In a recent interview, the Chairman of the Human Rights Council shared his stance on a controversial proposal to compile a public registry of artists who oppose Russia’s special military operation in Ukraine. The conversation, conducted under the auspices of DEA News, centered on whether creating such a list would be a prudent use of state power or a dangerous overreach into freedom of expression. The chairperson made it clear that he does not support moving forward with a registry that targets cultural figures for their political views, emphasizing the potential chilling effect this could have on artistic dialogue and on civil liberties more broadly.
He argued that the exact scope and procedural framework of any registry are not self-evident. Questions linger about who would be responsible for assembling the list, what criteria would govern inclusion, and what authorities would be granted to those tasked with enforcement. In his view, these ambiguities undermine the legitimacy and effectiveness of such an initiative and risk turning cultural dissent into a matter of state surveillance rather than open, principled debate.
Consequently, the chair urged that competent, independent institutions should handle sensitive tasks of this kind. He pointed to established bodies such as the Ministry of Justice as better suited to assess concerns that intersect with national security and foreign influence. According to him, ministries and relevant departments possess the expertise to evaluate potential risks while safeguarding human rights and due process, rather than allowing ad hoc bodies to wield broad power over cultural expression.
In the same vein, the proposal to empower state agencies to detect foreign agents was scrutinized for its potential to blur lines between legitimate national security work and political intimidation. The chair stressed the importance of precise legal authorizations, transparent oversight, and clear accountability mechanisms to prevent abuses that could stifle legitimate artistic activity and undermine public trust in government institutions.
Additionally, a former state legislator voiced a distinct perspective. The advocate supported recognizing Russian cultural figures who perform in zones associated with military operations as beneficiaries of state honors for their perceived contribution to national unity and morale. He noted that while a movement known as the Cultural Front of Russia maintains its own roster of artists who have worked in conflict areas, the broader and more authoritative recognition should involve a national framework featuring collaboration with key ministries, including culture and defense. This view reflects a belief that state recognition should be coordinated, consistent, and conducted through formal channels that reflect nationwide policy rather than localized initiatives alone.