The Bolshevik policy of the Ministry of Culture official

26 September 2016, within the framework of the OSCE Conference Human dimension implementation meeting in Warsaw, the issue of violations of the rights and freedoms of the UOC believers was actively discussed.

Several representatives of various religious organizations of Ukraine took part in the meeting. Also it was attended by the Director of the Department for Religious Affairs and Nationalities under the Ministry of Culture of Ukraine Andriy Yurash, though he should not represent any denomination or religious group.

However, from the beginning of his "ministry" as Director of the Department, that person has pursued two goals – to strongly defend the interests of the UOC-KP and in any way to remove the UOC from Ukraine. In addition, among the participants of the conference were representatives of the sectarian groupings in our country (who by chance sat next to Yurash).

The conference regulations provide for two-minute speeches, so it is not surprising that representatives of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church, speaking, were focused on the most painful present issues for the Church. Namely, on the seizures of the UOC churches.

It is no secret that the seizures reported were often accompanied by physical violence, beating the believers, etc. (Katerinovka, Ptichia). There have been cases of the destruction of Orthodox churches ( vil. Borovaya, Kiev reg.). There were even examples of the murder of Orthodox priests and nuns.

UOC speakers highlighted the fact that in none of these cases offenders have been held accountable before the law. Naturally, the speech of the representatives of the canonical Church caused rather loud resonance among almost all the participants of the conference. Not surprisingly, in the end, the human rights organization Human Rights Advocacy recommended that representatives of the governmental delegation of Ukraine adopt specific legislation on the establishment of liability for hate speech on religious grounds.

In this context, Mr Yurash’s remark following the UOC representatives’ presentation, was equally surprising. His short speech is of particular interest to us, so let us detail it.

So, Mr Yurash said: "I would like to answer to the statements of the two representatives of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church under the jurisdiction of Moscow Patriarchate."

Here we note that Mr.Yurash should know as nobody else that in Ukraine there is no "Ukrainian Orthodox Church of the Moscow Patriarchate," and for 26 years there has been the Ukrainian Orthodox Church – this is the officially registered name of the Church.

Does Mr. Yurash know this? Definitely. But he, like many unscrupulous politicians, journalists and religious leaders in Ukraine, deliberately distorts the self-name of the UOC, introducing a nonexistent prefix "MP" to hint at its allegedly non-Ukrainian origin.

Thereby, Mr. Yurash not only demonstrates his ignorance, but also aggression towards the UOC. Besides, he misleads credulous OSCE representatives, intentionally distorting the name of the canonical Church in Ukraine.

"They mentioned that they are against using their statements for ideological propaganda, but these statements are obvious insinuation of this propaganda."

This sentence is very difficult to understand for a normal person, as it is obviously built on the best examples of Orwellian Newspeak. Just think of it: if a person is opposed to propaganda, their message should be viewed as propaganda. That is, if someone is opposed to a lie, then they are liars.

On the other hand, I suppose, Mr. Yurash meant that Ukraine has no ideological propaganda. At least with respect to the Church. But here either Mr. Yurash is not interested in what is happening in the country or he does not live in Ukraine and therefore he doesn’t know, or again misleads the OSCE representatives.

Most likely, you can assume the latter, since Mr. Yurash perfectly mastered the propaganda cliches. And he did not only master, but also uses them. For example, he calls the UOC the "UOC-MP." Isn’t this propaganda? It is known that the attitude to a particular group of people often dependents on how these people are called. That is, it is much easier to kill a "ukrop"( a member of the Ukrainian Organization of Patriots) than a"lad from Ternopol" or a "colorad" than "a resident of Donetsk."

The same applies to the Church – unless the Church "Ukrainian", it is meant "ours", "national", "patriotic", and so on, and it should be left alone and to be treated as required by the Constitution. Yes, but in Ukraine, for such people as Mr. Yurash, there is one "Ukrainian" Chucrh, namely the UOC-KP. And it is regarded appropriately.

But if the Church is "Moscow" ... Well, things are different: "the center of the country-aggressor", "Get out," "No place in Ukraine." You will say that Yurash did not say that? Yes, he didn’t. But for him, as a government official, it is sufficient to say "UOC-MP", and everything else will be worked out by the Right Sector representatives and other radical organizations and journalists. Therefore, such statements cannot be taken other than propaganda.

"Among other speculative statements, the first speaker mentioned the Annual Report of the US State Department. Addressing to this document is a typical example of a hybrid war in Ukraine. This report just quotes the statements of some representatives of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church as well as of other opponents that declare absolutely opposite messages."

Generally, government officials should know that the assessment of the situation does not depend on the views of opponents, but the law. But it seems that this democratic norm, according to the logic of Mr.Yurash, has nothing to do with Ukraine. In our country, right is that side whose views coincide with those of the ruling elite. Or, in this particular case, with Mr. Yurash’s views.

Then, at the beginning of this sentence, if I understand correctly, Mr.Yurash states that "addressing to the Annual Report of the US State Department is a typical example of a hybrid war". This passage can cause nothing but astonishment! Because it is not clear who exactly Mr.Yurash accuses of making a hybrid war – the US or UOC-MP representatives"?

On the other hand, there is a reasonable question – since when a referance to the official documents has been regarded as "an example of a hybrid war"? It turns out that whenever someone from the politicians cites some documents of the State Department, Mr.Yurash will accuse them of "making a hybrid war". Or, most likely, Mr. Yurash meant that you need to quote it "right" – that is, in accordance with the conjuncture . But, first, a two-minute report does not allow to quote the entire document. Secondly, the reference to this document assumes that the interested parties will be able to read it later.

If Mr.Yurash accused of waging a "hybrid war" UOC-MP representatives (by whom representatives of the UOC are probably meant), only for the fact that they have cited the document of the State Department, it is an accusation even more unclear and fraught with certain consequences. After all, made by a government official, it can be interpreted in very different ways. A question is why Mr.Yurash does this?

"The speakers mention the cases when some communities, totally around 150 in the entire country, have changed the canonical subordination. That process has taken place in the close relation with Article 8 of the national law and recommendation of the OSCE that any religious community has a right and possibility to change their subordination."

That is the Director of the Department for Religious Affairs claims that beating the believers in vil. Katerinovka " took place in the close relation with the national law and recommendations of the OSCE?" As well as the actual persecution of the UOC on national TV channels and the Internet did.

We cannot say that Mr. Yurash is unaware of what is actually happening in the country. All these facts are so appalling that they are known if not worldwide, then in Europe for sure. We must talk about a different thing – why the Director of the Department for Religious Affairs clearly takes the side of one of the religious organizations in Ukraine?

Democracy, as we understand it, implies an equal treatment of all, not a polemic with one side and support of others. If the UOC speakers were wrong in something, then Mr. Yurash, based on the facts, should point to their being wrong. Instead, out of a habit, he began to draw on clichés and accuse members of the Church of making a hybrid war. It is clear that for Ukrainian politicians, the words "hybrid war" have long become a kind of protection from any criticism against them. But if this is the only way to respond to criticism, it will be impossible to build a normal state.

In addition, Mr. Yurash’s position is very similar to the position of some Soviet state officials of various ranks. They, let me recall, tried to ignore the persecution of the Orthodox Church, and any reference to it was perceived as a manifestation of counter-revolution. At the same time, they claimed that the mass closure of churches and destruction took place "in close relation with the national law and the basic principles" of a democratic community, and justified the arrests and executions of believers referring to counter-revolutionary activities of the latter. At the same time, for a very long period, the government supported various schismatic groups, first of all, the Renovators.

So, watching Yurash’s speech, I caught myself thinking that there is nothing new under the sun. So, this will pass too – as Vvedensky and renovationist dissent passed away, so will Filaret schismatics fall into oblivion. One thing is bad: some representatives of the authorities have not learned so far how to draw lessons from history. And if so, history will pay them back not once.

Read also