Translated material
You can’t keep silent - it’s dangerous to speak
For what words in Russia you can get a prison term. Why do doctors are going to quit massively
- The journalist from Pskov is accused of justifying terrorism , she and her colleagues herself consider these accusations absurd.
- Doctors in Moscow and the Perm Territory are ready to quit rather than to continue working in previous conditions.
- The scholarship program of the charity fund "Creation".
Install the mobile application Radio Liberty 
Read freedom in telegram 
Sign up for freedom in Google NewsSit for the text
Svetlana Prokopyeva, a journalist from Pskov, who collaborates with Radio Liberty, was an official accusation of public justification of terrorism. The reason for initiating a criminal case was her discussion about the attack in Arkhangelsk last fall. The prosecution is built on a linguistic examination of the note Prokopieva. She faces up to seven years in prison.
Svetlana Prokopyeva told Radio Liberty why she considers herself innocent, and the charges against her - absurd.
Video version of the program
Svetlana Prokopyeva: The key moment: I did not justify terrorism, I did not have such an intention. I talked about the law enforcement system in Russia and about how it affects the mentality of citizens. My text, which became a reason for criminal prosecution, concerned domestic policy. It was a criticism of the state and its power structures, and the attack was only a media recovery for this column. In my opinion, I did a completely ordinary journalistic work. A loud event happened, which caused a great resonance in society, and I used it as a media recovery for my regular author’s program. And I do not see any reason for me to pursue me.
Maryana Torocheshnikova: How do investigators talk to you? You tried to convey your position to them? Do they have any counterarguments?
Svetlana Prokopyeva: All their counterarguments are that they have some examinations that give the result that is surprisingly necessary for the indictment. These examinations were first provided by Roskomnadzor, then the South Expert Center NP, then the examination was ordered already as part of the investigation in St. Petersburg. They refer to the testimony of experts who say that the signs of excuses of terrorism were, although how they write it does not seem convincing to me. And we are preparing to submit a review in court.
Maryana Torocheshnikova: A clarifying question regarding the support of you by the journalistic community. Today, in his Telegram channel, the Pskov politician Lev Shlosberg wrote that he, as well as several Pskov journalists, was invited to a conversation in the Investigative Committee. A subscription about non -disclosure was taken from journalists, so it is not possible to find out what exactly they were asked about. From your point of view, this is another act of intimidation of people who supported you and reprinted your text? Or is it an attempt to collect additional evidence of your guilt?
They are looking for accomplices in order to form a large criminal fact about how the justification of terrorism directly with a wide river flowed from the Internet
Svetlana Prokopyeva: I am afraid that even worse. They may try to find accomplices in this matter. Journalists were invited to the conversation precisely those media that are related to the release of my column: "Pskov News Ribbon" and "Echo of Moscow in Pskov." Since I am an invited author, I simply provide material, part of the criminal article that concerns distribution, is a stretch with a big stretch. Therefore, I can assume that they are looking for accomplices in order to form a large criminal fact about how the justification of terrorism directly with a wide river flowed from the Internet. Of course, this is complete nonsense, because there is no corpus delicti, there is no crime, there is no justification for terrorism!
Maryana Torocheshnikova: This is your opinion, and experts and investigation do not think so.
For what words in Russia you can get a prison term. Why do doctors are going to quit massively
The text of the copyWidth PX Height PX
The url has been copied to your clipboard
No Media Source Currently Available
0:00 0:01:35 Download the media fileBut what the co -chair of the trade union of journalists and media workers Pavel Nikulin thinks about this.
Pavel Nikulin: I am very confused by the institute of these experts. It turns out that talented journalists, their editors and large journalistic groups, despite all their experience and their education, cannot say anything in advance about the text. But a person who does not know either the journalistic community, or we, sitting somewhere in another city, decide that this text is an excuse for terrorism, this is extremism, here is such an incitement of hatred, but here is a kind. And first, the investigation, and then the court will be critical of us as a professional community and the opinion of the accused, and the opinion of some incomprehensible expert will be attentively and respectfully. This is some kind of madness!
I also had a story with texts. I interviewed a terrorist who left for Syria and joined Jebhat al-Nusre. This text was read out by The New Times, editor and lawyer of this magazine, but this does not guarantee anything. The text was recognized as "wrong" and forbidden to spread. I became a witness in the criminal case. They don't care. This is some kind of parallel world.
Maryana Torocheshnikova: Why is this being done? Svetlana said that no calls in her text were contained, rather there was criticism of state structures and existing authorities. Maybe this was her "wine"?
Pavel Nikulin: The state does not like to be criticized at all. And the security forces do not like when someone else claims to be their expert meadow. They said: "This is what happened in Arkhangelsk is terrorism, we decided so." Accordingly, any discussion and any reflection on this subject, conversations directly about Mikhail Zhlobitsky or what is happening in our country - it turns out, it turns out, not our professional prerogative, but only the prerogative of the security forces. It was they who will say why this happened, how and why, and we are offered to keep quiet. And those who do not want to keep quiet ... We do not know in advance whether there will be a criminal case about some text. Already now it is clear that if there is some new terrorist attack (I hope not), we will already be afraid to write the text about this.
Maryana Torocheshnikova: That is, everyone was hung on a hook?
Pavel Nikulin: Yes. These cases related to history in Arkhangelsk, in my opinion, are ten: OVD-info believed.
Maryana Torocheshnikova: "Agora" also reported. Moreover, even there are sentences.
Pavel Nikulin: they condemned the Kaliningrad anarchist , will be judged by another girl. These are some strange stories: in fact, just for our safety we must be silent about this. Now we are talking about this-and if we say the last name ten times, the city and the word "terrorism", maybe some attentive investigator will consider that we decided to justify something.
Maryana Torocheshnikova: I have prepared information about well -known affairs. For example, on June 25, 2019, the Investigative Committee of Russia opened a criminal case against a 59-year-old resident of Chelyabinsk Galina Gorina, who replaced VKontakte news about the explosion in the Arkhangelsk department of the FSB with the signature: "What is our children!" And now she is the accused.
Pavel Nikulin: And it’s not even very clear who she had in mind by the “children”: maybe she worried about the Ephesians. As a person understands the news that he reposts, and what repost means is also a big question.
Maryana Torocheshnikova: And in August 2019, a resident of Sochi Alexander Sokolov received two and a half years of a colony of general regime for six text comments on the social network for the explosion in the FSB reception.
Pavel Nikulin: They told me that literally in a neighboring cell with Lukichev, a man was waiting for a court, who wrote in the comments on the Kaliningrad website Klops, that Lukichev was right, he wrote everything correctly. Although it is not clear whether Lukichev wrote this text.
They are trying to simply forbid us to speak on some topics. And the next time the journalists will blow on the water, they will be afraid to say something until it declares some official position of the FSB.
Maryana Torocheshnikova: Svetlana, what words can a person go to the colony for today?
Svetlana Prokopyeva: In my text, some specific words are not distinguished as the subject of the claim. My business shows that it can fly to any words, especially if they add up to a text, the meaning of which is that you do not agree with the current power or you have some kind of alternative point of view. You can not insult anyone, do not “run over” to anyone, not slander, tell a pure truth, say that this is your personal opinion, but it will still fly to you.
I would like to protect experts a little. There are experts, and there are real experts. Here I have an examination performed by the guild of expert-linguists on documentation and information disputes. This is a research work on my text, very high quality, with a very large list of literature, with a very detailed analysis of my text. And they come to the conclusion that there are no linguistic signs of justification of terrorism in it. This conclusion was attached to the case, but is not considered evidence, because the authors did not subscribe to the 85th article of the CPC . This is why the investigator says: "No. We did not select the signature from them, and inappropriate evidence cannot be the basis of the prosecution."
What legal certainty can we talk about if you do not know why they can grab you tomorrow and send you to the camps?
Maryana Torocheshnikova: If you believe what is written in the Constitution of the Russian Federation, citizens should live in a situation of legal certainty. And what kind of legal certainty can we talk about if you do not know why you can grab you tomorrow, plant and send you to the camps?
Pavel Nikulin: At least, at the Institute of Preliminary Censorship, living is somehow calmer-we know in advance that you can not write. And now we do not know, and we are trying to develop a certain self -censorship, some adequacy, which should, like a weather vane, hesitate with the "party line". We will understand that if we have the words “terrorism”, “security forces” and some reasoning of a smart person ... in dangerous proximity ...
Maryana Torocheshnikova: Or, God forbid, the name of Putin! By the way, this week, "Agora" published its study of the practice of applying the so -called Klimshas law "On insulting power." This law has been valid for six months. This is an article in the Code of Administrative Offenses. They found that Russian President Vladimir Putin became the absolute leader of the anti -rating and the main object of “disrespectful” criticism. As the human rights activists calculated, 26 cases are connected with the statements about him. 23 out of 45 cases ended in charge of penalty decisions with fines for a total of 675 thousand rubles. Human rights activists from Agora conclude that the purpose of this law is not an increase in the level of respect for the authorities, but "the introduction of a direct censorship on the statement of critical reviews about the authorities as a whole and President Vladimir Putin in particular."
Pavel Nikulin: And I want to recall the process of "new greatness". Then they asked: "What did you see in the leaflets of these young people?" They answered: "There was a protest against the irremovability of power." "Is it bad?" - "Let the experts decide."
Apparently, the security forces have some kind of reflex: if they say something about Putin ... there was a video from some court in an administrative case, where the lawyer simply mocked the activist who detained the police officer. He said: "And if it were written that Putin is good, would you detain him too?" The policeman could not say anything, he understood that any answer would be wrong. The sacredness of power has become more important than the law. And it cannot be said: “We understand why young people are radicalized,” because it turns out that this is already a “hit” on the current government. But we understand why people are radical. We had protests on which there were many beaten people. In my opinion, today the text in Kommersant came out about people beaten by Rosguard. And where are these criminal cases? .. Not one! But we know that a plastic cup is already some terrible physical suffering. Censorship does not begin at journalists. We are more or less community, we can repel someone, express something, we can talk about our colleagues at the international level. But there are a huge number of people who lead their social networks, and we will learn that they were opened a criminal case when the verdict has already entered into force. For example, a blogger tit ...
Maryana Torocheshnikova: This is one of the participants in the so -called "Moscow business". He was one of the first to be sentenced for a tweet in which he spoke about the children of the Rosgvardists or riot police.
Pavel Nikulin: Moreover, there was not even a call there, it was just a very tough reasoning. This is a man who was banned for five years, was deprived of the opportunity to lead social networks.
The right to speak nasty things is also a category of freedom of speech. The state should not limit my right to swear. And our state believes that it can. It turns out that I cannot scold the children of the security forces, the security forces themselves. And then we will expand, expand this list, and as a result, the best way to protest will just sit at home, not to leave the room.
Maryana Torocheshnikova: Do you think this will lead to the introduction of censorship, to a change in that part of the Constitution, which states that censorship is prohibited? Or will they count on the fact that people themselves will look for "correct" currents?
Svetlana Prokopyeva: In the spirit of time, of course, the second option looks much more likely. And he, in fact, is already working. What Paul is talking about is to introduce preliminary censorship so that everyone knows that it is definitely impossible is too simple and straightforward for our regime. Of course, the calculation on the fact that self -censorship will turn on, and it really turns on. I even see this by reaction to my articles and posts. Not everyone immediately decided to publish my column, my open letter in full. There were discussions: maybe cut quotes ... This is self -censorship. And what we now see in the media, especially in regional, local, urban ones, are self -censorship in full growth: let's soften the wording, let's not be about it ... bright polemical texts that would be interesting to read that the emotions that you want to argue about are less and less, because less and fewer people decide to write such texts. And Roskomnadzor works not just as a censor, it works as a instrument of dug of the community.
Pavel Nikulin: An old correspondence allegedly belonging to the leadership of Roskomnadzor: "We must do part of the affairs by law, and some are absolutely unexpectedly, like a rabid dog, without any law, so that everyone is afraid, it is absolutely unpredictable to behave." They discussed such tactics. In general, it is.
Maryana Torocheshnikova: And in your opinion, someone, except for journalists, now needs freedom of speech in Russia?
Pavel Nikulin: Everyone needs freedom of speech in Russia. I would also like the freedom of speech to be fully implemented for all officials and for all employees of law enforcement agencies, so that they know that for some “plums” of what is happening, they will not have anything. That is, we need Russian wikileaks. It would be interesting to live in this reality so that every Sobrovets or riot police, who searches the editors of the “draft” or bursts into some editorial office, then could say: “I was told that I would take terrorists. I am called from the presidential administration and demanded to close this journalist. And I didn’t want it.”
Maryana Torocheshnikova: But they don’t say: they are afraid? Or are they just part of this system?
Pavel Nikulin: When I watch some fabricated affairs ... It cannot be said that there was no text or that there was no terrorist attack in Arkhangelsk, but we understand that there was no justification for terrorism. And I wonder if the investigator understands that if there was the first and second, then it might not have been the third. Or does he want to see the corpus delicti so much that his imaginary crime has already blocked common sense and reality?
Maryana Torocheshnikova: And it already lives its own life.
White robes protest
Moscow discuss the situation that has developed around the largest research institute of children's oncology in Russia at the Blokhin National Medical Research Center. Doctors accuse the new leadership of the institute of Kumovism and destabilizing the work of the clinic. 30 doctors announced their readiness to quit if their requirements are not satisfied.
The situation is commented by the chairman of the Alliance of Doctors Alliance Anastasia Vasilieva .
Anastasia Vasilieva: First of all, I want to say that the public is right. There is no smoke without fire. The most important, in my opinion, element: Georgy Mentkevich is a world -famous person, an oncologist who created the first bone marrow transplantation in Russia.
Maryana Torocheshnikova: This is one of those doctors who just recorded the appeal.
Anastasia Vasilieva: And the first thing that made a new leadership was to dismiss this person from the post of the department that he created with his own hands and worked there since 1991. And a very young specialist was put in place of this person who did not conduct a single transplantation and not a child oncologist at all, he has no experience in oncology. Children will suffer primarily from this. Заведующий таким отделением должен направлять лечащих докторов, решать сложные ситуации и сам проводить операции по трансплантации костного мозга. Как это может сделать такой молодой управляющий?..
Марьяна Торочешникова: А почему эта ситуация вылилась наружу, превратилась в скандал? Почему нельзя было решить этот вопрос путем переговоров с руководством? Ведь, в конечном счете, страдают-то сейчас пациенты.
Анастасия Васильева: Конечно, страдают маленькие дети. Первое, что сделало руководство... Светлана Варфоломеева вызвала Максима Рыкова и тут же предложила ему написать заявление...
Марьяна Торочешникова: Это один из авторов видеообращения?
Анастасия Васильева: Да. Ну, какой здесь может быть диалог, когда руководство вызывает и говорит: "Увольняйтесь". И на его вопрос: "Вы хотите уволить всех онкологов и поставить каких-то своих людей?", – она ответила: "Да".
Все это вылилось в довольно большой скандал, потому что не было другого выхода
Все это вылилось в довольно большой скандал, потому что не было другого выхода. Сами врачи прекрасно понимают, что они не могут работать с таким человеком. С другой стороны, они прекрасно понимают: это же дети! Отделение трансплантации костного мозга – это дитя Георгия Менткевича. Он организовал работу, и у него очень хорошие результаты.
Марьяна Торочешникова: Существует мнение, что это какая-то борьба между двумя командами из клиники, что одни, которые пришли, действительно хотели навести какой-то порядок, привести к прозрачности и все расчистить, а другие, недовольные, вроде как придерживаются старых порядков. И это, возможно, связано с историей 2017 года, когда было возбуждено уголовное дело о вымогательстве: с пациентов брали деньги за услуги, которые оплачивал Фонд ОМС, и в 17-м году не продлили договор руководству. После этого все и начало развиваться. Что вы могли бы ответить тем, кто пытается увидеть в этом коррупционную составляющую?
Анастасия Васильева: Я могу сказать, что я вижу, что мне рассказывают сотрудники, пациенты и родители маленьких детей. Ни один из родителей и ни один из докторов в детском отделении НИИ детской онкологии вообще никогда не имели отношения к финансам. Так же работают и детские фонды. Детский фонд предоставляет гарантийное письмо об обеспечении финансами той или иной операции, каких-то лекарственных средств. Это письмо идет к руководству Онкоцентра, оно его подписывает, и деньги приходят на счет института. И мне неясно, почему такие обвинения возникают по отношению именно к детским онкологам. Я общаюсь с этими людьми и с родителями: ни один родитель не пожаловался на то, что за все 40 лет своей работы Георгий Менткевич или его коллеги имели какие-то отношения с финансами. Я ни разу не слышала такого ни от родителей, ни от сотрудников. Так что все эти моменты – на мой взгляд, просто некие отговорки, при помощи которых руководство хочет оправдать какие-то свои действия. И то, что руководство принуждает к увольнению именитых докторов... Кстати, и Александр Попа, один из ведущих специалистов в области гемобластозов, тоже был вынужден уволиться..
Марьяна Торочешникова: Вот здесь как раз то самое противоречие, на которое обращал внимание кто-то из комментаторов: с одной стороны, говорят, что руководство увольняет, а с другой стороны, врачи говорят, что они сами написали заявление.
Анастасия Васильева: Сначала этого не было. Получается, что сейчас врачи фактически выполнили волю руководства.
Марьяна Торочешникова: Подобные вещи происходит не только в Москве. Например, в Перми тоже бастуют врачи в одной конкретной больнице. Все началось с травматологов, а теперь там бастуют уже и неонатологи. Они говорят, что будут увольняться, потому что совершенно невозможно работать в таких условиях.
К нам присоединились Анастасия Тарабарин а из Перми, заместитель председателя "Альянса врачей" по развитию регионов.
Анастасия Тарабарина: Чиновники из Минздрава и главный врач больницы делают вид, что ничего не происходит, и это говорит о многом. Они не идут на диалог. Мы изложили свои предложения, подготовили дополнительное соглашение к индивидуальным трудовым договорам и предложили свой вариант - как мы хотим, чтобы оплачивались переработки сверху одной ставки. Главный врач не дал нам никакого ответа, сказал, что ему нужно время, чтобы ознакомиться, поговорить с юристами и принять какое-то решение. Но судя по тому, что сейчас происходит… Сегодня приезжали из прокуратуры и из Минздрава, разговаривали с врачами, пошел очередной виток психологического давления на неонатологов. Администрация больницы не выстраивает конструктивного диалога с докторами.
Марьяна Торочешникова: Сколько человек сейчас участвует в этой акции тихого протеста? И готовы ли они уволиться, если не пересмотрят их трудовые соглашения?
Анастасия Тарабарина: У нас осталось порядка пяти докторов-неонатологов, среди них заведующая отделением, два доктора, у которых маленькие дети, и еще одна доктор беременна. Получается, что в ближайшее время мы потеряем еще одного доктора, потому что она уйдет в декрет. Они все написали заявления, но мы пока не подали их в отдел кадров. Мы ждем результата рассмотрения нашего дополнительного соглашения. Но если нам не пойдут навстречу, то мы будем действовать жестко.
Марьяна Торочешникова: Значит, у врачей все-таки попроще со свободой слова?
Анастасия Васильева: Но их же обвинили в том, что они нарушают этику, рассказывая о происходящем там. Хотя, с моей точки зрения, этику нарушает как раз руководство, допускающее увольнение таких врачей.
Марьяна Торочешникова: Что должно сейчас произойти для того, чтобы разрешилась ситуация и в московском Онкоцентре, и в Перми, и в других регионах, где врачи недовольны тем, как ведет себя руководство, и теми зарплатами, которые им предлагают, несмотря на всякие майские указы президента и многочисленные обещания?
Анастасия Васильева: Нужно все-таки не просто издавать указы, а действительно сделать так, чтобы врачи получали адекватную, стабильную заработную плату. Второе, что нужно сделать – немедленно убрать планы. Как можно давать планы по оказанию экстренной медицинской помощи?! This is impossible! И нужно обязательно назначать таких руководителей, которые не будут проводить массовые репрессии. В государственных учреждениях назначение должно быть не по принципу: "Я хочу – и назначаю", как Светлана Варфоломеева. Все-таки руководство должно смотреть на профессиональные качества назначаемого.
Марьяна Торочешникова: Мы следим за развитием ситуации вокруг Московского онкоцентра и ждем, что скажет после 10 октября комиссия Минздрава, которая должна с этим разобраться.
КТО ПОМОЖЕТ
В этой рубрике мы рассказываем о российских некоммерческих организациях. Часто только на их поддержку и остается рассчитывать. Сегодня речь пойдет о стипендиальной программе благотворительного фонда "Созидание" .