Homophobia and Hate Speech in Serbian Public Discourse: How Nationalist Myths and Stereotypes Influence Prejudices Against the LGBT Minority
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
44 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 dueauthoritarian 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 2009comprehensive (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 Covenantposition ison based Civil andon Pothe- 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, po- litical 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-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 ofto exceptionalprivacy, 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 Moutanot 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 toof 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 estab- lished 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