An extraordinary event which might certainly have crucial meaning for Ukraine`s national security, happened in Pimonenko street, apt.10a, in Kiev at 12 p.m on 29 October. The National Expert Commission on the Issues of Public Morality (NEC) unilaterally undertook a step aimed at protecting the country from the critical articles by a certain Victor Pirozhenko. I was not invited to the meeting and either was informed about it.
A few days before the meeting the official website of the NEC published an appeal by Mr. Yanevsky, who presented his opinion letter on the aforementioned articles in accordance with the Commission`s resolution No.17 of 30 September, 2009.
One of the Internet sources said: ''At the request of the Security Service of Ukraine, the NEC gave assessment to Pirozhenko`s articles. Four out of 19 articles were criticized by the commission. One of them headlined “New History of Ukraine as a step to change consciousness” runs counter to the Law on Holodomor of 1932-1933 in Ukraine since the public denial of Holodomor is viewed as an outrage upon the memory of millions of famine victims. Because of its humiliating tone, the article also violates the Law on Protection of Public Morality. With other articles of the kind - “History and politics as a weapon of fascization of Ukraine”, “Ukrainian ultra-nationalism: ideology and strike forces”, “Crisis of the Galician ethnic dictatorship” - this one provides a tendentious point of view and poses a threat to Ukriane`s national security”. Unfortunately, unlike the decisions made on the rest of the issues discussed during the meeting on 29 October, the 'resolution on Pirozhenko' itself was not published on the website of the NEC.
Well, the NEC criticized the articles which proved incompetence of the official Ukrainian authorities in the questions of legislation, politics and history. I used the unacceptable ideology of Galician ultra-right nationalism, which since 2005 has grown into Neo-fascism, as one of the major arguments against the current policies in Ukraine. The problem is that Nazi ideology of racial superiority, which brought so much grief to the humankind under Hitler, is dominating the minds of some of the contemporary Ukrainian politicians and historians.
An intention to legalize this neo-Nazi ideology requires a set of measures: in historical science these are invention of myths and revision of the Ukrainian history; in the official ideology-intrusion of misanthropic values, xenophobia, Russophobia and antisemitism; in politics- support of ultra-nationalist and openly neo-fascist sentiments; in legislation- administrative discrimination of non-Ukrainian cultural and linguistic groups, especially of the Russian-speaking population. In terms of public morality and patriotic upbringing, an intention to impose contempt towards a life of a person if he or she is not devoted to the 'Ukrainian nation' in its nationalistic meaning, and heroization of Hitler's accomplices.
Modern Ukraine is the country where people's rights to speak their native languages and profess any religion are being rudely violated. And all this, I think, can be perfectly described as the 'Galician ethnic dictatorship'. In the country with almost 17 million of Russians and where about 70% of the population speak Russian, this language lacks an official status. And by demonstrating interest towards the aforementioned articles the Security Service of Ukraine and the NCE once again proved that truth was on my side.
Throughout its existence, the Commission won`t pay attention to the condonation of crimes committed by neo-Nazis from the Ukrainian Insurgent Army and such cutthroats like Bandera, Shukhevitch and others. Neither members of the Commission paid attention to Russophobic ideas promoted by Mikhnovsky, Dontsov and their supporters and falsification of history of the WW II, including the interpretation of policies carried out by the Galician police forces within the Wehrmacht and by the SS punitive squads in the occupied Soviet territory.
The theory of Ukrainian-Galician Nazism even is being imposed through History textbooks which is a cynical outrage against public morality. And isn`t it insulting to make a film about an SS officer Shukhevitch and promote Nazi ideology through other means of art? The Commission does not seem to care about this...
Those who inherited this ideology are now exercising power over Kiev. They have been imposing immoral and absolutely unacceptable in the civilized world ideas of heroism, honor, patriotism. President Yushchenko describes an SS officer Shukhevitch a 'hero of Ukraine'. Monuments to a sadist and murderer Bandera were built in Lviv and other cities of Galicia. Militants who took part in the Babyi Yar massacre in 1942-43 are also often viewed as heroes.
This is what the Galician national-extremism is all about. And since the current Ukrainian leaders do not recognize any other interpretations of morality, this is what the Yushchenko team believes to be the only way to the prosperity of the Ukrainian nation.
It appears that in accordance with the Law on the Commission on Morality, this body must deal with the aforementioned issues, while the assessment of publications is outside its competence. Its main function is to prevent distribution of such dangerous ideological ideas no matter who the authors are. And since, as Mr. Yushchenko has put it, Ukraine is the 'most democratic democracy', the Commission should not make any exceptions either for the president or those who are responsible for the falsification of photos and documents related with Holodomor.
Being a watchdog organization, the Security Service of Ukraine should have demanded an investigation into the exhibition featuring photos of famine victims in the US during the Great Depression and probably of those starving in the Russian Volga region in 1921-23, which were claimed as those of Holodomor in Ukraine. The whole Ukrainian society was shocked at the cynical exhibition but not the members of the Commission on Public Morality.
The Security Service and the Commission focused on the articles which unveiled a point of view different from that of the official ideology. In other words, they did not like the mere idea of dissent. So, it is logical that first of all they must pay attention to their policies, which, in violation of the country's Constitution, infringe on the people's freedom of thought.
In case with my articles, the Commission dared to juggle with the facts. I did not deny the famine in the Soviet Union in 1930s but I opposed its interpretation as 'genocide' since there is no direct evidence of this. This is no more than a hypothesis and it requires thorough investigation.
What is more is that today such a hypothesis does not only lack evidence but is recognized by many experts as absolutely weak.
So,
1. Ukriane`s Security Service and the NEC went beyond their competence while analyzing my articles and attempted to discuss my political preferences instead.
2. The Security Service turned a blind eye on the Constitution (which is unprofessional) and provided protection of Mr. Yushchenko`s personal opinions. Members of the Security Service are building careers by persecuting dissent.
3. The policies of the Security Service and of the NEC on the issues of public morality should be discussed at the Verkhovna Rada. Evidently, the situation is so difficult that the Security Service needs reshuffling, while the NEC should be simply dissolved.
