One of the most interesting pieces I read in doing research for this interview was an Open letter of Fr. Sergy (Ribko) to Sir Paul McCartney, which you sent to me, Nicolai. Can you tell our listeners about that?
Along with several other well known artists, Sir Paul McCartney has voiced his support for the group. He is apparently unfamiliar with the case, since he describes it as involving "support for the principles of free speech . . . as long as they do not hurt anyone in doing so." The trial did in fact revolve around this very point, and several witnesses were produced who described in detail how they had been hurt.
Fr. Sergei, a former rock drummer and self-described "hippie" who now serves as rector at the Church of the Holy Spirit in Moscow, sought to enlighten Sir Paul about those feelings, and about the need for mutual tolerance and respect between believers and non-believers.
Now, there's been a lot of coverage in the Western media about the trial
and conviction, most of it siding with the protesters. But all news is biased,
so where's the bias here? Is there anything we aren't seeing?
One of the main failings of media coverage in the West has been its failure to distinguish between the political and the legal aspects of this incident.
As a legal matter the trial was a "slam dunk." The girls fled the scene, lied to authorities, admitted that they had intentionally and knowingly violated the law, showed no remorse, and insisted they had done nothing wrong. Considering all the aggravating circumstances, it was hard to imagine them not getting any jail time.
Protesters in the West have been incarcerated for less. Last year, for example, the son of Pink Floyd guitarist Dave Gilmour was given a 16-month sentence for showing "ultimate disrespect" to Britain's war dead by swinging from the Cenotaph on a British flag.
In this instance the Western media's intense dislike for Vladimir Putin immediately transformed this rather banal incident into a tale of political persecution, even though Putin has absolutely nothing to do with it. He was not the primary target of their abuse, he filed no charges, and the public defender's case does not even include him.
The media's obsession with Putin has led to a complete misunderstanding of the case, and to a very evident lack of sympathy for the rights of religious believers in Russia.
There's such a strong sentiment here in the US about protecting freedom of
speech. But I'm wondering what really falls under that umbrella? I mean, there
have to be some things that a person can't say or do in public, right?
(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).
