Facts and logic against SBU fabrications: Speech of UOJ journalist in court
We present to your attention the textual and video versions of the speech by Orthodox journalist Valery Stupnitsky in the Solomiansky court of the city of Kyiv.
We believe that this material needs maximum publicity so that as many people as possible learn about the completely unfounded, fabricated, and illogical accusations that the investigation is bringing against our colleagues. The trial of UOJ journalists vividly demonstrates that anyone in our country can be persecuted for having their own opinion and daring to defend their religious positions.
The "crime" of the journalists is that they did not remain silent when state agents, in favor of another denomination, violated the Constitution. They did not remain silent even when representatives of this structure violated the laws of Ukraine by raiding UOC temples and beating believers of our Church. This means they are being judged for their words and beliefs. In other words, for freedom of speech.
Full speech of Valery Stupnitsky in court:
Your Honor!
I reject all accusations against me because I consider them completely unfounded and related to my journalistic activities in defense of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church.
Firstly, I want to emphasize the inaccuracy of one of the main theses of the accusation expressed in the suspicion, viz. that the Orthodox Church of Ukraine, whose activities often fall in for criticism on the UOJ pages, is, I quote: "an attribute of the Ukrainian state". Accordingly, the accusation interprets any criticism of the actions of representatives of the OCU as a desire, I quote: "to destroy the Ukrainian state and all its attributes".
However, such statements by the prosecution completely contradict the Constitution of Ukraine, in particular, Article 35, according to which in Ukraine the Church is separated from the state, and no religion can be recognized as compulsory. Thus, the OCU is not and cannot be an "attribute of the state", but represents only one of the hundreds of denominations in the country, alongside Catholics, Greek Catholics, Protestants, Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, and others.
According to the law, all citizens of Ukraine have equal rights regardless of their religious beliefs, and their denominational affiliation in case of law violations cannot be a reason for exempting them from any criticism. Therefore, no one can claim any privileges or avoid responsibility in case of law violations.
Secondly, all accusations against me, outlined in the suspicion, are based on the conclusions of expertise No. 23309/23-26/ and 23310/23-61 dated February 2, 2024. However, it has very serious shortcomings which, in my opinion, do not allow considering this document as evidence of my alleged criminal activities.
For example, the experts write that the name "Ukrainian Orthodox Church", I quote: "is a manipulative technology in the form of identifying the UOC as the only Orthodox Church" (p. 44).
At the same time, this is the official name of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church, which has been used in all official documents since 1990. This is how it is registered by state authorities.
Therefore, the statement of the experts can be seen as a sign of bias and lack of professionalism in religious matters.
The experts also called the statement of the press service of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church regarding the absence of ties with Moscow in its Statute, I quote: "manipulative technologies in the form of persuasion".
However, the provisions of the UOC Statute cannot be "manipulation" because they are objective norms of an official and publicly available document. Thus, the statement of the experts can be seen as a sign of bias or lack of professionalism in religious matters.
Sadly, the experts in their research confuse the names of the UOC and the OCU. For example, they write that in UOJ publications there are "nominations expressing a negative, emotionally expressive characteristic of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church and its religious leaders and believers."
But the UOJ is a resource that supports and defends the UOC and has never used negative characteristics and connotations towards it. It can be assumed that the experts meant the OCU, rather than the UOC.
Another example: the experts claim that UOJ materials are, I quote: "emotionally expressive evaluation" of the leadership of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church. But this does not correspond to reality either, as the UOJ has never used expressive evaluation towards the leadership of the UOC.
The experts also make the assertion that the OCU, I quote: "is only interested in the illegal appropriation of property belonging to the OCU," which appears undoubtedly absurd.
Furthermore, the questions posed to the experts by the prosecution already contain errors that directly affect the experts' conclusions. For example, in question No. 19, the experts are asked to determine whether the content of the UOJ Telegram chat of August 16, 2023, corresponds to, I quote: "publications posted on the UOJ pages and KozakTv1 ('Pershy Kozatsky' online edition – Ed.) videos, which were provided for examination."
However, the artificial amalgamation of the UOJ chat and UOJ publications together with the authorial videos of KozakTv1 is unlawful. These are separate, unrelated resources with different editorial policies. As a UOJ journalist, I can only be held responsible for the content of my publications on the UOJ website, not for any other resources, including KozakTv1. This is firstly.
Secondly, the suspicion on page 6 states that the "criminal group", in which I am accused of participating, operated from February 2022 to March 2024. However, the KozakTv1 materials, to which I allegedly had influence in August 2023, were created in 2020 and early 2021. The YouTube channel where these materials were posted has long been deleted. Investigators provided the experts with video recordings of the authors of KozakTv1 on DVD discs.
Thus, my remarks in the UOJ chat on August 16, 2023, could not have any relation to the video materials by KozakTv1, produced two to three years prior, whose authors I am not even acquainted with. Therefore, the conclusions made by the experts, based on the incorrect amalgamation of the UOJ and KozakTv1 materials, cannot be considered objective. Nevertheless, in the suspicion message, the investigator, citing examples of UOJ publications, reiterates the conclusions of the experts, made by them after analyzing the KozakTv1 video materials, which is absolutely incorrect.
Moreover, in listing 39 publications by the UOJ, the investigator states that each of them, I quote: "according to the conclusion of the experts, is aimed at humiliating the honor and dignity of the clergy and laity of the OCU," as well as, I quote: "according to the experts' findings, contributes to Russia's subversive activities against Ukraine in the religious sphere." However, the experts themselves, analyzing each mention from the 39 UOJ publications, nowhere indicate either the humiliation of the honor and dignity of the OCU or assistance to Russia. In 17 out of 39 cases, the experts did not provide any comments at all.
In some of the publications, they saw "manipulative technologies", the use of quotation marks, or the use of certain words. For example, "radicals" or "raiders". In none of the UOJ publications did the experts see either the humiliation of the honor and dignity of the OCU or assistance to Russia. Nevertheless, the accusation uses exactly such wordings in the suspicion.
For example, in the publication titled "Chairman of the Ternopil Regional State Administration: Give us the Lavra, and we will find a way to expel the UOC", where the words of RSA head M. Holovko are quoted, stating that the Pochaiv Lavra should be given to the Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church, the experts only emphasized the expressiveness of Holovko's statements, without providing any comments. However, the suspicion states that the experts allegedly saw in the publication, I quote: "humiliation of the honor and dignity of the OCU". However, the OCU was not mentioned in this publication at all.
Another example is the publication titled "Head of the Polish Orthodox Church supported the Kyiv Theological Schools". There are no comments in the expertise on this publication at all. Nevertheless, the suspicion states that the experts allegedly saw in it, I quote: "humiliation of the honor and dignity of the OCU, as well as assistance to Russia in subversive work against Ukraine," although neither the OCU nor Russia was mentioned in the text at all. The same applies to other publications mentioned in the suspicion, I am just not into discussing them right now to save time.
I want to emphasize separately that all mentioned 39 UOJ publications belong to the "news" format, where the authors only quote speakers with reference to primary sources – the press services of the Local Churches, the press services of UOC eparchies, city councils, statements by MPs, etc. In all these publications, there are no evaluative judgments; they are created according to all the rules of journalistic standards.
The accusation against me, claiming that I deny Russia's armed aggression and alleging that I deny Russia's involvement in the sabotage of the Kakhovka Hydroelectric Power Plant dam, does not correspond to reality.
In my correspondence with the editor regarding a possible publication about the dam sabotage, I expressed the following opinion: "It has not yet been proven that it is definitely Russia." This correspondence took place just a few hours after the tragedy, at which point there was no credible evidence of Russia's involvement in the incident, which emerged later. Additionally, various opinions were circulating online, including the possibility of natural causes for the destruction. It should be noted that official statements from Ukrainian authorities on this matter emerged later.
The accusations of producing and disseminating materials justifying and denying Russian aggression are based on two UOJ publications quoting statements from Patriarch Kirill of Moscow and Serbian Bishop Irinej.
I want to underscore that these are news format publications, where only the speakers' opinions are conveyed, without any commentary. Let me remind you that every day, central Ukrainian media quote the top officials of the aggressor country, but no one accuses these journalists of disseminating materials justifying or denying Russian aggression.
At the same time, the court and the prosecutor were presented with dozens of examples of UOJ articles where the authors unequivocally condemn Russia's aggression and criticize representatives of the Russian Church who support this aggression. However, the prosecution decided to "overlook" these materials, despite their abundance.
Regarding the suspicion of state treason under Part 2 of Article 111, I want to note the following: in the practical manual on criminal legal assessment and abuse titled "Criminal Collaboration in Conditions of Armed Aggression" by the head of the Security Service of Ukraine, Vasyl Maliuk, it is stated that, I quote: "An obligatory condition for qualifying a person's actions as state treason is the conduct of hostile activity in favor of a state, jointly with representatives of that state, with whom the person enters into a criminal conspiracy."
The head of the Security Service of Ukraine explains that such representatives can only be official foreign state officials – diplomats, law enforcement officers, military personnel, representatives of intelligence services, etc. I deny that my journalistic activities in defense of the UOC can be considered hostile, and I firmly declare that I have never had any acquaintances, contacts, or conspiracies with representatives of the aggressor state.
I voluntarily provided law enforcement agencies with passwords and access to all my contacts and correspondence in messengers, as well as the content of my mobile device.
In the mentioned manual, the head of the Security Service of Ukraine asserts that if there is no foreign recipient in the case, it cannot be considered state treason, I quote: "criminal liability under Part 1-2 of Article 111 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine is excluded." Therefore, according to the law, there are no grounds to charge me with state treason.
I would like to emphasize that I am not acquainted with Viktor Vishnevetsky, whom the investigators refer to as the head of the criminal group. We have never had any personal or professional contacts. Therefore, I refute the accusation that this person allegedly proposed my participation in the activities of a criminal group and that I supposedly consciously agreed to this. There were never any situations where I received instructions from him regarding the publication of any of the 39 mentioned news articles. Such situations have never occurred.
Furthermore, during the prosecutor's speech, the court was misled by stating that the resource KozakTv1 is part of the UOJ structure, which does not correspond to reality.
I also do not understand why the accusation uses words like "pseudo", "so-called", etc. in relation to me and other UOJ journalists. The UOJ has been operating in Ukraine since 2015, and there have never been any remarks or claims regarding the resource's activities from governmental, public, or law enforcement authorities.
I would also like to note that in 2020, the UOJ became the laureate of the prestigious Polish Konstanty Ostrogski Award for outstanding achievements in church journalism.
Therefore, I consider the criminal case against myself and other representatives of the UOJ as part of a campaign against the Ukrainian Orthodox Church and as an effort to obstruct journalistic activities.
Thank you.
For the legal defense of journalist Valeriy Stupnitsky.
https://send.monobank.ua/jar/462PTvpUJ2
