The past has taught me nothing

The board of the International Society "Memorial" issued a statement in connection with the trial of the exhibition "Forbidden Art 2006". It says:

“The trial in the case of the Forbidden Art 2006 exhibition, which has been dragging on for more than two years, demonstrates the deplorable state of domestic justice. After interrogating “witnesses” who had not seen the exhibition, the prosecutor did not drop the charges, which would have been natural, but demanded 3 years in a penal colony for the organizers of the exhibition.

Essentially, the prosecutor is guided not by the laws of the state, but by the position of the Russian Orthodox Church, which stated in one of its program documents in 2008 that “desecration of sacred objects” “cannot be justified by reference to the rights of an artist, writer, or journalist.” This point of view may, to one degree or another, oblige Orthodox believers, but cannot replace the Law.

In fact, there is an attempt to introduce ideological censorship, arbitrarily defining what exactly is “abuse,” just as in Soviet times it was arbitrarily determined what exactly is “a violation of the laws on the separation of church and state and school from church” (Article 142 of the Criminal Code of the RSFSR). The past has taught the Soviet Orthodox Church nothing.

Let us remember that censorship - Orthodox, atheistic or any other - is prohibited by the Constitution. This is unlikely to be unknown to the prosecution. Alas, Russian justice is not always at odds with the law and the Constitution.

It is quite obvious that questions of interpretation of works of art cannot fall within the competence of any court, just like the question of the existence or non-existence of God. Legal procedure in such situations is inappropriate and powerless.

The actions of the investigation and accusations in this trial disgrace Russia, create an image of not a secular, but a fundamentalist state, and revive the atmosphere of medieval obscurantism in the 21st century. We hope that the court will fully acquit the accused for lack of evidence of a crime.”