Watchdogs require explanations from Ministry of Culture due to pressure on the UOC

According to the organisation's representatives, giving such evaluaitons by the Ministry is akin to hate mongering. Human rights defenders explained that under the legislation the Ministry of Culture has no right «to give its assessment for the actions of physical persons, including the definition of such actions as «anti-Ukrainian», given that the law does not prohibit «maintaining of business, diplomatic, and economic relations with representatives of a foreign state – the Russian Federation, as well as with citizens who are a part of «DNR» and «LNR» formations, except for the cases when such actions make up body of the crime.»

According to human rights activists, «condemnation, defamation, discrimination or public accusation of persons – representatives of the religious confession for their commitment of actions not prohibited by the law and thus lawful – are unacceptable.»

Owing to this «Public Advocacy» requested the Ministry of Culture to clarify if the agency has the information on the commencement of criminal proceedings against Metropolitan of Simferopol and Crimea Lazar, Metropolitan of Lugansk and Alchevsk Mitrofan, Metropolitan Platon and priest Alexander Yakushechkin, and what were the grounds to qualify the priests' actions as «anti-Ukrainian» or having a «separatist» character. Besides, the Ministry has to answer what restrictions are foreseen by the Ukrainian legislation with regard to carrying our religious ceremonies on the territories of the Crimea, Donetsk and Lugansk regions.

On 31 January 2017 the Ministry of Culture published a “Statement as per the separatist and anti-Ukrainian rhetoric and actions of particular clergymen of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church”, in which the agency accused the UOC clergymen of carrying out religious actions of a worship character upon an order of the RF military and persons who form a part of the «LNR», as well as utterances bearing an anti-Ukrainain character, in the Ministry's opinion.

A number of experts gave a highly negative evaluation of the above statement and called it intimidation of the UOC.

Read also