RTCG and Reporting on Trans Rights: When Public Broadcaster Allows Religious Leaders to Judge

In March 2024, Radio Television of Montenegro (RTCG), through its broadcasts of the programmes “Dnevnik” and “Argumenti”, as well as in an article on its website, contributed to spreading gender disinformation by presenting unbalanced views, dominated by religious figures, on LGBTIQ+ rights. The topic was the Draft Law on Legal Gender Recognition Based on Self-Determination. This important law, which Montenegro is expected to adopt soon, would enable transgender individuals to change their sex designation in official documents without undergoing medical procedures such as surgical interventions or hormone therapy, which is the current practice. This would reduce the stigmatisation of LGBTIQ+ individuals and allow everyone to live by their gender identity.

On March 11, during the Dnevnik prime-time news programme at 7:30 PM, RTCG broadcasted a statement from the Metropolitate of Montenegro and the Littoral regarding the Draft Law: “The Draft Law on Legal Gender Recognition Based on Self-Determination threatens the spirit of traditional and faithful Montenegro and contradicts the existing legal norms of the state, according to the Metropolitanate of Montenegro and the Littoral.” During the announcement, footage of the Cetinje Monastery was shown, and apart from this segment, the topic was not further addressed in the main news programme, according to a warning, which also included concerns about objectivity and balance, issued by the Agency for Electronic Media (AEM) to RTCG.

During the segment, no alternative perspectives were presented, nor was any editorial commentary provided on how the views of the church could impact LGBTIQ+ rights. A similar report was published on RTCG’s portal under the title “The Metropolitanate Opposes Sex Designation Change”. In this statement, the Metropolitanate described the Draft Law as a “disgrace and scandal” that must be excluded from the realm of “serious debate and decision-making”. The Metropolitanate’s statement also appealed to decision-makers who are members of the Serbian Orthodox Church (SPC) not to support the law.

A few days later, on March 14, during the TV show“Arguments”, religious leaders were invited by the host and editor, Ivana Popović, to comment on the draft law. Four religious leaders from Montenegro participated in the TV show: Metropolitan Joanikije of the Serbian Orthodox Church, the Reis of the Islamic Community of Montenegro, Rifat Fejzić, the Catholic Archbishop of Bar, Rrok Gjonlleshaj, and the Chief Rabbi of Montenegro, Luciano Moše Prelević. The programme, which was initially intended to focus on the coexistence of religious communities in the country, turned into a discussion about how religious institutions could strengthen their influence over key political decisions and legislation.

“You recently spoke out from the Metropolitanate regarding the alleged Draft Law, which would also include the possibility of changing one’s sex and identification number. Why were you the first to comment on this matter, and isn’t this interference in state affairs?” Popović asked Joanikije.

Following the program, the Coalition for the Rights of LGBTIQ+ Persons Equality appealed, highlighting that the way the question was posed was highly problematic. They stated that “the editor misrepresented the content and essence of the Draft Law, which addresses the administrative change of sex designation and identification numbers, and doesn’t deal with the issue of gender-affirming surgery, which has been regulated since 2012 under the Health Insurance Law.”

Following an initiative submitted by non-governmental organisations advocating for LGBTIQ+ rights, AEM issued a warning to RTCG for violating numerous media regulations and ethical principles during the broadcast of these programs. AEM’s warning stated that RTCG had “failed to contribute to comprehensive, impartial, and objective public information regarding the Draft Law on Legal Recognition of Gender Identity Based on Self-Determination in a fair and balanced manner”.

By posing questions about the law only to the representatives of religious communities, and not including representatives of secular institutions or organisations, “the views of religious communities regarding participation in the drafting of laws on human rights were presented as relevant in Montenegrin society. This directly violates the principle of a secular society,” the Equality coalition stated.

The Use of Propaganda Rhetoric by Religious Leaders

Answering the journalist’s question, religious leaders expressed a number of problematic views. “There are some people who have this problem and cannot identify… but encouraging a person to such an unnatural dilemma is truly dangerous because we are talking about minors,” stated  Joanikije. He further stated, without citing sources, that “it is well known that those who change their sex later have problems and want to return to their original state, and an incurable trauma occurs. Suicides happen. In such cases, the number of suicides is extremely high”.

Fejzić supported Joanikije, commenting that religious communities agree on many issues, including this one. Fejzić stated that the state should deal with sick children, “instead of paying someone to change their sex, only to have them change it back again”. Furthermore, Fejzić linked the passing of this law to Montenegro’s aspiration to join the European Union, presenting the law as “one of the problems” on the European path.

Archbishop Rrok Gjonlleshaj stated that religious representatives cannot remain silent about laws that are “against God’s commandments” because believers are their “spiritual children,” and “a parent cannot remain silent if the life of a child is endangered”.

Chief Rabbi Luciano Moše did not want to comment on the law, but said that the problem is that “Europe imposes certain laws” and called for the inclusion of religious communities in making laws like this one.

Such views are typical examples of anti-transgender propaganda. Transphobic narratives often use arguments about the suicide rate among transgender people to undermine the validity and effectiveness of medical interventions, including hormone therapy and gender-affirming surgeries. These arguments are usually based on the claim that suicidal tendencies do not decrease or may even increase after gender-affirming procedures, which is often misinterpreted or taken out of context. Recently, Elon Musk, one of the most influential billionaires in the world and a proponent of transphobic narratives, wrote on “X” that the suicide rate is higher among individuals who undergo gender-affirming surgery, compared to the general population. While it is true that the transgender community faces mental health challenges, the number of suicides can hardly be perceived solely as a result of the surgery itself, as the general lack of community support and psychological care for transgender individuals can have a significant contribution.

Fejzić’s argument regarding sick children, to whom the state should redirect funds instead of paying for gender-affirming surgeries, is common transphobic discourse to delegitimise healthcare support for the transgender community. This argument typically operates on the assumption that supporting one group must exclude support for another, and that the needs of one are more legitimate than the needs of the other.

Furthermore, the view that LGBTIQ+ human rights are part of “European propaganda” is common in conservative circles, which attempt to undermine human rights and portray them as a negative influence coming from the West.

“The broadcaster failed to contribute to comprehensive, objective, and impartial public reporting, particularly due to the fact that the topic was treated superficially and incidentally in a format that did not meet the requirements for the application of the “other side” rules, allowing the presentation of harmful views, as well as incomplete and false claims, without any appropriate response from the host,” stated the AEM. While the guests “suggested that supporting the right to recognise gender identity based on self-determination is questionable in terms of ‘normalcy’ and ‘naturalness’, and that the law calls into question and undermines religious feelings and heritage,” RTCG “should have highlighted the legally protected right to protection from discrimination based on gender identity,” stated the AEM.

Among other things, the AEM assessed that by adopting this approach, RTCG “enabled the tendentious promotion of the interests of one group/side (religious communities),” and further criticised the fact that in subsequent broadcasts, RTCG did not address the draft law in a balanced manner.

“Verdict” of the Agency for Electronic Media

The AEM assessed that RTCG violated several provisions of the Law on Electronic Media (the Law) and the Rulebook on Program Standards in Electronic Media (the Rulebook). According to the Warning Decision sent to RTCG, the public service violated Article 55 of the Law and Article 7 of the Rulebook “by failing to fulfill the media obligation to contribute to free, truthful, comprehensive, impartial, and timely public information about events in the country,” as well as Article 56 of the Law and Article 8 of the Rulebook, which concern the obligation of faithful representation, i.e., that “different approaches and opinions should be appropriately represented, encouraging impartiality and respecting differences in opinions on political or economic issues”. Additionally, Article 8 of the Law and Article 11 of the Rulebook state that “programme content, especially news-political and current affairs programmes, must be fair and balanced, which is achieved by presenting opposing views, either in the same programme or in a series of other programmes that form a whole in addressing a specific topic,” and that “the interests of a political party or any group or individual must not be tendentiously promoted”.

The AEM instructed RTCG to broadcast information regarding the imposed administrative supervisory measure in its programme.

This was not the first time that RTCG has reported on important gender topics in a problematic manner. In May 2022, RTCG aired a programme, also in prime time, titled “Abortion: Women’s, State or Church Issue,” which opened the topic of abortion rights, which were legalised in Montenegro in 1974 and have not been questioned since. 

The title of the program was changed after a public outcry. It was retitled to “The Right to Abortion – YES or NO?”, and eventually, the title was adjusted to “Abortion – From Constitutional Right to Taboo Topic?”

The program featured feminist and philosopher Paula Petričević, the then-priest of the Serbian Orthodox Church, Gojko Perović, gynaecologist Vojislav Šimun, and representative of the Ministry of Health, Slađana Ćorić. Perović’s participation, where he defended the stance of the Serbian Orthodox Church, sparked significant discontent and protests. The Ombudsman for Human Rights, Siniša Bjeković, stated in an interview with Radio Free Europe that he did not understand why this issue was being raised at this time, emphasizing that for the Ombudsman, “it is absolutely and unquestionable a woman’s right to decide on this matter”.

Since 2020, the Serbian Orthodox Church an Active Socio-Political Actor

Montenegro has undergone significant socio-political changes since 2020. The end of the three-decade rule of Milo Đukanović and the Democratic Party of Socialists (DPS) in 2020, which happened with the support of the Serbian Orthodox Church (SPC), marked a turning point. Large protests (liturgies) in 2019 against the Law on Religious Freedom signalled the strengthening of the SPC and Serbian nationalism, and thus the conservative values upheld by the SPC.

The 42nd Government of Montenegro, which replaced the DPS, was closely linked to the SPC. The Church, through its activities and public appearances, increasingly assumed the role of a political actor, while government representatives promoted conservative views. Statements by politicians such as Prime Minister Zdravko Krivokapić and other government members were marked by traditionalism, patriarchal views, and negative stances on gender equality. At the same time, SPC promoted positions against LGBTQ+ rights and women’s freedoms.

Such views began to gain media space, often relativizing discrimination and opposition to laws and international human rights conventions that Montenegro supports. The SPC promoted collectivism and anti-Western sentiment, often using manipulative messages containing gender disinformation that reinforced misogyny, homophobia, and transphobia, which, according to the UN, represents a form of gender-based violence. Through the analysis of the public service RTCG, which opened space for the SPC and other religious institutions to comment on civic laws, it was revealed how media spreads disinformation about women’s and LGBTQ+ rights. This practice further jeopardises minority rights and contributes to the political instrumentalisation of gender issues in Montenegrin society, which remains a key issue for the future reforms.

Author: Djurdja Radulovic

Illustration: Lana Nikolic