Connect with us

Belgrade LGBT Activists Plan Pride, While History of Violence Looms Large

Published

on

Belgrade Pride has a history replete with violence and disruption and yet, planning proceeds while a newly elected right-wing government struggles to form a majority in parliament

 

On June 27, members of the LGBT community in Belgrade gathered to commemorate International Pride Day. They carried banners and balloons in the street and publicized the slogan “Silence will not stop us.” A rainbow flag waved from the office of Serbia’s ombudsman, who is tasked with protecting human rights. Yet this was not Belgrade’s official Pride parade. That is scheduled for September 30-October 7 and will include, in addition to a parade, workshops, fashion shows, debates, and exhibitions. Indeed, planning for the event is in full swing.

Yet the event sits against a bleak historical backdrop. Prides in Serbia have been among the most controversial and violent in the world. In 2001, at the first Belgrade Pride, parade participants were attacked by football hooligans and right-wing groups in a terrifying display of homophobia.  Another Pride would not be planned until 2009, but that year’s event was canceled due to threats of more violence and a lack of cooperation from the police.

The parade went ahead in 2010 and was again besieged; police tasked with providing security for Pride clashed with hundreds of anti-gay protesters, who also attacked government and media facilities. And last year, the government again canceled Pride in the name of security, just 48 hours before it was scheduled to take place. So high-profile has Serbia’s Pride become that, in late 2011, a local director released the movie Parada (“The Parade”), a comedy-cum-drama in which a Serb ex-combatant from the 1990s agrees to provide security for a Pride organizer.

What will happen to Belgrade Pride 2012? Given the historical context as well as a newly elected Serbian president Tomislav Nikolić, who is more right-wing than his predecessor (he was once an ally of Slobodan Milosevic and Vojislav Seselj), it is a critical question for the LGBT community.  So I put it, along with other queries, to Boban Stojanović, a member of the Belgrade Pride Organizing Committee.

NCRM:  Did you face any protests or other backlash on June 27 when you held Pride Day events?

Stojanović: No. It was strange, most people were very positive.

NCRM: Why do you think Belgrade Pride has faced so many obstacles and threats from some people in Serbia?

Stojanović:  Because we are young democracy. We don’t have clear rules about anything, we cannot decide are we want to be pro-EU and pro-USA or pro-Russian. As a society, when we decide this [our orientation toward the world], we will have idea what to do with human rights.  Until then, we will give support to human rights but to nationalists and fundamentalists also.

Also, criminals and hooligans are connected with the state. During the 1990s, most of the politicians [today] were connected with war criminals, leaders of paramilitary troops, criminals, and narco dealers. … This is the base of hate toward LGBT in Serbia. … [People] need enemies.

NCRM: Belgrade Pride was banned by the government last year due to threats of violence. What did you, as organizers of Pride, think about this decision? How did you respond to the decision?

Stojanović:  Banning of Pride last year was the result of unstable state policy, and it just encouraged us to insist on our rights. The announcing of Belgrade Pride 2012 is more than a clear massage to this banning.

NCRM: Have government authorities and police been cooperating with the 2012 Pride organizers? Do you worry they might cancel Pride again?

Stojanović:  We don’t have a new government yet, after elections in May of this year. Tomislav Nikolic, a nationalist politician, was elected president and is still forming a new government.] But we are prepared and we will start with negotiators immediately. There are some positive things: Even though we are still a conservative society, there is some recognition about the importance of joining to EU [which requires meeting certain human rights benchmarks]. Also, because the election has passed, there is less tension than before. As for whether Pride will be banned or not, it is a state decision. We … deeply believe that Pride will happen.

NCRM: What do you think Nikolic’s election will mean for LGBT rights and issues in Serbia?

Stojanović:  Not so much. Until we have educated and professional people in important decision-making positions, things will be same. …. A general problem with Serbian institutions is some kind of pink-washing: a lot of words and promises but no concrete results. Last year, during the preparation of Pride, when some journalists asked some politicians, “Do you support Pride?” their answer was, “Violence is unacceptable.” And in 2010, an ex-minister for Human and Minority Rights, after so many meetings and big support to Pride, asked us, “Well, what exactly does the acronym ‘LGBT’ mean?”

NCRM: Are you concerned about the security of participants in the 2012 Pride? Or about how the events might affect members of the LGBT community in their daily lives? If you are concerned, what steps are being taken to protect individuals?

Stojanović:  The police have good tools to protect participants… [and] as organizers, we make a list with suggestions of how any person can increase his/her security at Pride. It is something what is standard at these events in this part of Europe. Pride is [one of] the biggest issue for LGBT people. We can speak in so many debates, round tables, but Pride can open huge public discussion about LGBT existence and rights. Pride can open discussion everywhere: in the office, classrooms, street, in families. It is good. We hope for two results: encouraging people to come out and increasing the number of people, mostly young people, who are willing to register violence.

NCRM: What is the slogan of this year’s Pride? Why was it chosen?

Stojanović:  [I will] quote one wonderful author, Marcus V. Agar, who wrote in his article: “Love, faith and hope: three universal human values that Belgrade Pride organizers hope will encourage greater positive interest in the lives, rights and issues of Serbia’s gay community. Working beneath this banner, they intend to present Pride as a meter by which to measure civil rights, freedom and democracy in the country. In an effort to move forward from last year, when Serbia’s government slammed an internationally condemned ban on a proposed parade through Belgrade, Pride chiefs have opted for a more approachable Ljubav, Vera, Nada re-brand, hopeful that people from across society will come together to encourage understanding, allay hatred and reduce prejudice of LGBT people in Serbia.”

NCRM:  Why do you think it is important to host Pride, even in the face of dangers? What are hopes for and goals of this year’s event?

Stojanović:  You know, if you look back, only those people and groups who insist on their rights get rights. It is a process. Those people who produce fears, they only want to discourage us. I deeply believe that honesty and love can erase hate. Hopes? Well, to have a nice and colorful Pride and Pride Week, a lot of encouraged people and positive energy in Belgrade. Our idea is to put human rights in focus … to become a place for all LGBT people (and those people who support them) to do whatever they want in order to promote equality for all.

 

Seyward Darby is a freelance writer currently living in Kosovo. She is working for a local human rights group on LGBT and freedom of expression projects with support from the Coca-Cola World Fund and Kirby-Simon Fellowship Program at Yale University. Her organization receives some funding from the U.S. government. 

 

Related Topics:
Continue Reading
Click to comment
 
 

Enjoy this piece?

… then let us make a small request. The New Civil Rights Movement depends on readers like you to meet our ongoing expenses and continue producing quality progressive journalism. Three Silicon Valley giants consume 70 percent of all online advertising dollars, so we need your help to continue doing what we do.

NCRM is independent. You won’t find mainstream media bias here. From unflinching coverage of religious extremism, to spotlighting efforts to roll back our rights, NCRM continues to speak truth to power. America needs independent voices like NCRM to be sure no one is forgotten.

Every reader contribution, whatever the amount, makes a tremendous difference. Help ensure NCRM remains independent long into the future. Support progressive journalism with a one-time contribution to NCRM, or click here to become a subscriber. Thank you. Click here to donate by check.

OPINION

‘I Hope You Find Happiness’: Moskowitz Trolls Comer Over Impeachment Fail

Published

16 hours ago

on

April 24, 2024

By

U.S. Rep. Jared Moskowitz (D-FL) is mocking House Oversight Committee Chairman Jim Comer over a CNN report revealing the embattled Kentucky Republican who has been alleging without proof President Joe Biden is the head of a vast multi-million dollar criminal bribery and influence-peddling conspiracy, has given up trying to impeach the leader of the free world.

CNN on Wednesday had reported, “after 15 months of coming up short in proving some of his biggest claims against the president, Comer recently approached one of his Republican colleagues and made a blunt admission: He was ready to be ‘done with’ the impeachment inquiry into Biden.” The news network described Chairman Comer as “frustrated” and his investigation as “at a dead end.”

One GOP lawmaker told CNN, “Comer is hoping Jesus comes so he can get out.”

“He is fed up,” the Republican added.

Despite the Chairman’s alleged remarks, “a House Oversight Committee spokesperson maintains that ‘the impeachment inquiry is ongoing and impeachment is 100% still on the table.'”

RELATED: ‘Used by the Russians’: Moskowitz Mocks Comer’s Biden Impeachment Failure

Last week, Oversight Committee Ranking Member Jamie Raskin (D-MD) got into a shouting match with Chairman Comer, with the Maryland Democrat saying, “You have not identified a single crime – what is the crime that you want to impeach Joe Biden for and keep this nonsense going?” and Comer replying, “You’re about to find out.”

Before those heated remarks, Congressman Raskin chided Comer, humorously threatening to invite Rep. Moskowitz to return to the hearing.

Congressman Moskowitz appears to be the only member of the House Oversight Committee who has ever made a motion to call for a vote on impeaching President Biden, which he did last month, although he did it to ridicule Chairman Comer.

It appears the Moskowitz-Comer “bromance” may be over.

Wednesday afternoon Congressman Moskowitz, whose sarcasm is becoming well-known, used it to ridicule Chairman Comer.

“I was hoping our breakup would never become public,” he declared. “We had such a great thing while it lasted James. I will miss the time we spent together. I will miss our conversations. I will miss the pet names you gave me. I only wish you the best and hope you find happiness.”

Watch the video above or at this link.

READ MORE: ‘Doesn’t Care if Pregnant Women Live or Die’: Alito Slammed Over Emergency Abortion Remarks

Continue Reading

OPINION

‘Doesn’t Care if Pregnant Women Live or Die’: Alito Slammed Over Emergency Abortion Remarks

Published

18 hours ago

on

April 24, 2024

By

The U.S. Supreme Court heard oral arguments in a case centered on the question, can the federal government require states with strict abortion bans to allow physicians to perform abortions in emergency situations, specifically when the woman’s health, but not her life, is in danger?

The 1986 federal Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act (EMTALA), signed into law by Republican President Ronald Reagan, says it can. The State of Idaho on Wednesday argued it cannot.

U.S. Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar, The Washington Post’s Kim Bellware reported, “made a clear delineation between Idaho law and what EMTALA provides.”

“In Idaho, doctors have to shut their eyes to everything except death,” Prelogar said, according to Bellware. “Whereas under EMTALA, you’re supposed to be thinking about things like, ‘Is she about to lose her fertility? Is her uterus going to become incredibly scarred because of the bleeding? Is she about to undergo the possibility of kidney failure?’ ”

READ MORE: Gag Order Breach? Trump Targeted Cohen in Taped Interview Hours Before Contempt Hearing

Attorney Imani Gandy, an award-winning journalist and Editor-at-Large for Rewire News Group, highlighted an issue central to the case.

“The issue of medical judgment vs. good faith judgment is a huge one because different states have different standards of judgment,” she writes. “If a doctor exercises their judgment, another doctor expert witness at trial could question that. That’s a BIG problem here. That’s why doctors are afraid to provide abortions. They may have an overzealous prosecutor come behind them and disagree.”

Right-wing Justice Samuel Alito appeared to draw the most fire from legal experts, as his questioning suggested “fetal personhood” should be the law, which it is not.

“Justice Alito is trying to import fetal personhood into federal statutory law by suggesting federal law might well prohibit hospitals from providing abortions as emergency stabilizing care,” observed Constitutional law professor Anthony Michael Kreis.

Paraphrasing Justice Alito, Kreis writes: “Alito: How can the federal government restrict what Idaho criminalizes simply because hospitals in Idaho have accepted federal funds?”

Appearing to answer that question, Georgia State University College of Law professor of law and Constitutional scholar Eric Segall wrote: “Our Constitution unequivocally allows the federal gov’t to offer the states money with conditions attached no matter how invasive b/c states can always say no. The conservative justices’ hostility to the spending power is based only on politics and values not text or history.”

Professor Segall also served up some of the strongest criticism of the right-wing justice.

READ MORE: ‘They Will Have Thugs?’: Lara Trump’s Claim RNC Will ‘Physically Handle the Ballots’ Stuns

He wrote that Justice Alito “is basically making it clear he doesn’t care if pregnant women live or die as long as the fetus lives.”

Earlier Wednesday morning Segall had issued a warning: “Trigger alert: In about 20 minutes several of the conservative justices are going to show very clearly that that they care much more about fetuses than women suffering major pregnancy complications which is their way of owning the libs which is grotesque.”

Later, predicting “Alito is going to dissent,” Segall wrote: “Alito is dripping arrogance and condescension…in a case involving life, death, and medical emergencies. He has no bottom.”

Taking a broader view of the case, NYU professor of law Melissa Murray issued a strong warning: “The EMTALA case, Moyle v. US, hasn’t received as much attention as the mifepristone case, but it is huge. Not only implicates access to emergency medical procedures (like abortion in cases of miscarriage), but the broader question of federal law supremacy.”

READ MORE: ‘Blood on Your Hands’: Tennessee Republicans OK Arming Teachers After Deadly School Shooting

 

 

 

Continue Reading

News

Gag Order Breach? Trump Targeted Cohen in Taped Interview Hours Before Contempt Hearing

Published

20 hours ago

on

April 24, 2024

By

Hours before his attorneys would mount a defense on Tuesday claiming he had not violated his gag order Donald Trump might have done just that in a 12-minute taped interview that morning, which did not air until later that day. It will be up to Judge Juan Merchan to make that decision, if prosecutors add it to their contempt request.

Prosecutors in Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg’s office told Judge Juan Merchan that the ex-president violated the gag order ten times, via posts on his Truth Social platform, and are asking he be held in contempt. While the judge has yet to rule, he did not appear moved by their arguments. At one point, Judge Merchan told Trump’s lead lawyer Todd Blanche he was “losing all credibility” with the court.

And while Judge Merchan directed defense attorneys to provide a detailed timeline surrounding Trump’s Truth Social posts to prove he had not violated the gag order, Trump in an interview with a local television station appeared to have done so.

READ MORE: ‘They Will Have Thugs?’: Lara Trump’s Claim RNC Will ‘Physically Handle the Ballots’ Stuns

The gag order bars Trump from “commenting or causing others to comment on potential witnesses in the case, prospective jurors, court staff, lawyers in the district attorney’s office and the relatives of any counsel or court staffer, as CBS News reported.

“The threat is very real,” Judge Merchan wrote when he expanded the gag order. “Admonitions are not enough, nor is reliance on self-restraint. The average observer, must now, after hearing Defendant’s recent attacks, draw the conclusion that if they become involved in these proceedings, even tangentially, they should worry not only for themselves, but for their loved ones as well. Such concerns will undoubtedly interfere with the fair administration of justice and constitutes a direct attack on the Rule of Law itself.”

Tuesday morning, Trump told ABC Philadelphia’s Action News reporter Walter Perez, “Michael Cohen is a convicted liar. He’s got no credibility whatsoever.”

He repeated that Cohen is a “convicted liar,” and insisted he “was a lawyer for many people, not just me.”

READ MORE: ‘Old and Tired and Mad’: Trump’s Demeanor in Court Detailed by Rachel Maddow

Since Cohen is a witness in Trump’s New York criminal case, Judge Merchan might decide Trump’s remarks during that interview violated the gag order, if prosecutors bring the video to his attention.

Enter attorney George Conway, who has been attending Trump’s New York trial.

Conway reposted a clip of the video, tagged Manhattan District Attorney Bragg, writing: “cc: @ManhattanDA, for your proposed order to show cause why the defendant in 𝘗𝘦𝘰𝘱𝘭𝘦 𝘷. 𝘛𝘳𝘶𝘮𝘱 should not spend some quiet time in lockup.”

Trump has been criminally indicted in four separate cases and is facing a total of 88 felony charges, including 34 in this New York criminal trial for alleged falsification of business records to hide payments of “hush money” to an adult film actress and one other woman, in an alleged effort to suppress their stories and protect his 2016 presidential campaign, which experts say is election interference.

Watch the video below or at this link.

READ MORE: ‘Blood on Your Hands’: Tennessee Republicans OK Arming Teachers After Deadly School Shooting

Continue Reading

Trending

Copyright © 2020 AlterNet Media.