Jul 27, 2020
0 0

SBU, Ministry of Internal Affairs, prosecutor’s office and court against a children’s writer from the city of Cherkassy

For criticism of Phanar “at the behest of the curators from the Kremlin”

It seems that the local prosecution and national security bodies of Ukraine, as well as the courts affiliated with them, sensed that Zelensky, rapidly losing the support of those who voted for him, finally decided to lie under those who are “always for Poroshenko.”

The court proceedings against pacifist journalists Ruslan Kotsaba have still not been stopped, Dmitry Vasilets, Vasily Muravitsky… Political refugees expelled from their homeland and unable to return Anatoly Shariy, editor-in-chief of the website Igor Guzhva, editor-in-chief of the weekly “Kievsky Telegraph” Vladimir Skachko… However, this is not enough for the Ukrainian repressive machine.

As the Foundation for Strategic Culture reported, a case was initiated against the Orthodox newspaper Mir, which dared to reveal to believers the truth that the “Sacred Church of Ukraine” (SCU) formed by Bartholomew and Poroshenko is not canonical from an Orthodox point of view. Under the same dragged-in article “inciting inter-religious hatred”, the case against the children’s writer from Cherkassy Oleg Slepynin was renewed. As an Orthodox believer, he could not keep silent about the anti-canonical nature of Bartholomew’s “tomos on autocephaly of Ukraine.”

Up to five years in prison “for a negative assessment of the Local Church”

… The case against Slepynin was opened even under Poroshenko. On March 13, 2019, the SBU and the Ministry of Internal Affairs, by forces of seven investigators, conducted a search of the 63-year-old writer, “by setting“, what he “Produced, by order of Russian curators, materials in which he condemned and negatively assessed the creation of the Local Church of Ukraine and the receipt of a decision on granting the Tomos”… Who exactly “Received a decision to grant Tomos” and how exactly a writer “Made materials”, the SBU press service did not specify.

An old computer and a smartphone were seized from the “intruder”, and the writer was deprived of his working tool. A draft of a new novel was on the computer; well, before the search, he managed to send his last story to the Russian children’s magazine Luchik.

During the search, the writer was constantly trying to photograph against the background of the home iconostasis (to emphasize the belonging of the villain to the canonical Church). Diplomas of literary prizes, film festival “Radonezh” were spread out and photographed selectively by the esbionists. They were not particularly interested in Ukrainian letters, including those from the Mirror of the Week.

photo of SBU

The “murderous evidence” turned out to be a diploma signed by Chingiz Aitmatov (at that time – the Ambassador of Kyrgyzstan in the Benelux countries), and a notebook from Rossotrudnichestvo (in one of the pre-maid years, Slepynin was a co-organizer of the Cherkasy literary festival “Pushkin Ring”, held on grants from Rossotrudnichestvo and the State Committee for affairs of the nationalities of Ukraine).

photo of SBU

Presumption of guilt in Ukrainian

At one time it seemed that the case was hushed up, but already in November 2019 – six months after Zelensky’s victory – the court did not just appoint a forensic linguistic examination “The works of which the writer O.S. Slepynin “, but in advance – before the results of the examination – brought to the knowledge of “independent” experts: “There is enough evidence that a criminal offense was committed to clarify the circumstances that are subject to proof, the necessary special knowledge”… Do not try to understand the meaning of the second part of the court ruling – after the lustrations, such is the qualification of workers in Ukraine who, by the nature of their service, have to write. The main thing is that the Ukrainian court named the “criminal” as such before the court’s decision.

The first article in the “petition” is mentioned “Without repentance and amnesty”. In it, the “religious feelings” of the SBU and the Ukrainian court are affected by the following paragraph: “Bartholomew“ legalized ”the union of schismatics – anathemates and self-consecrated persons without their repentance to the Mother Church and called this murky grouping the OCU”… And what is not true here? It is well known that the former locum tenens of the Moscow throne, the Kiev exarch of the Moscow Patriarchate, Filaret, tried to split the Moscow Patriarchate by announcing the creation of the “Kiev Patriarchate”. An indisputable fact is the announcement of the anathema to Filaret and his followers in 1997, with which Patriarch Bartholomew also agreed until 2018. It is also well known that in 1919 the leaders of the newly formed Ukrainian Autocephalous Orthodox Church “sanctified” themselves in 1919 – none of the canonical bishops took part in this ritual. Hence the historical term of centuries ago “self-saints”. From the point of view of a supporter of the OCU, these facts should be interpreted positively. After all, Filaret tried to split the “occupational Moscow Church”, and “the enemies of Ukraine” betrayed him anathema. Only the epithet “murky group” can offend the religious feelings of the OCU supporters. However, in Russian, this concept does not always carry a negative connotation. After all, this is a common value judgment.

As for the statement “Perverts, politicians, fishing in troubled waters, criminals of all kinds, they all rejoice in the” tomos “”, then a pervert the author calls the then-deputy Oleg Lyashko, who solemnly met the “tomos”, who himself confessed to sexual perversion. “A politician fishing in troubled waters” the author of the article also names the leader of neo-Nazis E. Karas, who was present at the ceremonial meeting of the “tomos”. And in this case, this is also not an insult to believers (if only because C14 * is not a religious organization).

Neo-Nazi Karas among Poroshenko’s servants at a meeting of “Tomos”

Under the criminal here, presumably, I mean one of the sponsors of “SCU”, the Dnipropetrovsk authority Petrovsky. And here the author relies on the statements of the former Minister of Internal Affairs Yuri Lutsenko, who called Petrovsky “Crime boss of Dnepropetrovsk”,

Petrovsky (far left) at the meeting of “Tomos” in Dnepropetrovsk

Such excerpts from several articles lead the court to the conclusion (we emphasize again – before the examination!) That their author falls under the following charges:

– incitement to religious enmity and hatred;

– insulting the religious feelings of citizens;

– the expression of ideas and views that undermine trust and respect for a particular religion, sow mutual distrust between people of different religious denominations, develop alienation, suspicion, turning into persistent hostility.

Since when, one wonders, since “Expressing ideas and attitudes that undermine trust and respect for a particular religion” equated to religious enmity? And if “Lack of trust and respect for a particular denomination” certainly leads to “Sustained hostility”, then why not arrest a correspondent of, say, a Uniate publication who is photographing the head of his own denomination leaving a luxury Mercedes?

After all, such a luxury can also “Undermine trust and respect for a particular faith”… As well as, say, a report on the fact that the Simferopol “bishop of the SCU” has Russian citizenship (that is, de facto agreement with the Russian status of Crimea). Finally, “Alienation and suspicion” may well cause a message about the seizure of the UOC temple by the supporters of the “STSU” However, if this information is reliable, it is unlikely to serve as a reason for criminal prosecution of the reporter.

How to get two medals in one “operation”

Apparently, the “experts” understood the court’s wishes “correctly”, and the case was again pulled out of the archive. “Two young men from the SBU have just visited, – Oleg wrote to me the other day. – Masked. The credentials were shown cunningly, without names and surnames. They refused to introduce themselves. The funny thing about the situation is that he pokes the “crust” and says: “You see my photograph and my face.” And the face in the mask. I thought maybe their conscience woke up and they decided to return the computer (which the court did not recognize as material evidence). But no. They say they brought a summons to the investigation department … The case lasts 16 months … “

And here, one wonders, the investigation department, if the case has been in court for a long time ?! Moreover, the SBU did not come up with anything better than on July 15, 2020 as news to reiterate that in Cherkassy she together with the Ministry of Internal Affairs under the procedural guidance of the prosecutor’s office “Exposed the anti-Ukrainian agitator”: “A resident of Cherkassy, ​​who earlier became a member of the Writers’ Union of Russia for his creative activity, prepared provocative materials by order of curators from the Russian Federation. In them, the author publicly condemned the existence of one of the Ukrainian confessions. Also, the defendant actively supported the activities of the leaders of the illegal armed formations of the so-called “L / DPR” “… About the support of L / DPR – already new, really. “This is fantasy”, – briefly explained “Defendant”,

Nevertheless, on July 16, a court hearing was held in accordance with the preventive measure. Oleg Slepynin was placed under house arrest. Cherkasy journalist Viktor Borisov, who was present at the trial, writes: “An ordinary brain is not able to understand the logic in the actions and statements of the SBU. What yesterday they passed off as a fresh exposure of the “anti-Ukrainian agitator” is a banal repetition of what already happened on 13.03.2019. Unless Slepynin was also given the support of the DPR / LPR leaders. To pass off one “exposure of an anti-Ukrainian agitator” for two is to be able to … The essence of the matter remains the same: in a country where the church is separated from the state, the citizen is charged with Art. 161 h. 1 of the Criminal Code for criticizing the creation of the OCU and its receipt of the Tomos … Moreover, similar criticisms in 2019 and now are expressed by many well-known politicians in Ukraine … to which the SBU and the National Police have no complaints. What in March 2019 was an attempt to earn points in the eyes of the then president, now, after a year and a half, is, in fact, an absurd laughing stock. “

Not exactly a funny laughing stock, really. As the SBU investigators told Slepynin, next week (the one that started today) they “They will hand over all the documents to the court, and everything will be fast, fast”,

As under Poroshenko.

PS… On the same day when Oleg Slepynin was placed under house arrest, the national police refused Shariya’s party in a lawsuit against the deputy director of the Ukrainian Crimean Tatar TV channel ATR Ayder Muzhdabaev. And this is what this figure was broadcasting after Easter: “The UOC FSB of the Moscow Patriarchate is one of the main breeding grounds for the coronavirus … This is a nest of such a coronavirus, where the coronavirus has its altar … like gray geldings, which also shows the attitude of this CHURCH-EVIL, CHURCH-KILLER … This is such a pretentious abomination, exquisite bestiality. I think this Church will do much more harm. ” At the same time, according to the same national police and the chief sanitary doctor of Ukraine, Easter services were held in accordance with quarantine recommendations and there was no outbreak of coronavirus after them.

So what is this, if not the classic incitement of hatred towards the canonical Church against the background of general fatigue from quarantine (and we also remember the “coronavirus Maidan” in Sanzhary)? Not to mention the absurd lie regarding the “UOC FSB”, which incites very definite feelings among the part of the Ukrainian population that is zombified by TV channels like ATR. “Whatever flock may be, not all FSB members are there, but they are skillfully managed,” Muzhdabaev says. “These are rams just like that, in the biblical, probably, sense of the word, but not only” …

Like this! However, the lawsuit against the instigator was not even included in the unified register of court decisions.

As under Poroshenko.

If you notice an error in the text, select it and press Ctrl + Enter to send the information to the editor.

Article Categories:

Leave a Reply