The Dictionary of Homophobia (22 page)

Herein lies one of the key characteristics of the region: the strong links among nationalism, institutional violence, and homophobic violence, which have slowed the pace of progress for gays and lesbians. The principal characteristic of homophobia in the region over the last fifteen years has been the use of insults, stereotypes, and insinuations, the most extreme of which is the accusation of
treason
: in 1994, the members of the only gay
association
in Albania were arrested, beaten, and accused of espionage, and a 1998 study on homophobia conducted by the Romanian homosexual association ACCEPT revealed that the most frequent accusation against gays and lesbians is that they wanted to forcibly “Europeanize” the country. And in 2001, during hostile protests against the new democratic government in Serbia, pro-Miloševi
supporters accused Prime Minister Zoran Djindjic of being “a pederast, a Jew, and an agent of NATO” (Djindjic was assassinated in 2003).

Using this concept, along with the impression of being supported by society as well as by the government, police justify carrying out acts of violence and torture against gays and lesbians. Many examples of this have been documented, such as in Albania (1994) and Bulgaria (1996), but we need look no further than the cases of Mariana Cetiner and Boris Aleskov. Cetiner was arrested in the summer of 1995 by Romanian police for “attempting to seduce another woman”; beaten, humiliated, and insulted, she was “made to stand for eleven hours in a position like Jesus Christ” (Amnesty International report, 1998). In July 2001, Aleskov, a gay Serbian, was taken into police custody by members of the state security, who attempted to force him to confess to connections with illegal organizations by beating him and threatening him with rape. Both Cetiner and Aleskov were forced into exile after being freed.

The experience of Mariana Cetiner reveals the important role that Christianity plays in the motivation and justification of homophobic acts, as well as the form it takes. But traditional Christian values, as homophobic in the Orthodox Church as they are in the Catholic Church, are not the only motivation at work here. In effect, the churches in orthodox Balkan countries (Bulgaria, Greece, Macedonia, Montenegro, Romania, and Serbia) are organized on a national level and play a fundamental role not only in the formation of the ethnic majority’s identity but also in the rejection of minorities, even when the majority of the population are not practitioners (as is the case in Serbia). Consider the rabid fight headed by Teoctist Ar
pa
u, Patriarch of the Romanian Orthodox Church, against the
decriminalization
of homosexuality, all in the name of preserving Romanian values. Again, the crux of the problem lies in a nationalism that excludes all minorities (including sexual ones, but also chiefly ethnic minorities: e.g., Hungarians in Romania; Albanians and Muslims in Serbia; Turks in Bulgaria and Greece; and Roms, or Gypsies, in all parts of the region) and is closely tied to concepts of patriarchal power. In this way, feminist organizations are also subject to persecution.

Today, thanks to the efforts of local gay and lesbian organizations as well as external pressure from Western Europe, homosexuality has been decriminalized in every Balkan state. Of course, one cannot assume, however, that homophobia no longer exists, since the current situation regarding gay and lesbian rights in the region is complex and full of contrasts.

The Struggle Against Homophobia in Formerly Communist States
The Balkan countries can be organized into three distinct groups, according to their political situations. The first category is made up of Slovenia and Croatia. The case of Slovenia is the most remarkable; it was the first country to have a gay organization (in 1984), the first to guarantee true equality for homosexuals, and during its transition to independence in 1991, all democratic parties supported gay and lesbian rights. Since then, there has been a visible gay scene which includes cultural events, magazines, and even a radio show, and in 2001 Slovenia had its first Gay Pride parade. The only debates on homosexuality in Slovenia these days concerns gay
marriage
, which is also the case in Croatia. In fact, despite the lack of progress during the years of Franco Tudjman’s nationalist government (from 1990 until his death in 1999), Croatia is making strides regarding gay rights and on the same path as its neighbor to the north.

The second group includes those countries where pro-gay legislation was passed but where gay associations have a troubled existence and homophobic protests are still numerous. Albania decriminalized homosexuality in 1995, but only reluctantly, and its only gay rights organization is fragile at best. Bulgaria passed decriminalization laws before 1991, but the first gay organization was not formed until that year, and it has only been since the late 1990s that such organizations have made strides. The Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina decriminalized homosexuality in 1998, but that same year the first attempt to create a gay and lesbian organization did not succeed (there are now two). Nonetheless, despite having no fixed or identifiable gay areas in the country, there is a small gay community, reinforced by the strong Western presence in the federation’s capital, Sarajevo. This city, which continues to attract gay Bosnians from the Serbian Republic of Bosnia (Republika Srpska), is also one of the few places in the country where multiculturalism flourishes.

The third group is comprised of Romania and Serbia, where frequent instances of homophobic violence have occurred over the past fifteen years. In 1993, the Council of Europe obtained a promise by the Romanian government to repeal its homophobic laws (specifically Article 200 of the penal code, which criminalized homosexual relationships) as part of its acceptance into the European Union, sparking a veritable battle in the country; in 1994, the Romanian parliament refused outright to consider the request. Finally, in 1996, Article 200 was amended, but only to decriminalize homosexual sex in private between consenting adults, leaving same-sex relations “taking place in public or resulting in public
scandal
” still a crime; this left the door open to interpretation, as the latter concept was not defined by Romanian law. Moreover, it specified that “inciting or encouraging a person to the practice of same-sex relations, as well as to propaganda, association, or other act of proselytizing within the same scope” was punishable by one to five years in prison. The application of this law made any open expression of a gay lifestyle dangerous. However, despite this precarious position, Romania’s gay organizations found strength in international support as well as in drawing attention to the country’s application to the European Union, given that in 2000, the European Convention on Human Rights expressly included the rejection of all
discrimination
based on sexual orientation. In 2001, Romania’s Parliament at last completely repealed Article 200. However, violently homophobic rhetoric remains a key part of the strategy of the country’s powerful far right.

Serbia is a very different case, being a country long ruled by a nationalistic government during its post-communist years, as well as devastated by war (1991–2001). Despite this, the capital of Belgrade can still claim to be a relatively open-minded city, at least compared to the rest of the country. While an openly gay lifestyle has been possible since the 1980s, it became more difficult under the post-communist regime, as gay rights were contradictory to the chauvinistic, warrior ideals of nationalist president Slobodan Miloševi
(1989–2000). Boris Davidovich’s shocking book, published in English under the title
Serbian Diaries,
is a chronicle of the political and sexual life of a clandestine homosexual in Belgrade during the civil war years. It describes how the Serbian regime made frequent homophobic insults, aimed not only at its political opponents but also the Yugoslavian ethnic minority. The regime, which relied on the army as well as militia to carry out its campaign of ethnic purification in the rebel states of Croatia and Bosnia, had much to gain from encouraging homophobic violence within its own borders, just as it encouraged the rape of Bosnian women by the Serbian military and paramilitary.

This is why gay activists in Serbia were often part of feminist and pacifist groups extolling not only peace, but also the struggle against any form of domination or male violence (for instance, the efforts of the gay organization Marble Ass against the war in Bosnia). The remarkable Serbian chapter of the international organization Women In Black has nonviolently fought for over fifteen years against “militarism, war, sexism, [and] nationalism” and against discrimination of women based on national differences as well as ethnic, religious, sexual, cultural, and ideological differences (according to its website). Serbian society remains divided, but its conservative elements are quite active. As elsewhere, recent efforts at democratization can be judged as much by the effectiveness of the struggle against homophobia as by any other measure.

Present & Future
Through these examples, it is clear how homophobia and the struggles to abolish it are fundamental measures of a country’s democracy, along with issues such as ethnic diversity and women’s rights.
Heterosexism
and male violence, traditional forms of power in Balkan societies, were concepts reinforced under communist regimes. The end of communism led to a new openness to Western ideas, but this has often unfortunately taken place in a context of war and/or grave economic crisis. The West’s demand for the equal treatment of minorities (including gays and lesbians) coincided with the establishment of the region’s first gay and lesbian organizations, but at the same time has also incited a homophobic backlash. The requirements of the Council of Europe and others, however, have nonetheless played an essential role, not only by inspiring and educating gay activists, but also by serving as a reminder to Western Europe of its commitment to set an example, through organizations such as the Dutch association Cultuur en Ontspannings-Centrum (COC; Centre for Culture and Leisure), the International Lesbian and Gay Association, and even Amnesty International. Opportunity for gays and lesbians in the Balkans today comes from the timid but committed growth of gay organizations at the local level (at least in the large cities), which recognize that the ideology of Western Europe cannot be simply imported wholesale, but rather incorporated in such a way that is sensitive to the particulars of the region.
—
Philippe Masanet