Pussy Riot 'show trial' is just another Russian state misdeed
by John Dalhuisen
02 August 2012
A decision by the Russian authorities to put three members of the music-art collective Pussy Riot on trial over an anti-Vladimir Putin protest stunt will be sending shockwaves of concern right across European capitals - says Amnesty International
The three young women – 24-year-old Maria Alekhina, 29-year-old Ekaterina Samutsevich and 23-year-old Nadezhda Tolokonnikova - are accused of "hooliganism on the grounds of religious hatred" under Article 213 of Russia's Criminal Code. If found guilty, they could be sentenced to seven years in prison.
Their 'offence' is now well-known. On February 21, several members of the Pussy Riot group dressed in their trademark bright clothes and balaclavas, stormed onto the altar of Moscow's Christ the Saviour Cathedral - a Russian Orthodox Church - and staged an impromptu flash mob-style political demonstration. Complete with a 'punk prayer' that berated the religious authorities as well as then-Prime Minister Vladimir Putin - it was part of a short but lively series of public, authority-baiting made-for-video stunts from the group.
Given the location and given the song's subject matter - it was called "Virgin Mary, redeem us of Putin" and it called on the Virgin Mary to become a feminist and banish Russian President-elect Putin - the Pussy Riot stunt was provocative and potentially offensive. But was it a crime and should there have been a full-blown criminal trial of the protagonists? Surely not.
On the very first day of their trial this week Maria, Ekaterina and Nadezhda admitted that they had made an "ethical mistake". They regretted any offence they had caused to Russia's faithful. But they were also defiant. In a statement, Ekaterina insisted the trial was "the start of a repressive authoritarian campaign, which aims to hamper the public's political activity and build a sense of fear among political activists". It is hard to disagree.
It is not just political punk pranksters. For the last dozen or so years, the Russian authorities have become increasingly intolerant of all forms of legitimate dissent. Lawyers, human rights activists, investigative journalists and anyone else who has sought to pursue wrongdoing by officials or make a political point has potentially been at risk in the country. Besides arrests and trials, there is a worrying toll of deaths and unsolved murders. Meanwhile, the right to freely assemble in Russia is frequently brought into question. Gay pride events have been banned with tiresome regularity in both Moscow and St Petersburg. And protesters unhappy with the prospect of another presidential term for Vladimir Putin have found their demonstrations broken up and some of their number arrested and taken away.
This is the backdrop to the Pussy Riot trial that leaves us all dismayed. In daring to attack the two pillars of the modern Russian establishment - the Kremlin and the Orthodox Church - the Pussy Riot will have expected a reaction. But what we are seeing is grossly disproportionate. It only displays Russia's growing intolerance of dissent to rest of the world.
Is this how a great nation should be treating those who express dissent and disagreement? In a letter to The Times newspaper this week Sir Malcolm Rifkind, David Miliband and Sir Malcolm Bruce called attention to other cases where people have been imprisoned in dubious circumstances in Russia. This includes the jailing of the oligarch Mikhail Khodorkovsky and his business partner Platon Lebedev. Like the Pussy Riot defendants, both of these men are considered to be prisoners of conscience by Amnesty International. Rifkind et al adopt a cordial tone in their letter, respectfully requesting that Putin use his power to secure the release of the country's wrongly-imprisoned. It is to be hoped that Putin, currently on a visit to the London Olympics to watch the judo, will be receptive to this plea.
Russia's judo-loving president talks regularly of a "strong" Russia but the trial of the Pussy Riot members betrays not strength, rather a creeping authoritarianism under his stewardship. Forcing these three women to endure the sweltering heat of Moscow's Khamovniki Court - reportedly without adequate food or rest - is making the country look anything but strong and self-confident. This is shaping up to be a show trial that will rebound against the authorities themselves.
John Dalhuisen is Europe and Central Asia director at the Amnesty International campaign group
The three young women – 24-year-old Maria Alekhina, 29-year-old Ekaterina Samutsevich and 23-year-old Nadezhda Tolokonnikova - are accused of "hooliganism on the grounds of religious hatred" under Article 213 of Russia's Criminal Code. If found guilty, they could be sentenced to seven years in prison.
Their 'offence' is now well-known. On February 21, several members of the Pussy Riot group dressed in their trademark bright clothes and balaclavas, stormed onto the altar of Moscow's Christ the Saviour Cathedral - a Russian Orthodox Church - and staged an impromptu flash mob-style political demonstration. Complete with a 'punk prayer' that berated the religious authorities as well as then-Prime Minister Vladimir Putin - it was part of a short but lively series of public, authority-baiting made-for-video stunts from the group.
Given the location and given the song's subject matter - it was called "Virgin Mary, redeem us of Putin" and it called on the Virgin Mary to become a feminist and banish Russian President-elect Putin - the Pussy Riot stunt was provocative and potentially offensive. But was it a crime and should there have been a full-blown criminal trial of the protagonists? Surely not.
On the very first day of their trial this week Maria, Ekaterina and Nadezhda admitted that they had made an "ethical mistake". They regretted any offence they had caused to Russia's faithful. But they were also defiant. In a statement, Ekaterina insisted the trial was "the start of a repressive authoritarian campaign, which aims to hamper the public's political activity and build a sense of fear among political activists". It is hard to disagree.
It is not just political punk pranksters. For the last dozen or so years, the Russian authorities have become increasingly intolerant of all forms of legitimate dissent. Lawyers, human rights activists, investigative journalists and anyone else who has sought to pursue wrongdoing by officials or make a political point has potentially been at risk in the country. Besides arrests and trials, there is a worrying toll of deaths and unsolved murders. Meanwhile, the right to freely assemble in Russia is frequently brought into question. Gay pride events have been banned with tiresome regularity in both Moscow and St Petersburg. And protesters unhappy with the prospect of another presidential term for Vladimir Putin have found their demonstrations broken up and some of their number arrested and taken away.
This is the backdrop to the Pussy Riot trial that leaves us all dismayed. In daring to attack the two pillars of the modern Russian establishment - the Kremlin and the Orthodox Church - the Pussy Riot will have expected a reaction. But what we are seeing is grossly disproportionate. It only displays Russia's growing intolerance of dissent to rest of the world.
Is this how a great nation should be treating those who express dissent and disagreement? In a letter to The Times newspaper this week Sir Malcolm Rifkind, David Miliband and Sir Malcolm Bruce called attention to other cases where people have been imprisoned in dubious circumstances in Russia. This includes the jailing of the oligarch Mikhail Khodorkovsky and his business partner Platon Lebedev. Like the Pussy Riot defendants, both of these men are considered to be prisoners of conscience by Amnesty International. Rifkind et al adopt a cordial tone in their letter, respectfully requesting that Putin use his power to secure the release of the country's wrongly-imprisoned. It is to be hoped that Putin, currently on a visit to the London Olympics to watch the judo, will be receptive to this plea.
Russia's judo-loving president talks regularly of a "strong" Russia but the trial of the Pussy Riot members betrays not strength, rather a creeping authoritarianism under his stewardship. Forcing these three women to endure the sweltering heat of Moscow's Khamovniki Court - reportedly without adequate food or rest - is making the country look anything but strong and self-confident. This is shaping up to be a show trial that will rebound against the authorities themselves.
John Dalhuisen is Europe and Central Asia director at the Amnesty International campaign group
RELATED CONTENT
The EU and Russia are at a crossroads
Successful realignment of the EU's relations with Russia is a contemporary question of Europe's ability to act with a single voice, write Iris Kempe and Cornelius Ochmann
Successful realignment of the EU's relations with Russia is a contemporary question of Europe's ability to act with a single voice, write Iris Kempe and Cornelius Ochmann
COMMENTS
Putin cannot quench the thirst for freedom in Russia. As long as Russians can read, see and hear they will learn how others think and live in the world. The steamroller of the information age has momentum now, there is no stopping it. Relentless efforts to do so merely add to the pent-up anger and frustration. And Putin has yet to see it.
His regime can raid homes and offices; they can arrest Russians on bogus charges; they can torture them. But these measures only fan the flames of freedom. The regime cannot extinguish the fires by killing the Russians in whose chest they are burning. Nor will the regime find a shortage of Nathan Hales in Russia, whose only regret is that they have but one life to give for freedom in their country.
Kafantaris - USA, Ohio
Yeah, let's defend those 'nice girls' and 'heroes' whose other stunts were questionable to say the least. They should have been in jail long before the church stunt.
Kelgor - USA
