BY
The late afternoon/early
evening of 4th September bore witness to another mindless and self-defeating act.
A TV studio used by Dmitry
Firtash’s Inter TV channel in Kyiv was subject to arson. The fire it
appears caused by a smoke grenade igniting surrounding material. It may
be that those responsible had no intention in causing a fire, but recklessness
is no defence.
The editorial line of Inter is
consistent with that of the Opposition Block political outlook – which comes as
no surprise considering the ownership of the channel – and therefore perceived
by many as somewhat less that patriotic. It clearly causes angst within
those of a nationalist disposition – perhaps sometimes quite deliberately.
Six individuals have been arrested quite
rightly – whether they are part of a group of 20 pickets (seemingly compromised of members of the 30th
Brigade) is as yet to be clarified.
In fact clarification of
events may take longer than it should, for it appears Inter are not (yet) willing to provide CCTV footage
of the incident to law enforcement officials – despite the damage to their
property and injury to their employees.
Naturally a reader may ponder
– why would Inter refuse to provide possible CCTV evidence to a crime of which
it is the victim?
“кому
это выгодно?” – (Who benefits?)
Perhaps the CCTV footage will
eventually be provided – after Inter, the Opposition Block and The Kremlin has
used this incident to its maximum PR potential possible. Then again
perhaps it simply won’t be supplied (for any number of reasons – what else is
recorded?), or simply doesn’t exist (or soon won’t exist).
Those that clearly do not
benefit from this incident are the Ukrainian State, the Ukrainian government,
law abiding activists, lawful protesters and society – whether they be those
that watch Inter and are sympathetic to its narrative or not.
President, Prime Minister, and
Cabinet Ministers necessarily have to be swift and public in their condemnation
of this incident despite any ripples Inter may cause in the political and
societal pond. Those arrested if indeed responsible will have to be
subject to due process and proportionate sentencing.
This was not a criminal act
aimed at making a statement about omnipresent oligarchy owned media (and
readers would be perhaps wise to keep a watchful eye upon the ownership (or
changing thereof) relating to Kolomoisky’s 1 + 1 media in the near future).
It is not a criminal act aimed
at the Opposition Block or changing its political outlook – and it will not
return to power any time soon (even if it manages to avoid a seemingly
inevitable split).
It is not a criminal act that
will diminish the Kremlin narrative that increasingly forcefully spews forth
via Inter.
If this be a criminal act by
those that consider themselves to be genuine patriots, rather than “patriots”,
then it has accomplished nothing more than sufferance of a serious and
unnecessary self-inflicted wound.
That said, as has been written
here on many occasions, to incite, provoke, and influence the more extreme (of
any flavour) is bread and butter security services work, ergo such
involvement also cannot be excluded – but nevertheless any such possible
involvement does not mitigate the fact that those responsible for this act have
failed to ask themselves the most basic question – “кому это выгодно?” (Who benefits?)
Perhaps their picket would
have been far better placed outside of the National Council of Television and
Radio Broadcasting of Ukraine, or the Ministry of Information of Ukraine, if it
was felt – and perhaps rightly – that Inter had crossed any broadcasting
regulatory red lines?
If it was not felt that
regulatory red lines had been crossed, even if ethical lines had, and their
picket was thus an exercising of their rights to assembly and peaceful protest,
(and peaceful some clearly found too difficult), then the fundamental right of
Inter to free speech/expression also requires upholding (unless it too is
unable to remain from incitement) in equal measure.
“… tolerance and respect for
the equal dignity of all human beings constitute the foundations of a
democratic, pluralistic society. That being so, as a matter of principle it may
be considered necessary in certain democratic societies to sanction or even
prevent all forms of expression which spread, incite, promote or justify hatred
based on intolerance…”
”the Court is also careful to
make a distinction in its findings between, on the one hand, genuine and
serious incitement to extremism and, on the other hand, the right of
individuals (including journalists and politicians) to express their views
freely and to “offend, shock or disturb” others.” – (ECHR Chamber judgment
Erbakan v. Turkey, no. 59405/00, § 56, 6.07.2006)
The weak grip upon rule of law
held by the Ukrainian State was today subjected to an incident that will
further reinforce that perception – and over the most fundamental of rights and
against one of the necessary pillars of democracy (a free (if often unpalatable
and reckless) media).
“кому это выгодно?” – (Who benefits?) – From this incident, nobody that
should!
No comments:
Post a Comment