Dan Everiss
<oregdan@hotmail.com> | Mon, May 23, 2016 at 2:51 PM |
|
I cannot make a personal comment on this, I am only sharing it.Rd. Daniel in Oregon
English version | [ Archive ] |
| | |
"COMMERSANT": Conflict between two Churches will be shown in Strasbourg. Appeal
against the ban on “Bailiff Piety”, the documentary film about the
confiscation of the relics of Suzdal Saints from ROAC, lodged with ECHR
|
The
dispute between the Russian Orthodox Church (ROC) and the Russian
Orthodox Autonomous Church (ROAC) over the right to own the relics of
the Saints Euphymios and Euphrosynia of Suzdal that
ended in 2012 after the confiscation of these relics by the authorities
is echoed now in Strasbourg. Publicist Alexander Soldatov, a follower of
ROAC, lodged his appeal against the ban on the “Bailiff Piety”, the
documentary film about the dispute, with the European Court of Human
Rights (ECHR). This film was found extremist by the court. Alexander
Verkhovsky, an expert from Sova Center, regarded the ban as
unconstitutional. Meanwhile, the appeal was characterized as a publicity
move in the State Duma Committee for Public Associations and Religious
Organizations. The conflict described in the appeal from
Alexander Soldatov, publicist and ROAC follower, lodged on his behalf by
Damir Gainutdinov, legal expert of International Human Rights Group
Agora, flared up in Vladimir in 2012. ROC demanded the court to return
the relics of the Saints Euphymios and Euphrosynia of Suzdal to the
Federal Property Management Agency (Rosimuschestvo) so that they could
be transferred to ROC thereafter. The relics had been in permanent
safekeeping on the premises of Tsar Constantine Church in Suzdal. In
1998 this parish moved to the Orthodox Autonomous Church that had
earlier dissented from ROC. In 2012 the representatives of ROC obtained
the decision of the Arbitration Court of Vladimir Region on the
confiscation of the relics (and before that – the confiscation of Tsar
Constantine Church) from ROAC. One year later the “Bailiff Piety”
documentary film was published by Credo.ru website co-founded by
Alexander Soldatov, author of the appeal. The film made by Mr.
Soldatov’s colleagues features the footage of the attempts of the court
bailiffs to confiscate the relics after the court decision and also
shows the videos of the Patriarch Kirill’s speeches. The filmmakers
criticized the Union of Orthodox Banner Bearers and the Liberal
Democratic Party of Russia (LDPR). The deputies of this Party had
supported ROC in the judicial dispute. In August 2014 the Public
Prosecutor of Vladimir demanded that the Court of Oktyabrsky District of
this city bans the film for the reason of being extremist. The
materials of the special investigation activities carried out by the
officers of the Federal Security Service of Russia in respect of Mr.
Soldatov were cited as the justification for the Public Prosecutor’s
claim. As noted in the expert opinion presented to the court by the
Public Prosecutor, the film showing Josef Goebbels, a political figure
of the Nazi Germany, along with the representatives of the Moscow
Patriarchate, "contains the statements of hostile and aggressive nature
in relation to ROC and Orthodox believers". According to this expert
opinion, "the montage and the video sequences justify the necessity to
take hostile actions... since it negatively characterizes ROC as an
avaricious business corporation... ideologically approximated to...
aggressive and occult ideological instructions of national socialism". As
a result, the video has been banned as extremist, although it is still
available in the Internet, including the YouTube channel. As noted in
Mr. Soldatov’s appeal, the court infringed upon his rights to freedom of
speech and fair trial since, in his opinion, the film contained
criticism only against ROC and State Duma deputies, but did not contain
any calls for violence. Besides, there was no legal evaluation of the
arguments brought forward by the defense. Alexander Verkhovsky, Head
of Sova Center, the institution that monitors the enforcement of
anti-extremist laws, also believes that “Bailiff Piety” has been banned
illegitimately. "The ban on the film restricts the freedom of
expression. It was imposed for the reasons which I deem to be contrary
to the European Convention", said Verkhovsky in an interview to
Kommersant newspaper. Victor Zolochevsky, LDPR Deputy of State Duma,
member of its Committee for Public Associations and Religious
Organizations and a representative of Vladimir Region in the Russian
Parliament, who had made an inquiry into the dispute, is of a different
opinion. "In my view, this is a publicity move made in order to attract
attention to the issue. As for me personally, I would not want my
children to watch films made by some obscure priests or some offshoots
of traditional religions", said Zolochevsky. In his opinion, the dispute
over the relics was settled as long ago as in 2012. "The relics were of
value to all Orthodox believers, but, as far as I know, ROAC did not
allow access to them for everyone. Had the parties been ready for a
dialogue at the outset, nothing of this sort would have happened”,
stated Zolochevsky. Grigory Tumanov, KOMMERSANT, 5 May 2016 |
Editorial note:
Since this article affects the interests of Portal-Credo.Ru and its
Editor-in-Chief Alexander Soldatov, and also contains a number of
material inaccuracies, the Editorial Office of Portal-Credo.Ru deems it
necessary to make some comments: 1. The "dispute" over the relics of the Saints
Euphymios and Euphrosynia of Suzdal did not end in 2012. In fact, it
began in 2012. As of now, the last line under this “dispute” was drawn
in April 2015 when the relics were actually confiscated from ROAC’s home
church in Suzdal. 2. ROC of Moscow Patriarchate has never
taken any legal recourse in respect of the relics of the Saints of
Suzdal. Rosimuschestvo, a federal agency, has been the claimant in the
case. The case files do not contain any evidence that Rosimuschestvo has
been acting in favor of ROC. Therefore, any assertion that ROC has
attained some goals in court is erroneous. It should be noted that the
relics of Saints Euphymios are now kept in a museum located in
the former church building which has not yet been transferred to ROC,
and the access of the faithful to the premises of this museum is being
substantially restricted. 3. ROAC has never dissented from ROC and the parish of Tsar Constantine Church left the latter in 1990 and not in 1998. 4.
The "confiscation of the relics" did not take place in 2012. Moreover,
in January 2013 the Federal Arbitration court reversed the judicial
decisions on the confiscation of the relics and ruled to leave them in
the custody of the faithful of ROAC. The final decision on the
confiscation became effective after the illegal examination of the case
by the court of general jurisdiction in February 2014. 5. Deputies of LDPR were not on ROC’s side in this judicial dispute and did not take any part in the litigation in any way. 6.
The expert examination sponsored by the Federal Security Service is
quoted by the author of this article improperly, considering the fact
that no quotes have been made from the more reliable specialized expert
examinations conducted upon the request from the defense counsel. |
|
|
No comments:
Post a Comment
Guest comments MAYBE can be made by email.
joannahigginbotham@runbox.com
Anonymous comments will not be published. Daniel will not see unpublished comments. If you have a message for him, you need to contact him directly.
oregdan@hotmail.com