entire tions of human rights based on racial and of the gates of the civilised world”.43 Further, other discrimination are criminal offences.40 this myth has enforced the belief that Serbs Finally, according to Article 38 of the Serbian have never been rightfully rewarded for the Public Information Law of 2003:

“It is prohibited to publish ideas, in- “Serbssacrifice harboured they made a growing in 1389. feeling Consequently, of injus- formation and opinions that incite discrimi- ticeas Gavrilović and bitterness and Ljubojevićtowards the point West, out, while the nation, hatred or violence against a person the nationalists once again found themselves or a group of persons on the basis of their inspired by topics from ancient history”.44

The Equal Rights Review, Vol. Seven (2011) 51

Three years after the declaration of Kosovo independence, the great majority of Serbian that the “instrumental pious nationalism” political actors, including the ruling Demo- ofreligion the 1990s in Serbia, (in which Rada religion Drezgić was points a mere out cratic Party, still refuse to accept the fact that instrument of state politics) was replaced Kosovo is not a part of Serbia anymore, and by a model of “religious nationalism” after commonly refer to it as the violation of Ser- 2000, characterised by the symbiotic rela- bian sovereignty and territorial integrity. At tionship between political institutions and the same time, human rights, and particular- the Church.47 Therefore, imitating the Rus- ly LGBT rights, are perceived by the majority sian model, Orthodox Christianity has in ef- in Serbian society as something “imported” fect become the state religion, and the secu- from the West and forcefully imposed on larity of Serbian politics has become highly the Serbian people contrary to their tradi- questionable in numerous instances, some of tion and cultural values. The “Kosovo myth” which will be discussed below.48 is, therefore, successfully used as a tool of mobilisation around the idea of Western The myth that substantially builds on the conspiracy against Serbia, as well as the idea Kosovo myth is the myth about Serbs as a of the superiority and the great merit of the warrior nation. The recent ethno-nationalist Serbian nation. fuelled the belief that constant war is Ser- Captivated by the myths about the heroic bia’sconflict destiny, in the while former the subsequent Yugoslavia trials has only be- past, and determined to persist in denying fore the International Criminal Tribunal for Kosovo independence, the Serbian political the former Yugoslavia (ICTY) strengthened establishment needed an ally. With the rise the perception of the accused political lead- of the EU, and Russia’s willing distance from ers as war heroes and great martyrs.49 As the West,45 it is perhaps not surprising that the ally was found in the government of the active national leaders, later ICTY detainees, Russian Federation. According to Vjekoslav isLjubojević incentivizing argues, new “[t]he forms ‘swan of song’ nationalism of once Perica, the Serbo-Russian “post-communist practiced by young generations that never - experienced the war”.50 Thus, in the absence erful “pan-Slavic myth” – the myth about the of a “real” war enemy, the new generations romance”common descent signifies of a allrevival Slavonic of the peoples, once pow un- inspired by warrior myths and eager to af- derlying the idea of a pan-Slavic kingdom.46 However, in its new Serbo-Russian version, enemies of the nation in all those who do not the “pan-Slavic myth” has been reduced to conformfirm their to patriotism their perception started of looking normality. for the the idea of pan-Orthodoxy, i.e. to the concept of brotherhood of all Orthodox Slavs. 3.3 Gender Order and Homophobia in This fact highlights a very important feature Serbia of the “special relationship between Serbia and Russia”: it was largely based on religion. Serbian society, as an unstable transitional democracy balancing between so-called “Eu- has drastically increased, not only in terms ropeanisation” and pro-nationalist politics, is ofConsequently, cultural domination, the influence but also of thein terms Church of still a male-dominated society which adopts a patriarchal, traditional and conservative well as economic power. Analysing the in- approach to gender order. While acknowl- tertwininginstitutional of andnationalism, political state significance, politics and as edging that religion is not inherently op-

The Equal Rights Review, Vol. Seven (2011) 52

as rejection by family and friends, to insti- that Orthodox Christianity, like other mono- tutional violence in the form of expulsion pressivetheistic religions, towards women,promotes Drezgić a strict points division out from work and harassment by superiors, to between gender roles, in which the public condemnations, threats and intimidation, realm is reserved for men and the private 57 realm for women.51 argues that the patriarchal system of values finally4. Discourse resulting Analysis in physical violence. in Serbian society has Similarly, been driven Žarana by a Papić particularly militant type of nationalism which characteristics of the Serbian context which putting women into the submissive role of areWhile most the relevant previous for section this study, identified this sec key- mothersglorified andmen wives. as warriors52 and heroes, whilst tion highlights three prominent public discourses in Serbia through which attitudes Although same-sex sexual activity was de- - criminalised in Serbia in 1994, Serbian so- cally examined. The section focuses on the ciety is still deeply homophobic, and non- discoursestowards homosexuality that emerged can in relationbe more to specifi three heterosexual orientations are socially unac- major events, namely: (i) the adoption of the ceptable and treated as degeneration and Anti-Discrimination Law in March 2009; (ii) sickness.53 The attitude of Serbian society the cancellation of the 2009 Parade in Sep- towards homosexuality is best illustrated tember 2009; and (iii) the 2010 Parade held by the research carried out in 2010 by the in Belgrade in October 2010 – and seeks to Gay Straight Alliance, a Serbian LGBT or- identify developments and changes in the ganisation, in cooperation with the Centre three prominent discourses. for Free Elections and Democracy, a Serbian NGO concerned with election monitoring 4.1. The Discourse of the Serbian Political and social research. According to that study, Parties58 67% of the respondents believe that homosexuality is an illness, while 53% think During the parliamentary debate on the An- that the Government should take measures ti-Discrimination Law in 2009, its most vo- to combat homosexuality.54 Further, 56% of cal opponents were not only the opposition the respondents see homosexuality as very parties, but also one of the parties from the dangerous to society, while 64% support the ruling coalition, United Serbia. This is a right- Church in its condemnation of LGBT people. wing populist party relying heavily on the Only 15% of respondents believe that LGBT people in Serbia are a vulnerable group, Palma, who, in his public appearances, nev- and only 12% think of Gay Pride Parades as ercharisma misses ofthe its opportunity president, Dragan to highlight Marković his legitimate means for advancing the rights commitment to traditional Serbian values. of sexual minorities.55 As a consequence Explaining the reasons for being against the of such a high level of homophobia, LGBT adoption of the Anti-Discrimination law, he people in Serbia live in isolation, social ex- pointed out: “I have nothing against homo- clusion, fear, and in a situation in which sexuals, but I will never vote for something guilt and shame are constantly imposed on that is sick”.59 He also stated that he “could them.56 Moreover, sexual minorities are ex- not stand” gays, and that he was disgusted by posed to all forms of violence, ranging from their effeminate appearance.60 Further, a rep- psychological and verbal violence, such resentative of the largest opposition party –

The Equal Rights Review, Vol. Seven (2011) 53

the Serbian Progressive Party (SNS) – made that homophobia in Serbian politics corre- the following statement: lates with the general right-wing attitudes.

As discussed above, the European Court of the so-called ‘personal preferences’ under Human Rights, in order to determine if an the slogan“The of affirmationequality and and freedom promotion is not of expression constitutes hate speech, examines acceptable. This will, undoubtedly, lead to a (i) the purpose pursued by the speaker; (ii) situation in which sodomy and paedophilia the content of the expression; and (iii) the will be protected as personal preferences.”61 context in which it was disseminated. An as- sessment of the above statements of Serbian politicians based on these criteria demon- Radical Party (SRS) also compared homo- strates that the primary purpose of these sexualityA senior with official paedophilia, of the right-wing stressing that Serbian the statements has not been to inform the public law which prohibits discrimination against on important matters, but to establish homo- LGBT people would eventually open the door sexuals as physically and morally inferior to for legalising paedophilia. He also pointed heterosexuals, thereby strengthening already out that the Anti-Discrimination Law was anchored prejudices against the LGBT minor- imposed upon the Government by the pow- ity. Regarding the content of the expression, erful Western states, and was aimed at de- the Court has established that “a distinction stroying the Serbian nation.62 Finally, the needs to be made between statements of conservative and pro-Christian Democratic fact and value judgments”, adding that “even Party of Serbia (DSS) argued that the law was where a statement amounts to a value judg- not acceptable as it did not have the approval of the Church.63 basis to support it”.65 The above-mentioned statementsment, there of must Serbian exist politicians a sufficient do not factual rep- The discourse of those Serbian parties which resent statements of facts, nor are they sup- voted against the adoption of the Anti-Dis- ported by facts. On the contrary, the statements are in opposition to the fact that homo- of strong stereotypes (and countertypes) in sexuality is not a disease – established by the Serbiancrimination politics. Law The exemplifies stereotype the that existence repre- World Health Organisation and thus interna- sents normality is marked by Serbdom, Or- thodox Christianity, tradition and unaltera- regarding the context of the expression and ble gender roles, while the countertype – sig- thetionally respective recognised positions as scientific of the truth.speaker Finally, and nifying degeneration – encompasses the pro- the targeted group, it is clear that the Serbian European orientation, secularism, equality - asymmetry between the political class and sexuality and LGBT rights. These stereotypes thecontext LGBT is characterisedminority, in favorby significant of the former. power correspondbetween man to and the womanideal of and,manliness finally, andhomo its Further, the Court asserted in Erbakan v Tur- antithesis. As George Mosse argues, although key that “it is crucially important that politi- the masculine stereotype is not a character- cians avoid disseminating comments in their istic of right-wing ideologies alone, it is na- public speeches which are likely to foster in- tionalism that links manliness with patriot- tolerance”.66 It could therefore be concluded ism, traditional values and religion.64 There- that the above discussed statements of Ser- fore, the analysis of the stereotypes existing bian politicians pass the test employed by the in the Serbian political discourse indicates Court and, therefore, amount to hate speech.

The Equal Rights Review, Vol. Seven (2011) 54

During the preparations for the 2009 Parade, the basis of sexual orientation and gender the opposition parties, as well as United Ser- identity is either irrelevant or non-existent. bia, maintained the same attitude towards homosexuality, arguing that the parade as the sequence of his statements, suggests would be a public demonstration of sickness thatFurther, he was the equally wording against that Đilas the violence used, as as well he and abnormality. The members of the ruling was against the parade itself. Finally, by be- coalition, on the other hand, pointed out that ing more concerned about the image of the the LGBT community does have the right to city than the marchers’ lives and security, hold the parade; however, none of the Gov- - tection of human rights. It could, therefore, Parade, claiming that they had already dem- beĐilas concluded demonstrated that the his views disregard of the for Belgrade the pro onstratedernment officialstheir attitude explicitly by voting supported in favour the mayor exemplify implicit hostility against of the Anti-Discrimination Law adopted in homosexuals and, as such, perpetuate homo- March that year.67 One of the most vocal op- phobia as a mainstream attitude. ponents of the 2009 Parade from the ruling - The cancellation of the 2009 Parade grade, the city in which the 2009 Parade was prompted harsh criticism by the interna- coalition was Dragan Đilas, the mayor of Bel- - sonally, was against the 2009 Parade,68 argu- cials, which consequently led to a shift in dueing thatto take sexual place. orientation Đilas stated is an that exclusively he, per thetional discourse community, of the primarily Serbian political by EU elite offi private matter and, therefore, there is no regarding the Parade. When Serbian LGBT reason for disclosing it.69 On the other hand, activists announced a new attempt to hold he also stated that he was against violence a parade in October 2010, the biggest oppo- of any kind, condemning on that occasion sition party, SNS, was eager to demonstrate the far-right organisations who threatened its allegedly pro-European orientation and to attack the marchers and pointing out that entirely changed its attitude towards LGBT their threats adversely affected the image of issues. During the meeting with the Parade the city of Belgrade.70 - demned the violence against the marchers - The fact that Đilas con criminationorganisers, a against senior SNSthose official, who are Aleksandar different morally or in any other way inferior suggests fromVučić, the pointed majority out were that unacceptable. violence and71 Even dis thatand didhe wasnot explicitlyonly practising define LGBTthe freedom people asto SRS – although refusing to support the 2010 publicly express his views. On this basis, his Parade itself – condemned discrimination of any kind.72 hate speech. Nevertheless, the comments of more explicit in their support for the LGBT thestatements Belgrade could mayor arguably are indeed not deeplybe defined homo as- minority, and demonstratedGovernment officials a stronger became com- phobic, and indicate a lack of understanding mitment to securing the 2010 Parade.73 The of the basic human rights principles set forth in the major international conventions and managed to prevent the far-right extrem- - ists2010 from Parade attacking was finally the marchers, held and thewhich, police in ognise that the 2009 Parade was intended to itself, represented a step forward. However, beaffirmed a political by Serbian protest laws. against Đilas discrimination, failed to rec the Serbian political discourse is still con- rather than a mere demonstration of sexual- spicuously lacking an explicit acceptance ity. By stating that there is no need for such of LGBT people as non-degenerate and en- an event, he implied that discrimination on tirely equal with heterosexuals, as well as

The Equal Rights Review, Vol. Seven (2011) 55

an unequivocal condemnation of all those of normality does not have a universal and opposing their rights. unalterable meaning; on the contrary, the actual content of this notion varies widely, 4.2. The Discourse of the Serbian Ortho- according to the values of those in power.79 dox Church In the case of Serbia, Christianity sets the pa-

Over the past two decades, Serbian society and, consequently, all those who do not live has gone through a process of rapid de-sec- inrameters accordance for defining with Christian the scope values of normality are out- ularisation.74 From a society in which the side the “normal”. Thus, the above statement Church was marginalised and thoroughly contradicts the right of every individual to subordinated to the state, Serbia has turned choose their own religion or to choose not into a society with high rates of religious to have religion, and discriminates against those with views which differ from those of of the dominant religious institution, the the Christian Orthodox Church. Serbianidentification Orthodox and inChurch, which has the popularitydrastically increased.75 The general attitude of the Church towards modern history, the Church developed its homosexuality has been expressed on nu- authority as Asa national, Drezgić argues,rather than throughout a reli- merous occasions, particularly during the gious, institution, which in itself indicates past couple of years in which LGBT rights its political aspirations.76 Despite the guar- in Serbia have become a topic of increased antee of secularity in Article 11 of the Con- debate. As mentioned above, the draft of stitution, the power of the Church in Ser- bian society is indisputable. Religious views law in Serbia was withdrawn from the par- have entered public discourse and created liamentarythe first comprehensive procedure in anti-discrimination2009 in response a new reality, imposing new perceptions of to the objections raised by the Church and social phenomena. other religious denominations. Although the objections were directed towards more The Church considers that “all uses of the than one provision of the draft law, the major human sex organs for purposes other than stumbling block was Article 21, which, inter those ordained by creation runs contrary alia, expressly prohibited discrimination on to the nature of things as decreed by God, the basis of sexual orientation and gender interfering with the normal development identity. In its appeal to the President of the of societal patterns”.77 (Emphasis added.) Serbian Parliament, the Holy Assembly of Furthermore, according to Orthodox views, Bishops of the Church pointed out that “there there appear to be two types of homosexu- - ality – one representing a medical disorder, tion is an inborn trait”, further adding that “a and the other resulting from a moral failure. numberis no scientific of eminent evidence scientists that deemsexual transsex orienta- In both cases, correction is called for, primar- uality to be a mental disorder”.80 The appeal ily in terms of medical and psychiatric treatment.78 The general attitude of the Church to- identity and sexual orientation as prohib- wards homosexuality expressed in the above itedalso assertedgrounds thatof discrimination the affirmation would of gender en- danger religious freedom as well as freedom powerful actor, through discursive practice, of conscience.81 This statement established isstatement able to establish exemplifies the thenotion way of in normality. which a homosexuality and transsexuality as men- As Michel Foucault has shown, the notion tal diseases threatening the societal order

The Equal Rights Review, Vol. Seven (2011) 56

which comprises a set of norms and values same attitude of the Church. The Holy Assem- that in the Serbian context has a prominent religious dimension. While appealing to free- before the Parade, stated that the Church dom of religion and freedom of conscience, wasbly of strongly Bishops, against in its the official Parade, announcement referring on the Holy Assembly of Bishops demonstrated that occasion to the LGBT population as the hostility to sexual minorities and a complete “so-called sexual minorities” and to their in- disregard for their human rights. terests as “frivolous”.84 Furthermore, the announcement argued that Gay Pride Parades During the preparations for the 2009 Parade, violate the right to family life and insult the the Church was vocal in condemning homo- dignity of believers.85 The Church therefore denied LGBT people the status of minority, at the time acting in the capacity of Patriarch, and declared them a threat to the “normal” arguedsexuality. that Metropolitan the 2009 Parade Amfilohije would Radović,actually order of things, i.e. the “family life” in accord- be a “parade of shame”, quoting the Serbian ance with Christian values. One day after popular saying that “what the mad are proud of, ashames the smart”.82 Moreover, he referred to the event as the parade of “Sodom the 2010 Parade, Metropolitan Amfilohije and Gomorrah”, further adding that “the tree Radović “Yesterdaygave the following we watched statement: the stench that does not bear fruits is to be cut and poisoning and polluting the capital of Serbia, 83 The statements of Metro- scarier than uranium.86 That was the biggest - stench of Sodom that the modern civilisation thrownnity of the into LGBT fire”. minority members in more raised to the pedestal of the deity. You see, politanthan one Amfilohije way. First, Radović he declared violated homosexual the dig- ity to be a disgrace, which implied that LGBT more violence. Now they are wondering people – as those unable to resist “shameful whosethe violence fault itof was,wrongheaded and they infidelsare calling caused our impulses” – were inferior to those who lived children hooligans.”87 in accordance with the Christian morality. Secondly, the above statements expressed the view that homosexuals were not only equated LGBT people with a dangerous mentally ill (“insane”), but also physically de- weaponMetropolitan and accused Amfilohije them Radović of being therefore respon- generate and barren, as they do not use their sible for the violence that occurred in the bodies for the purposes decreed by God. Fi- streets of Belgrade during the 2010 Parade. nally, the “tree metaphor” used by Metropoli- Further, he explicitly linked homosexual-

call for a violent intervention, although the something imposed by modernity and in- Serbiantan Amfilohije prelates represents pointed out a ratheron several explicit oc- voking,ity with in “modern that way, civilisation”, the myth aboutdefining a West it as- casions that the Church was against violence ern conspiracy against Serbia.88 Finally, by of any kind. implying that it is wrong to call the attack- ers of the 2010 Parade “hooligans”, Metro- As none of the prelates who publicly condemned homosexuality and called for the providing, therefore, a legitimation for the cancellation of the 2009 Parade was pros- violencepolitan Amfilohije against the openly LGBT sidedminority. with Clearly, them, ecuted for either incitement to violence or the above-cited statement constitutes hate hate speech, the preparations for the 2010 speech as: (i) it is directed towards a minori- Parade in autumn 2010 were met with the ty group that is – in the speaker’s view – infe-

The Equal Rights Review, Vol. Seven (2011) 57

rior; (ii) it offends the human dignity of LGBT the parliamentary procedure. Under the title people; and (iii) its “natural tendency and “Fraud”, Kurir stated the following: probable effect” is to incite violence and/or discriminatory treatment against the tar- “The Serbian Government deceived geted group.89 A couple of months after the the dignitaries of the Church, after days of 2010 Parade, the Serbian Equality Protection the negotiations on the amendments to the Commissioner instructed Metropolitan Am- anti-discrimination law. At today’s session of the Government, the new draft of the law will participants of the Parade for hate speech. be adopted, after only cosmetic changes.”94 filohije Radović to publicly apologise to the said he “had no intention of apologising”, Clearly, these newspapers saw the Church’s However, Metropolitan Amfilohije Radović- interference in the legislative process as sexuality.90 perfectly acceptable, legitimate and “nor- confirminghas never been once indicted again hisfor viewshate speech. on homo The mal”. Hence, the discourse of the above- Equality Protection Metropolitan Commissioner, Amfilohije Radovićshortly after the initial warning, asserted that the de-secularisation of Serbian society which Government had “no capacity” for initiat- mentioned media reflects the process of

91 theDrezgić political and institutions Perica analyse and inthe their Church, work. as ing judicial proceedings against Amfilohije aAs result Drezgić of which,argues, during the relationship the 1990s, between religion 4.3.Radović. The Discourse of the Serbian Media92 was used primarily as an instrument of ag- gressive nationalist politics, has transformed Despite the fact that Article 38 of the Serbian after 2000 into a much tighter relationship Public Information Law explicitly lists sexual in which the Church gained more power and orientation as one of the prohibited basis 95 Similarly, Perica points out that, of hate propaganda, anti-gay messages fre- during the government of Vojislav Koštunica quently appear in the Serbian media, while influence.(from 2004 to 2008), Orthodox Christian- the offenders go unpunished. The contro- ity practically became the state religion, and versy surrounding the adoption of the Anti- after the elections of 2008 which brought to Discrimination Law in March 2009 was given power the current Serbian president Boris - While some of the Serbian daily newspapers ment and the Church remained unchanged.96 weresignificant explicitly coverage advocating in the for Serbian the adoption media. Tadić, the relationship between the Govern- of the law and condemning its withdrawal ments by pointing to the Church’s various from the parliamentary procedure, others, Both Drezgić and Perica illustrate their argu- more or less openly, supported the views of fore, although the Anti-Discrimination Law the Church. For instance, Večernje Novosti, attempts to influence the legislation. There the daily newspaper which is known for its collaboration with the regime of Slobodan thehas Church finally beento interfere adopted, in matters the controversy of state politicsthat it had and provoked to stall reform confirms processes. the ability of

Milošević, published an interview with Politika, the oldest daily newspaper in the Defendingthe bishop Morality”. of the eparchy93 In a similar of Bačka, manner, Irinej Balkans which is partially owned by the Gov- KurirBulović, claimed with thethat titlethe Government “The Church had is Only de- ernment, immediately after the adoption of ceived the Church by returning the law to the Anti-Discrimination Law published a col-

The Equal Rights Review, Vol. Seven (2011) 58

upon him the duty not to incite intolerance political analyst who is known for his rightist umn written by Slobodan Antonić, a Serbian- - ported the Church in its struggle against the and discrimination – a duty which Antonić Anti-Discriminationviews. In the column, law, Antonić suggesting explicitly that sup the againstdid not LGBTrespect people. and fulfil. The above analy Church is a legitimate representative of the sis confirms his statement as hate speech great majority of Serbian society.97 Further, After Serbian LGBT activists had announced he expressed deep concern about the provi- their plans to hold the 2009 Parade, a number sion prohibiting the discrimination on the of Serbian newspapers joined the anti-gay basis of sexual orientation and its potential of the parade. Some daily newspapers, such ascampaign Kurir, Press that, finallyAlo! and led Pravda to the gavecancellation consid- consequences.“As a next Antonić step, wrote: anti-discrimination erable space to right-wing extremists, with- will not be enough anymore. They98 will re- out providing any critical review of, or com- quire equality (…) After the legal equality is ment on, their views.100 Referring to the pro- obtained, they will go further and request fascist organisations as “patriotic groups”, the recognition of social equivalence (…) And “football supporters” or simply “youths”, the above-mentioned Serbian newspapers were declare homosexuality to have the equal val- continuously publishing their hate messages uein a as few heterosexual years we will orientation.” be required99 to officially and calls for violence.101 For example, Kurir published the following statement of Mladen It is clear from the above statement that 102 leader of Obraz – one of the Serbian pro-fascist organisations: to be of less worth than heterosexual. Al- Obradović, Antonićthough he considers did not openly homosexual claim orientationthat LGBT “A huge number of people will come, people are worth less than others, his posi- from all the areas where Serbs live. Our mes- tion rather implies that homosexuals could sage to faggots is clear: We are waiting for not be equal in rights with heterosexuals. you.”103 Such a view strongly contradicts Article 1 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights Further, at the time, sensational headlines which proclaims the equality of all human abounded, such as: beings and therefore entails the prohibition of discrimination in the enjoyment of human (i) “Gay Parade represents the imposition rights. Further, by openly opposing the equal of a new ideology on Serbia”104 – a headline suggesting that homosexuality is an ideolo- that: (i) the inequality is an objective fact; gy, not just a sexual orientation, forced upon (ii)rights discrimination of all human against beings, the Antonić LGBT impliedminor- Serbia from outside; and ity is legitimate; and (iii) such discrimination (ii) “After faggots, sodomists and necrophili- acs will want to parade”105 – a title that, once over homosexual orientation. In light of the again, establishes homosexuality as a sick- hateis justified speech by criteria the superiority employed of byheterosexual the Court: ness and a degeneration. - periority of heterosexual people over LGBT One article published in Kurir was particu- people;(i) Antonić (ii) washis viewsadvocating were thenot ideasupported of the su by larly indicative of this phenomenon. It was facts; and (iii) his social position imposed entitled “Faggot secedes Kosovo!” and was

The Equal Rights Review, Vol. Seven (2011) 59

about a prominent LGBT activist, Predrag essary and that the damage caused by it110 Politika, two days internet campaign called “De-Kosovisation after the 2010 Parade, published a column by ofAzdejković, Serbia” – awho satirical on his critique blog had of the started Serbian an far outweighed the benefit. - politics related to Kosovo and the stubborn tor in chief of the Serbian right-wing quarter- refusal of the Serbian politicians to accept lypolitical New Serbian analyst PoliticalĐorđe Vukadinović, Thought (Nova the Srpedi- Kosovo’s independence. Kurir called the ska Politička Misao), in which he argued that campaign “offensive” and referred to homo- the 2010 Parade had been forced upon Ser- sexual men as “faggots”.106 Two elements of bia from the West, contrary to the “historical the discourse present in the above article and political logic”.111 He implied that there indicate the connection between homo- is a sharp contrast between Serbia and the phobic and nationalist attitudes. First, as West, and that the notion of LGBT rights is highly incompatible with Serbian history and myth” which still dominates a large part of theGavrilović Serbian and society, Ljubojević including argue, the “Kosovocurrent far-right extremists who intended to attack Government, suggests that, because of the thepolitics. 2010 Further, Parade participantsVukadinović with compared the partic the- the 14th century, Kosovo will always remain greata part sacrifice of Serbia. made107 Therefore by the Serbian the above people arti in- policeipants –in primarily the anti-Milošević as a response demonstrations to the vio- cle, by appealing to the patriotic feelings of lencewho used by violence the police against themselves. the Milošević Hence, the readers, seeks to represent LGBT people – particularly human rights activists – as the violence against minorities is essentially the enemies of the Serbian nation. In Mosse’s sameVukadinović as the struggle suggested against that an the authoritar far-right- view, the representation of countertypes – in this case homosexuals – as an active threat the violence that occurred during the 2010 to societal order and national unity is a ian regime. As such, he implicitly justified- prominent characteristic of right-wing ideologies.108 Second, Mosse points out that fas- ofParade. human The rights, article suggesting by Đorđe that Vukadinović LGBT rights ex cist and nationalist regimes tend to promote areemplifies not universal a rather but dangerous entirely dependent relativisation on the idea of collaborations and plots between political and historical circumstances. More- the different categories of outsiders.109 As over, by practically equating an authoritarian the “loss” of Kosovo is generally associated with the Western conspiracy against Serbia, failed to acknowledge a very important dif- the above article indicates that LGBT people ferenceregime withbetween the LGBT those minority, violating Vukadinović human collaborate with Western powers in order to rights, on the one hand, and the victims of destroy the “healthy” Serbian nation. human rights violations, on the other.

During the preparations for the 2010 Parade, The discourses of the Serbian political elite, the above-discussed Serbian newspapers the Church and the daily newspapers repre- continued the anti-gay campaign in a very sent varying degrees of homophobia, rang- similar manner. After the 2010 Parade was ing from explicit calls for violence to a rather concealed hatred against sexual minori- – the general attitude prevailing in the dis- ties. While not all the discourses discussed coursefinally heldof the – majorityfollowed ofby the the Serbian anti-gay media riots above reach the level of hate speech, they was that the parade had been utterly unnec- still represent a breach of Serbia’s legal obli-

The Equal Rights Review, Vol. Seven (2011) 60

gations. As the discussion above has shown, an parties and the media with a right-wing the state’s obligation to protect minorities political alignment; and marginalised groups extends beyond (iv) hatred against LGBT people in Serbian the adoption of anti-discrimination and hate society has a pronounced religious dimen- speech legislation, to include the taking of ef- sion, which is enhanced by the fact that the fective action to implement that legislation. Church has, over the course of the last two decades, gained a considerable political in question does not reach the threshold of hateMore speech, specifically, the state even is whereunder thethe speechobliga- (v) after the cancellation of the 2009 Pa- tion to tackle a culture of homophobia, by rade,power the and discourses influence; onand homosexuality and carrying out various policy measures and LGBT rights have changed towards more programmes, such as awareness-raising and tolerance and more respect for the rights of human rights mainstreaming. The culture of sexual minorities, which is primarily a con- impunity that is still present in the Serbian sequence of the political pressure from the EU and the international community in gen- towards the effective implementation of the eral. Nevertheless, homophobia in Serbian Anti-Discriminationpublic arena significantly Law, impedesthus showing the efforts that public discourse is still present. Serbia does not fully meet its human rights obligations. Further, the presence of hate speech in three prominent discourses undermines both the 5. Conclusion Anti-Discrimination Law and the legislation prohibiting hate speech, and reveals Despite the declared democratic and pro- the failure of the Government to comply European orientation of the Government with its legal obligations. Firstly, the Gov- and some positive legislative reforms in the ernment itself – i.e. certain members of the recent years, Serbian society is still deeply ruling coalition – violates the human rights imbued with nationalist myths that incite of sexual minorities by publicly spreading and support a culture of homophobia. The hatred against homosexuals. Secondly, the analysis of the discourses of Serbian politi- Government is failing to protect LGBT peo- cians, the Church and the media has shown ple from the hate speech of private entities, the following: such as the Church and the media, showing therefore that the right to equality is not (i) the LGBT minority is depicted through being effectively implemented. Finally, the stereotypes that represent homosexuality as moral and/or physical degeneration con- administrative and educational measures to stituting a threat to the normal societal or- protectGovernment the rights is not of taking LGBT sufficient minority policy,mem- der and the Serbian nationhood; bers and to tackle the culture of homopho- (ii) the stereotyping of the LGBT minority is strongly supported by the national myths; obligations under the international and na- (iii) as the above stereotypes are character- tionalbia. It ishuman therefore rights failing instruments to fulfil itsto whichpositive it istic of right-wing ideologies and regimes, is a party. it is not surprising that homophobia is primarily (although not exclusively) a feature As indicated above, the gap between the le- of the discourse of the pro-nationalist Serbi- gal obligations and actual practices of the

The Equal Rights Review, Vol. Seven (2011) 61

Serbian state agencies suggests that the re- types related to homosexuality, opposition form processes in Serbia are yet to be com- to LGBT rights is even stronger than to the pleted. Despite the adoption of various “pro- rights of other minorities. Therefore, hu- European” laws, the effective enforcement man rights education – including the edu- of these remains elusive. The obstacles to cation on the rights of sexual minorities – law enforcement represent a complex issue is of crucial importance.112 By reforming its that ought to be addressed at both the state education policies the Government would level, and within civil society – particularly encourage different social actors to change in human rights advocacy and in academia. their attitudes towards individuals and In terms of human rights activism, the EU groups facing systemic discrimination. By conditionality could be successfully used as doing this, the Government would better a means of pressurising the Government to fulfil its positive legal obligations to real- comply with its legal obligations. ise the right to equality, as best articulated in General Comment No. 20 of CESCR, the Further, the analysis in this article has point- Yogyakarta Principles, and the Declara- ed to a concerningly prominent trend in tion of Principles on Equality. Regarding contemporary Serbia – the trend of de-sec- LGBT rights, education policies ought to ularisation of the society and the extensive be based on several principles. First, that interference of the Church in state affairs. In homosexuality is not an illness and it is that sense, it is of great importance to set neither illegal nor immoral; it is a part of personal identity that is equal in value to that the secularity of the state is guaranteed heterosexual orientation. Second, LGBT bythe Articlelimits of11 the of Churchthe Serbian influence. Constitution The fact persons are equal in rights with other in- indicates that legal norms, once again, are dividuals and, consequently, discrimina- not being adequately implemented. Govern- tion on the basis of sexual orientation and ment representatives and other politicians gender identity represents a violation of are primarily responsible for preserving the human rights. Third, homosexuality does secularity of the Serbian state. They must not represent a threat to the nation, and remain independent from the Church and does not violate freedom of religion. Reli- gious views and/or patriotic feelings must legislation and other state affairs. not be used as a justification for discrimi- resist attempts by the Church to influence nation against LGBT people. Finally, while Finally, changes at the level of popular con- the EU conditionality could be a useful sciousness about LGBT rights – and human means for pressuring the Government to rights in general – are needed. As the above comply with its legal obligations, in the analysis has shown, the legacy of the na- field of education, human rights must not tionalist past is still very much alive in con- be presented as something imported from temporary Serbia, and the national myths the West and culturally alien to Serbia. On and stereotypes dominate society. De- the contrary, it is important to stress that spite the fact that human rights language the recognition of the equal rights of all has gradually entered Serbian public dis- individuals, regardless of their sexual ori- course, general awareness of the meaning entation or any other inborn trait, would and content of human rights is low. Moreo- benefit Serbian society and all its citizens. ver, because of the prejudices and stereo- In other words, the implementation of hu-

The Equal Rights Review, Vol. Seven (2011) 62

man rights is not only a prerequisite for the EU, but also a prerequisite for societal de- European integration and a nuisance that velopment and the protection of the digni- must be endured for a better future in the fied life of all human beings.

1 on the author’s thesis for the Masters in Human Rights Practice at Roehampton University, UK, submitted in May 2011.Isidora Stakić completed a six month internship with The Equal Rights Trust in July 2011. This article is based 2 Helsinki Committee for Human Rights in Serbia, Annual Report on Human Rights: Serbia in 2009: Europeanization – Accomplishments and Limitations, 2010, p. 276. 3 According to the Copenhagen Criteria, established by the European Council at the Copenhagen European Coun- cil in 1993, a candidate country must achieve stability of institutions guaranteeing, inter alia, human rights and respect for and protection of minorities. The Copenhagen Criteria are available at: http://ec.europa.eu/enlargement/enlargement_process/accession_process/criteria/index_en.htm. 4 “Serbia Police Clash with Far-right Rioters at Gay Pride March”, guardian.co.uk, 10 October 2010, available at: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/oct/10/serbia-police-rioters-gay-pride. 5 See Weinberg, G., Society and the Healthy Homosexual, St. Martin’s Press, 1972, cited in Fone, B., Homophobia: A History , Picador, 2000, p. 5. George Weinberg, the American psychologist who coined the term “homophobia” “-phobia”, suggests the irrational nature of the fear at stake, this article does not approach homophobia as an irra- definedtional fear, it as but “the primarily dread of as being a socially in close constructed quarters withset of homosexuals”. prejudices against Although LGBT this people. definition, as well as the suffix 6 International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), G.A. Res. 2200A (XXI) (1966), Articles 2(1) and 26. The right to non-discrimination is also enshrined in the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (G.A. Res. 2200A (XXI) (1966), Article 2(2)) and the International Convention on the Rights of the Child (G.A. Res. 44/25 (1989), Article 2) as well as in the provisions of regional human rights instruments such as the European Convention of Human Rights, Article 14 and the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights, Article 2. 7 UN Human Rights Committee, Toonen v Australia, Communication No. 488/1992, U.N. Doc CCPR/ C/50/D/488/1992, 31 March 1994. 8 UN Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, General Comment No. 20: Non-Discrimination in Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (Art. 2, Para 2), UN Doc. E/C.12/GC/20, 2 July 2009, Para 27. See also UN Committee on the Rights of the Child, General Comment No. 4: Adolescent Health and Development in the Context of the Convention on the Rights of the Child, UN Doc. CRC/GC/2003/4 , 1 July 2003, Para 6; and UN Committee against Torture, Gen- eral Comment No. 2: Implementation of Article 2 by States Parties, UN Doc. CAT/C/GC/2, 24 January 2008, Para 21. 9 European Convention on Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (ECHR), 1950, Article 14. 10 Salgueiro Da Silva Mouta v Portugal, Appl. No. 33290/96, ECHR, 21 December 1999, Para 28. 11 Alekseyev v Russia, Appl. Nos. 4916/07, 25924/08 and 14599/09, ECHR, 21 October 2010. 12 UN Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, above note 8, Para 39. 13 O’Flaherty, M. and Williams, G., Jurisprudential Annotations to the Yogyakarta Principles, University of Nottingham Human Rights Law Centre, 2007. 14 The Equal Rights Trust, Declaration of Principles on Equality, London, 2008, Principle 3, available at: http://www. equalrightstrust.org/ertdocumentbank/Pages%20from%20Declaration%20perfect%20principle.pdf. 15 Ibid., Principle 17. 16 Weber, A., Manual on Hate Speech, Council of Europe Publishing, 2009, p. 1. 17 Ibid., p. 2. 18 Mill, J. S. (ed. Collini, S.), On Liberty and Other Writings, Cambridge, 1989, p.19. 19 Chomsky, N., “Some Elementary Comments on the Right of Freedom of Expression”, Preface to Faurisson, R., Mé- moire en défense, 1980, available at: http://www.chomsky.info/articles/19801011.htm.

The Equal Rights Review, Vol. Seven (2011) 63

20 ICCPR, above note 6, Article 19(3). 21 Ibid., Article 20. 22 See above, note 9, Article 10. 23 See above, note 16, p. 3. 24 Ibid., p. 3. 25 Ibid. 26 Ibid., p. 36. 27 Ibid. 28 Zingo, M. T., Sex-Gender Outsiders, Hate Speech and Freedom of Expression: Can They Say That about Me?, Praeger Publishers, 1998. 29 Ibid., p.18. 30 Ibid. (Emphasis in original.) 31 Ibid. 32 Gelber, K., Speaking Back: The Free Speech versus Hate Speech Debate, John Benjamins Publishing Company, 2002, p. 61. 33 Ibid. 34 Ibid., , p. 87. 35 See above, note 2, p. 20. 36 Ibid., p. 20. 37 See above, note 14, Principle 5. 38 National Assembly of the Republic of Serbia, The Law on the Prohibition of Discrimination, 2009, Article 21 (un-

39 National Assembly of the Republic of Serbia, Constitution of the Republic of Serbia, 2006, Article 49. official translation by UNDP Serbia). 40 National Assembly of the Republic of Serbia, Criminal Code, 2005, Article 387 (translated by the author). 41 National Assembly of the Republic of Serbia, Public Information Law, 2003, Article 38 (translated by the author). 42 Political Myths in the Former Yugoslavia and Successor States: A Shared Narrative, The Hague, The Institute for Historical Justice and Reconciliation,Gavrilović, D. 2011.and Ljubojević, A., “Myths about Borders”, in Gavrilović, D. and Perica, V. (eds.), 43 Ibid., p.45. 44 Ibid., p. 46. 45 Perica, V. (eds.), above note 42. 46 Ibid.Perica, V., “A Post-Communist Serbo-Russian Romance: Eastern Relic of the Pan-Slavic Myth”, in Gavrilović, D. and 47 Third World Quarterly, Vol. 31(6), 2010, pp. 955-970. 48 SeeDrezgić, above, R., note “Religion, 45. Politics and Gender in the Context of Nation-State Formation: the Case of Serbia”, 49 The Asso- ciation for the Study of Ethnicity and Nationalism Conference, April 2010, London School of Economics, available at: http://www2.lse.ac.uk/researchAndExpertise/units/ASEN/Conference/conferencepapers2010/Ana_Ljubojevic.Ljubojević, A., “We Can Be Heroes – Rise and Fall of Yugoslav Leaders”, Conference paper presented at pdf. 50 Ibid., p. 2. 51 See above, note 47. 52 rom State Socialism to State Nationalism: The Case of Serbia in Gender Perspective”, Refuge, Vol. 14(3), 1994, pp. 10-14. 53 SeePapić, above, Ž., “F note 2. 54 Gay Straight Alliance, Predrasude na videlo: Homofobija u Srbiji 2010, 2010. 55 Ibid.

The Equal Rights Review, Vol. Seven (2011) 64

56 Ebart, 2010, available at: http://www.arhiv.rs/ parada-ponosa/. 57 Ibid.Kurepa, T., “Parada ponosa ili prilagođavanje ‘političke volje”, 58 This section focuses primarily on the narratives of the Serbian political parties which were expressly opposed to the Anti-Discrimination Law adopted in March 2009, the majority of which were (and still are) in opposition. How- ever, it also seeks to identify subtle forms of homophobia that permeate the discourse of certain politicians from the ruling coalition and, therefore, open the door for more explicit anti-gay messages. It is important to note that the aim of this section is not to scrutinise the individual political parties and their agendas, but to demonstrate the general level of homophobia in the discourse of Serbian politics, as well as the correlation between homophobic and pro-nationalist attitudes. 59 “SPC i verske zajednice protiv Ustava Srbije”, Danas, 6 March 2009 (translated by the author). 60 Press, 17 March 2009 (translated by the author). 61 “OpozicijaJevremović, brani J., “Palma stavove za Crkve”,Press: Znam Večernje ko suNovosti homići, 16 u Marchskupštini 2009 Srbije!”, (translated by the author). 62 Ibid. 63 Ibid. 64 Mosse, G., The Image of Man: The Creation of Modern Masculinity, Oxford University Press, 1996. 65 See above, note 16, p. 36. 66 Ibid., p. 37. 67 See above, note 56. 68 Alo!, 31 August 2009, available at: http://www.alo.rs/politika/18767/Gej_parada_je_opasna_po_zivot . 69 Simonović, G., “Gej parada je opasna po život! Intervju:Peščanik Dragan , 4 Đilas,August gradonačelnik 2009, available Beograda”, at: http://www.pescanik. net/content/view/3499/165/ (translated by author). 70 Ibid.Dežulović, B., “Dragan Đilas Palma na otoku sreće”, 71 See above, note 56. 72 Ibid. 73 Ibid. 74 See above, notes 45 and 47. 75 See above, note 47, p. 956. 76 Ibid. 77 Spencer-Dohner, M., LGBT Minorities as Easy Targets: A Case Study of the Specificities and Commonalities with Other Neglected Endangered Groups in the Context of Nationalism‐Dominated Societies. Graz, HUMSEC, undated. 78 Ibid. 79 See, for example, Foucault, M., “Truth and Power”, in Rabinow, P. (ed.), The Foucault Reader, Penguin Books, 1991; Foucault, M., Discipline and Punish: The Birth of the Prison, Penguin Books, 1991. 80 See above, note 59. 81 Ibid. 82 “SPC: Protiv parade ali i nasilja”, Politika, 17 September 2009, available at: http://www.politika.rs/rubrike/vesti- dana/SPC-Protiv-parade-ali-i-nasilja.lt.html. 83 Press, 24 September 2009, available at: http://www.

(translatedBojić, B., “Skandalozno: by the author). Amfilohiju sude zbog gej parade?!”, 84pressonline.rs/sr/vesti/vesti_dana/story/80702/Skandalozno%3A+Amfilohiju+sude+zbog+gej+parade!.html The Holy Assembly of Bishops, “Saopstenje Svetog Arhijerejskog Sinoda povodom najava gej parade u Beogradu”, 3 October 2010, available at: http://www.spc.rs/sr/saopstenje_svetog_arhijerejskog_sinoda_povodom_najava_ gejparade_u_beogradu. 85 Ibid. 86 - tary intervention in Yugoslavia in 1999. Metropolitan Amfilohije Radović was referring to the depleted uranium allegedly used by NATO during the mili

The Equal Rights Review, Vol. Seven (2011) 65

87 B92, 14 October 2010, available at: http://www.b92.net/info/vesti/index. php?yyyy=2010&mm=10&dd=14&nav_id=465324 (translated by the author). 88 In“Govor the Serbian mržnje: public Parada discourse kao uranijum”, the term “modern civilisation” is most commonly used to mean “Western civilisation”. 89 See above, note 28, p. 18. 90 Balkan Human Rights, 9 March 2011, available at: http://balkanshumanrights. (translated by the author). 91 “Amfilohije se neće izviniti”, Danas, undated, available at: http://www.danas. org/2011/03/09/amfilohije-se-nece-izviniti/ (translated by the author). 92 ThisMiladinović, section analysesZ. and Živanović, the discourse K., “Neće of the biti Serbian suđenja daily Amfilohiju”, newspapers, with the focus on those with a high circula- rs/danasrs/drustvo/nece_biti_sudjenja_amfilohiju.55.html?news_id=211060tion and 93 “Crkva samo brani moral”, Večernje novosti, 6 March 2009 (translated by the author). considerable political influence. 94 “Prevara”, Kurir, 13 March 2009 (translated by the author). 95 See above, note 47. 96 See above, note 45. 97 Politika, 19 March 2009, available at: http://www.politika.rs/pogledi/ Slobodan-Antonic/TOLERANCIJA-NIJE-DOVOLJNA.lt.html. 98 Antonić, S., “Tolerancija nije dovoljna”, 99 See above, note 97. Antonić was referring to LGBT people and the supporters of LGBT rights in general. 100 Labris, Godišnji izveštaj o položaju LGBTIQ populacije u Srbiji, za 2009. Godinu, 2010. 101 Ibid. 102 organising riots and violent attacks during the 2010 Parade. 103 SeeAfter above, the 2010 note Parade, 100 (translation Obradović, by well-known the author). for anti-gay hate speech, was finally arrested and convicted for 104 Ibid. 105 Ibid. 106 “Peder odstranjuje Kosovo!”, Kurir, 14 July 2009, available at: http://www.kurir-info.rs/vesti/peder-odstranjuje-kosovo-25339.php. 107 See above, note 42. 108 See above, note 64. 109 Ibid. 110 Both the material damage caused by the rampage of the extremists, and the ruined image of Serbia as a result of the violence in the streets of Belgrade. 111 Politika, 12 October 10, available at: http://www.politika.rs/pogledi/ DJordje-Vukadinovic/Od-parade-do-poraza.lt.html (translated by author). 112 TheVukadinović, term education Đ., “Od isparade used heredo poraza”, in the widest sense, encompassing not only formal schooling, but also various forms of alternative education.

The Equal Rights Review, Vol. Seven (2011)