"Moscow Memorial" responded to the nationalist

Moscow Memorial" responded in detail to an open letter nationalist, hurt by the principled decision of the capital's memorialists clearly define the possible boundaries of cooperation.

"Last week "Moscow Memorial" issued a statement "On the boundaries of cooperation" ( http://www2.memo.ru/d/3148.html ), in which we justified our decision not to participate in the formation Civil Council - the coordinating body of the newly established Civil Movement. We explained that the main obstacle for us is the presence of radical nationalists in this structure.

Soon we received a letter from Natalia Kholmogorova, director Human Rights Center "Russian Public Movement" (see on the website "Russian Observer": http://www.rus-obr.ru/blog/16636 ). Kholmogorova believes that "colleagues human rights activists" (meaning "Memorial") slandered her.

Moscow Memorial sent a reply to Natalia Kholmogorova. Because the she published her letter addressed to us, we considered it correct and our response to her should also be made public.

Dear Natalya Leonidovna!

We apologize for not immediately responding to your letter.

It is difficult for us to understand what caused your indignation. Explaining why "Memorial" does not consider it possible to participate in the development of common actions together with radical nationalists, we, in particular, pointed out that we have their views on civil society are fundamentally different. IN as examples, we have referred to some of the public statements figures whose views, from our point of view, can be characterized as "radical nationalism".

You reproach us for not providing links to the texts that you mentioned - so here they are: http://krylov.livejournal.com/1591737.html; http://tor85.livejournal.com/1521658.html .

You accuse us of slander, and we are forced to examine in more detail a number of provisions of these texts.

You claim that we did not quote from the "program text" Konstantin Krylov, but from his "personal diary". Do you want to to say that we unlawfully interfered in the private life of Mr. Krylov, unauthorizedly quoted text written by him exclusively for himself himself or a narrow circle of close friends? Note that this text entitled "On Fascism, Summary" and republished in various Internet resources, that is, obviously popular in circles associates of Mr. Krylov. From our point of view, such popularity proves that this text is important for understanding and describing the views of this master to the place and role of civil society.

Krylov in his “Open letter to the editors of the Grani.ru portal” ( http://www.apn.ru/column/article25897.htm ) also reproaches us: they say, "Memorial" distorts, they say, in the text we have cited dealt exclusively with 19th-century Britain, they say, the text had nothing to do with the situation in Russia in the 21st century, and thoughts, expressed in the text, are just intellectual exercises on a purely historical themes. But anyone who reads this text will notice that he riddled with apologetics of racism, discrimination based on racial and ethnic sign. The author is not a detached researcher: he declares himself a supporter not of a fascist state, but of a "fascist civil society”, which, in his opinion, should be able to implement itself principle: "Racially questionable types remain in the position of subhumans." He does not like the application of this "wonderful" principle by the state (for example, Hitler's Germany): it turns out clumsily. That writes further the author of the diary? “There is a simple conclusion from this. For everything to work society must be fascist. And the state is democratic.” It is clear to any unprejudiced reader that this conclusion does not concern "good old England" of the century before last: this is the author's recommendation for of our time, including for today's Russia. After all, after phrase the author goes specifically to our country: “In Russia, alas, all the time tried to do the opposite: around the soft, sluggish, incapable of fascism of society to erect state walls. "Forbid everything" - because people themselves can not prohibit anything to anyone.

Until some time, this worked, while there were no internal enemies. But as soon as the same Jews got inside, they ate soft tissues society for one or two. However, anyone would have eaten it, just Jews were the first. Now everyone else is doing the same."

Don't you think that these "intellectual exercises" are difficult to attribute to abstract racism - are there some specifics?

No one denies the rights of Mr. Krylov and other ideologists and leaders nationalist organizations to free expression. However, probably, for this they express these opinions, so that we, in our turn, draw conclusions and share these conclusions with others?

In a statement that provoked such a strong reaction among those mentioned in it characters, we quite clearly explained that with people who profess similar views on civil society, we do not intend to try develop a common tactics and strategy.

If, however, Mr. Krylov is now embarrassed by his former statements and is ready refuse to extend their conclusions to modern Russia, then he could have said so directly.

Now - what concerns your correspondence with Vladimir Thor in Live Journal. Everything is obvious there too. We have to remind you that it was a rally "against political repressions" organized by nationalists.

Here are some thoughts Mr. Thor shared on this subject:

“The problem is that people were mixed into one mess, repressed for thought crimes under Art. 282 - and people convicted of real killings. Moreover, the guilt of the latter is sometimes real proven - a fact murder by them (unlike, for example, from Arakcheev) is openly recognized, and they are proud of them at the same time and call on their associates to follow them example.

In this scenario, the organizers of the concept of the rally meaningfully (or lack of meaning) put in one row both thought-crimes and murders, equalizing them.

It is obvious that such a strategy cannot have the slightest success, even if appeal to the state, neither to the media, nor to society in Russia, nor to world public opinion. It turns out just a coven-cabal among those who cannot act legally due to stupidity and those who real radical resistance in the underground as professionally unsuitable - for it does not observe conspiracies, but psychic energy prefers to pit in the sublimated aggression of the rally.<…>”

It was after this passage (in which there is no hint of condemnation of the murderers, and only worry about the success of the "strategy") You asked your questions (quote):

“And how was this problem solved, for example, in the same Ireland? Which did Sinn Fein publicly demonstrate her attitude towards outspoken IRA fighters?

How relations were built between legal and illegal nat. resistance in other places where these "two wings" existed?

These are your words about "two wings". And they arose precisely in the context discussion of the relationship between the two "wings" of the nationalist movement in our country. It is strange that you deny this. Your right to speak We also respect our own opinion. But we also reserve the right evaluate your approach, in which outright killers and legal conductors of nationalist ideas are positioned as two "wings" of a single movement.

Then, in the course of the mentioned public correspondence, in the answer of Mr. the term "partisans". Someone wedged into the discussion under the nickname “skin_head”, who outlined his approach to the use of the term "political prisoners":

“Killers are political prisoners because: 1. they killed for political motives in protest against the political decisions of the authorities, to their words did not listen, they pay attention to the problem by deeds. 2. them murders are only a response to a flurry of murders, rapes, etc. from blockhead <…>"

In his reply, Mr. Thor refers to such ideological killers as "guerrillas":

“In relation to the partisans, one can demand fair justice as minimum. The prohibition of torture. Vowel open process. legal and information support. Charity towards prisoners prisons and their families. The study of the motives of their actions and objective circumstances that led them to break the law. And other, other other..".

Human rights activists have always advocated fair justice, prohibition torture and open trials for all people. But Mr. Thor's suggestion of legal and informational support of notorious killers, which is quite fits into the concept of "two wings", to human rights activities has no relationship.

We do not want to give the impression that we suspect participation in violence you, Ms. Kholmogorova, or your associates Krylova and Torah.

However, in the political and criminal chronicle of recent years, we have already saw how participants in legally existing nationalist organizations that formally declare the use of non-violent methods, strangely turned out to be involved in violent crimes.

And the last.

While our proposals for who should be considered political prisoners in modern Russia differ significantly from the position radical nationalists, we are open to discussion on this topic, as well as on the need to change the wording of Article 282 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation and the unauthorized use of "anti-extremist" legislation."

Board of the Moscow Memorial Society

February 7, 2012