Alex Mercouris
On 21st February 2012 at a time when Russia was in the midst of a bitterly fought Presidential election campaign five young women who are members of a group or collective that calls itself Pussy Riot performed what has been called a "punk prayer” in the area near the Altar of the Cathedral of Christ the Saviour in central Moscow. A film was made of the performance presumably by other members of the group and has been uploaded onto YouTube where it can still be seen. As was the case with the group’s other performances the five young women were dressed in brightly coloured clothes and balaclavas concealing their faces but with their arms and shoulders bare. The film of the performance shows that during the performance some of the women kicked their legs into the air in a revealing way.
Most accounts of the performance claim that the "punk prayer” was a prayer to the Virgin Mary "to take Putin away”. This has however been disputed at the current trial of three of the women involved with suggestions from some of the witnesses that the comments about Putin were added later to the film that has appeared on YouTube. It is not disputed that the "punk prayer”, accompanied to riotous music and dance, was filled with expletives and profanities and used grossly scatological language. Nor is it disputed that its last section was an obscene parody of the Christian liturgical hymn the Sanctus, substituting the word "shit” for the word "holy”, or that the "punk prayer” criticised the leader of the Russian Orthodox Church, the Patriarch of Moscow and All Russia, whom it called a "bitch” (Russian suka).
Following the "punk prayer” the young women were escorted from the Cathedral and went into hiding. On 3rd March 2012 two young women, Maria Alyokhina and Nadezhda Tolokonnikova, were arrested by the Russian authorities and charged with the offence of hooliganism contrary to Article 213 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation. On 16th March 2012 a third woman Yekaterina Samutsevitch was also arrested and charged. The identities and whereabouts of the two other women who participated in the "punk prayer” remain unknown. The trial of the three women was originally expected to take place in April 2012 but as a result of complicated legal manoeuvres, which I shall discuss in detail, it did not in fact begin until 30th July 2012.
The case has attracted massive publicity both in Russia and internationally. The women’s cause has been embraced by the leaders of Russia’s protest movement, letters have been written in their support by assorted Russian intellectuals, angry letters have been written to various western newspapers some signed by prominent members of the western pop music establishment such as Jarvis Crocker and Pete Townsend, western pop artists such as Red Hot Chili Peppers and Sting have expressed their support during concerts in Russia and Amnesty International has declared the three women prisoners of conscience.
The women’s case has also been taken up enthusiastically by some (though not all) of the western press. Editorials in their support have appeared in The Times, the Financial Times and the Guardian. The Guardian published two editorials on its website on successive days accompanied by a seemingly unending stream of articles about the women and their case, which have appeared in quick succession one after the other on the days immediately prior to and following the start of the trial.
Supporters of the women generally interpret the case as a politically motivated prosecution ordered by Putin and the Russian government as part of a crackdown on the protest movement. The Guardian has referred to their trial as a "show trial”. Doubts have been expressed about whether a crime was committed at all. Amnesty International has claimed that the women are being prosecuted "merely for holding a gig in a Church”. Many others have pointed to the absence of damage to persons or property.
The prosecution has been called disproportionate with the sentence of seven years imprisonment that the women supposedly face described as excessive. The detention of the women in pre trial custody and the repeated refusal of the Court to grant bail during the five months between the arrest and trial has been called oppressive. Emphasis has been given to the way this has separated two of the women from their children. The refusal of the Court to grant applications made by the lawyers of the women is said to prove the Court’s bias whilst the outcome of the trial is said to be a foregone conclusion and the whole trial and legal process has been called a travesty.
The case is also said to show the growing power of the Russian Orthodox Church and its sinister alliance with Putin and the Russian government. The Church has been criticised for its refusal to forgive the women. The Patriarch has been criticised for his supposed criticism of members of the Russian Orthodox Church who have called for clemency for the women. The wording of the indictment setting out the charge with its references to the Cathedral of Christ the Saviour as a holy place and to the women’s action as a violation of "ancient Christian sacraments” is said to be inappropriate in a secular state and to show the extent to which the boundary between Church and State in Russia has become blurred.
Every one of these propositions is false or open to serious challenge. If subjected to careful examination as I propose to do in this article this fact becomes clear.
The Law
The women are charged for the offence of hooliganism under Article 213 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation. This reads as follows:
"Hooliganism
1. Hooliganism, that is a gross violation of the public order manifested in patent contempt of society and attended by the use of weapons or articles used as weapons shall be punishable by compulsory works for a term of 180 to 240 hours, or by corrective labour for a term of one to two years, or by deprivation of liberty for a term of up to five years.
2. The same deed committed by a group of persons in a preliminary conspiracy, or by an organised group, or connected with resistance to a representative of authority to any other person who fulfils the duty of protecting the public order or who suppresses the violation of the public order shall be punishable by deprivation of liberty for a term of up to seven years”.
(Translation Legislationline) (Italics added)
Though the charge against the women is one of hooliganism contrary to Section 213 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, the offence in this case is aggravated under Article 3 paragraph 6 of the Law on Freedom of Conscience, Religion and Religious Association of the Russian Federation, which prohibits actions that are insulting to the religious feelings of believers especially when these take place "immediately adjacent to objects of religious veneration”. The relevant sections read as follows:
"Actions hindering the realisation of the right to freedom of conscience and freedom of creed, including actions entailing coercion of an individual, calculated insults of the feelings of citizens in connection with their attitudes toward religion, the destruction of property, and threats of such actions, are forbidden and are to be prosecuted by law. The conducting of public activities and distribution of texts and images insulting the religious feelings of citizens immediately adjacent to objects of religious veneration is forbidden.”
Criminal liability for actions done contrary to Article 3 paragraph 6 of the Law on Freedom of Conscience, Religion and Religious Association of the Russian Federation is provided under Article 26
"Violation of the law of the Russian Federation on freedom of conscience and on religious associations involves criminal, administrative and other liability in accordance with the laws of the Russian Federation”.
(All translations by Kenston Institute) (Italics added)
There is nothing unusual or exceptional about these provisions. They are fully in line with international practice. In Britain Section 5(1) of the Public Order Act 1986 makes it a criminal offence for a person to use "threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour or to display any writing, sign or other visible representation which is threatening, abusive or insulting” to another person. Section 4A of the Public Order Act 1986 creates a further offence where the "threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour” was intentional. Section 4 of the Public Order Act 1986 creates a further offence where the "threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour” give rise to a fear of violence. All these offences are aggravated under Section 31 of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 where the offender "at the time of committing the offence, or immediately before or after doing so” …”demonstrates towards the victim of the offence hostility based on the victim’s membership or presumed membership of a racial or religious group or the offence is motivated (wholly or partly) by hostility towards members of a racial or religious group based on their membership of that group”. (see also Section 28 of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998) (Italics added). Penalties for these offences can range from fines to terms of imprisonment ranging from two years up to fourteen years (double that allowed by the Russian law) where there has been damage to property.
There is therefore nothing unusual or oppressive about these Russian laws. These are public order offences of the sort that exist in all countries. The Russian laws are more lenient than similar laws concerning public order in many countries. In France it is a crime punishable by imprisonment of up to one year to sunbathe nude or topless in Paris on the banks of the Seine or to wear a swimming costume in a Paris park even on a hot day.
In Poland merely speaking blasphemous words in public attracts a sentence of up to two years.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doda_(singer)#Blasphemy_charges
A major point of criticism has been the possible sentence of seven years, which is said to be disproportionate. This criticism is part of a tendency to trivialise the offence. As I shall show the offence is in fact more serious than those who make this criticism perhaps understand. The criticism is anyway wrong. As the wording of Article 213 paragraph 2 makes clear the sentence of seven years is the maximum sentence allowed by law for an offence under the Article. The Russian Court is not obliged to impose it just as a British Court is not in all cases obliged to impose the maximum fourteen year sentence for offences committed under Section 31 of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 where there has been property damage. The latest information from the trial is that the prosecution has asked for a sentence of three years rather than seven.
The Defendants
According to Nadezhda Tolokonnikova, one of the three defendants in the case, Pussy Riot was established in October 2011. It describes itself as a collective or group. Membership is fluid and according to different accounts may be ten, thirteen or fifteen members. Tolokonnikova and western and some Russian commentary have described Pussy Riot as a "feminist punk collective” or "feminist punk band”.
http://dangerousminds.net/comments/free_pussy_riot_a_statement_by_nadya_tolokonnikova
In an interview apparently given before the "punk prayer” members of Pussy Riot also described themselves as "punk band” and claimed inspiration from western groups like Angelic Upstarts, Cockney Rejects, Sham 69, Era and The 4-Skins and especially the American rock band Bikini Kill and the American Riot grrl movement of the 1990s.
http://www.vice.com/read/A-Russian-Pussy-Riot
As with everything else about this case the reality is a great deal more complicated.
Any discussion of Pussy Riot must address the group’s connection to the performance art group or collective known as Voina ("War”), which has been in existence since at least 2008. A statement has appeared on the internet (since deleted), which denies that Nadezhda Tolokonnikova was ever a member of Voina and which accuses her of trying to take Voina over. In their interview members of Pussy Riot have also given the impression that they are distinct from Voina though they strongly endorse what they say was Voina’s earlier "more radical” phase.
http://www.vice.com/read/A-Russian-Pussy-Riot
Tolokonnikova is however either married to or in a relationship with one of the leading members of Voina and has been active in several of Voina’s activities. So has Maria Alyokhina, one of the other two women defendants in the Pussy Riot case. The overlap between the two groups is so great that I feel justified in treating the two groups as in essence one and the same.
Since its formation in presumably 2008 Voina has staged in public a succession of extreme actions described as performance art. These have included the painting of a male phallus on a St. Petersburg Bridge, the staging of a public orgy at the Timiryazev Museum in Moscow involving nudity and (apparently) full penetrative sex (Tolokonnikova was a participant though heavily pregnant), the throwing of live cats at the staff of a McDonald’s restaurant in Moscow, the overturning of police cars apparently on one occasion with a policeman inside, the firebombing of property with petrol bombs, the staged hanging of an immigrant and a homosexual in a supermarket, the projection of a skull and crossbones onto the building housing the Russian government, the spilling of large live cockroaches onto the stomach of a pregnant member of the group (Tolokonnikova again) and the theft of a frozen chicken from a supermarket, which was stuffed up the vagina of one of the women members (apparently Maria Alyokhina, Tolokonnikova apparently was also present). The group routinely films or photographs its activities, which it uploads onto the internet. I attach links, which come with a strong health warning.
http://plucer.livejournal.com/266853.html#comments
http://plucer.livejournal.com/55710.html
http://nataly-lenskaya.livejournal.com/348825.html
http://blog.kp.ru/users/markusan/post226185220/
Since its formation in September or October 2011 Pussy Riot has for its part staged impromptu performances in the metro, on the roof of a trolley bus, on the roof of a detention centre, in clothing stores, during a fashion show and in Red Square. All these performances, even those taking place outdoors during the Russian winter, have been undertaken with the group wearing its trademark balaclavas and skimpy bright dresses. None of the performances were announced in advance or were agreed with the organisers or owners of the events or venues where they were held.
http://english.ruvr.ru/photoalbum/83508901/83508904/
Tolokonnikova has recently said that Pussy Riot has never intended to show disrespect to any viewers or witnesses of its performances.
http://dangerousminds.net/comments/free_pussy_riot_a_statement_by_nadya_tolokonnikova
However all the performances to date including the one in the Cathedral of Christ the Saviour have used strong and profane language, which have included swear words and obscenities.
In an editorial that appeared on 29th July 2012 in the Observer and on the Guardian’s website reference was made to the "lightness and gaiety” of the group "who dress in bright colours and tights and mocking balaclavas” and "whose protest is not made of slogans and placards but is crafted from art, dance and performance”. In the light of the activities in which they have been involved it is unlikely the members of either Pussy Riot or Voina (to which Tolokonnikova and Alyokhina at least also belong or have belonged) would recognise themselves in this description.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/jul/29/observer-editorial-russia-putin-pussy-riot
The common feature in all of these actions whether of Voina or of Pussy Riot is illegality. In their interview Pussy Riot has openly admitted that all its actions have been illegal and that illegality is an essential part of their actions. That some of the illegal activities engaged in both by Voina and Pussy Riot involve committing criminal offences is not disputed.
http://www.vice.com/read/A-Russian-Pussy-Riot
Moreover there appears to be a trend towards escalation with instances of criminal damage (the overturning of the police car and the cases of firebombing), violent assault (against the policeman in the overturned police car and the staff at the McDonalds restaurant) and animal cruelty (against the cats thrown at the staff in the restaurant). In relation to the incident involving the cats I wonder whether some of the supporters of Pussy Riot in Britain and America such as Sting, Pete Townsend and Jarvis Crocker would feel quite the same way about the group if they knew about it.
The other feature of many of these actions is their grossly sexual and obscene nature. Indeed sexual obscenity seems to be an obsession. Both Voina and Pussy Riot have openly admitted to using sexual obscenity as a weapon (indeed obscenity is part of Pussy Riot’s name)
http://www.vice.com/read/A-Russian-Pussy-Riot
What tends to be overlooked in the mass of commentary about Voina and Pussy Riot is that their actions take place in public places within the possible sight or hearing of children. This was true of the phallus painted on the bridge, the orgy in the museum and the theft of the frozen chicken in the supermarket. Film of the last event shows a young child present though he may have been brought there by one of the group’s members. Pussy Riot’s performances also frequently take place in public spaces such as the metro, supermarkets, clothing stores, on top of a trolley bus and in Red Square. The coarse and profane language Pussy Riot always use could therefore also have been heard by children and given the busy nature of some of these places surely was. Again I wonder whether some of Pussy Riot’s western supporters are aware of this or would feel quite the same way about Pussy Riot if they knew about it.
By contrast some of the claims made about Pussy Riot by their supporters are actually surprisingly difficult to verify.
Pussy Riot has been called and calls itself a punk band.
http://www.vice.com/read/A-Russian-Pussy-Riot
The turn to musical performance is however actually a very late development beginning only at the end of September or the beginning of October 2011.
Whatever else Pussy Riot is its members are not conventional entertainers. The group has a fluid membership, has apparently never released a song and does not appear to have a song catalogue. Songs appear to be made up or adapted for each performance which take place without public announcement. Prior to the action in the Cathedral of Christ the Saviour none of the group’s performances took place in pre booked venues and I know of none that have since. Needless to say tickets were not sold prior to each performance.
Despite claims by its members and its supporters, though the group has made feminist statements there does not seem to be much that is feminist about the performances themselves. The sexual actions performed in public by Tolokonnikova and Alyokhina and endorsed by Pussy Riot in their interview do not represent conventional feminism. Tolokonnikova has released a manifesto that makes various feminist criticisms of the Russian Orthodox Church and of the Patriarch but the criticisms are ideological and theoretical as are the feminist comments made by Pussy Riot in their interview. Neither Tolokonnikova nor Pussy Riot as a whole have shown any interest in the many practical issues Russian women face in their everyday lives ranging from domestic violence to gender stereotyping in the statements they have released which I have read and nor do I see anything remotely feminist in any of their performances.
http://freepussyriot.org/content/manifesto-n-tolokonnikova-05042012
http://www.vice.com/read/A-Russian-Pussy-Riot
Pussy Riot is often described as an anti Putin protest group. The editorial in the Observer and the Guardian’s website of 29th July 2012 sees Pussy Riot as mounting a "…challenge to Putin – the most overtly macho leader in world politics”, a comment which I find comes close to discovering Pussy Riot’s feminism purely in the group’s opposition to Putin.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/jul/29/observer-editorial-russia-putin-pussy-riot.
There is no doubt of the group’s extreme hostility to Putin or that the group engages in political protest and that Putin is the focus of this protest.
http://www.vice.com/read/A-Russian-Pussy-Riot
However focusing on Pussy Riot’s hostility to Putin overlooks the extent to which both Pussy Riot and Voina target not just Putin but authority generally and also private property. Voina’s targets have included the police (on numerous occasions as shown by the overturning of the police cars), Medvedev (the orgy at the museum specifically endorsed by Pussy Riot in their interview was held under the slogan "Fuck the heir, huggy bear” – a play on Medvedev’s name, ("medved” being bear in Russian)), McDonald’s (the incident involving the cats) and supermarkets (the theft of the frozen chicken). Pussy Riot has targeted supermarkets, clothing stores, a fashion show and (as we shall see) the Church and its Patriarch. Pussy Riot’s hostility to the police is also very obvious in their interview.
http://www.vice.com/read/A-Russian-Pussy-Riot
Members of Voina and Pussy Riot have at various times sought to explain their ideology though not always in a fully consistent way. In May 2012 following her arrest Tolokonnikova published a manifesto which with its references to Feuerbach and Marx appears to confirm her as an atheist and ultra leftist.
http://freepussyriot.org/content/manifesto-n-tolokonnikova-05042012
As for Voina, comments by its members and references in the group’s literature to earlier generations of Russian revolutionaries and intellectuals such as Chernyshevsky, Tolstoy, the Decembrists and Malevich, as well as claims that members of Voina live without money and the general thrust of Voina’s actions also seem to identify the group with the extreme Left. The following link provides access to articles written by members of Voina in which they try to explain their ideas. The first article, which refers to an event in Poland, seems to connect the group to the world of international anarchism.
The explanations given by Voina for its actions in these articles including its bizarre sexual displays and the violence and illegality of its actions appear to place Voina squarely (though perhaps unknowingly) within the anarchist traditions of "Illegalism” and of "The Propaganda of the Deed”. "Illegalism” involves the deliberate embrace by an anarchist of a criminal lifestyle. "The Propaganda of the Deed” involves taking (often violent) action as a means to awaken political consciousness. For those interested in learning more about these doctrines here are links to the relevant Wikipedia articles.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illegalism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Propaganda_of_the_deed
Whilst Pussy Riot has never given such a detailed explanation of its actions its members have also admitted the illegal nature of their actions and also appear to speak of these actions in a way that suggests that they are intended to awaken political consciousness. They also specifically endorse what they say was the "more radical” phase of Voina’s activities.
http://www.vice.com/read/A-Russian-Pussy-Riot
The extent to which either group really has a coherent ideology or follows a coherent course of political action is open to question. What is surely not open to question in the light of what both groups say about themselves is that their members are not simple artists or punk rockers. Possibly punk was adopted in September or October 2011 because of punk’s former associations in Britain where it originated with political anarchism as for example in the case of the British punk rock group the Sex Pistols of the 1970s. However even the Sex Pistols were first and foremost professional artists and entertainers in a way that the members of Pussy Riot are not.
It follows that Pussy Riot is not merely an anti Putin protest group even if it was indeed set up as its members say in reaction to Putin’s declaration on 26th September 2011 that he intended to seek re election for the Presidency.
http://www.vice.com/read/A-Russian-Pussy-Riot
A fairer description would be that Pussy Riot or at least its core members are militant political activists with ultra Leftist and possibly anarchist views who immediately following Putin’s announcement of his decision to seek re election turned to punk as a vehicle for political protest. In so far as Putin is a special focus of hostility it is because he happens at present to be the leader of the Russian state. Based on the group’s previous actions and things its members have said if Putin were replaced by someone else that person would become the next target.
The Offence
The "punk prayer” has been described as a political protest song provoked by the decision of the Patriarch to support Putin’s election to the Presidency. As well as calling the Patriarch a "bitch”(suka) it apparently accused him of believing in Putin rather than God. The editorial that appeared in the Observer and on the Guardian’s website on 29th July 2012 referred to the "punk prayer” as "a religious hymn laced with an anti-Putin lyric” and this has been the line taken by most of the western media, by parts of the Russian opposition, by Amnesty International and following the start of the trial by the women themselves.
http://dangerousminds.net/comments/free_pussy_riot_a_statement_by_nadya_tolokonnikova
At this point it needs to be said clearly that the Patriarch was acting entirely within his rights to give Putin his support. There is no democratic, constitutional or legal principle that prohibits a religious leader from taking a stand on a political matter. The Catholic Church in post war Europe set up Christian Democrat parties and in Italy and elsewhere regularly and openly campaigned for their election. In Poland and Ireland the Catholic Church still has an active political role. In the United States religious leaders openly campaign on political questions, support particular candidates in elections (including Presidential elections) and are regular visitors to the White House. In Britain the Church of England used to be known as "the Tory party at prayer”. Though this is no longer the case British clergymen have taken stands on issues ranging from nuclear disarmament, apartheid, the 1984 miners’ strike, the war in Iraq and the Occupy Movement.
Critics who find something outrageous about the Patriarch’s support for Putin should ask themselves whether they would feel similarly outraged if instead of supporting Putin the Patriarch had opposed him. If the answer is no (as I suspect is the case in the overwhelming majority of cases) then the validity of the criticism of the Patriarch for his support for Putin disappears.
Supporters of the women claim that they are being prosecuted for undertaking a political protest. The editorial that appeared in the Observer and on the Guardian’s website on 29thJuly 2012 casually condemns the trial as a "show trial” (a particularly inflammatory comment given the history of show trials in Russia during the Stalinist era). This of course implies that there is no substance to the case and that the women are simply being tried for voicing criticism of Putin. The claim that the women are being prosecuted simply for exercising their right of free speech and of political protest and for criticising Putin also forms the basis of Amnesty International’s decision to give the women "prisoner of conscience” status.
This is just the beginning of the piece. The complete MUCH longer article is here
.jpg/250px-ElbeDay1945_(NARA_ww2-121).jpg)
