Written by: Đurđa Radulović

In March 2024, Radio Television of Montenegro (RTCG), through its broadcasts of the programmes “Dnevnik” and “Argumenti”, as well as in an article on its website, contributed to spreading gender disinformation by presenting unbalanced views, dominated by religious figures, on LGBTIQ+ rights. The topic was the Draft Law on Legal Gender Recognition Based on Self-Determination. This important law, which Montenegro is expected to adopt soon, would enable transgender individuals to change their sex designation in official documents without undergoing medical procedures such as surgical interventions or hormone therapy, which is the current practice. This would reduce the stigmatisation of LGBTIQ+ individuals and allow everyone to live by their gender identity.

On March 11, during the Dnevnik prime-time news programme at 7:30 PM, RTCG broadcasted a statement from the Metropolitate of Montenegro and the Littoral regarding the Draft Law: “The Draft Law on Legal Gender Recognition Based on Self-Determination threatens the spirit of traditional and faithful Montenegro and contradicts the existing legal norms of the state, according to the Metropolitanate of Montenegro and the Littoral.” During the announcement, footage of the Cetinje Monastery was shown, and apart from this segment, the topic was not further addressed in the main news programme, according to a warning, which also included concerns about objectivity and balance, issued by the Agency for Electronic Media (AEM) to RTCG.

During the segment, no alternative perspectives were presented, nor was any editorial commentary provided on how the views of the church could impact LGBTIQ+ rights. A similar report was published on RTCG's portal under the title "The Metropolitanate Opposes Sex Designation Change”. In this statement, the Metropolitanate described the Draft Law as a "disgrace and scandal" that must be excluded from the realm of "serious debate and decision-making”. The Metropolitanate's statement also appealed to decision-makers who are members of the Serbian Orthodox Church (SPC) not to support the law.

A few days later, on March 14, during the TV show“Arguments”, religious leaders were invited by the host and editor, Ivana Popović, to comment on the draft law. Four religious leaders from Montenegro participated in the TV show: Metropolitan Joanikije of the Serbian Orthodox Church, the Reis of the Islamic Community of Montenegro, Rifat Fejzić, the Catholic Archbishop of Bar, Rrok Gjonlleshaj, and the Chief Rabbi of Montenegro, Luciano Moše Prelević. The programme, which was initially intended to focus on the coexistence of religious communities in the country, turned into a discussion about how religious institutions could strengthen their influence over key political decisions and legislation.

“You recently spoke out from the Metropolitanate regarding the alleged Draft Law, which would also include the possibility of changing one’s sex and identification number. Why were you the first to comment on this matter, and isn’t this interference in state affairs?” Popović asked Joanikije.

Following the program, the Coalition for the Rights of LGBTIQ+ Persons Equality appealed, highlighting that the way the question was posed was highly problematic. They stated that “the editor misrepresented the content and essence of the Draft Law, which addresses the administrative change of sex designation and identification numbers, and doesn’t deal with the issue of gender-affirming surgery, which has been regulated since 2012 under the Health Insurance Law.”

Following an initiative submitted by non-governmental organisations advocating for LGBTIQ+ rights, AEM issued a warning to RTCG for violating numerous media regulations and ethical principles during the broadcast of these programs. AEM's warning stated that RTCG had "failed to contribute to comprehensive, impartial, and objective public information regarding the Draft Law on Legal Recognition of Gender Identity Based on Self-Determination in a fair and balanced manner”.

By posing questions about the law only to the representatives of religious communities, and not including representatives of secular institutions or organisations, "the views of religious communities regarding participation in the drafting of laws on human rights were presented as relevant in Montenegrin society. This directly violates the principle of a secular society," the Equality coalition stated.

The Use of Propaganda Rhetoric by Religious Leaders

Answering the journalist's question, religious leaders expressed a number of problematic views. “There are some people who have this problem and cannot identify... but encouraging a person to such an unnatural dilemma is truly dangerous because we are talking about minors," stated  Joanikije. He further stated, without citing sources, that "it is well known that those who change their sex later have problems and want to return to their original state, and an incurable trauma occurs. Suicides happen. In such cases, the number of suicides is extremely high”.

Fejzić supported Joanikije, commenting that religious communities agree on many issues, including this one. Fejzić stated that the state should deal with sick children, "instead of paying someone to change their sex, only to have them change it back again”. Furthermore, Fejzić linked the passing of this law to Montenegro's aspiration to join the European Union, presenting the law as "one of the problems" on the European path.

Archbishop Rrok Gjonlleshaj stated that religious representatives cannot remain silent about laws that are "against God's commandments" because believers are their "spiritual children," and "a parent cannot remain silent if the life of a child is endangered”.

Chief Rabbi Luciano Moše did not want to comment on the law, but said that the problem is that "Europe imposes certain laws" and called for the inclusion of religious communities in making laws like this one.

Such views are typical examples of anti-transgender propaganda. Transphobic narratives often use arguments about the suicide rate among transgender people to undermine the validity and effectiveness of medical interventions, including hormone therapy and gender-affirming surgeries. These arguments are usually based on the claim that suicidal tendencies do not decrease or may even increase after gender-affirming procedures, which is often misinterpreted or taken out of context. Recently, Elon Musk, one of the most influential billionaires in the world and a proponent of transphobic narratives, wrote on "X" that the suicide rate is higher among individuals who undergo gender-affirming surgery, compared to the general population. While it is true that the transgender community faces mental health challenges, the number of suicides can hardly be perceived solely as a result of the surgery itself, as the general lack of community support and psychological care for transgender individuals can have a significant contribution.

Fejzić's argument regarding sick children, to whom the state should redirect funds instead of paying for gender-affirming surgeries, is common transphobic discourse to delegitimise healthcare support for the transgender community. This argument typically operates on the assumption that supporting one group must exclude support for another, and that the needs of one are more legitimate than the needs of the other.

Furthermore, the view that LGBTIQ+ human rights are part of "European propaganda" is common in conservative circles, which attempt to undermine human rights and portray them as a negative influence coming from the West.

"The broadcaster failed to contribute to comprehensive, objective, and impartial public reporting, particularly due to the fact that the topic was treated superficially and incidentally in a format that did not meet the requirements for the application of the “other side” rules, allowing the presentation of harmful views, as well as incomplete and false claims, without any appropriate response from the host," stated the AEM. While the guests "suggested that supporting the right to recognise gender identity based on self-determination is questionable in terms of 'normalcy' and 'naturalness', and that the law calls into question and undermines religious feelings and heritage," RTCG "should have highlighted the legally protected right to protection from discrimination based on gender identity," stated the AEM.

Among other things, the AEM assessed that by adopting this approach, RTCG "enabled the tendentious promotion of the interests of one group/side (religious communities)," and further criticised the fact that in subsequent broadcasts, RTCG did not address the draft law in a balanced manner.

“Verdict” of the Agency for Electronic Media

The AEM assessed that RTCG violated several provisions of the Law on Electronic Media (the Law) and the Rulebook on Program Standards in Electronic Media (the Rulebook). According to the Warning Decision sent to RTCG, the public service violated Article 55 of the Law and Article 7 of the Rulebook "by failing to fulfill the media obligation to contribute to free, truthful, comprehensive, impartial, and timely public information about events in the country," as well as Article 56 of the Law and Article 8 of the Rulebook, which concern the obligation of faithful representation, i.e., that "different approaches and opinions should be appropriately represented, encouraging impartiality and respecting differences in opinions on political or economic issues”. Additionally, Article 8 of the Law and Article 11 of the Rulebook state that "programme content, especially news-political and current affairs programmes, must be fair and balanced, which is achieved by presenting opposing views, either in the same programme or in a series of other programmes that form a whole in addressing a specific topic," and that "the interests of a political party or any group or individual must not be tendentiously promoted”.

The AEM instructed RTCG to broadcast information regarding the imposed administrative supervisory measure in its programme.

This was not the first time that RTCG has reported on important gender topics in a problematic manner. In May 2022, RTCG aired a programme, also in prime time, titled "Abortion: Women's, State or Church Issue," which opened the topic of abortion rights, which were legalised in Montenegro in 1974 and have not been questioned since. 

The title of the program was changed after a public outcry. It was retitled to "The Right to Abortion – YES or NO?", and eventually, the title was adjusted to "Abortion – From Constitutional Right to Taboo Topic?"

The program featured feminist and philosopher Paula Petričević, the then-priest of the Serbian Orthodox Church, Gojko Perović, gynaecologist Vojislav Šimun, and representative of the Ministry of Health, Slađana Ćorić. Perović's participation, where he defended the stance of the Serbian Orthodox Church, sparked significant discontent and protests. The Ombudsman for Human Rights, Siniša Bjeković, stated in an interview with Radio Free Europe that he did not understand why this issue was being raised at this time, emphasizing that for the Ombudsman, "it is absolutely and unquestionable a woman's right to decide on this matter”.

Since 2020, the Serbian Orthodox Church an Active Socio-Political Actor

Montenegro has undergone significant socio-political changes since 2020. The end of the three-decade rule of Milo Đukanović and the Democratic Party of Socialists (DPS) in 2020, which happened with the support of the Serbian Orthodox Church (SPC), marked a turning point. Large protests (liturgies) in 2019 against the Law on Religious Freedom signalled the strengthening of the SPC and Serbian nationalism, and thus the conservative values upheld by the SPC.

The 42nd Government of Montenegro, which replaced the DPS, was closely linked to the SPC. The Church, through its activities and public appearances, increasingly assumed the role of a political actor, while government representatives promoted conservative views. Statements by politicians such as Prime Minister Zdravko Krivokapić and other government members were marked by traditionalism, patriarchal views, and negative stances on gender equality. At the same time, SPC promoted positions against LGBTQ+ rights and women's freedoms.

Such views began to gain media space, often relativizing discrimination and opposition to laws and international human rights conventions that Montenegro supports. The SPC promoted collectivism and anti-Western sentiment, often using manipulative messages containing gender disinformation that reinforced misogyny, homophobia, and transphobia, which, according to the UN, represents a form of gender-based violence.

Through the analysis of the public service RTCG, which opened space for the SPC and other religious institutions to comment on civic laws, it was revealed how media spreads disinformation about women's and LGBTQ+ rights. This practice further jeopardises minority rights and contributes to the political instrumentalisation of gender issues in Montenegrin society, which remains a key issue for the future reforms.

Većinskim odobravanjem u javnosti i tek ponekim negativnim komentarom na račun iznevjerenih “tradicionalnih vrijednosti društva”, propraćeno je početkom jula prošle godine u crnogorskom parlamentu izglasavanje Zakona o životnom partnerstvu lica istog pola. 

Uprkos pravdanju pojedinaca iz parlamentarne većine da “tako Evropa traži”, kao i činjenici da su se od glasanja uzdržali predstavnici nacionalnih, srpskih, albanskih i bošnjačkih stranaka, crnogorsko društvo je napravilo značajan korak u odnosu na stanje prije nekoliko godina kada kordoni policije nijesu mogli da spriječe nasilje nad učesnicima parade ponosa.

“Ok, dobro je što i gej osobe imaju sad pravo na bračnu zajednicu, ali što to toliko heterovcima predstavlja problem?... Živela sloboda u Crnoj Gori, smrt bajatostima i zatucanosti” bio je jedan o doskora nezamislivih onlajn komentara ispod vijesti o glasanju, koji je zasjenio cinizmom prikriveni govor mržnje.  

Polovinom oktobra objavljeno je da je jedrilica sa 52 migranta privedena u crnogorsku Luku Zelenika. Uprkos tome što se broj migranata od 807 koliko ih je ušlo u Crnu Goru 2017. godine, povećao na više od deset hiljada u prošloj godini, oni se nijesu našli na meti “hejtera”. Namjere izbjeglica nijesu da ostanu u Crnoj Gori, nema zabilježenih značajnijih incidenata sa lokalnim stanovništvom, a vlasti im obezbjeđuju smještaj i osnovne uslove. Negativni komentari su usmjereni na kriminalce koji ih iskorištavaju.

“Svaka čast! Samo da se otkrije ko je organizator i logistika cijele operacije, a ne da kao po običaju, ispašta žrtvena jagnjad”, ilustruje to jedan od komentara.

U aktuelnoj debati o izmjenama izbornog zakona razmatra se i mogućnost da u parlament uđu i politički predstavnici Roma i Egipćana. Primjenom principa “afirmativne akcije”, za ovu populaciju, umjesto cenzusa od tri odsto glasova, važio bi svega 0,35. To se već primjenjuje u slučaju hrvatske manjine. Predlog za sada ima podršku svih učesnika u debati, bez negativnih komentara u javnosti.

Kada ovo ne bi bili izolovani primjeri, mogao bi se steći utisak o značajnoj emancipaciji crnogorskog društva. Realnost je, međutim, drugačija. 

Govorom mržnje kontaminirano je javno mnjenje, stereotipi iznova nadjačavaju glas razuma, a dodatno su produbljene podjele u društvu, kao refleksija zbivanja protekle godine. Počelo je protestima zbog Zakona o slobodi vjeroispovijesti, koji je predviđao oduzimanje imovine Srpskoj pravoslavnoj crkvi (SPC), zatim smjenom 30-godišnje vlasti Demokratske partije socijalista (DPS) na parlamentarnim izborima u avgustu, i na kraju je formiranjem heterogene vladajuće koalicije sastavljene od građanskih, umjereno i ultra srpskih nacionalističkih partija.     

Trujumfalizam dijela pobjednika iz redova srpskih nacionalista, duge povorke, vatrometi, mahanje zastavama Srbije i isticanje crkvenih simbola izazvali su snažne reakcije druge strane, odakle je uzvraćeno takozvanim patriotskim skupovima “za odbranu Crne Gore”, iza kojih je, iako zvanično bez organizatora, prema brojnim indicijama, stajala bivša vlast. 

Sve je to podsticano i zapaljivim govorima, porukama istaknutih nacionalista iz Srbije o toma da treba ujediniti “srpski svet”, odnosno Srbiju, Crnu Goru i Republiku Srpsku, srušiti mauzolej na vrhu planine Lovćen u kojoj se nalazi kripta sa ostacima crnogorskog pjesnika i vladara Petra Petrovića Njegoša i obnoviti kapelu koju je na tom mjestu svojevremeno izgradio jugoslovenski kralj Aleksandar Karađorđević . 

Svoj doprinos sa druge strane dao je aktuelni predsjednik države i poražene Demokratske partije socijalista Milo Đukanović, hrabreći svoje pristalice da će Crnu Goru braniti i “iz šume ako treba”.  

“Pa kako mislite da se Crna Gora odbranila kroz prethodne vekove, otkud Crnoj Gori deset vjekova državnosti? Tako što nije branjena u parlamentu, nego je branjena oružjem, branjena je u šumi. Prema tome ako neko misli da može da nam oduzme naš krov nad glavom, radićemo ono što biste i vi radili, kada bi neko došao da vam mimo vaše volje, ruši vaš krov nad glavom, to je logično“, rekao je Đukanović, gostujući na FACE TV.

Kao pandan srpskim nacionalističkim organizacijama, koje ističu svoju klerikalnu, a često i četničku tradiciju i znamenja, uprkos tome što su njihovi prethodnici u Crnoj Gori označeni kao kolaboracionisti fašista u Drugom svjetskom ratu, nikle su organizacije sa prefiksom “crnogorski”. To su razni “patriotski savezi”, ali i “komitski”, kako su označavani pobunjenici, koji su se prije jednog vijeka pobunili protiv gašenja Kraljevine Crne Gore i njenog pripajanja Srbiji.

Govor mržnje obiluje i novim jezičkim kovanicama, pa se tako u dijelu medija koji podržavaju ultranacionalističko srpsko krilo, poput portala In4s.me i Borba.me uz negiranje crnogorskog identiteta, umjesto Crnogorci, koristi i podrugljiv naziv “milogorci” (prema imenu predsjednika Crne Gore).

Na drugoj strani, pored sterotipa da su svi Srbi jednako četnici, pojavio se i termin “ravnogorska fukara”. Povezan je sa imenom planine u Srbiji Ravna Gora gdje je 1941. godine pukovnik Dragoslav Mihailović poveo pristalice koje nijesu prihvatile kapitualciju Jugoslovenske vojske. Sa ovih adresa uz pominjanje crnogorske vlade, redovno se dodaje da je ona klerikalno-izdajnička  (portal Aktuelno.me). 

Doprinos govoru mržnje nedavno je dala i liderka Socijaldemokratske partije Crne Gore (SDP) Draginja Vuksanović-Stanković, inače profesorica na Pravnom fakultetu koja je u parlamentu Srbe u Crnoj Gori nazvala “posrbicama”. To je aluzija na naziv “poturice”, koji se uvredljivo koristio prije 200 godina za Crnogorce koji prelaze u islam.     

Na liniji vatre, između ovako suprotstavljenih strana, najviše su oni koji ne pristaju na podjele i jezik uvreda i mržnje. Njima je sa oba pola namijenjena jedinstvena etiketa – izdajnici. Pored nezavisnih medija i NVO, tome su posebno izloženi predstavnici Ujedinjene reformske akcije (URA), stranke građanske provenijencije, najmalobrojnije članice vladajuće koalicije. Pripadnici URA su stari Zakon o slobodi vjeroispovijesti i djelovanje vlasti označavali diskrimanatornim po SPC i građane srpske nacionalnosti, ali se sada i u novoj vlasti protive da klatno pođe na drugu stranu. Uz svakodnevne pritiske i prijetnje, kojima je izložen lider URA i potpredsjednik nove Vlade Dritan Abazović, što ispituje i tužilaštvo, ilustrativan je primjer funkcionera stranke Filipa Adžića. On i porodica, pored verbalnih, izloženi su i fizičkim prijetnjama na Cetinju gdje živi, zbog toga što je trebalo da u parlamentu glasa za ukidanje spornih djelova iz Zakona o slobodi vjeroispovijesti, koji se tiče imovinskih prava SPC. Pod pritiskom koji je trpjela i njegova porodica, Adžić je napustio parlament i završio kao savjetnik Abazovića u kabinetu potpredsjednika Vlade.

“Pitaćemo naše rođake Adžiće iz Đinovića, što misle: jesu li na Tvojoj strani protiv Crne Gore ili mojoj i njihovoj za Crnu Goru. Ja sam na pravoj, a ti na pogrešnoj strani istorije. Jer Ti si objektivo izdao Crnu Goru…” napisao je otvorenom pismu Filipu Adžiću na portalu Cdm.me istoričar Novak Adžić.

Bivša vlast, prije svega Đukanović objašnjavajući poraz, ne krije gorčinu ni prema međunarodnoj zajednici, optužujući je, da je nijemo gledala upliv vlasti iz Srbije u izborna i druga dešavanja u Crnoj Gori. Slijedeći ovu nit, na meti govora mržnje, ad hominem, našla se i američka ambasadorka Džudit Rajzing Rajnke, koju je u autorskoj emisiji na Javnom servisu novinarka Tamara Nikčević, pozivajući se na svoj izvor, optužila da je “na privatnoj večeri projektovala da će predsjednik Milo Đukanović izvesti tenkove na ulice nakon izbora 30. avgusta”.

"To ne da je neozbiljno, nego ja ne znam sa čime se to graniči", prokomentarisala je Nikčević i pitala "da li je moguće da jedna tako velika zemlja pošalje u Crnu Goru takvu ambasadorku".

Savjet javnog servisa je osudio ovaj gest, novinarka se izvinila “ako je uvrijedila ambasadorku”, ali je ostao utisak da je televizija koju finansiraju svi građani, prepoznata kao medijska batina prethodne vlasti, dodatno pomjerila granice u tolerisanju govora mržnje.

U opštoj razmjeni vatre, ostalo je nedorečeno i neistraženo ko je i za čiji račun, odmah poslije izbora, slao poruke mržnje Bošnjacima i Albancima, kamenovao džamije i ispisivao grafite, prijeteći da bi im se promjenom vlasti moglo desiti isto što i sunarodnicima u Srebrenici u Bosni i Hercegovini gdje je više od osam hiljada strijeljala vojska Radovana Karadžića i Ratka Mladića. 

Đukanović je odbio da potpiše izmjene Zakona o slobodi vjeroispovijesti i neke druge odluke parlamenta, odbacujući i odluke Vlade o smjeni ambasadora i promjeni komandnog kadra u Vojsci Crne Gore. Uprkos pokušajima da se nove vlasti dogovore sa njim, kohabitacija i dalje ne izgleda kao moguća misija. Tim prije, što u martu slijede lokalni izbori u Nikšiću, gradu drugom po veličini u Crnoj Gori, pa suprostavljeni polovi strahuju da bi svaka saradnja mogla, da pošalje poruku biračima o sopstvenim slabostima. 

Crna Gora će zbog svega, još neko vrijeme biti zarobljenik prošlosti, stereotipa i nedovoljno snažne alternative da efikasno suzbije govor mržnje.

 Slavoljub Šćekić,
glavni i odgovorni urednik
Centra za istraživačko novinarstvo Crne Gore (CIN-CG) 

Tekst je objavljen u okviru projekta Reporting Diversity Network 2.0, koji realizuje Media Diversity Institute iz Londona u saradnji sa Centrom za istraživačko novinarstvo Crne Gore (CIN-CG), Mrežom za profesionalizaciju medija Jugoistočne Evrope (SEENPM), Centrom za istraživačko novinarstvo Bosne i Hercegovine, Institutom za komunikacione studije Skoplja (ICS) i Novinskom agencijom KosovaLive.

The voting of the Law on Life Partnership of same-sex partners was followed, in the beginning of July last year in the Montenegrin Parliament, by the majority of public approval and only a few negative comments on the account of betrayed “traditional values ​​of society”.

Despite the justification of individuals from the parliamentary majority that “this is what Europe demands”, as well as the fact that representatives of national, Serb, Albanian and Bosniak parties abstained from voting, Montenegrin society has made a significant step, in comparison with an incident from a couple of years ago, when police cordons could not prevent violence against Pride participants.

“Okay, it is positive that gay people have the right to marry now, but why is this such a big problem for the heterosexuals? … Long lived free Montenegro, death to the staleness and narrow-mindedness” was, until recently, one of the indispensable online comments below the news about voting, which overshadowed the cynically disguised hate speech.

In mid-October, it was announced that a sailboat with 52 migrants had been brought to the Montenegrin port of Zelenika. Despite the fact that the number of migrants, from 807 who entered Montenegro in 2017, increased to more than ten thousand last year, they were not targeted by “haters”. The refugees do not intend to stay in Montenegro, there are no significant incidents with the local population, and the authorities provide them with accommodation and basic conditions. Negative comments are aimed at criminals who exploit them.

“Congratulations! Just to find out who is the organizer and logistics of the whole operation, so that the sacrificial lamb wouldn’t suffer as usually”, illustrates one of the comments.

The current debate on changes to the election law is also considering the possibility of Roma and Egyptian political representatives entering parliament. By applying the principle of “affirmative action”, for this population, instead of the census of three percent of votes, only 0.35 would be valid. This is already applied in the case of the Croatian minority. For now, the proposal has been supported by all participants in the debate and there are no negative comments in public.

If these were not isolated examples, one could get the impression of a significant emancipation of Montenegrin society. However, the reality is different.

Hate speech has contaminated public opinion, stereotypes are once again overpowering the voice of reason, while divisions in society have been further deepened, as a reflection of what happened last year. It began with protests over the Law on Freedom of Religion which foresaw the confiscation of property of the Serbian Orthodox Church (SOC), then with the removal of the 30-year-rule of the Democratic Party of Socialists (DPS) in the parliamentary elections in August, and eventually a heterogeneous ruling coalition was formed composed of civic, moderate and ultra-Serbian nationalist parties.

The triumphalism of a part of the victors from the ranks of Serbian nationalists, long processions, fireworks, waving Serbian flags, and the display of church symbols provoked strong reactions from the other side. They responded with so-called patriotic gatherings “for the defense of Montenegro” behind which, according to numerous indications, stood the former authorities.

All this was encouraged by incendiary speeches, messages of prominent nationalists from Serbia about the need to unite the “Serbian world”, that is, Serbia, Montenegro and Republic of Srpska, to demolish the mausoleum on the top of Lovcen, mountain where the crypt with the remains of the Montenegrin poet and ruler Petar Petrovic Njegos is located and to restore the chapel built by the Yugoslav king Aleksandar Karadjordjevic.

On the other side, the current president of the state and the defeated Democratic Party of Socialists, Milo Djukanovic, gave his contribution, by encouraging his supporters that he would defend Montenegro “from the forest if necessary”.

“So how do you imagine Montenegro has defended itself through previous centuries, whence Montenegro has ten centuries of statehood?” By not being defended in parliament, but being defended with weapons, in the woods. Therefore, if someone thinks that they can take away our roof over our head, we will do what you would do, if someone came to demolish your roof over your head against your will, that’s logical”, Djukanovic said for FACE TV.

As a counterpart to Serbian nationalist organizations, which emphasize their clerical and often Chetnik’s tradition and bearings, despite the fact that their predecessors in Montenegro were marked as fascist collaborators in World War II, organizations with the prefix “Montenegrin” emerged. These are various “patriotic alliances”, but also “comitatus”, as the insurgents, who a century ago revolted against the extinction of the Kingdom of Montenegro and its annexation to Serbia, were called.

Hate speech also abounds in new language coins, so in some media that support the ultranationalist Serbian wing, such as the In4s.me and Borba.me portals, in addition to denying the Montenegrin identity, instead of Montenegrins, the mocking term “milogorci”(which is connected with president Djukanovic, meaning “Milo-negrins”) is used.

On the other side, in addition to the stereotype that all Serbs are equally Chetniks, the term “ravnogorska fukara” also appeared. It is connected with the name of the mountain in Serbia, Ravna Gora, where in 1941, Colonel Dragoljub Mihailovic led supporters who did not accept the capitulation of Yugoslav Army. From these addresses, with the mention of the Montenegrin government, it is regularly added that it is clerical-treacherous (portal Aktuelno.me).

The leader of the Social Democratic Party of Montenegro, Draginja Vuksanovic-Stankovic, a professor at the Faculty of Law, who recently called Serbs in Montenegro “posrbice”, also contributed to hate speech. It is an allusion to the name “poturice”, which was insultingly used 200 years ago for Montenegrins who converted to Islam.

Mostly, on the line of fire, between such opposing sides, are those who do not agree to divisions and the language of insults and hatred. Both sides use the unique label for them – traitors. In addition to independent media and NGOs, representatives of the United Reform Action (URA), a party of civic provenance, and the smallest members of the ruling coalition, are particularly exposed to this. Members of the URA called the old Law on Freedom of Religion and the actions of the government discriminatory against the Serbian Orthodox Church and Serbian citizens, but now, even in the new government, they oppose that the pendulum swing to the other side. Along with the daily pressures and threats to which the leader of the URA and the Deputy Prime Minister of the new Government, Dritan Abazovic, is exposed, which is also being investigated by the prosecution, the illustrative example is also Filip Adzic, an official of a political party. He and his family, in addition to verbal, are exposed to physical threats in Cetinje where he lives, because he was supposed to vote in parliament for abolition the disputed parts of the Law on Freedom of Religion, which concerns the property rights of the Serbian Orthodox Church. Under the pressure that his family suffered as well, Adzic left parliament and ended up as Abazovic’s adviser in the deputy prime minister’s office.

“We will ask our relatives Adzics from a village Djinovic if they are they on Your side, against Montenegro, or mine and theirs, for Montenegro. I’m on the right side and You’re on the wrong side of history. Because You betrayed Montenegro … ” Novak Adzic, a historian, wrote in an open letter to Filip Adzic on the cdm.me portal.

In their explanations of defeat, the former government, but above all Djukanovic, do not hide the bitterness towards the international community, accusing it of silently watching the influence of the authorities from Serbia in the elections and other events in Montenegro. Following this thread, the target of hate speech, ad hominem, was the American ambassador Judy Rising Reinke. In an author’s show on the Public Service, journalist Tamara Nikcevic, referring to her source, accused ambassador that “at a private dinner she projected that the president Milo Djukanovic will deploy tanks on the streets after the elections on August 30. “

“It’s not only frivolous, but I can’t tell what it borders with”, Nikcevic commented and asked if it is possible for such a large country to send such an ambassador to Montenegro.

The Public Service Council condemned this gesture, the journalist apologized “if she insulted the ambassador”, but the impression remained that the television, financed by all citizens, recognized as a media beating of the previous government, further pushed the boundaries in tolerating hate speech.

In the general exchange of fire, it remained unclear and unexplored who and on whose behalf, immediately after the election, sent messages of hatred to Bosniaks and Albanians, stoned mosques and wrote graffiti, threatening that a change of government could happen to their compatriots in Srebrenica in Bosnia and Herzegovina, where more than 8,000 people were shot by the army of Radovan Karadzic and Ratko Mladic.

Djukanovic refused to sign the amendments to the Law on Freedom of Religion and some other decisions of the parliament, rejecting the decisions of the Government on the dismissal of the ambassador and the change of the command staff in the Army of Montenegro. Despite attempts to reach an agreement with the new authorities, cohabitation still does not seem likely to happen. Especially since the local elections in Niksic, the second largest city in Montenegro, will follow in March, so the opposing sides fear that any cooperation could send a message to voters about their own weaknesses.

Because of everything that is happening, Montenegro will continue to be a prisoner of the past, stereotypes and insufficiently strong alternatives to effectively suppress hate speech for a while.

Author: Slavoljub Šćekić,
Editor-in-chief of Center for Investigative Journalism of Montenegro (CIN-CG)

The article was published under the project Reporting Diversity Network 2.0, which is implemented by Media Diversity Institute from London, with its partners Center from Investigative Journalism of Montenegro (CIN-CG), South East European Network for Professionalization of Media (SEENPM), Center for investigative Journalism of Bosnia and Herzegovina, Institute of communication studies Skopje (ICS), Media Diversity Institute Western Balkan (MDI WB) and News Agency KosovaLive.

Centar za istraživačko novinarstvo Crne Gore (CIN-CG) osuđuje narastajući govor mržnje i poziva novinare/ke da se toj tendenciji na javnoj sceni suprotstave u skladu sa profesionalnim standardima i smjernicama Etičkog kodeksa novinara/ki. To se ne odnosi samo na proizvodnju govora mržnje, već i na njegovo širenje, podsticanje, promovisanje ili opravdavanje.

Dva primjera prethodne sedmice ukazuju na potrebu da se medijima, pored poziva da sami ne proizvode govor mržnje, skrene pažnja na neophodnu obazrivost prilikom izvještavanja o takvim sadržajima. 

Video klipom objavljenom na personalnom nalogu na jednoj društvenoj mreži, osoba N.N pored korišćenja uvredljivih izraza za crnogorsku i albansku naciju prijeti njenim pripadnicima likvidacijom. Izvještavajući o ovom slučaju, zbog kojeg su, u međuvremenu, nadležni organi pokrenuli istragu, dio medija je prenosio i link koji je vodio ka originalnom sadržaju. Kada je taj sadržaj uklonjen i sa personalnog naloga, link je nestao sa dijela tih portala, ali se na nekim ovaj video još uvijek nalazi.   

Drugi primjer je foto montaža uvredljivog sadržaja usmjerenog na visoku javnu funkcionerku, koja je, sa privatnog naloga izvjesnog “kreatora”, ubrzo objavljena i na nekim informativnim portalima i tako postala još dostupnija velikom broju korisnika. Iako je, pored osuda javnosti i zbog ovog govora mržnje pokrenuta istraga, uvredljivi sadržaj se još nalazi na pojedinim informativnim portalima.

Pozivajući novinare na profesionalno postupanje, kojim će se prilikom izvještavanja izbjeći i kreiranje tražnje za neprimjerenim sadržajima, podsjećamo i na etičke smjernice Kodeksa novinara i novinarki Crne Gore:

“Mediji ne smiju da objavljuju materijal namijenjen širenju neprijateljstva ili mržnje prema osobama zbog njihove rase, etničkog porijekla, nacionalnosti, vjeroispovijesti, pola, seksualne orijentacije, rodnog identiteta, fizičkih i mentalnih stanja ili bolesti, kao i političke pripadnosti.  Isto važi i ako postoji velika vjerovatnoća da bi objavljivanje nekog materijala izazvalo prethodno navedeno neprijateljstvo i mržnju…”

Navedeni i slični slučajevi, takođe, ukazuju na potrebu razvijanja i jačanja opšte medijske pismenosti, kao neophodnog uslova da i korisnici društvenih mreža stiču vještine za prepoznavanje ovakvog sadržaja i da ga ne dijele. To bi doprinijelo i lakšem prepoznavanju razlike između kredibilnih informacija i medija, od onih koji i kada navodno osuđuju govor mržnje čine to sa namjerom da bi ga dalje distribuirali, i/li podstakli nove slične reakcije sa druge strane polarizovanog društva. 

Slavoljub Šćekić,
Glavni i odgovorni urednik CIN-CG

The Center for Investigative Journalism of Montenegro (CIN-CG) will implement the regional project Reporting Diversity Network - RDN 2.0 in the next four years (April 2020 - April 2024).

The project aims to activate the role of civil society in combating narratives of divisions as a negative phenomenon that leads to conflicts, as well as to encourage positive discourse in order to contribute to respect for diversity, human rights and good neighborly relations. The project will strengthen the regional network of civil society organizations with the aim of working together to raise the quality of media coverage of the following issues: ethnicity, religion, gender, sexual orientation and age.

RDN 2.0 will seek to provide tools and resources to civil society to influence the strengthening of inclusive media. It will also support effective policy-making in areas that promote tolerance on a national and regional basis.

It is envisaged that the project will develop a media monitoring methodology within which the project team will detect hate speech and discriminatory discourses in the media, and create responses / complaints based on these discourses.

During the implementation of the project, 30 local civil society organizations across the region will be supported to implement projects and initiatives that will increase media monitoring, contribute to stopping harmful media practices and respond to them in a way that promotes tolerance and inclusion. It is also planned to hold national and regional conferences aimed at initiating a discussion on this topic. During the implementation of the project, an intensive campaign will be conducted through websites and social networks.

The lead applicant is the Institute for Media Diversity Institute in London (MDI). The project is funded by the European Union (EU).

Centar za istraživačko novinarstvo Crne Gore (CIN-CG), će u naredne četiri godine (april 2020 – april 2024) sprovesti regionalni projekat Mreža za izvještavnje o različitosti – RDN 2.0.

Projekat ima za cilj aktiviranje uloge civilnog društva u suzbijanju narativa o diobama kao nečem što je negativno i što vodi u sukobe, te podsticanju pozitivnog diskursa kako bi se doprinijelo poštovanju različitosti, ljudskih prava i dobrih međususjedskih odnosa. Projekat će osnažiti regionalnu mrežu organizacija civillnog društva sa ciljem da zajedno utiču na podizanje kvaliteta izvještavanja medija o pitanjima etničke pripadnosti, religije, pola, seksualne orijentacije i starosti.

RDN 2.0 će nastojati da obezbijedi alate i resurse civilnom društvu kako bi se uticalo na jačanje inkluzivnih medija. Takođe će podržati efikasno kreiranje politika u oblastima koje promovišu toleranciju na nacionalnoj i regionalnoj osnovi.

Predviđeno je da se u okviru projekta razvije metodologija praćenja medija u okviru koje će projektni tim detektovati govor mržnje i diskriminatorske diskurse u medijima, te kreirati odgovore/žalbe na osnovu tih diskursa.

Tokom realzacije projekta biće podržano 30 lokalnih organizacija civilnog društva širom regiona kako bi sproveli projekte i inicijative kojima bi povećali monitoring medija, doprinijeli zaustavljanju štetnih medijskih praksi i na njih odgovorili na način koji promoviše toleranciju i uključenost. Takođe je predviđeno održavanje nacionalnih i regionalnih konferencija čiji je cilj pokretanje diskusije o ovoj temi. Tokom implementacije projekta biće sprovedena intezivna kampanja putem sajtova i društvenih mreža.

Nosilac projekta je Institut za medije i različitosti iz Londona (MDI), a finansijsku podršku obezbijedila je Evropska unija (EU).