“Religion-based charges and imprisonment are unjustified” – Lawyer comments on the “ACTIVIST” case

“When I heard about the case for the first time, it seemed that there were some objectionable aspects in the blogger’s actions. Why? First, he had to have a legal basis for declaring a product haram. Because his behavior is harmful to the entrepreneur. For example, there are substances such as spreading false information, defamation or discrediting a competitor. But after seeing what articles the blogger was charged with in the court, I was surprised. It is cited there – “because of inciting religious enmity”. I find the accusation unfounded. This is my personal opinion. I can express my personal opinion and it does not affect the court’s decision. 

As an expert, I can say that even from a legal point of view, in order to incite religious hatred, the object must be clear. Incitement of religious enmity means, for example, the cause of discord between representatives of two religions. Haram is used in the sense of inedible, harmful. So who is affected here? Here the blogger pointed out that the product is of poor quality and that it is forbidden to eat it. The word haram also comes from the word forbidden. That is, in the sense that eating it is harmful, it is not inculcating its religious views, it is not causing discord between representatives of two religions. I believe that the intent to do so does not exist in this case. There is no such thing as incitement of religious enmity here. In general, accusations and imprisonment based on religion are unjustified.

In addition, Article 194 was added. As I have said several times before, this substance has become a “on-duty article”. First, it is necessary to determine the order of this, it is wrong to apply this article to any situation. First of all, the request of the employee of the legal body should be legal,” the lawyer Ruslan Sodikov said.

One can watch the interview in full at the link below.