Ukraine. Ban on the profession of journalist
Alexey Blyuminov, political commentator
Today, anything can be considered treason in Ukraine, including professional work. A recent case vividly illustrates the truth of this thesis. Zhytomyr journalist Vasyl Muravitsky was arrested for "state treason" under Part 1 of Article 111, Part 2 of Article 110, Part 2 of Article 161, and Part 1 of Article 258-3 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine. The basis for the charge was a standard civil contract for the provision of services and performance of work, and the fact that he received his fee "through international online payment systems."
Half the country now works under such agreements. There is only one nuance - this agreement was concluded with the Russian state news agency Rossiya Segodnya. Considering the state of Ukrainian-Russian relations, this circumstance in itself is, in the eyes of the current government, a “criminal offense” from the category of especially serious ones.
Although, in truth, journalist Muravitsky’s “guilt” is no more than that of millions of other residents of Ukraine who are forced to work for Russian employers. Both with and without traveling to Russia, working remotely.
What can you do? The level of Ukrainian salaries today is quite low. In addition, the Russian language, which has not been completely eradicated in Ukraine, makes its speakers quite competitive in the market of its northern neighbors. All of these are truisms, but it is important to repeat them because Ukraine has reached that point in its movement towards the bottom when people are blamed for the most basic things.
And indeed: let’s say Muravitsky writes for Russian media (I note, he writes legally, that is, in accordance with the legislation of both the Russian Federation and Ukraine, where, thank God, it is not yet prohibited to work for Russian companies).
And some Petrenko works for Gazprom, produces gas in Tyumen, thereby strengthening, according to the logic of the Ukrainian government, the economic power of the “aggressor country.” Why not “sovereign zrada”?
Does this mean that the conditional Petrenko, upon returning from Tyumen to his native Ivano-Frankivsk, may be sent to prison? Previously, my answer to this would have been no. Now, after the story with Muravitsky, I don’t even know what to answer. Except the classic one: but God knows.
It is also of interest that a citizen of Ukraine is accused of his activities actually outside Ukrainian jurisdiction. And this, you see, is something new, even for the post-Maidan jurisprudence that has seen everything, God forgive me.
Well, judge for yourself: a citizen publishes his comments or analysis of Ukrainian events in publications of a neighboring state that are legally registered there.
That is, in simpler terms, it works not for Ukrainian, but for foreign audiences. But then it is all the more incomprehensible how these texts could “manipulate the consciousness” of Ukrainians and, moreover, “inflame” and “call” them to anything. After all, this was written not for them, but for Russian readers.
After all, judging by the SBU charges, Muravitsky’s texts were not published in Ukrainian jurisdiction, not in Ukrainian publications, which are obliged to obey the requirements of Ukrainian laws, no matter how crazy they may be at a given time. And the legislation of the “aggressor country”, in whose publications these texts were published, has no claims against them, unlike the SBU.
Absurd, you say? Perhaps I agree with you. But you see, it’s like the joke about “they hit you in the face, not your passport.” So it is in our case: whoever grabbed a person first will judge him. Regardless of what a person has done or whether he has done it.
Maybe someone will say that the journalist from whom “Kotsaba No. 2” is being made before our eyes really wrote something that is prohibited by Ukrainian laws? Well I do not know. For example, did he give out secret information about the location of military units or the movement of columns of military equipment in the Donbass, called for a change in borders or an armed uprising? As a person familiar with Muravitsky’s publications on the same six “enemy sites” mentioned by the SBU, I can say that there was nothing even close to that. And there was something for which, in an amicable way, two-thirds of the inhabitants of Ukraine, if not more, should have been imprisoned.
However, a detailed analysis of Muravitsky’s texts is not the topic of this column, and it can only be substantive when it becomes known which texts the SBU has claims to. For us, something else is important. What I wrote about at the very beginning. In a country confidently moving towards Europe (if you believe its leadership), freedom of speech has reached such unprecedented heights that a person can be imprisoned for 15 years for performing his professional duties as part of his profession. Well, it’s like if a painter and plasterer was imprisoned for painting and plastering.
In essence, this means a direct ban on the profession. No matter how lofty words about the Motherland he hides behind.
English version :: Read in English: Ukraine. Ban on the Journalist Profession