The Protector of Human Rights and Freedoms (Ombudsman) recommended to the first man of Pljevlja Darius Vranes (New Serbian Democracy) to remove from his Instagram account an offensive post he posted in early December last year, commenting on the statement of the executive director of the Center for Investigative Journalism Milke Tadić Mijović about his nationalistic outbursts.
You are quoting her, Njegosha, and with a few smileys, he wrote: "Tell me, grandma, are you a witch? I am, prince, there's no point in hiding it."
The Ombudsman recommended that Vraneš not publish comments or make statements in the future that incite discrimination against women, as well as stereotypes and prejudices that provoke, spread, encourage or justify misogynistic, sexist speech and discrimination against women based on gender/age or any other personal characteristic.
The Ombudsman's opinion, which "Vijesti" had access to, states that Vranes is obliged to submit a report to that institution on the actions and measures taken to implement the recommendations, within 30 days of receiving the opinion.
The leader of Pljevlja said in early December that the Podgorica Assembly, which annexed Montenegro to Serbia in 1918, was legitimate, and that "Montenegrin separatists, despite undoubted testimonies, dispute this."
Commenting on these assessments, Tadić Mijović told "Vijesti" at the time that Vraneš's moves were expected, and that he inherited "everything that is not a civic and libertarian anti-fascist Montenegro."
"He glorifies the invaders and chauvinists, and those who occupied our country in 1918, and it seems that he would also storm Prizren. He can, but alone, not with our children. They are going to Europe, not after Vranes," she underlined.
Last week, the Pljevlja Basic Prosecutor's Office filed a request to initiate misdemeanor proceedings against Vraneš due to comments made by Tadić Mijović.
In an opinion signed by the Deputy Ombudsman Nerma Dobardzic, writes that Vraneš's post was made in reaction to a journalist's critical review of his work...
"Although such a reaction can be seen as part of political discourse, when assessing its scope, it is necessary to consider the content and form of expression as a whole, as well as the messages that are implicitly and/or symbolically conveyed. The Protector particularly appreciates the fact that the publication in question used a quote from a literary work that describes a woman as a 'witch', with the additional pejorative context of an older woman as undesirable for making critical comments in relation to social events," the document states.
It was explained that such symbolism, viewed in a contemporary social context, carries gender and age-based meanings that are contrary to the principle of equality, and has elements of "ageism", i.e. disparagement based on age, as well as elements of negative stereotypes towards women.
In this sense, it is emphasized that Vraneš's post does not appear as a neutral or exclusively political message, but rather "as an expression that reproduces gender and age stereotypes", which, they note, symbolically reduces the personality of Tadić Mijović to "pre-formed social patterns". It is stated that such a way of expression goes beyond the limits of legitimate political criticism.
"The Ombudsman also appreciates that additional weight is given to such an expression by the fact that it was announced by an official order of the Mayor, and that its reach was significantly increased by its coverage in the media. In such circumstances, the message cannot be viewed as an equal polemic, but rather as a statement from a position of institutional power, which may have a discouraging effect not only on the journalist in question, but also on other women and older persons participating in public life," the opinion reads.
The document that the editorial team had access to stated that Vraneš's statements that he had no intention of offending anyone, as well as that he "respects all women regardless of their personal characteristics", were not taken into consideration because "intent as such is not relevant when determining discrimination".
"Also, in accordance with relevant standards, the decisive importance is the objective effect and the message sent to the public, not the subjective intention of the author, so in the end, the Protector emphasizes that freedom of expression does not imply the right to use expressions that are not necessary for political debate, and which may lead to a violation of dignity or the creation of a hostile environment based on gender and/or age," the opinion stated.
Bonus video:
