Andrey Vasilevsky. We've arrived

We've arrived
Andrey Vasilevsky

Publication date: February 24, 2004

“In your Holiness! (...) We urge you to state your position regarding the criminal prosecution of museum employees and artists...” - with these words on February 20 of this year, a group of citizens addressed the Patriarch of Moscow and All Russia Alexy II , namely - Svetlana Gannushkina (Human Rights Commission under the President of the Russian Federation, Civic Assistance Committee), Mikhail Arutyunov (International Human Rights Assembly), Lev Levinson (Institute of Human Rights), Lev Ponomarev (All-Russian Movement for Human Rights), Alexander Tkachenko (Russian Pen-Center), Nikolay Gudskov (Russian Union of Esperantists), Ernst Cherny (Coalition "Ecology and Law"), Sergey Valkov (Ivanovo Human Rights Center), Mark Kuperman (Sakhalin Public Human Rights Center).

It’s all about the same thing: “Be careful, religion!”, since the plot with this scandalous exhibition is not only not completed, but continues - with new dramatic turns. “We are deeply concerned about the completely unprecedented situation that has arisen in connection with the filing of criminal charges against the famous Russian human rights activist, the director of the Andrei Sakharov Museum and Public Center Yu.V. Samodurov, an employee of the Andrei Sakharov Museum and Public Center L.V. Vasilevskaya, as well as three artists: A.A. Mikhalchuk, A.G. Zulumyan and N. Zolyan."

Collectively signed appeals are sometimes written collectively - with many multidirectional corrections and additions, which naturally leads to a certain number of inconsistencies. On the one hand, as Carlson used to say, it’s an everyday matter, on the other hand, it would be wrong to completely ignore these inconsistencies and reservations.

“We are convinced that the trial in this case will inevitably be scandalous and will cause damage to the prestige and authority of the Russian Orthodox Church, as well as the Russian state.”

The move is tactically sound. (It would be even more competent and tactful to congratulate the Patriarch on his 75th birthday.)

However, I see here not only some stylistic awkwardness ( “I will prestige... the Church” - it really hurts the ear), but also an annoying reticence: “it will cause damage to prestige and authority” - in whose eyes?

"(...) for Russian and international public opinion (...)" .

More specifically?

The question is not rhetorical. The trial of Samodurov, no matter how scandalous, can shake the “prestige” of the Church - in the eyes of those for whom the Church is already not authoritative. Let us imagine (with effort, but let us imagine) that the Patriarch or one of the other high church hierarchs will publicly stand up for the organizers of the artistic anti-clerical action. How will this affect your authority - in the eyes of the flock ? The question is rhetorical.

By the way, the exhibition (few people know) was condemned not only by Orthodox Christians, but also by Muslims: “Hatred and religious intolerance towards Orthodox Christianity, mocking mockery of the prophet Isa (Jesus Christ), revered in Islam, cannot be justified by any freedom of art and belief. (. ..) We consider it unacceptable for the prosecutor’s office to have double standards in Russia, which immediately respond to facts of [insulting] the religious feelings of representatives of some religions and completely ignore mockery of the feelings of believers of other religions (Islam, Christianity) ,” he wrote at the same time in “ made an open statement on the situation around the exhibition “Caution, Religion!” Mufti Farid Salman, Deputy Chairman of the Central Spiritual Administration of Muslims of Russia for Information Interaction,

I will not dwell on the little that the authors of the appeal write about the exposition itself. Moreover: “(...) not all of the exhibits of that exhibition are close to our ethical and aesthetic ideas, but we are deeply convinced that the principle of freedom of culture (...)” Let’s dwell on the principles. There are several very important passages of a general nature, several theses - both fair and timely, and surprising.

Fair: “(...) the precedent of turning law enforcement agencies into an arbiter of ideological disputes is dangerous for the Church itself. Who knows how the policy towards the Church in our state will turn? Will the possibility of ideological persecution turn against believers, against church culture?”

Of course, this is rhetoric, but it is appropriate and, unfortunately, eternally relevant.

And here’s something surprising: “(...) it is absurd for the justice of a rule-of-law state to apply norms that were originally created to protect the rights and dignity of minorities - to protect ethnic and religious groups that make up the overwhelming majority in society and are protected by the state.”

It’s just some kind of holiday: the justice of a rule-of-law state does not have the right to protect groups protected by the state... whoever is protected by the state does not dare to claim state protection... Phew...

"(...) originally created (...)" By whom? When? (...names, logins, passwords...)

I, of course, am not a professional lawyer, but for some reason I am sure that neither the Criminal Code nor the Code of Criminal Procedure of the Russian Federation there are and cannot be instructions: they say, the application of such and such an article of the Criminal Code is possible only in connection with such and such ethnic or religious groups and cannot be used to protect such and such ethnic and religious groups.

Such an indication/clarification would be a direct challenge to the Constitution, which precisely establishes the equality of citizens of the Russian Federation before the law, regardless of nationality or religious affiliation. And a challenge not only to the Russian Constitution, but also to international human rights legislation.

It is precisely the “absurdity” , in my opinion, that are the anti-constitutional statements coming from human rights activists , who, in my simple-minded feeling, are called upon to protect not only the rights , but also the law itself .

However, all these gross and obvious awkwardnesses cannot be compared for me with last year’s light, charming “disclaimer,” which was so pleasing to the eye in the “ Special Opinion of the Director of the Andrei Sakharov Museum and Center ” Yuri Samodurov: “As a director and based on my work experience, I think , that regardless of the intentions of the participants in the exhibition, it can be misunderstood by people who are inexperienced in art or brought up on the classical heritage (emphasis added - A.V. ) - as blasphemous or mocking towards religion..."

We've arrived.