The thing is that the chairman of the parliamentary Committee on Freedom of Speech may become… Nestor Shufrych, an ex-regional and People’s Deputy from the Opposition Platform – For Life. What the freedom of speech under Medvedchuk’s control is like in Opinion’s reactions.
According to Iryna Herashchenko, the newly elected People’s Deputy from European Solidarity and the Vice-President of the Eighth convocation, her party strongly opposes the transfer of the Committee’s freedom of Speech to Opposition Platform. According to the deputy, OPFL now actively monopolizes the Ukrainian media space and occupies an openly pro-Russian public position. In addition, Herashchenko assured that only EU representatives voted against the appointment.
A statement has been published on the page of the European Solidarity party saying that the political force finds it inappropriate to elect Shufrych, a close ally of Viktor Medvedchuk, to be a chairman of the Committee on Freedom of Speech, and calls on the Voice and Batkivshchyna parties to reconsider their positions and oppose appointment of the ex-regional for this post.
The Voice party also made a statement: Svyatoslav Vakarchuk‘s political force demands Volodymyr Zelensky and Servant of the People not to allow the former regionals to return to power. According to the statement, Voice voted against Shufrych’s appointment.
Political scientist Viktor Taran noted that the committee has limited powers, so Nestor Shufrych is unlikely to bring much damage, but “public noise” is.
Natalya Lygachova, Chief Editor of Media Detector, regards Shufrych’s election as committee chairman as a spit on all media people and free speech.
The co-author of the language law, Mykola Knyazhytsky, called Shufrych’s appointment inadmissible, as indeed any other “Medvedchuk’s witness”. According to the politician, in that case, representatives of all democratic factions should refuse any positions.
Subsequently, Knyazhytsky added: granting the OPFL the right of leadership on committees that should defend Ukrainian military, cultural and information sovereignty is unacceptable.
The veteran of the Russian-Ukrainian war and blogger Roman Kulyk is not convinced that it is possible to come up with something that would be an even more disparaging gesture toward the media than a “handout” of this committee to the Opposition Platform.
The head of the National Union of Journalists of Ukraine Serhiy Tomilenko assures that “freedom of speech in the Ukrainian Parliament becomes the hostage of Ukrainian politics”. However, the author found a way out: he suggested that the committee should be headed by… another OPFL representative, Yuriy Pavlenko, who, by the way, had worked during the Yanukovych regime. Well, nothing unexpected.
People’s Deputy Vadym Denysenko suggested that when Shufych receives the Committee on Freedom of Speech, he becomes part of the agreements on “inviolability” of Medvedchuk’s channels. According to the politician, in such a scenario, Zelensky’s team is going the same road as Poroshenko was.
Deputy Prime Minister for European and Euro-Atlantic integration in the Groisman government, Ivanna Klympush-Tsyntsadze, regards such a development as a rematch.
Blogger Karl Volokh is convinced that Medvedchuk is pursuing a purposeful lobbying activity in the West today precisely on the grounds of alleged “harassment of freedom of speech in Ukraine”, and thus he will be given an effective tool in the next few years for the latter not happen.
The chairman of the Committee on Freedom of Speech in the Verkhovna Rada of the Eighth Convocation, Viktoriya Syumar, regards Medvedchuk’s appointment (that is, Shufrych’s, that is, Medvedchuk’s) as a step towards Russian standards in the information sphere.
Writer Yuriy Vinnychuk treated the situation not without sarcasm and generally suggested that the committee should be headed by… Dobkin. However, it is not clear which of the two. Although the difference is not really special.
People’s Deputy Volodymyr Ariev is convinced that if Shufrych really takes this position, there is no point in having a Freedom of Speech Committee.
And for those who have not yet understood what is wrong with Shufrych – a short explanation from blogger Serhiy Naumovych.
The best illustration of all this, as for me, is in the post of Deputy Minister of Information Policy Dmytro Zolotukhin.
And the classics are eternal.
Reactions collected by Stepan the Goat checking Shufrych’s meter