Are you an Orthodox journalist? You have no rights
Valeriy Stupnitsky in court, an illustrative photo. Photo: UOJ
Judge Viktoriya Horbatovska of the Solomiansky Court of Kyiv disrupted the court session concerning the motion of UOJ journalist V. Stupnitsky to change his pre-trial detention conditions (he has been behind bars for 4.5 months).
In response to the lawyer's legitimate request to place the journalist next to him (due to Stupnitsky's hearing impairment and his inability to hear from the glass "aquarium"), Horbatovska responded with a rude refusal. This was despite the fact that the convoy, whom she consulted for permission, had no objections. Horbatovska raised her voice at the lawyer, actually silencing him, and generally behaved as if she were a "sea queen".
The defence had no choice but to file a motion for the judge's recusal, citing her bias. Furthermore, a month earlier, Horbatovska had already unlawfully rejected a motion from Stupnitsky's defence, cynically claiming that the journalist "failed to appear for the hearing" (as if he could voluntarily come or not come from the detention facility).
The question arises: why does the judge behave this way? After all, Stupnitsky is neither a murderer nor a robber. He posed no threat to the court. He could not escape (the windows in the court are barred). He had every right to be near his lawyer and to conduct his defence. Why did you have to be rude to the lawyer and cause a scandal?
There might be be several answers. This includes the "deification" of some of our judges (incidentally, Horbatovska herself has been involved in public scandals for "covering up" a colleague caught drunk-driving and was subjected to disciplinary action by the Disciplinary Chamber of the High Council of Justice). This is also a sense of impunity. But the main reason appears to be the social trend of viewing UOC representatives as enemies and second-class citizens.
So, Ukraine is certainly a democratic country. But, as practice shows, not for everyone.
Read also
Why the defense of UOC is “Achilles’ heel” of Ukrainian government lobbyists
In public, lobbyists for the Ukrainian authorities in the United States insist that there is no persecution of the Church in Ukraine. In reality, they know everything perfectly well and are aware of every single case.
Was the true number of voluntary transfers accidentally revealed in the OCU?
38 clerics out of 2000 "transfers" are about 2%. This is the exact percentage of actual voluntary transitions from the UOC to the OCU demonstrated to us by Serhiy Dumenko.
Opinion polls on the war and Zelensky: a case study in manufactured consent
KIIS polls on church-related issues have long served Dumenko and his circle as convenient “evidence” that the majority of Ukrainians supposedly belong to the OCU.
Seven years of the OCU – what fruits has it borne?
On the anniversary of the event, Dumenko produced a pompous text that appears to have been written in some parallel reality.
Metropolitan Arseniy and the Kremenchuk deputy: what is common?
The example in Kremenchuk is yet another evidence of the authorities' double standards. And we have the right to say that Bishop Arseniy is in the pre-trial detention center not because he committed a crime.
On sausage and milk during the fast
The true meaning of fasting is not gastronomical but spiritual. Yet how many of us can honestly say that during the fast we pray more, refrain from judging anyone, visit hospitals and prisons, and tend to those in distress?