Beograd, 17.9.2021

Nakon što je Miroslav Aleksić, koji je osumnjičen za silovanje i nedozvoljene polne radnje, pušten u kućni pritvor, nekadašnji fudbaler Dušan Savić gostovao je na televiziji Pink. Savić je u jutarnjem programu govorio kako je optužnica „iskonstruisana”, „osmišljena” i kako predstavlja napad na Srbiju. U emisiji su korišćeni razni argumenti kako bi se pokazalo da prijavljivanje silovanja i seksualnog uznemiravanja ima za cilj „rušenje Srbije”.

Narativi koje je koristio Dušan Savić su nedopustivi jer mogu da doprinosu društvenoj osudi i sekundarnoj viktimizaciji žrtava seksualnog nasilja i time obeshrabruju one koji su preživeli seksualno nasilje da to i prijave.

Nije prvi put da televizija sa nacionalnom frekvencijom učestvuje u sekundarnoj viktimizaciji onih koji su prijavili seksualno nasilje, širenju govora mržnje i mizoginije. Najvidljiviji primer predstavlja izveštavanje medija nakon što je glumica i rediteljka Danijela Štajnfeld u Višem javnom tužilaštvu izjavila da ju je silovao njen tadašnji kolega Branislav Lečić. TV Happy, Srpski telegraf i Alo, izveštavali su na veoma senzacionalistički način, prebacujući krivicu na onu koja je prijavila silovanje i širili teorije zavere i time doprinosili sekundarnoj viktimizaciji osobe koja je podnela optužbu za silovanje.

Napominjemo da je ovakvom vrstom izveštavanja emiter prekršio više odredbi iz pravilnika o zaštiti ljudskih prava u oblasti pružanja medijskih usluga, a pre svega odredbu iz člana 26 u kome se eksplicitno kaže da je prilikom informisanja o nasilju ili tragičnom događaju pružalac medijske usluge dužan da to čini na način kojim se neće povrediti dostojanstvo ličnosti žrtve nasilja ili tragičnog događaja ili njoj bliskog lica, a naročito na način kojim se ona neće izložiti ponovnoj patnji.

S obzirom na to da živimo u patrijahalnom i tradicionalnom društvu, društvu koje ćuti na mizogino ponašanje, progovoriti o seksualnom nasilju zahteva izuzetnu hrabrost.

Samim tim, mediji koji izveštavaju o seksualnom nasilju trebalo bi da budu upoznati sa prirodom traume i da izveštavaju bez seksizma, predrasuda i senzacionalizma. Takođe, trebalo bi da izveštavaju objektivno i da pruže prostor u kome će se žrtve seksualnog nasilja osetiti bezbedno da govore o svom iskustvu.  Netačno izveštavanje i neosetljivost prema žrtvama može doprineti njihovoj retraumatizaciji, a pružajući siguran prostor jednoj žrtvi, ohabriće i druge da progovore o svojim traumama.

Način na koji mediji izveštavaju o seksualnom nasilju utiče na oblikovanje uverenja javnosti o ovoj temi i može rezultirati značajnim posledicama po pojedince i društvo u celini. Zato je važno da mediji zapamte da imaju i etičku odgovornosti kada izveštavaju o seksualnom nasilju i da bi trebalo da pruže bezbedan prostor da se o ovakvim temama govori bez predrasuda i osuda, čime bi se doprinelo podizanju svesti i rešavanju društvenog problema.

Pozivamo REM da preduzmne sve mere definisane zakonom i podzakoskim aktima koje su im na raspolaganju u ovom slučaju.

Ovo saopštenje zajednički potpisuju:

Institut za medije i različitost – Zapadni Balkan

Autonomni ženski centar (AŽC)

BeFem

IRIDA

Impuls Tutin

Jovana Gligorijević, novinarka

Nezavisno udruženje novinara Srbije (NUNS)

Udruženje Fenomena

Ženska solidarnost

Inicijativa Verujem TI

Photo:  Nadia Snopek / Shutterstock

Freedom of opinion without polite communication can very often turn into hate speech. This happens too often in Serbia today, especially in the space of electronic media, which has the greatest influence on majority public opinion.

It is through electronic media that hate speech reaches particularly perfidious forms and is often mistakenly presented as freedom of speech. Because of this, all achievements are questioned and something that should be unquestionable, such as freedom of speech, is destabilized.

It is true that every citizen is entitled to freedom of speech. However, in the era of electronic media those who use it the most – especially politicians and public figures – forget that freedom of speech is valid only until it infringes upon the freedom of others. Hatred, in any sense, is not an appropriate fuel for freedom of speech.

The Constitution of the Republic of Serbia prohibits hate speech and those who practice it are subject to sanctions. At least nominally. Unfortunately, in practice it is different: in Serbia, regulations are not respected in a frequent or consistent manner, if at all. This is confirmed by electronic media on a daily basis.

 The Regulatory authority for electronic media (REM) which is Serbia’s regulatory agency and  is tasked with preventing and sanctioning the spread of hate speech and aggressive communication. REM, however, does not do its job in any segment of its jurisdiction. This results in daily examples of electronic media providing a platform for poor communication, insulting language and persecution of women (victims of domestic and any other violence, female journalists, female politicians); civil society (various civic actions, their leaders); journalists (especially female journalists); migrants (religious intolerance); other peoples living in Serbia (Montenegrins, Roma people); other peoples in the area (Croats, Albanians); opposition party members, national minorities (Hungarians); the LGBT population, all other minority groups, or, in a word, dissenters in relation to mainstream thinking or official Serbian politics.

“Unfortunately, Serbia is a country of all kinds of violence. Generations are socialized in an atmosphere of intolerance in which hatred, discrimination and trampling on all ethical norms are the usual media decor. Hate speech is cultivated and encouraged because it is an important lever in the technology of governing, and the media, as an extended arm of the government, are on a joint venture to brutalize public life,” Vesna Malisic, journalist and deputy editor-in-chief of the weekly paper NIN tells Reporting Diversity Network 2.0.

“The goal is discipline, distraction from critical discourse and withdrawal from the political space that the government wants to rule sovereignly. Of course, in this kind of perverted reality, hate speech, humiliation and disregard are presented as freedom of speech, as is the right to dissent,” she continues.

Malisic mentions that based on Article 51, REM should ensure that  “the content of the media service provider does not contain information that incites, in an overt or covert manner, discrimination, hatred or violence, on the grounds of race, color, ancestry, citizenship, nationality, language, religion or political beliefs, gender, gender identity, sexual orientation, property status, birth, genetic characteristics, health status, disability, marital and family status, convictions, age, appearance, membership in political, trade union and other organizations and other real, i.e. presumed personal characteristics”.

However this article is not upheld by the regulatory body.

“The paradox lies in the fact that, until September 2020, REM did not file any criminal charges against media service providers for discriminatory speech, violation of the protection of minors and hate speech in the electronic media, although that falls within the scope of its jurisdiction,” explains Malisic.

“The starting point of hate speech is politics, just as the political setups in REM are the reason for its indolence towards hate speech, which is literally rolled out on commercial television programs. When society as a whole goes beyond the institutions, into the space of “who has whom”, there are few possibilities to call for respect for the law and expect an atmosphere of basic civilized behavior,” Malisic tells Reporting Diversity Network 2.0.

TV Happy, a national frequency TV channel that has been put to spotlight by Reporting Diversity 2.0 monitors several times, frequently airs shows full of hate speech either subtle or covert or oftentimes the shamelessly open. Journalism in TV Happy is below standards and seems to be led by political incentives. Several shows invite speakers who are close to the government and the government itself oftentimes uses TV Happy to share its own political propaganda. Thus journalistic practice is reduced to tools for attacking dissidents.

A different opinion is not a “mental fallacy”

One example of hate speech on TV Happy came on the show hosted by Milomir Maric, whose guest at the time was historian Aleksandar Rakovic. Rakovic demonstrated a desire to discredit the current Montenegrin government, and the general achievements of modern Montenegrin society. Among other things, he said:

“It (Montenegro) is a society completely different from ours, so when Novo Vujosevic wrote the book “How to recognize a an utter coward”, he wrote on the example of Montenegro – and Novo Vujosevic is from Montenegro, and he is also a sociology professor at the University of Niksic – and he wrote that book, so now I fully recognize everything I wrote about myself, but I believed that there were no more of these mental fallacies among Serbs in Montenegro. However, it became apparent that they do indeed still exist… “

The whole show suggests that having a different (political) opinion is a “mental fallacy”, and that the Serbian society is better than the Montenegrin society on the basis of a banal and inaccurate remark, that in Serbia there is no “Me to you – you to me tribal political poetics”.

Hate speech is very often directed against the LGBTQ+ community.  One significant example of this on TV Happy is when Dule Savic, a Yugoslavian football star was a guest. Savic said: “Now if you are a whore, fag, lesbian, prostitute, monkey, fool, you get two hours and they still pay you… “. A little later he also said: “Gordana Comic (Minister for Human and Minority Rights and Social Dialogue) is now making a law on fag marriages for you, you want to save Serbia from that. How will you do this when the leaders in Serbia are fags and lesbians and that is promoted through your realities and other nonsense…”. He concluded with: “…You make heroes out of people who don’t deserve to be mentioned…. This is regulated by not making such fools public, end of story.”

The LGBTQ+ community was similarly referred to in another show which, both bizarrely and tendentiously, merged two topics that have nothing in common – same-sex marriages and the defense of Kosovo. The show was boosted on YouTube with the title “Fierce show”, and saw the self-proclaimed sociologist Miroljub Petrovic express views which would have surely faced immediate sanction in a country with respect for the upholding of human rights. Petrovic stated:

“One of the developmental aspects of all that is economic Serbia, since we know that the gay lobby controls finances in the world, and the fastest way to get a job, is not to finish school or college, but to become part of the LGBT population. And then you quickly get a job …”, to which the host Milomir Maric asks, “is being gay a profession then?”, Petrovic continues: “You need to invest in the economy, and the best way is to become part of the LGBT population, and then investments will come and then jobs will be created …”..

Hate speech towards women on TV Happy is considered the norm, in which even women -led programs women are presented and depicted in a misogynistic and inadmissibly insulting way. For example, politician Gordana Comic was referred to as a “woman with Stalin’s mustache” and a “crazy woman”, while politician Dragan Markovic Palma, who is accused of inappropriate relations with minors in Jagodina, is called a “gentleman”.

On TV Happy, the MP of the Serbian People’s Party, Vladimir Djukanovic, in a morning show goes a step further in belittling women who have gone through domestic violence. Djukanovic says that “it is known” that domestic violence is most often reported in police stations on Thursdays, because when a woman reports a man, he is usually detained by the police for 48 hours, so he has no way out until Monday, and “she during that time”, Djukanovic explains, “goes out with his friends, she has fun.” The host of this show listened to this misogynistic monologue of MP Djukanovic without any comment, remark or question.

The solution lies in education and media pluralism

Despite all the reports, REM did not react to all these shameful narratives of hatred. When RDN tried to contact them through their website, the form was not functioning and they did not respond to any emails sent to them. The lack of engagement from REM regarding these issues prevents further pursuit of a more responsible and respectful society in Serbia.

“Hate speech decreases as society becomes more democratic and more tolerant, and when debating returns as a chance to translate social conflicts into spiritual disputes, because dialogue, as the philosopher Djuro Susnjic said, takes you out of the world of violence and into the world of freedom,” Malisic concludes.

Malisic is of the opinion that we must return to the root of the problem by challenging policy that reproduces hatred and uses it as a tool for political battle, and in which the media is like a whip swinging over the head of any citizen who thinks differently from what the leading political power has approved.

The state of human rights in Serbia is only a reflection of the state of government institutions. Serbia today is far from a tolerant society that respects different opinions and different life attitudes regarding various life decisions. The system only nominally protects vulnerable social groups that, in essence, cannot exercise their human rights, which are discredited precisely through hate speech.

Apart from the fact that it would be more than necessary for REM to finally start doing  what is supposed to do including making their site functional – another possible solution for abolishing hate narratives in electronic media would certainly be education and media pluralism, i.e. opening space for others and different opinions, which, along with the non-sanctioning of aggressive communication, is currently the second biggest shortcoming of electronic media in Serbia. At the moment, electronic spaces are not easily given to anyone else who does not agree with the ruling party, as well as its leader and president of Serbia.

All this could lead to great consequences, not only for our society, but globally for the overall life of people today, especially if we keep in mind some worldwide tendencies, such as the rise of racism and xenophobia in the wider European and global context.

Note: This article includes some derogatory expressions that were said on the Serbian TV. These expressions were used for the purposes of the analysis and do not represent the ethics and journalistic integrity of the author, Reporting Diversity Network 2.0 and Media Diversity Institute Western Balkans.

Author: Snezana Miletic

Photo: BrAt82/ Shutterstock

Although miles apart, Serbia and the UK share a regrettable similarity: hate speech in sports.  The slogans that are shouted at football matches are always directed against minority groups. In Serbia, the most common targets are members of the LGBTQ + community, Bosniaks, Albanians and the Roma community. The UK, on the other hand, has long been criticised for its level of institutional racism present within its society itself and various institutions. Indeed, a recent report by the Commission on Race and Ethnic Disparities was deemed highly problematic and a missed opportunity for systematic change after it ‘failed to acknowledge the shocking disparities in healthcare, education and numerous institutions which affect minority communities in the UK’. The report itself was an investigation carried out by the UK Government in response to the Black Lives Matter movement and awareness raising of the levels of racism within the UK.

At the beginning of the month, at a football match in Novi Pazar, Partizan’s football club fans were shouting the name of convicted war criminal Ratko Mladic and “Nož, žica, Srebrenica” (“Knife, wire, Srebrenica”), which glorified the genocide in Srebrenica. Although the Super League announced that it would submit reports to the Football Association of Serbia due to the incident at the Novi Pazar – Partizan match, the promotion of nationalist ideas is nothing new in stadiums in Serbia. In 2013, Serbia adopted the National Strategy for Combating Violence and Indecent Behaviour at Sporting Events, but there was no noticeable progress. In addition, the European Commission against Racism and Intolerance (ECRI) announced in its report in 2017 , that there are indeed “strong links between violent fan groups and extreme right-wing organizations that have links to nationalist politicians and organized crime.”

During the course of England’s matches in Euro2020, the English National Team had shown both its solidarity and support for anti-racism by taking a knee in advance to their matches in association to campaigns such as Black Lives Matter. Although the players’ stance was welcomed by those who followed the games, there were times that the players were met with strong disapproval and hatred amongst the fans. During their match against Romania, the England team players who took the knee were met with loud booing from the crowd which led to anger and frustration amongst the nation. Boris Johnson himself was criticised on the premise that although he wanted ‘the whole country’ to get behind the England team, he has refused to condemn those responsible for the booing.

Following the Euro2020 Finals match between Italy and England Marcus Rashford, Jadon Sancho and Bukayo Saka were subjected to racist abuse online after they missed their penalties. This was then followed by acts of vandalism in Manchester in which the artwork in tribute to Marcus Rashford was defaced in the early morning following England’s defeat.

According to an article on ITV, most of the racist abuse and hate speech aimed towards the three players on Twitter originated from the UK after which the social media company revealed that it deleted almost 2,000 tweets in the wake of England’s final. As a result, Twitter acknowledged its need for a more robust monitoring of hate speech and racism online by creating a safe platform where racism has no place. Twitter furthermore noted that ‘racism was a deep societal issue still also taking place offline’ but equally on an online platform too. It is noticeable that Twitter policy is different for the Western Balkan countries. Although Twitter announced that they were intended to remove the content that denial Srebrenica genocide, the hate speech (and genocide denial) can still be spread on this platform.

As a reaction to and result of the numerous racist hate speech found both online and offline, many media outlets shamed and exposed such behaviour.

Most notably, news media including BBC, Al Jazeera and the Guardian reported on the various racist online hate which targeted all three England players. The BBC reported the number of supportive messages which covered up the racially aggravated damage at the mural at 02:50 BST on 12 July. People described Rashford, Sancho and Saka as ‘national heroes’.

According to a Guardian article from February this year, “last season 287 of the 2,663 football fixtures played in England and Wales featured at least one incident of hate crime whilst arrests for racist or indecent chanting rose by 150%.” Interviewed by the Guardian, sociologist Dr Jamie Cleland who has been uncovering and focusing on discourse amongst football fans has been quoted to argue that there has been what he calls a ‘casualisation’ of language:

“Society had become a lot busier, and so social norms aren’t being challenged as they would have been historically. People are getting way with things that they wouldn’t have a generation previously.”

Despite the positive reaction from both the public and media outlets who successfully reported on the incidents of racist hate speech online and exposed the numbers and figures, the overall conclusions are the same – that social media companies are the ones to blame for their lack of reaction and measures put in place to prevent such hate speech online. According to vox, ‘Facebook does not proactively moderate a common type of racist attack which were all aggressively being used against the three football players which included ‘comments full of monkey and banana peel emojis’.

It is worrying that hate speech in the stands moves to the media. Although according to the Serbian Journalists’ Code, journalists are obliged to oppose anyone who violates human rights or advocates any kind of discrimination, hate speech and incitement to violence, Serbian dailies Informer, Novosti and Alo reported the shouting of fans without any criticism or condemnation. Portal Alo even had an article condemning the Danas newspaper which actually condemned the slogans that Partizan football club fans shouted. Even the media that condemned the shouting of fans in Novi Pazar, remained only at the factual level of reporting, unlike BBC and the Guardian for example. Serbian media did not report about hate speech and denial of Srebrenica genocide after this incident. Only youth portal Zoomer had the article “Riots in the match Novi Pazar – Partizan: Where are we 20 years after the war?”, in which they critically approached the incident. The normalisation of hate speech in society could be a result of not critisising those who are responsible for it, including sports fans. Such normalization could lead to discrimination, violence, hostility and stereotypes that are the basis of hate crimes.

One of the recommendations of the European Commission against Racism and Intolerance

for Serbia is further education that should include the consequences of hate speech in recent history, including the genocide in Srebrenica. The media could use their educational role to implement such action, however, it is equally important that political figures take a stance against hate speech and condemn slogans and banners against marginalized groups as well.

Media outlets have a moral obligation and duty to both censor and expose hate speech and racist discourse both online and offline. As a result of the racist abuse brought by the Euro2020 finals, it is evident that most of Britain’s large media outlets did indeed speak out against such behaviour and successfully exposed the level of hate speech and racism amongst English football fans. Furthermore, a common theme amongst many of the reports was the common view that social media companies have the responsibility and duty to have stricter restrictions in place in order to monitor and prevent hate speech and racism online. Social media companies should learn a lesson from this incident and evaluate their level of proficiency in monitoring and reporting hate speech online as such platforms should be a place of diversity and equality rather than a feeding ground for hatred and racism.

Looking at hate speech in similar sectors but in different regions, in this case in British and Serbian sports, can become a lesson for examining and implementing policies which are necessary for preventing the spread of hate speech online.
Reporting Diversity Network emphasises the importance of fair media through diversity and impartiality to break free from the narratives of division.

Authors: Hana Kojaković and Ivana Jovanović

Photo: Fotosr52 /Shutterstock