______________________________

Today, in Russia, one increasingly hears demands to toughen penalties for offending believers. The proposed amendments to the article in the RF Criminal Code on human dignity provoked intense debate in Russian society. Recently, United Russia Gosduma deputies put forward a proposal to amend Article 282 of the Criminal Code (Inciting hatred or enmity, and degradation of human dignity), whilst the RF Federation Council supported the initiative. These actions from parliamentarians caused a strong reaction in the public.

A separate and specific need to protect the feelings of believers in Russia arose at the beginning of 2012, after an unfortunate incident at the Cathedral of Christ the Saviour. In late February, members of the Russian feminist punk-rock band Pussy Riot took over the bema in the church, where they made what they called a “punk prayer”. The lyrics of the song, posted later on the internet, contained offensive language applied to President Vladimir Putin and to Patriarch Kirill Gundyaev, the First Hierarch of the MP. Pussy Riot’s stunt infuriated many people, even those who didn’t consider themselves Orthodox Christians. The cops arrested three of the “punk prayer” participants and they’re now in gaol. However, many don’t agree that they should be in the slammer. Over a hundred figures from the Russian arts world, amongst them the most famous and beloved actors, directors, writers, and musicians, signed an appeal to the RF Supreme Court and the Moscow City Court in defence of the Pussy Riot members. Then, the Russian media broke a few scandals related directly to Patriarch Kirill and the Church, which gave rise to talk about a deliberately-focused anti-clerical campaign. What poured more fuel unto the fire was the recent “Silver Galoshes” Award, which is an annual spoof award for dubious achievements. This year, its board nominated Patriarch Kirill as one of the candidates, and he was voted one of the “winners”.

However, not only is Orthodoxy under attack, but also other confessions and religions. Archpriest Vsevolod Chaplin, the Chairman of the MP Department for Church and Society, said, “Existing laws don’t protect us against attacks on faith and religion. Today, many believe that it’s clear that the current penalties for insulting the religious feelings of believers and the desecration of venerated objects, i.e., administrative fines ranging from 500 to 1,000 roubles (15-30 USD. 12.50-25 Euros. 10-20 UK Pounds), are unacceptably pathetic. Deprecating people’s religious feelings is a crime that could threaten civil peace in our country and put huge masses of people at loggerheads. We know of such examples related to the burning of the Quran and the Prophet Muhammad cartoons. Contempt for the feelings of believers and religious objects is extremely dangerous, and we should punish it no less severely than we do ethnic provocations or the desecration of graves or symbols of the state”.

United Russia Gosduma deputies have already begun to prepare amendments to Article 282 for the autumn session. These provide not only significantly increased fines for offending religious sentiments, but also even the possibility of imprisonment. Russian Muslims praised the proposed amendments. Albir Krganov, the first deputy of the Supreme Mufti of Russia, said, “We have a saying in Islam, ‘What the Lord left undone in the Quran, the Sultan took care of’. However, in light of recent events, no matter how democratic any society, there’s a potential risk of inciting ethnic hatred. The people who incited what happened at the Cathedral of Christ the Saviour weren’t people of other nationalities and beliefs. However, for example, what if they weren’t Russian, or if they were non-Orthodox? How would our society react to that? I’m confident that the Gosduma shall take all necessary measures to maintain stability concerning this delicate matter”.

However, some religious leaders believe that the introduction of a new law is an ineffective way to deal with attacks on the religious feelings of believers. Rabbi Zinovy Kogan, the Chairman of the Congress of Jewish Religious Communities and Organizations of Russia, said in an interview with VOR, “I don’t believe in criminal punishment for this, and I think that the only problem is that we don’t properly enforce the existing laws on religious hatred. Any time you tighten up the law, it incites antagonism. At a time when our society has very large divisions and much acrimony, we, the religious leaders of all faiths, on the contrary, must show an example of charity and tolerance. Anti-religious agitation is already illegal under existing laws. Why, the present laws prohibit even kids from saying certain things. It’s better for us to let some mistaken things pass, for the sake of freedom and liberty. We shouldn’t turn our people into a nation of gagged mutes. If there’s falsehood, let us correct it. You have to be tolerant”.

The main argument of those who oppose introducing amendments to the Criminal Code to protect believers is that such is a violation of constitutional principles. Human rights activist Sergei Kovalyov said, “Such an approach contradicts the legal principle of the equality of all before the law. It’s necessary to defend the principle of equal rights at all costs. The existence of a group of citizens having a special exemption from abuse is unconstitutional. Moreover, we have a secular state, the Church and its believers don’t have any privileges over other groups”.

Roman Lunkin, Director of Research at the Institute on Religion and Law of the Centre for the Study of Religion and Society at the Institute of Europe, said, “For now, it isn’t a necessity to change the existing law and introduce amendments to it, rather, we should seek ways of consensus between society and religious bodies. Of course, we shouldn’t let a person insult the religious sensibilities of others, that’s obvious. Cultured and intelligent people don’t do this. However, in an open democratic society, we should allow a certain amount of satire, including towards religion and belief. For example, look at how the popes reacted to all the scandals associated with the Catholic Church over the years. Just recently, there was a financial scandal at the Vatican, and, for a long time, the Holy See gave no response to it. Because for they’ve lived for many years in a democratic society, Catholics are accustomed to the criticisms and arguments of atheists, Marxists, and secularists, who claim that religion’s a purely personal concern. Simply put, they just didn’t react to such statements and jabs. In particular, I’m sure that the Orthodox Church will get used to such a position”.

Against the backdrop of the Russian debate about whether or not (and in what way) to protect religious values and feelings, the refusal of Swiss Senate to protect Christian symbols in the country went almost unnoticed. In mid-June, the upper chamber of the Federal Assembly of Switzerland refused to act on a parliamentary initiative to protect the Christian symbolism through an article in the constitution. Seventeen of the 21 members of the Senate voted to quash the initiative. Those in favour of passing the measure were sure that there was hostility to the crucifixion in Switzerland, leading to criticism of crosses in classrooms, on roadsides, and on mountaintops. They cited acts of vandalism against Christian symbols. They opined that this might lead to the possible removal of Christian symbolism from public places, leading to the disappearance of the Christian religion, which is the foundation of Western European culture. Those who voted against it warned that if they granted a special position to Christian manifestations in the constitution, it might lead to a “Kulturkampf”.

Laws to protect the feelings of believers and penalties for desecration of religious objects exist in different countries. However, the existence of special laws and legal deterrents won’t protect believers from those who seek to hurt them. That’s why the European Court of Human Rights deals so often with cases dealing with violations of religious rights today.

28 June 2012

Milena Faustova

Voice of Russia World Service

http://rus.ruvr.ru/2012_06_28/79602182/

Memorial's Oleg Orlov (left to right), Lyudmila Alekseyeva, and Sergei Kovalyov receive the European Parliament's Sakharov Prize in Strasbourg.

EDITORIAL

Congratulations, Memorial!

Last week in Strasbourg the President of the EU Parliament, Jerzy Buzek, handed Sergei Kovalev, Oleg Orlov, Lyudmila Alexeyeva of the Memorial human rights organization a check for 50,000 euros and presented them with the EU’s Sakharov Prize for Freedom of Thought.  Buzek left no doubt about the meaning of the ceremony:

“Human rights defenders in Russia are awaiting liberty.  They are waiting for European Union support, and we are awarding this prize today to all Russian citizens. With this prize we members of the European Parliament honor those who still among us fight for human rights. But we also honor those who lost their lives in this valiant struggle. Natalya Estemirova should have been among us today.”

We congratulate these great Russian patriots on their heroic efforts to bring civilization and democracy to Russia at the risk of their own lives, and we condemn the craven cowards who prowl the Kremlin and seek ways to liquidate them, just as was done in Soviet times.  We also congratulate the EU for making a clear stand against dictatorship and state-sponsored murder in Russia.  The photograph above will surely give the KGB spies in the Kremlin many sleepless nights of well-deserved fury.

Orlov, of course, has already been convicted by Kremlin courts of libeling its lunatic ruler of Chechnya, Ramzan Kadryov, by accusing him of being complicit in the murder of Memorial’s Natalia Estemirova, something Kadyrov has basically admitted is true.  And now Orlov is facing criminal prosecution over the same incident.

Accepting the award Kovlalov stated:

Europe’s task is to not remain silent. But to always insist that Russia respects its obligations to human rights.o not call on Russia to do so would be interpreted as indulgence by the Russian authorities. That would be bad for Russia and for Europe as a whole.  Russia pays victims the compensation ordered by the European human rights court, it’s a sort of impunity tax. And it refuses to investigate crimes and punish the guilty.

He accused the Kremlin of promoting officers who are sanctioned by the ECHR.

These are the words of a true Russian patriot, a man willing to risk his life to pull his country back from the abyss of failure towards which it is hurtling at breakneck speed.  There is a reason Natalia Estemirova, one of Memorial’s leading light, was brutally murdered by the Kremlin:  It was afraid of her.  If more Russians would join forces with Memorial and stand up against the clan of proud KGB spies who rule it, demanding a better future, Russia could have one.

It is heartening to see Europe reaching out to recognize these Russian heroes. it shows that the lame propaganda campaign being practiced by the Kremlin fools nobody, that there are many in Europe who clearly see the neo-Soviet atrocity that Russia threatens to become.  More should now be done to follow up on this first step and give genuine tangible to support to all those brave Russian patriots who will fight for democracy, from Oleg Kozlovsky to Vladimir Milov to Lev Ponomarev.  Only when that is done can the West avoid its own repetition of history.

In another editorial today, we congratulate NATO for clearly standing up to Russia on Georgia and Ukraine. Taken together, these two developments clearly signal that the forces opposing the Putin dictatorship are mobilizing and taking effective steps to contain and ultimately destroy the neo-Soviet threat Putin has created.  The people of Russia now have a clear choice. We urge them to make the right one.

Elle avait cette force intrinsèque que réclame tout changement. Y compris celle qui change le monde.
Aujourd’hui ce qu’il en pense, le monde…
Cela l’indiffère.

Elle avait une détermination que notre maire Tremblay lui envierait, lui, qui n’a pas le millième de centième de sa morale.
Vraiment, Tremblay l’indiffère.

Elle avait cette volonté de croire que chaque être humain a droit à la protection des Nations-Unies ( voyez la déclaration universelle des droits de l’homme) ou celle de son pays démocratique (paraît-il), car il y a cet Article 19.
Aujourd’hui, articles et autres alinéas…
Cela l’indiffère.

Pourtant quand on lui rappelle ce qu’il dit :
“Tout individu a droit à la liberté d’opinion et d’expression, ce qui implique le droit de ne pas être inquiété pour ses opinions et celui de chercher, de recevoir et de répandre, sans considérations de frontières, les informations et les idées par quelque moyen d’expression que ce soit.“
Cela l’indiffère.

Pourtant, elles partageait ses idéaux avec ses collègues et se battait pour ses idées, le poing levé sans concession aucune. Ponctuant de “Da! ” c’est sûr, et d’un “na zdorovje“ sans doute, le plus petit pas et le moindre soupçon de progrès. Aujourd’hui, même ces verres de vodka, soulevés par la joie…
Cela l’indiffère.

Même ce mardi, quand la vodka a probablement coulé à flots,  lorsque ce prix a été annoncé à Lyudmila Alexeyeva, Oleg Orlov et Sergeï Kovalev et à ses amis…
Pour la liberté de pensée, le prix Shakarov 2009 a été attribué à la défense des droits de l’homme au nom de l’organisation Memorial. Ainsi qu’à tous les autres défenseurs en Russie .
Aujourd’hui, même cela…
L’indiffère.

Comme “Une journée d’Ivan Dessinovitch”…
Si, même Soljenitsyne l’indiffère…

Tout la laisse froid.

Natalia Estemirova fut retrouvée morte, deux balles dans la tête, le 15 juillet dernier, elle a été enlevée à Grozny. Elle enquêtait sur des cas d’exécutions sommaires en Tchétchénie. Elle était une collaboratrice de cette ONG russe. Memorial.
Le même sort que cette journaliste russe, Anna Politkovskaïa, tuée en plein centre de Moscou…

La liberté de penser ou d’écrire, cela vous indiffère ?

Thierry De Greef

______________________________________

http://www.un.org/fr/documents/udhr

http://www.rsf.org

http://www.fidh.org

Presented every year by the European Parliament, the Sakharov Prize is awarded for freedom of thought. The Sakharov Prize for Freedom of Thought, named in honour of the Soviet physicist and political dissident Andrei Sakharov, has been awarded by the European Parliament every year since 1988 to individuals or organisations who have made an important contribution to the fight for human rights or democracy.  This year’s award coincides with the 20th anniversary of Andrei Sakharov’s death.

“Memorial” have been honoured for their contribution towards ending the circle of fear and violence surrounding human rights campaigners in the Russian Federation.

 The organisation’s three representatives are:

Oleg Orlov, the current chair of Memorial. On 6 October 2009 Oleg Orlov was fined and ordered to retract public statements following a defamation lawsuit brought against him by the President of the Republic of Chechnya, Ramzan Kadyrov. Orlov had accused Kadyrov of being behind the murder of Chechen rights activist Natalya Estemirova. On 23 November 2007 Orlov himself was abducted in Ingushetia, together with three journalists, before being beaten, threatened with execution and released.

 Sergei Kovalev, who founded the first Soviet human rights association in 1969, the Initiative Group for the Defence of Human Rights in the USSR, and became one of the initiators of Memorial. Kovalev has been an outspoken critic of authoritarian tendencies in the administrations of Boris Yeltsin and Vladimir Putin. In 1996 he resigned in protest as head of Yeltsin’s presidential human rights commission. In 2002 he organized a public commission to investigate the 1999 Moscow apartment bombings, which was effectively paralyzed after the persecution and assassination of its members.

 Lyudmila Mikhailovna Alexeyeva, who, together with Andrei Sakharov and others, founded the Moscow Helsinki Group to monitor Soviet compliance with the Helsinki Final Act in 1976. Since the 1960s Alexeyeva had been campaigning for fair trials of arrested dissidents and objective coverage in the media. She was excluded from the Communist Party and deprived of her job as editor of a scientific magazine. Alexeyeva co-chaired, with Garry Kasparov and Georgy Satarov, the All-Russian Civic Congress which Alexeyeva and Satarov left due to disagreement with Kasparov in January 2008. She has been critical of the Kremlin’s human rights record and has accused the government of encouraging extremists with its nationalistic policies, such as the mass deportations of Georgians in 2006 and police raids against foreigners working in street markets, as well as Russian conduct in Ingushetia.