Why are UOJ authors facing life imprisonment? New evidence
On the day of the start of talks on Ukraine's accession to the EU, the SBU announced the discovery of new "evidence" against Orthodox journalists. Cognitive dissonance?
On June 25, 2024, the SBU posted on Facebook that it had found additional "evidence of guilt" of Orthodox journalists.
The statement is loud! But also funny, ridiculous and unprofessional. Let's see why.
"The SBU has gathered new evidence of an FSB agent network, which 'under the cover' of the UOC (MP) tried to destabilize the situation in Ukraine" – that's just the headline. But there's already a lot of interesting stuff in it.
To start with, the "new evidence" is a documentary film "Hollow Church of Ukraine: What happens to the seized UOC temples" posted on the UOJ YouTube channel on 11 November 2023, more than seven months ago. This "new evidence" surfaced in the context of a criminal case for which Orthodox journalists were arrested on 12 March 2024, after the film had been publicly available for four (!!!) months. How could it emerge as "new evidence" three months after the arrest?! Did the SBU investigators overlook it while preparing for the arrest? Or did they not see anything criminal in it initially, requiring another three months to spot it? Or, perhaps, over these three months, they realized how laughable their evidence base was and decided to add anything they could find? The result, however, is even more laughable. We would gladly laugh if our colleagues weren't languishing in pre-trial detention.
The headline of the message mentions an "FSB agent network". However, there is no evidence of this in the criminal case materials. In the public's mind, an agent network involves a handler, recruited agents executing tasks, and tasks communicated through some means of communication from the handler to the agents. The agents report back to the handler and receive some compensation, not necessarily material. If all this exists, one might talk about an "FSB agent network", although under the constitutional principle of innocence, calling Ukrainian citizens this way without a corresponding court verdict is illegal. However, the SBU investigators and prosecutors have not provided a single piece of evidence that Orthodox journalists were part of an "agent network".
The next "fiasco" in the message headline: "under the cover of the UOC (MP)." Firstly, the UOJ is an independent media resource that is not part of the organizational structure of the UOC, is not managed by the UOC, and does not receive recommendations from the UOC on what to say or film. The UOJ is neither an official nor an unofficial mouthpiece of the UOC. The proof of this is that neither the UOC Synod nor other governing bodies, nor the clergy have practically reacted to the arrest of Orthodox journalists. Of course, the UOJ employees would prefer it to be the opposite, but facts are facts. Secondly, just because the UOJ employees are Orthodox Christians and defend the Church does not mean they are using the Church as a cover. If many employees of the Quarter 95 studio have taken responsible posts in Ukrainian government structures, does that give grounds to talk about “a Quarter 95 network under the cover of the President's Office"? And thirdly, why does the SBU allow itself to speak about an organization that does not exist at all? The Ukrainian Orthodox Church has never included the prefix "MP" in its name. Even the VR Scientific and Expert Department, in the context of the anti-church bill 8371, stated that there is a principle of legal certainty in jurisprudence, according to which subjects of legal relations should be named as they are officially named, not as someone wishes.
Well, the last thing in the headline of the SBU report is "tried to destabilize the situation in Ukraine". In other words, SBU investigators openly state that the footage shown in the film "Empty Churches of Ukraine: What Happens to the Seized UOC Temples" is capable of destabilizing the situation in Ukraine. Perhaps, we can agree with this. The fact that churches are being seized by force destabilizes the situation. The fact that the seized churches stand empty also destabilizes the situation. The fact that only a few or no people at all attend the "services" of the OCU in the Kyiv-Pechersk Lavra also destabilizes the situation. Indeed, if none of this were happening, the situation in Ukraine would be more stable. Therefore, all those who raid churches and then lock them up destabilize the situation in Ukraine. Accusing journalists of reporting what is actually happening is like blaming a mirror for reflecting.
We won't provide the full text of the SBU's statement here. Those interested can read it on their own. We'll highlight only the most indicative points.
The SBU claims that the "agent network" conducted "informational diversions ordered by the FSB of Russia". What these "diversions" entail, we know from the criminal case materials – the dissemination of completely truthful information about what is happening in Ukraine in the form of news reports. Now a documentary film has been added. To claim that the news feed was ordered by the FSB, one must have irrefutable evidence. The SBU does not have such evidence, yet it not only talks about the "order" but also asserts the following: "It has been established that the film was developed according to methodological recommendations received from Russia. These 'instructions' determined the actions of the functionaries, contained prescribed templates of public figures' statements, and identified informational resources to be used in subversive activities. The 'guidelines' also specified particular state officials and informational resources against which fakes were to be directed."
Where are these guidelines? Where are these instructions? Where are the phone screenshots? Where are the wiretapped recordings with the relevant dialogues? Where is the evidence? For example, a very pressing issue: the arson of military vehicles and relay cabinets on the railway. Almost every report of this kind mentions that the detainees were found with correspondence with clients from Russia on their phones, photos of arson for reporting and corresponding monetary transfers on their bank cards. But nothing similar is reported about the Orthodox journalists, even though SBU investigators have full access to their phones and computers.
The SBU's statement says that the "guidelines" specified particular state officials and informational resources against which fakes were to be directed. But in the film "Empty Churches of Ukraine…", there is no mention of state officials or informational resources. The only mention is that the Ukrainian authorities sent a delegation abroad to convince our foreign partners that there is no persecution of the Church. This news was absolutely everywhere in Ukrainian media, including on official websites. This is not a fake at all, just like the words of foreign politicians criticizing the Ukrainian authorities.
Another indicative point in the SBU's statement: "In March of this year, as a result of comprehensive measures, the SBU exposed the participants of the group, four key figures were detained. They are in pre-trial detention." Yes, unfortunately, they are in pre-trial detention. They languish behind bars in very harsh conditions. Completely unjustifiably. All court hearings on the issue of preventive measures confirm this. The prosecution cannot present any serious evidence that the suspects were engaged in anything other than journalistic activities, yet the court still sends them to pre-trial detention without bail. But here's what's interesting. If the SBU arrested the key figures of the UOJ, not one or two, but four at once, why does the UOJ media resource continue to inform its readers about news in the religious field? Why do news about new seizures, statements by religious figures and church events in Ukraine and abroad keep appearing on the UOJ website? One could say that the arrested journalists are not so key after all, but the matter is entirely different. Journalistic activity cannot be stopped in principle. The truth will always be discovered, no matter how much it is hidden. Especially in our age of information technology. The only way to stop information about church seizures from appearing is to stop the seizures themselves.
Here's another quote from the statement that shows the authors of the statement probably didn't watch the film "Empty Churches of Ukraine…": "The distorted information concerned the participation of state institutions in the process of transferring religious communities from the UOC to the OCU." This is not in the film. There is nothing about state institutions or the transfer. There is only about the consequences, namely, that the churches after such transfers stand empty or locked. This is supported by specific evidence, photo and video documents. In what exact part is the information in the film distorted? What is incorrect here?
The statement also says that the suspects have been charged with creating a criminal organization, inciting religious hatred and justifying armed aggression. And again, the emphasis is on the fact that Orthodox journalists face life imprisonment. And this is simply for news in the religious field and for the film "Empty Churches of Ukraine...". The film is short, only about 7 minutes. We suggest everyone watch it and decide: can life imprisonment be justified for this?
It’s also worth considering the prospects for a country where such films threaten life imprisonment. This is especially relevant now, as Ukraine has begun negotiations to join the EU. Do our authorities really think that the truth about religious persecution in Ukraine won’t come up during these negotiations? Does anyone believe that the European Union will turn a blind eye to the fact that people are behind bars in our country for nothing more than speaking the truth and engaging in honest journalism? Perhaps when our officials are confronted with human rights violations and politically motivated persecution, we will see even more absurd statements? Maybe, then SBU investigators will accuse Orthodox journalists of discrediting the authorities simply by being in pre-trial detention? Will they claim this was also written in "Russian guidelines"? Why not, everything seems to fit. Journalists are tasked with ending up in pre-trial detention on trumped-up charges, these facts are then brought to the attention of European politicians and officials, who on this basis deny Ukraine’s entry into the EU. Isn't that the enemy IPSO? But maybe it's time to stop playing this theater of the absurd? You can lose the country that way!
