Regionalni pregled

Napad na francuski satirični dnevni list Charlie Hebdo u januaru 2015. izazvao je talas preneraženosti i protesta širom Evrope, uz jednako moćne glasove koji preispituju slobodu štampe i slobodu izražavanja i njegovih granica. Štaviše, vlasti u različitim zemljama našle su “dobru” priliku da ponovo pokrenu rasprave o potrebi za oštrijim mjerama protiv medija ili oštrijih mjera sigurnosti i prismotre.

Kako se tema zakotrljala a događaji u muslimanskom svijetu kao i u drugim evropskim zemljama umnožili dramatične efekte napada u Parizu, Partnerstvo za jugoistočnu Evropu za Projekat razvoja medija analiziralo je kako je to pitanje uticalo na Balkan.

Kao rezultat nastali su nacionalni izvještaji za Albaniju, Bugarsku, Bosnu i Hercegovinu, Makedoniju, Crnu Goru i Srbiju. Istražili smo kako su o napadima pisali lokalni mediji kao i pozicije koje su zauzeli relevantni politički i vjerski lideri. Takođe smo iskoristili priliku da još jednom razmotrimo zakon koja se odnosi na slobodu izražavanja i vjersku slobodu i da li su satira i blasfemija i na koji način regulirani u tim zemljama.

Horizontalno čitanje nacionalnih izvještaja vodi do niza otkrića što nam dozvoljava da identificiramo slične uzorke širom regije. Sadašnji pregled ukratko analizira zakonske odredbe, kao i reakcije na političkom nivou, na nivou vjerskih lidera i medija i izvlači neke zajedničke zaključke. U pravilu, zakonski okvir svih zemalja uključenih u naš projekat je stabilan po međunarodnim standardima kad dođe do zaštite i jamstva slobode izražavanja. Ovo je uglavnom zbog činjenice da su sve zemlje promijenile svoje zakonodavstvo posljednjih godina, ostavljajućui iza sebe autoritarnu prošlost. Nema posebnih odredbi za suočavanje sa ‘blasfemijom’ ili restrikcijom satire - ali, kako se to ističe u makedonskom izvještaju – uopće i nema satire koja je iščezla iz nacionalnih medija uglavnom kao rezultat samocenzure.

Ali kako izvještaji jednoglasno zapažaju primjena naprednog zakonodavstva još je proces koji je u toku. Štaviše, autori otkrivaju da se stara praksa kontroliranja medija putem poluge političkog dejstva zadržala i čak učvrstila, uz znatan doprinos ekonomskog uticaja (politika i ekonomija isprepliću se u svim zemljama ispitanicama).

Širom regiona, glavna reakcija političkih lidera bila je osuda napada. Balkanski lideri bili su jednodušni u osudi nasilja i žaljenju zbog gubitka ljudskih života.

Većina lidera – sa izrazitim izuzetkom Makedonije – prisustvovali su “maršu jedan milion” u Parizu. Ipak, lokalni mediji bili su kritični prema tome, videći ovo veliko učešće više kao PR predstavu nego iskrenu manifestaciju tuge. Šta više, novinari su optužili nacionalne lidere za hipokriziju, pošto je u većini zemalja u regionu sloboda medija pod stalnim pritiskom i napadima.

Srbijanski izvještaj citira komentar na ova događanja Predraga Blagojevića, glavnog urednika portala online vijesti Južne Vesti: “Ako govorimo o Srbiji, hipokrizija je na djelu. Posebno je gradonačelnik Niša snažno osudio svaki pritisak na medije. ‘Pokušaj da se ograniči sloboda izražavanja u jednoj od najrazvijenijih demokratskih zemalja u svijetu bio je bolan za sve nas’, napisao je u knjizi žalosti 8. januara 2015. Međutim, on ne samo da je zaboravio da spomene prijetnje koje je samo deset dana ranije novinarima uputio javni službenik koji radi u općinskoj kompaniji, nego ništa nije rekao o cijeloj prethodnoj godini tokom koje su niški novinari dobijali prijetnje, bili vrijeđani i fizički napadani od strane predstavnika partije koju vodi, a od kojih su neki njegovi bliski saradnici.”

Slično i albanski izvještaj ilustrira kako je albanski premijer pohodio marš. “Kao znak solidarnosti, u džep svog sakoa stavio je tri olovke u boji francuske zastave, pokazujući svoju podršku slobodi govora i svoju solidarnost i naklonost Francuskoj. Uz to, poveo je predstavnike četiri velike religije u zemlji: muslimane, katolike, pravoslavne i Bektašije. Predstavnici svećenstva išli su ruku pod ruku ulicama Pariza, privlačeći aplauz gomile pred očitom solidarnošću, dok je kasnije izdanje Charlie Hebdo takođe posvetilo mali crtež ovoj epizodi. Trebalo je da ova epizoda naglasi i izveze takozvano stoljetno albansko iskustvo o vjerskoj toleranciji i suživotu, što je dugo vremena bilo pozdravljeno kao jedna od najpozitivnih crta albanskog društva. (...) Dok su neki pozdravljali učešće albanskog svećenstva u maršu i simboličan gest premijera, bilo je mnogo onih koji su izrazili svoj skepticizam u dva glavna aspekta: podizanje vjerske tolerancije u Albaniji u status mita i licemjerna podrška slobodnom govoru, izjavljujući da koriste dvostruke aršine za ljudska prava i slobodu medija.”

Vjerski lideri su takođe bili jednodušni u osudi napada na francuske novinare. Makedonski izvještaj citira Islamsku vjersku zajednicu Makedonije koja je osudila napad na Charlie Hebdo, objašnjavajući da nasilje nije dio Islama. “Mi snažno osuđujemo takva dešavanja i pozivamo da se svi zločinci, bez obzira na njihovu boju, nacionalnost ili religiju privedu pred lice pravde, jer smo ubijeđeni da u svijetu nema religije koja opravdava takve akcije.”

Neki drugi lideri su imali više nijansiranu poziciju, pošto su i oni osudili ono što su protumačili kao ’provokaciju’ muslimana. Neki od njih smatrali su da su u slučaju objavljivanja neprimjerenih karikatura bili na djelu ili neznanje ili nepoštivanje, što je s njihove tačke gledišta oboje za osudu. Vjerski lideri zauzeli su aktivniju poziciju, upućujući pozive na akciju. Jedan od njih, potpuno legitimno, bio je za to da se religija ogradi od terorizma i zatražio od medija da učine potrebnu distinkciju. Neki od njih su čak govorili o ‘islamofobiji’, o trendu koji su zapazili i od koga strahuju, te otud njihovi pozivi da se izbjegne takav tok akcije. Bez obzira na vjeru koju predstavljaju vjerski lideri su postigli stvarni konsenzus u ocjeni da je religija sveta i da se ne smije ismijavati. “Mora postojati linija između slobode govora i onog što je sveto. Ako naša religija zabranjuje svaki oblik predstavljanja Poslanika Muhammeda onda i oni koji se bave ovim stvarima treba da shvate da je to uvredljivo za muslimane. Ali ipak nema opravdanja za ono što se dogodilo u Parizu”, izjavio je Rifat Fejzić, reis Islamske zajednice, koga je citirao izvještaj iz Crne Gore.

Regional Overview

The attack against the French satirical newspaper Charlie Hebdo in January 2015 stirred a wave of consternation and protest across Europe, met by equally powerful voices that questioned the press freedom and freedom of expression and its limits. Moreover, authorities in various countries found a “good” opportunity to re-open debates on the need for tougher measures against media or tougher security and surveillance measures.

As the topic snowballed and events in the Muslim world, as well as in other European countries, multiplied the dramatic effects of the attacks in Paris, The South East European Partnership for Media Development Project analyzed the way the issue impacted the Balkans.

As a result the following national reports for Albania, Bulgaria, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Macedonia, Montenegro and Serbia were produced. We looked at how the attacks were covered in the local media and at the positions expressed by the relevant political and religious leaders. We also took the opportunity to scrutinize once more the legislation covering freedom of expression and religious freedom and whether satire and blasphemy are in any way regulated in these countries.

The horizontal reading of the national reports leads to a series of findings that allows us to identify similar patterns throughout the region. The present overview analyzes briefly the legal provisions, as well as the reactions at political level, at the level of religious leaders and of the media and draws some synthetic conclusions.

As a rule, the legislative framework of all the countries included in our project is abiding by the international standards when it comes to protecting and guaranteeing the freedom of expression. This is mainly due to the fact that all the countries changed their legislation in the last years, leaving behind their authoritarian past. There are no specific rules to deal with “blasphemy” or restriction to satire - but, as the Macedonian report points out - there is no satire whatsoever, as it disappeared from the national media mainly as a result of self-censorship.

But, as the reports note unanimously, putting in practice the advanced legislation is still an undergoing process. Moreover, the authors reveal that the old practice of controlling the media through political leverage has been maintained and even consolidated, with the notable contribution of economic influences (politics and economy being intertwined in all of the target countries).

Throughout the region, the main reaction of the political leaders was the condemnation of the attacks. The Balkans leaders were unanimous in condemning the violence and decrying the loss of human lives.

The majority of the leaders - with the notable exception of Macedonia - attended the “one million march” in Paris. Still, the local media was critical toward that, seeing this broad participation as more of a PR exercise than a sincere manifestation of grief. Moreover, the journalists accused the national leaders of hypocrisy, as in most countries in the region the media freedom is under constant pressure and attacks.

The Serbian report quotes Predrag Blagojevic, editor-in-chief of the online news portal JuzneVesti commenting on the events: “If we talk about Serbia, it was hypocrisy in practice. Specifically, the Mayor of Nis strongly condemned any pressure on media. “The attempt to restrict the freedom of expression in one of the most developed democratic countries in the world was the most painful of all”, he wrote in the condolences book on January 8, 2015. However, not only did he forget to mention the threats that had been directed to journalists ten days ago by a public servant working with a municipality company, but he also said nothing about the entire previous year in which Nis journalists were threatened, insulted and physically attacked by the representatives of the party he was leading, some of them being his close associates”.

Similarly, the Albanian report illustrates how the Albanian Prime Minister attended the march. ”As a sign of solidarity, he had put in the pocket of his jacket three pencils in the colors of the French flag, indicating his support for free speech and his solidarity and affinity with France. In addition, he also brought along representatives of four major religions in the country: Muslim, Catholic, Orthodox, and Bektashi. The clergy representatives walked hand in hand on the streets of Paris, drawing the applause of the crowds in view of the apparent solidarity, and later Charlie Hebdo edition also devoted a small drawing to this episode. This episode was supposed to highlight and export the so-called Albanian experience on religious tolerance and co-existence for centuries, which for a long time has been hailed as one of the most positive features of the Albanian society. (...) While some greeted the participation of Albanian clergy in the march and the symbolic gesture of Prime Minister, there were many that expressed their skepticism in two main aspects: raising religious tolerance in Albania to the status of a myth and the hypocritical support of free speech, alleging to use of double standards for human rights and media freedom.”

The religious leaders were also unanimous in condemning the violent attacks against the French journalists. The Macedonian report quotes The Islamic Religious Community of Macedonia, that condemned the Charlie Hebdo attack, explaining that violence is not part of Islam. “We ardently condemn these occurrences and appeal all the criminals, no matter their color, nationality or religion, to be brought in front of the justice, because we are convinced there is no religion in the world that justifies these actions”.

Some other leaders had a more nuanced position, as they also condemned what they interpreted as a “provocation” against Muslims. Some of them considered that what was at work in the case of the publication of the irreverent cartoons was either ignorance and disrespect, both of them condemnable from their point of view. The religious leaders took a more activist position, launching calls for action. One of them, quite legitimate, was to discriminate religion from terrorism and plead with the media to make the needed distinction. Some of them even talked about “Islamophobia”, a trend that they spotted and dreaded, hence their calls to avoid such a course of action. Irrespective of the faith they represented, the religious leaders found a virtual consensus in appreciating that religion is sacred and that it shall not be mocked. “There must be a line between freedom of speech and what is sacred. If our religion prohibits any form of representation of the Prophet Mohammed then the one who deals with these matters should understand that it is offensive to Muslims. However, for what happened in Paris, there is no justification”, said Rifat Fejzic. Reis of the Islamic Community, quoted by the report from Montenegro.

Kao što se i očekivalo, najglasnije su bile reakcije medija i samih novinara. Kao i u slučajevima drugih mislilaca, ljudi iz medija osuđuju napade i nasilje. Ipak je dosta zanimljivo da nije malo glasova iz medija koji su pojačali ovu osudu restriktivnim ‘ali’... To je bilo motivirano ili poštivanjem vjere same po sebi ili vjerovanjima drugih ili nekim etičkim restrikcijama koje treba da spriječe novinare da provociraju. Makedonski izvještaj citira Zorana Bojarovskog, urednika i stručnjaka za pitanja religije, kazavši da sloboda izražavanja i mediji ne mogu i ne smiju povrijediti privatnost ‘ličnog svetilišta’ ili ismijavati propise vjerovanja bilo koje religije.

Lokalni novinari izrazili su svoju solidarnost sa francuskim novinarima ali nisu propustili priliku da podsjete na NATO bombardovanje srbijanskog javnog servisa RTS 1999, kad je poginulo 16 zaposlenih.

Neki su takođe preispitivali licemjerje deklariranih branitelja slobode izražavanja u ovom slučaju. Na primjer, u izvještaju Bosne i Hercegovine se postavlja pitanje kako povrede slobode izražavanja u drugim slučajevima (kao Snowden, Manning, palestinski karikaturista Mohammad Saba koji je zatočen u Izraelu) nisu dovele do jednako oštrih reakcija javnosti i zvaničnika. “Tako je, na primjer, Nataša Škaričić, bivša hrvatska novinarka koja je pisala za online platformu u BiH (media.ba), izjavila da je svetost i nedodirljivost slobode da se izrazi mišljenje toliko ugrožena na Zapadu da “čovjek mora da se upita ima li smisla braniti je svojim životom na frontu sa Istokom”(iz BH izvještaja).

Ljudi iz medija su bili jednako kritični prema samim medijima i onim što su nazvali njihovim licemjerjem. Kao što albanski izvještaj pokazuje: “Dok ‘smo svi mi Charlie’, nije malo novinara, kolumnista, urednika i direktora medija koji su uspostavili odnose zavisnosti i straha od ekonomske moći, političke moći a ponekad i moći kriminala.”

As expected, the most vocal and nuanced was the reaction of the media and journalists themselves. As in the case of the other opinion leaders, the media people condemn the attacks and the violence. Interesting enough, not few were the media voices that doubled this condemnation by a restrictive “but”... It was motivated by either the respect for the faith per se, or for the beliefs of others or by some ethical restrictions that should prevent journalists from provoking. The Macedonian report quotes Zoran Bojarovski, editor and expert in religious matters saying that freedom of expression and media cannot and must not disrupt the privacy of the “personal sanctuary” or ridicule the rules of the belief of any religion.

The local journalists expressed their solidarity with the French journalists but did not miss the opportunity to recall the NATO bombing of the Serbian public broadcaster RTS back in 1999, when 16 employees died.

Some also questioned the hypocrisy of the declared defenders of the freedom of expression in this case. For example the Bosnia and Herzegovina report wonders how violations of freedom of expression in other cases (like Snowden, Manning, Palestinian cartoonist Mohammad Saba imprisoned in Israel) did not lead to equally fierce reactions of public and officials. “For example, Nataša Škaričić, a former Croatian journalist writing for an online platform in BiH (media.ba), stated that sanctity and intangibility of freedom to express opinions is so damaged in the West that “a person has to wonder if it makes sense to defend it with your life on the front with the East”. (as per BiH report).

The media people were equally critical toward the media themselves and what they called their own hypocrisy. As the Albanian report shows: “While ‘we are all Charlie’, not a few journalists, columnists, editors and media directors have established relations of dependency and fear ofthe economic power, of political power, and sometimes even of criminal power.”

Koliko god da su različiti i iznijansirani, nacionalni izvještaji vode do nekih zaključaka koji zaslužuju dalje razmatranje.

Prvi zaključak - napadi na novinare Charlie Hebdo uzburkali su snažne emocije i reakcije, ali nisu doveli do nekog značajnog povećanja antiislamskih osjećanja u regionu. Ovo je posebno važno pošto region karakteriziraju i velika muslimanska populacija (koja je u usponu, kako pokazuju neki izvještaji) i nestabilnost koja je već proizvela krvave sukobe.

Drugi zaključak – nadugačko i naširoko vođene rasprave potaknute napadima u Parizu bile su propuštena prilika za ozbiljnu, kritičku debatu o ulozi i granicama slobode izražavanja. Dok su prazna obećanja obilno ukazivala na princip slobode izražavanja, malo je postignuto u diskusiji o prihvatljivim granicama od strane svakog društva i zajednice, mehanizmima koji treba da budu spremni da djeluju za sigurnost ove krhke slobode dok balansiraju spram drugih moguće sukobljenih prava. Profesionalne debate novinarskog kruga zastale su na sredini puta ili su ih osujetila burno izražena mišljenja.

Treći zabrinjavajući zaključak - izgleda kako sloboda izražavanja ima malo – i manje – pobornika čak i među ljudima iz medija. Ogroman je broj novinara i nositelja javnog mišljenja koji su prihvatili da sloboda izražavanja može ili treba da bude ograničena raznim faktorima (poznato ‘ALI’ – kao u ‘Ja osuđujem napade ali…’). Čini se da je debata bila više o vjerskim osjećanjima a manje o medijima i njihovom razlogu postojanja. Čak ni “Je suis Charlie” – tip javnog iskazivanja u nekim od tih zemalja, nije pouzdan znak da je sloboda izražavanja društveno vrijedan princip. Pojačani su žestokim raspravama na online forumima i komentarima koji su pokušali opravdati napade kao prirodnu reakciju na provokaciju i pretjeranu upotrebu slobode izražavanja. Izgleda da pravo na slobodu izražavanja nema mnogo zagovornika u regionu: ili to ljudi uzimaju zdravo za gotovo ili smatraju da je to manje bitno u poređenju s drugim pravima (kao što je sloboda vjere) ili nepostojećim pravom da ‘se ne uznemirava’.

Posljedica ovog posljednjeg zaključka jeste da se napori za unapređenje slobode izražavanja kao osnovnog ljudskog prava, koje se iz dana u dan usađuje u živote naše zajednice, treba da budu obnovljeni i podržani na dugu stazu. Izgleda da novinari moraju da učine više da bi pridobili povjerenje javnosti i poštovanje i da se energičnije objasni uloga slobodnih i nezavisnih medija.

Paradoksalno je ali ova obaveza nije samo na profesionalnim medijima, za koje je sloboda izražavanja dio zanata, ili političkim liderima, čija je dužnost dobra vlada, nego i na manje vjerovatnim vektorima kao što su sami vjerski lideri. Iako sloboda izražavanja nije dominantna crta bilo koje vjerske doktrine (“mi ne poznamo demokraciju, mi znamo poslušnost”, kako je jednom rekao jedan rimski svećenik), njihov veliki – i rastući – uticaj u zajednicama na Balkanu moralno obavezuje vjerske lidere da preuzmu ovu ulogu. Kao glasovi autoriteta, treba da govore u ime ljudskih prava kao temelja za svako multikulturno, multietničko i multivjersko društvo (kako su mnoga naša društva postal u zadnje vrijeme ili će uskoro postati).

Nije se lako nositi s dilemama koje su na površinu iznijeli napadi na novinare Charlie Hebdo a kamoli ih riješiti. One zahtijevaju neprekidnu vježbu preispitivanja, razmišljanja koje s punom odgovornošću vode elite – političke, vjerske ili profesionalci – svih zemalja, počev od vrijednosti koje su odlučili da njeguju i štite – prije svega ljudski život i dostojanstvo. Ovu dilemu je dirljivo iskazao Amir Misirlić, bosanski novinar koji objavljuje na crnogorskom portalu Cafe del Montenegro, a koju je citirao crnogorski izvještaj: “Ali ja nisam Charlie. Bez obzira koliko je popularno tvrditi suprotno u ovom trenutku, ja nisam Charlie. Ja sam Amir. I ja sam musliman. I ja sam novinar. I ta moja dva identiteta mi ne dopuštaju da šutim. Neko površan bi jedva dočekao da se poigra s mojim priznanjem kvazi smiješnom primjedbom da jedan od mojih identiteta puca u moj drugi identitet. I da tvrdi da sam ja svoj najveći neprijatelj. Ali to može tako izgledati samo na prvu loptu. Tu istu loptu koja je tako veličanstveno pogođena volejem pojednostavljivanja. I to je tačno ona lopta s kojom sam slomio komšijin prozor.”

As diverse and nuanced as they are, the national reports lead to some conclusions that deserve further consideration.

The first conclusion - is that the attacks against the Charlie Hebdo journalists stirred a considerable amount of emotions and reactions, but did not lead to any significant increase in the anti-Islamic feelings across the region. This is of particular relevance as the region is characterized by both a large native Muslim population (and on the rise, as some the reports point out) and an ill-reputed volatility that has already produced bloody conflicts.

A second conclusion - is that the debates triggered by the attacks in Paris were, by and large, a missed opportunity for a serious, critical discussion about the role and the limits of the freedom of expression. While lip service has been abundantly paid to the principle of freedom of expression, little has been achieved in discussing the limits acceptable by every society and community, the mechanisms that have to be in place and working to safeguard this fragile freedom while balancing it against other possibly conflicting rights. Professional discussions of the journalistic millieu stopped mid-way or were marred by hotly expressed opinions.

A third troubling conclusion - is that the freedom of expression seems to have few - and fewer - supporters even among the media people. There is a large number of journalists and opinion leaders who accepted that the freedom of expression can or should be limited by various factors (the famous “BUT” - as in “I condemn the attacks but…”). The debate seems to have been more about the religious feelings and less about media and their raison d’être. Not even the “Je suis Charlie”-type of public demonstrations in some of these countries are a clear indication that the freedom of expression is a socially valued principle. They were doubled by fierce debates in the online fora and commentaries that tried to justify the attacks as a natural reaction to provocation and excessive use of freedom of expression. It appears that the right to freedom of expression does not have many champions in the region: people either take it for granted or consider it to be lesser compared to other rights (such as the freedom of religion) or the non-existing right of “not to be bothered”.

A corollary of this latest conclusion is that efforts to promote the freedom of expression as a basic human right, ingrained in the day to day lives of our communities have to be renewed and supported on a long haul. It appears that the journalists have to do more to regain the public trust and respect and that the role of free and independent media has to be explained in a more energetic way.

Paradoxically, this obligation falls not only upon the media professionals, for whom free expression is part of the trade, or the political leaders, in charge of good governance, but also on less likely vectors such as the religious leaders themselves. While the freedom of expression is not a dominant treat of any religious doctrine (“we don’t know democracy, we know obedience”, as one Romanian priest once put it), their big - and raising - influence over the communities in the Balkans morally oblige the religious leaders to take on this role. As voices of authorities, they should speak on behalf of the human rights as a fundament of any multi-cultural, multi-ethnic and multi-faith societies (as many of our societies have become lately or are going to become soon).

The dilemmas brought to the surface by the attacks against the journalists at Charlie Hebdo are not easy to deal with, not to say to solve. They ask for a sustained exercise of introspection, of reflexion conducted in full responsibility by the elites - political, religious or professionals - of all the countries, starting from the values that they chose to cherish and protect - human life and dignity above all. This dilemma was movingly put by Amir Misirlić, a Bosnian journalist publishing on Montenegrin Portal Cafe del Montenegro, quoted by the Montenegro report: “But I am not Charlie. No matter how popular it is to claim the opposite at the moment, I am not Charlie. I am Amir. And I am a Muslim. And I am a journalist. And those two identities of mine are not letting me stay silent. Someone superficial could barely wait to play with my confession with a quasi-funny remark that one of my identities is shooting at my other identity. And to claim that I am my own archenemy. But it can only seem like that on first ball play. That exact ball that was so magnificently hit by the volley of simplification. And that is exactly the ball with which I broke the neighbors’ window.”