Main topic of the past several days in Serbia (besides celebrity Big Brother and Eurosong contest, that is): the anti-discrimination law and the problem it created for the traditional religious organizations in Serbia – Serbian Orthodox Church, the Catholic Church, the Islamic Community of Serbia, the Evangelical Church, the Christian Reform Church, the Christian Evangelical Church and the Jewish Community of Serbia (Buddhists and the Hindus were cool with it, apparently).
So what’s the issue churches have with this law proposal? In short, The Churches don’t like two articles – one concerns person’s right to change religion. This is the same reason we can’t keep our mobile phone number if we switch to a different mobile carrier here in Serbia. Both the Churches and the carriers like to have monopoly over their users.
The other article is interesting one – it protects a person against discrimination based on one’s sexual preference or gender identity. Since this is a broad definition, it seems that the Churches are afraid that they are going to have to marry gay couples if this law is adopted. Total nonsense, of course, but – better safe than sorry.
The government decided to re-consider the law after the Churches complained, which is perfectly fine – everyone should have the right to complain no matter how ridiculous their complaints are.
If the government decides to delete these articles, however, thus banning switch from one “religion carrier” to another and allowing discrimination based on sexual preferences, than we have a problem. But let’s wait and see what happens.
In the meantime, it’s interesting to see reactions of nationalistic political parties.
Tomislav Nikolic, leader of oppositional Serbian Progressive party says that he “considers gay sex, sex with animals and sex with things(?) to be of the non-normal kind.”
Dragan Markovic Palma, member of the ruling coalition, says that he “wouldn’t be able to explain to his grandchildren why two men are kissing in the park, so he won’t be voting for this law.”
Milos Aligrudic, member of Kostunica’s party says that his party will “vote against the proposed law, even if the law is good, because the opposition always has to vote against the government proposals.”
Dragan Todorovic, member of the Serbian Radical party, says that his party, “in accordance to WHO findings, will treat homosexuality as an illness, and that ill people should not be able to have more rights than the rest.”
Waiting to see what happens
I am not worried, however, because even without these bozos’ votes, the law should receive enough MP support in the parliament to be adopted in its original form. If it doesn’t, well… you’ll be updated as always.
{ 3 comments… read them below or add one }
The crew that is opposing this law is, like, totally gay. I tuned in to the TV today and heard some comments from some idiot who was describing a hypothetical situation in which he would be forced to witness gay kissing on an airplane. A rather elaborate hypothetical situation, guess there’s lot more from where that came from…
Nice analogy btw., personally I’d put the RTS at the head of the ‘Fu*k you, the people’ pantheon.
Hm, I found this through google searching for images of Montenegrin parliament (funny, how google can locate stuff). About the mentioned law, I must say I didn’t read it so my comment will not be about legal interpretation. It will be about human nature.
1. Although gay population of Serbia appears not to be concerned with participation in church practices like marriage and communion, it will be just a question of one gay man or woman in Serbia to feel like he, or she wants to be part of church practices and he, or she, can enforce this desire by law against the wishes of the church and its believers. That would be against the right of that group. Since the church is an independent organization, separated from the state, it should have rights to choose who they accept and under what conditions. Bars can deny service to any customer by law, but church is to be denied of that right. I hope you can understand my point on this matter.
2. Right to change religion. It is wrong for a church to have an opinion on state matters, but it is ok for state to enforce it’s practices on church? Church, like state, is a gathering of individuals with common distinction, it has its laws and practices. So, in essence, if you want a church separated from the state, it works both ways.
3 (not about the law). On gay rights. There is no such thing. There are human rights or there are none. If one group thinks they are special, that’s their problem. For state there should be only human rights, that are the same for everybody. So, if a gay man, or woman, wants to walk through the city with his boyfriend, or girlfriend, it’s his right. Also kissing on airplane or wherever. But gay parade is not a right, it’s public proclamation of groups sexual preference and, personally, I don’t think that is ok. Sexual preference is personal thing and should stay that way, just as religious preferences. Please do note that some people would be offended by public proclamation of any sexual preference for they live a different life. It is their right that would be violated in that case. Huh, sorry for the long writing. I got carried away by my thoughts.
Public proclamation of groups sexual preference is wrong only if it is expressed as a big explicit group orgy in the middle of the street, which is forbidden in most countries.
However, I think that “gay parade” is supposed to be a protest, just like we had protests here under Milosevic in 1996/97 for example – perfectly legal and legitimate means of fighting for a cause.
The anti-discrimination law never mentions gay marriages or anything like that, it was the churches who were a bit too paranoid in that regard.
{ 1 trackback }