Why do some fuel hatred, while others are brought up with criminal cases?

The Ternopil police opened a criminal case against the UOC believer Nikolay Bodasyuk for allegedly inciting religious discord by criticizing the OCU and the Patriarchate of Constantinople. At the same time, law enforcement agencies remain deafly silent on the statements of a number of individuals that directly insult the citizens of Ukraine who associate themselves with the Ukrainian Orthodox Church. Why is this happening?

Criminal case

The resource "Klymenko Time" reported that criminal proceedings were initiated against the believer of the UOC. They claim that employees of the SBU department in the Ternopil region read Nikolay Bodasyuk's Facebook and found that the author criticizes the OCU and the Patriarchate of Constantinople. They considered this criticism as incitement to religious hatred and sent materials by mail to the police in the city of Zbarazh, Ternopil region. As a result, a criminal case was initiated under Part 1. Art. 161 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine, which is entitled: "Violation of citizens’ equality based on their race, nationality or religious preferences."

The text of this article reads as follows: “Willful actions inciting national, racial or religious enmity and hatred, humiliation of national honor and dignity, or the insult of citizens' feelings in respect to their religious convictions, and also any direct or indirect restriction of rights, or granting direct or indirect privileges to citizens based on race, color of skin, political, religious and other convictions, sex, ethnic and social origin, property status, place of residence, linguistic or other characteristics, – shall be punishable by a fine of 200 to 500 tax-free minimum incomes, or restraint of liberty for a term up to five years, with or without the deprivation of the right to occupy certain positions or engage in certain activities for a term up to three years."

Consequently, Mykola Bodasyuk can go to prison for three years for his publications. Let's find out if these publications deserve such a severe punishment. From all of them, we will select the most reportedly offensive.

What did Nikolay Bodasyuk write about?

We contacted Nikolay and took his comment. Before citing his publications, we give his position in relation to the OCU and its supporters.

Bodasyuk does not believe that his posts on social networks are intended to offend someone, and even more so – that they are aimed at "insulting the feelings of citizens based on their religious beliefs." Its goal is "for the followers of the OCU to learn the truth about what it is, because there are many of my friends and relatives among them." He does not consider himself guilty and is confident that "with God's help and the support of the faithful, justice will prevail."

Now let's see what Nikolai wrote about.

Here is a quote from a publication dated January 20, 2021: “The devil is the monkey of God. The Antichrist, who is to appear before the end of the world, is called the ape of Christ. In a similar way, the self-consecrated Kiev false metropolitan is the monkey of the canonical Kiev metropolitan. Unlike the previous leaders of the self-ordained groups, the primate of the self-consecrated "Orthodox Church of Ukraine", the false metropolitan Epiphanius (Dumenko), is already the one who previously had no sacred rank in the Orthodox Church at all. A terrible fact is that the self-consecrated Epiphanius throughout all stages of his ministry at the UOC-KP – deacon, priest and bishop – was ordained by the person excommunicated and anathematized – false patriarch Filaret (Denisenko). So, there cannot be the worst option for the post of head of the false church of the OCU during its formation. <...> The falsification called ‘OCU’ should burst like a soap bubble at one time."

Can this text offend the religious feelings of supporters or members of the OCU? Probably, it can. No one will like it if the religious organization to which they belong is called "self-consecrated", and its head – "false metropolitan." But the fact is that Nikolay Bodasyuk’s reflections come not from some of his own conjectures, but from the facts that he cites in his publication, namely, “the self-consecrated Epiphanius throughout all stages of his ministry at the UOC-KP – deacon, priest and bishop – was ordained by the person excommunicated and anathematized – false patriarch Filaret (Denisenko)."

Even Filaret Denisenko does not deny the fact that in 1997 he was anathematized by the Council of Bishops of the Russian Orthodox Church. True though, he treats this anathema with disdain, stating that it is he "is not hurt". The fact that Sergei (Epiphany) Dumenko was “ordained” to all degrees of “priesthood” by the person excommunicated from the Church is also a fact. And if a person who has not been properly ordained to the priesthood in the Church calls himself a “priest,” then the term self-consecrated is applicable to him, likewise if such a person calls himself a metropolitan, then from the point of view of the Church he is a false metropolitan.

By the way, the same stance is shared by most of the Local Churches regarding Dumenko's "consecration". For example, the Primate of the Polish Church, Metropolitan Sawa, said literally the following, “This young secular man (Sergei Dumenko – Ed.) suffered great harm when he was appointed metropolitan,” the Primate answered to a journalist's question. “In the light of canon law, he is not a clergyman. He is not ordained in the canonical Church."

Most Local Churches share the same stance regarding Dumenko's "consecration". For example, the Primate of the Polish Church, Metropolitan Sawa.

So what is Nikolai Bodasyuk’s fault then? Maybe, the Ukrainian police will also start a case against the Primate of the Polish Church?

Here is a publication of Bodasyuk dated March 3, 2021: “The difference between the canonical Ukrainian Orthodox Church and the self-consecrated group called the ‘Orthodox Church of Ukraine’ is as follows. The True Church, which on the territory of Ukraine is headed by His Beatitude Metropolitan Onuphry, the canonical UOC, was created by the Lord Jesus Christ Himself and was born in the Descent of the Holy Spirit on the Apostles on the day of Pentecost ...”

Note that this statement about the UOC is generally not refuted by anyone. No one, including Sergei Dumenko, Filaret Denisenko, Patriarch Bartholomew and so on, has ever declared that the UOC is not the Church of Christ or that its hierarchs do not have apostolic succession in ordination. Further, N. Bodasyuk gives a brief history of the creation of the progenitors of the OCU – the UOC-KP and the UAOC, which can be found in Wikipedia, and in conclusion he gives an illustration showing the processions of the UOC vs. the UAOC and UOC-KP on the feast of the Baptism of Rus in 2018.

Again, will the supporters of the OCU like it if their religious organization is called an "ethno-sect"? Of course, they won’t. But the facts are obvious: the UOC faithful are holding icons, while the progenitors of the OCU – flags of Ukraine. There aren’t any icons AT ALL in this "religious" procession! Only the bishops' vestments of Filaret Denisenko and Makariy Maletich, most likely made at the ROC’s Sofrino enterprise near Moscow, indicate that they belong to a religious organization.

So what was so wrong N. Bodasyuk said?

In fact, the issue of "offensiveness" is not so simple. At first glance, if a person feels insulted and at the same time such a reaction is definitely known beforehand, then everything is clear – the insult is real. But what if the "insult" is based on indisputable facts in relation to the "offended" one? If the words that are considered as an insult are true, then how are they to be regarded in this case?

If in the above-mentioned publications Sergei (Epiphany) Dumenko is called a false metropolitan, then who is to blame – Filaret Denisenko, who, being excommunicated from the Church, elevated him to this "rank" or Nikolay Bodasyuk, who said this?

Who prevented the representatives of the UOC-KP and the UAOC in 2018 from taking icons, banners and walking with them in a religious procession on the occasion of the Baptism of Rus? In fact, they preferred national flags to icons, and Nikolai Bodasyuk simply drew attention to this. The truth is very often impartial, but that doesn’t make it any less true.

Who prevented the representatives of the UOC-KP and the UAOC in 2018 from taking icons, banners and walking with them in a religious procession on the occasion of the Baptism of Rus? In fact, they preferred national flags to icons, and Nikolai Bodasyuk simply drew attention to this.

Now about the goal that N. Bodasyuk probably pursued. The expertise commentary of the Criminal Code in the explanation to Art. 161 says: "The subjective side of the crime is characterized by intent (direct), since the subject acts with the aim of causing national, racial or religious enmity and hatred."

We have already cited Nikolay's commentary, in which he claims that there are many of his friends and relatives among the followers of the OCU, and with his publications he wants to make them think about the nature of the “church” in which they appeared.

In general, the publications not only of Nikolay Bodasyuk, but in general of all supporters of the UOC, as well as statements and sermons of its episcopate and clergy on such topics, have two goals:

• to show people that the OCU is not the Church of Christ;
• to lead to the idea that in order to save their souls, its supporters must repent of the sin of schism.

There is no hatred involved here. Both our Lord Jesus Christ and his apostles sometimes said very unflattering things to people, denounced them of sins and vices. But did they seek to foment religious strife? Certainly, not. All these accusations were intended to call the lost to repentance.

In addition, the already mentioned commentary states: "Article 161 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine protects the equality of citizens, which is enshrined in the Constitution of Ukraine." What rights of supporters of the OCU were infringed upon in the publications of N. Bodasyuk? At first glance, it may seem that this is a right to honor and dignity. But again: who is to blame for the fact that Sergei Petrovich Dumenko was ordained by the person excommunicated from the Church? Is it really N. Bodasyuk?

Publications of supporters and members of the OCU

Now a few words about other publications about which law enforcement agencies are silent.

Here are the words of “bishop” of the OCU Adrian Kulik: “Everyone who lives in Ukraine and does not love it had better attach a plastic number to their ears, as it is done with rootless dogs. So that the Ukrainians can see who they deal with." Kulik and others like him are ready to enroll millions of Ukrainian citizens who disagree with them into the category of those “unloving” Ukraine. And, moreover, to hang numbers on their ears.

Here is a statement of "priest" of the OCU Alexander Dedyukhin that the representatives of the unrecognized DPR and LPR, citizens of Ukraine, are “bio-waste”: “I read about the bio-waste’s inspection of Ukrainian positions. Holy crap!"

The same Dedyukhin in 2016 called the All-Ukrainian Cross Procession of the UOC “the campaign of the Moscow ghouls”.

You can also remember the journalists. For example, an employee of Poroshenko's Channel 5, Roman Chaika, said a year ago: “The captured Ukrainian shrine, Kiev-Pechersk Lavra, in which obscurantist Moscow satanists-Ukrainophobes are seated, abbreviated as UOC-MP, reached the figure of almost 100 infected. And it's not over yet."

Furthermore, the deputy general director of the first Crimean Tatar TV channel "ATR" Ayder Muzhdabaev said that the UOC is an evil Church, for which its flock are sheep. By the way, law enforcement officers did not see any signs of incitement to religious enmity and hatred in Muzhdabaev's statements, due to which they refused to submit the case to the Unified Register of Pre-Trial Investigations.

Here is a very recent publication by longtime propagandist Yaroslava Mishchenko, telling that the participants of the Congress of persecuted communities of the UOC, which took place on February 22, had been bribed by the well-known benefactor, MP and deacon of the UOC Vadim Novinsky for their participation in this event.

This latest publication is strikingly cynical. Believers, who had suffered beatings, insults, threats, lost their churches and property, who were exposed to humiliation and injustice, gathered in the Kyiv-Pechersk Lavra. Their legal rights were not protected by the state. So these people came to Kyiv to share their misfortune with all those who are not indifferent, but instead they heard such ridicule in their address.

We have given only a few examples of outright incitement against the UOC. The size of one article is not sufficient to place all quotations of hate speech, since there are tens and hundreds of them. But if we compare the above publications with what N. Bodasyuk writes, we can see the following:

First, the publications of the OCU supporters are just insults, not well-reasoned statements. People are called "bio-waste", Satanists and Ukrainophobes, equated with stray dogs, accused of corruption and so on. It's just dirt that pours out on the heads of the citizens of Ukraine.

Second, these publications are not based on verified facts. Whereas N. Bodasyuk cites some historical events, facts, evaluates them and comes to certain conclusions, the publications of the OCU supporters reveal lies or an evil mockery or both.

Third, the purpose of the publications is not to try to figure out the true and the false Church, not to find out which Church offers the salvation or eternal death of the soul living in schism; nor is it a call to repentance. As the above-mentioned commentary of the Criminal Code writes: "The subjective side of the crime is characterized by intent (direct), since the subject acts with the aim of causing national, racial or religious enmity and hatred."

However, the above and many other publications that actually incite religious hatred are not taken into account to by law enforcement agencies.

Law enforcement agencies do not take into account the above and many other publications that actually incite religious hatred.

Why is the attitude so different?

According to the Constitution of Ukraine, all citizens, regardless of anything, are equal before the law. Therefore, if a criminal case is brought up against N. Bodasyuk on inciting religious hatred, then similar cases should be opened against the aforementioned supporters of the OCU and many others who feel the liberty to humiliate and insult the religious feelings of the UOC believers. If they do not start cases, then Bodasyuk should be free from persecution. However, everything happens differently. Why?

In order to answer this question, one should look into history, namely at the time when the Bolsheviks who came to power in 1917 put forward their own approach to human rights and the rule of law in general. It was called then the principle of revolutionary expediency and according to it, only those laws that served for the good of the revolution were subject to execution, while those that did not contribute to this principle were discarded.

For example, equality before the law was considered impractical, since entire strata of the population: nobles, merchants, landowners and others were recognized as enemies and, accordingly, could not count on equal rights with the proletariat. Today in Ukraine, in spite of the fact that the Soviet government is declared evil and subject to all kinds of censure, absolutely the same Bolshevik methods are used. Instead of the law, the principle of political (let's call it) expediency operates. In the same way, entire strata of the population, namely the believers of the UOC, are groundlessly considered at least unreliable or insufficiently patriotic, and their equality before the law does not work. They can be insulted, temples can be taken away from them, they can be humiliated and infringed upon, and this remains unpunished. When they try to at least somehow declare their rights, having gathered in the Kyiv-Pechersk Lavra and only tell what happened to them, they can be accused of “encroaching on the stability and state security” of Ukraine, as the deputy from the European Solidarity Party Rostislav Pavlenko worded it.

However, history shows that a truly stable state is the one that applies the principle of justice and equality for all citizens, regardless of their beliefs or other identities, rather than the principle of revolutionary or political expediency. The comeback of Bolshevik methods and principles cannot lead to anything good, as it was proven by our history.