Лев Гунин - ГУЛаг Палестины
sympathy for Ukrainians was contrary to your plan.
Had you managed to find a Jewish member of parliament and television broadcaster who had
died in Ukraine under mysterious circumstances, then you would have had one small piece
of evidence for the anti-Ukrainian conclusions that you offered. Had you managed to
find a Russian member of parliament and television broadcaster who had died in Ukraine
under mysterious circumstances, then you would have had one small piece of evidence for
the anti-Ukrainian conclusions that you offered. However, you found neither of these
things. In Ukraine, death under mysterious circumstances is reserved for prominent
Ukrainians, which conclusion you had no interest in broadcasting.
Below, I identify four incidents which I have brought to your attention either in three
earlier letters, or in the present one. Although the first two cases occurred before
your broadcast of 23Oct94, and the second two occurred after, all serve to support the
conclusion that within today's Ukraine, it is Ukrainians who are the targets of
violence:
Date of my letter
Subject of my letter
Date of Attack
Violence that you should have reported in your 23Oct94 The Ugly Face of Freedom
15May99
Who murdered Volodymyr Ivasiuk?
April 1979
30Jun99
Who murdered Vadim Boyko?
February 14, 1992
Violence that you might have caused by your 23Oct94 The Ugly Face of Freedom
09Apr99
Who blew the hands off Maksym Tsarenko?
Summer 1995
17May99
Who murdered Volodymyr Katelnytsky?
July 7-8, 1997
As the first two of the above attacks occurred prior to your 23Oct94 broadcast, then
your fault is that you neglected to report them. And as the second two attacks occurred
after your 23Oct94 broadcast, then your fault is that you may have helped cause them.
That is, your 23Oct94 broadcast, The Ugly Face of Freedom, served to demonstrate to
Ukraine's assassins not only that violence against Ukrainians would go unreported in the
world press, but also that even as Ukrainians continued to be butchered, the world press
would portray them - the victim Ukrainians - as themselves butchers. You did not
yourself wield any knife or pull any trigger or tighten any garotte, but you informed
those that were predisposed to do so that they might expect impunity if they did. For
this reason, I consider you to have blood on your hands, some of it Maksym Tsarenko's,
and some of it Volodymyr Katelnytsky's.
Lubomyr Prytulak
cc: Yaakov Bleich, Ed Bradley, Jeffrey Fager, Don Hewitt, Steve Kroft, Andy Rooney,
Lesley Stahl, Mike Wallace, Simon Wiesenthal.
Morley Safer Letter 12 01Jul99 Who murdered Borys Derevyanko?
The plainest moral to be drawn from the Derevyanko-Hurvits story is that when a
muckraking Ukrainian editor takes on a corrupt Jewish politician, the Ukrainian editor
ends up dead.
July 1, 1999
Morley Safer
60 Minutes, CBS Television
51 W 52nd Street
New York, NY
USA 10019
Morley Safer:
The Committee to Protect Journalists described the contract killing of Ukrainian editor
Borys Derevyanko thusly:
Borys Derevyanko, Vechernyaya Odessa
Date of Death: August 11, 1997
Place of Death: Odessa
Derevyanko, editor in chief of Vechernyaya Odessa, a popular and
influential thrice-weekly newspaper, was fatally shot at point-blank
range on his way to work on the morning of August 11 near the Press
House, where the newspaper's offices are located. Colleagues believe
the killing of Derevyanko, who was editor of Vechernyaya Odessa for 24
years, was related to the newspaper's opposition to the policies of
Odessa's mayor. The chief regional prosecutor declared the murder a
contract killing and launched an official investigation. Local
authorities announced in September that they had arrested a suspect,
described as a professional assassin, who confessed to killing
Derevyanko, but they gave no details about his confession.
I would add that the Odessa mayor which the above account neglects to name was the
corrupt Eduard Hurvits, who was particularly threatened by Borys Derevyanko's opposition
because of municipal elections that were coming up in 1998. The comment concerning the
arrest of an assassin gives a misleading impression - in today's Ukraine, contract
killings are never solved, and those who order them are never punished.
Today, Borys Derevyanko is dead, and Eduard Hurvits, barred by his corruption from
holding the office of mayor of Odessa, continues his criminal career as a member of the
Ukrainian parliament. Photographs of Derevyanko and Hurvits are shown below:
Newspaper editor
Borys Derevyanko
Odessa Mayor
Eduard Hurvits
The table which I began in my letter to you of 30Jun99 can now be elaborated with
another entry:
Date of my letter
Subject of my letter
Date of Attack
Violence that you should have reported in your 23Oct94 The Ugly Face of Freedom
15May99
Who murdered Volodymyr Ivasiuk?
April 1979
30Jun99
Who murdered Vadim Boyko?
February 14, 1992
Violence that you might have caused by your 23Oct94 The Ugly Face of Freedom
09Apr99
Who blew the hands off Maksym Tsarenko?
Summer 1995
17May99
Who murdered Volodymyr Katelnytsky?
July 7-8, 1997
01Jul99
Who murdered Borys Derevyanko?
August 11, 1997
As the conclusion of your 23Oct94 60 Minutes story, The Ugly Face of Freedom, was that
Ukraine is a place in which Ukrainians practice violence against Jews, it is highly
relevant that Borys Derevyanko is Ukrainian and Eduard Hurvits is Jewish. You went to
Ukraine looking for evidence of Ukrainians harming Jews, you failed to find such
evidence, but you broadcast your conclusion anyway. The true story that you would not
broadcast, and that was readily documentable, is that Ukraine is a place in which Jews
harm Ukrainians. The plainest moral to be drawn from the Derevyanko-Hurvits story is
that when a muckraking Ukrainian editor takes on a corrupt Jewish politician, the
Ukrainian editor ends up dead. That is the reality of Ukraine. It was the reality of
Ukraine when you visited it in 1994, it was the reality of Ukraine before 1994, and it
has been the reality of Ukraine since 1994.
As in earlier letters, I fault you for not reporting such incidents as are in the above
table that took place before 1994, and I fault you for precipitating such incidents that
took place after 1994. Thus, to the blood that is already on your hands, I add the
blood of Borys Derevyanko. You had the opportunity in your 1994 broadcast to come out
on the side of the victims against the butchers, but you preferred to side with the
butchers against the victims, and Borys Derevyanko has been one of the casualties of
your decision.
Lubomyr Prytulak
cc: Yaakov Bleich, Ed Bradley, Jeffrey Fager, Don Hewitt, Steve Kroft, Andy Rooney,
Lesley Stahl, Mike Wallace, Simon Wiesenthal.
Michaud refuses to apologize,
Bouchard facing PQ split
WebPosted Thu Dec 21 08:51:59 2000
QUEBEC CITY - A controversy within the Parti
Quйbйcois has escalated and could threaten the
leadership of Premier Lucien Bouchard.
It began last week when an influential member of
the PQ, who wants to run in a byelection, made
comments about the Holocaust.
Bouchard demanded the comments be withdrawn.
Yves Michaud refused.
Now people within the PQ are taking sides.
On Wednesday, as the
National Assembly was
wrapping up for the
Christmas break, the
controversy took a
sharp turn for the worse.
Michaud said he has no
reason to apologize.
"I have never said or written anything that
minimizes the Nazi horror against the Jews," he
said. "What you are doing to demonize a member
of your party is a dishonour and not worthy of a
premier."
"Michaud said he was fed up with Jews always
saying they're the only people to have suffered, and
I won't have it," said Bouchard.
Michaud has been around the PQ a long time. He
is a committed, hardcore sovereigntist, part of a
faction in the party that's often doubted Bouchard's
commitment.
Last week, on radio, and at a commission studying
the French language, he said Quebec's Jews were
intolerant, voting as they do en masse against
sovereignty, and they believe they're the only
people to have suffered throughout history.
Michaud wants to be a PQ candidate in an
upcoming byelection, but Bouchard's answer came
Tuesday after a meeting with his caucus. Withdraw
either your remarks, or your candidacy.
Michaud will do neither. And now, he's gathering
powerful support.
He has the backing of Bouchard's predecessor,
Jacques Parizeau, and some influential
sovereigntist groups. They say his remarks were
inelegant, inopportune, but not anti-Semitic.
Bouchard in the meantime says the sovereignty
movement must show the world it will not tolerate
Michaud's opinions. He has the backing of his
caucus, but in some cases, it sounds almost
reluctant.
Now, an emerging question: Can a split become
an irrevocable rupture costing Bouchard the
leadership?
He asked his party to think about it over the
holidays. But there's no apparent solution.
In February, the party must choose its byelection
candidate and right now, both sides seem locked
into their positions facing a deadline they cannot
avoid.
POSTED AT 4:04 AM EST Wednesday, December 20
Bouchard courts confrontation
By RHЙAL SЙGUIN
Globe and Mail Update
Quebec - Premier Lucien Bouchard is prepared to
put his leadership on the line if the Parti Quйbйcois fails to support him on several
contentious issues, including his intention to ban a prominent PQ member from running in
a by-election next spring.
"He is prepared to take on the party," said a senior party member. "We get the sense that if
the party executive goes against him on the Yves Michaud affair, on language or on his
strategy for achieving sovereignty, the party will shatter. The mood is such that we may be
looking at a confrontation between the leader and the party. He warned us it could be
fatal."
The source said this means that Mr. Bouchard could resign.
Shareholder-rights activist and party member Yves Michaud, who had hoped to stand for
the PQ in a by-election next spring, caused a furor earlier this month with his comments
about Jews and ethnic voters.
The party executive will meet in the new year to hear Mr. Michaud defend himself and
decide whether to bar his candidacy. It will be the first in a number of showdowns within
the party.
In February, it must take a position on toughening the province's language laws and define
a strategy to achieve sovereignty. Mr. Bouchard has made it known that he will not tolerate
any radical position on language, and has warned members to be patient about another
referendum.
He has also said he favours blocking Mr. Michaud's candidacy.
The Premier will have to deal with the mounting frustrations or face a confrontation.
The split within sovereigntist ranks blew up in public this week as prominent separatist
leaders, including former premier Jacques Parizeau and Bloc Quйbйcois Leader Gilles
Duceppe, said Mr. Bouchard's PQ caucus had no right to support a motion in the National
Assembly reprimanding Mr. Michaud.
"The Parti Quйbйcois is divided in the same way Quebec society is divided," party
vice-president Marie Malavoy said Tuesday. "The party didn't close the door on his
candidacy ... but we have to discuss it as soon as possible."
Mr. Michaud outraged the Jewish community for stating that Jews were not the only ones
in the history of humanity to suffer. He also said there is an anti-sovereignty ethnic vote,
pointing to 12 polls in the Montreal suburb of Cфte-Saint-Luc, which has a high
concentration of Jewish residents, where everyone voted against sovereignty in the 1995
referendum. He also called the B'nai Brith, an influential Jewish-rights organization,
extremist and anti-sovereigntist.
Mr. Duceppe said Tuesday that he disagreed with Mr. Michaud's comments, but that the
National Assembly had no business condemning him for them. "It could be very
hazardous, if not dangerous, for the National Assembly to hand out blame like that," he
said. "It is one thing to ask a member of the National Assembly to apologize or withdraw
what he said, like we do in Ottawa. But when it's not a member of that assembly, I think
there are tribunals that can judge whether it was correct or not."
In a full-page letter in Le Devoir Tuesday, 30 prominent sovereigntists, including Mr.
Parizeau, accused the National Assembly of attempting to gag Mr. Michaud and denying
him his right to freedom of speech.
"We the undersigned, consider there is a real misuse of the role of the National Assembly,
a serious attack on the rights and freedoms of citizens and a violation of the Charter," they
wrote in French. It is "a flagrant act of injustice and a stunning show of arbitrary authority of
which every citizen can from now on fear of becoming the victim."
In interviews Monday, Mr. Parizeau compared Mr. Bouchard's defence of the National
Assembly's position to the type of authoritarian actions taken in the era of premier Maurice
Duplessis. "When I was young the Duplessis regime was in place. And a system that
demands that you either believe or die with pressures to adopt this or that, you can be sure
that I can see a throwback to that era. And that is why I protest," he said. "What Mr. Michaud
