Misuse of Anti-Extremism in April 2013

The following is our review of the primary and most representative events in the misuse of Russia’s anti-extremist legislation in April 2013. Lawmaking

At the very end of March, the Russian State Duma introduced a bill “On the inadmissibility of actions for the rehabilitation of Nazism, the glorification of Nazi criminals and their accomplices or the denial of the Holocaust” on the initiative of Federation Council member Boris Spiegel.

It is Sova’s position that this bill has a number of drawbacks. One is that it is excessively declarative while also containing myriad specific examples from existing laws of what would constitute a violation of the law proposed. Additionally, its totally reasonable provisions, like stipulations of how certain symbols should not be considered Nazi-related, are actually in conflict with Part 1 of Article 20.3 of the Administrative Code.

At the same time, a separate bill was introduced to the State Duma that would supplement the draft proposal of amendments to Article 282 providing for the criminalization of any use of Nazi or similar symbols, icons, gestures etc. associated with the Third Reich. The offer of unconditional criminalization of “Holocaust denial” seems excessive.

The bill proposes the creation of some kind of special governmental “anti-Nazi expertise” and a special state commissioner of the agency – another excessive proposal. And as for the suggestion of “public anti-Nazi expertise,” we simply do not understand what the object of such state regulation would be.

On April 9, 2013 the State Duma passed in the first reading the draft law “On amendments to the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation and certain legislative acts of the Russian Federation in order to counter the insult of citizens’ religious beliefs and sensibilities, the desecration of subjects and objects of religious veneration (and of pilgrimage), places of worship and ceremonies.”

The draft law, which was the subject of many negative reviews (including an official one from the government as well as criticism from President Putin), was promised by lawmakers to be fixed by the second reading; a specific set of amendments has not yet been announced.

Criminal prosecution

This month Jehovah’s Witnesses continued to face persecution.

In the Moscow region, one such criminal case was opened under paragraph “c” of Part 2 of Article 282 of the Criminal Code, the incitement to hatred or hostility and humiliation of human dignity committed by an organized group.

At the beginning of the month an indictment against 16 Jehovah’s Witnesses was read in Taganrog. We remind readers that four of the accused believers are charged under Part 1 of Criminal Article 282.2 (the organization of an extremist organization) and Part 4 of Criminal Article 150 (involving a minor in the commission of an offense, and the wording in this case refers to the believers' children). The other 12 are charged under Criminal Article 282, the participation in an extremist organization. The crime, investigators say, was that defendants, while “knowing” of the prohibition and elimination of the Taganrog Jehovah’s Witnesses, continued to do the group’s work in the region.

Also in April the Investigative Committee of the Russian Federation in the Republic of Bashkortostan indicted Ufa resident Guzalia Galimova under Part 1 of Article 282 of the Criminal Code, the incitement to hatred or hostility and humiliation of human dignity. Her offense, investigators say, was criticizing Russian women for their behavior at Turkish resorts in a recording she posted to Facebook. It is Sova’s position that Galimova is being wrongfully prosecuted: she is accused of spreading negative publicity and degrading Russians - however, a negative evaluation or negative publicity do not fall under Article 282. As for humiliation of dignity, it is Sova’s position that such a light offense should be decriminalized altogether.

Towards the end of the month, Chuvashia's Yadrinsky Interdistrict Investigative Department indicted journalist Ille Ivanov in a case initiated under Part 1 of Article 282 over the May 4, 2011 publication of an article in the magazine Vzyatka (Bribe), “Show me your tongue, and I’ll tell you who you are.” The article was deemed extremist in July 2012. The Supreme Court of Chuvashia declared that it contained a “negative evaluation of certain social groups aimed at inciting hatred and hostility between them.” In our view, the initiation of a criminal case was wrongful in as much as the ban of the article itself was wrongful: it is written from a Chuvash nationalist standpoint and contains elements of hate speech, which, even so, are quite soft. The article does not contain inflammatory appeals.

In Sol-Iletsk a sentence was delivered in the case of Tablighi Jamaat. All four defendants were convicted under parts 1 and 2 of Article 282.2 of the Criminal Code and were issued fines as a result. They had been accused of, as part of Tablighi Jamaat, “urging Muslims who practice traditional Islam to change their attitudes to their faith,” recruiting new members to the cell and holding meetings.

In late April the Moscow City Court convicted Yusuf Temerhanov of the murder of former Colonel Yuri Budanov, declaring him undeserving of leniency. In this case however a jury found that the offense was not committed out of hatred of the social group the “military.” We remind readers of our position that “the military” (along with the “police” and others) is not a social group necessitating the protection of anti-extremism legislation. We continue to advocate for the exclusion of the vague concept of “social groups” from Russia’s anti-extremism articles.

Administrative prosecution

The unlawful harassment of Russian citizens using Article 20.29 of the Administrative Code (the production and distribution of extremist materials) was observed in several regions this month.

In Usolye-Sibirskoye, in the Irkutsk region, administrative actions were initiated over the distribution of books by Said Nursi after they were used by city mosque imam Salokhiddin Saidov. In Tatarstan, a resident of Bugulma was issued a warning for a collective reading of religious literature, presumably books by Nursi.

In Novokuybyshevsk in the Samara region, local Jehovah’s Witnesses elder Pavel Moskvin was fined under Article 20.29 for the distribution of the sect’s magazines.

But there was also one case of the proper observance of Article 20.29. In Nizhny Novgorod, a case against Jehovah’s Witnesses was closed due to a lack of offense – the defendants had propagated literature not included on the Federal List of Extremist Materials.

Materials banned for extremism

The practice of banning religious literature as extremist expands as it continues. Early in the month, the Traktorazovodksy District Court in Chelyabinsk held a preliminary meeting on the immediate recognition of 95 Jehovah’s Witnesses publications as extremist. Initially prosecutors demanded that a total 313 items be declared extremist, but the number was later reduced to 95. Included in the ban were 40 issues of the Watchtowermagazine and 35 of Awaken!

Additionally, we are aware of cases that counteracted the improper ban of materials for extremism. In this connection the Central District Court of Omsk heard a case against a November 28, 2012 decision declaring materials from issue 2 (2011) of the newspaper Radical Politics as extremist, sending the case back to trial on newly-discovered evidence. We welcome the step, since the new trial will present the opportunity to correct the misunderstanding of the materials that were deemed extremist without clear establishment of extremist content.

Other state actions

April saw, as far as we know so far, state media oversight agency Roskomnadzor issue four warnings for violations of Article 4 of the Federal Law “On mass media.” Sanctions for “inciting religious hatred” were levied on editors and publishers of Grani.ru, Polit.ru, Obeschania.ru and the portal Sibkray.ru.

The authorities considered it a violation of the law that these outlets published articles featuring photographs of shirts showing members of Pussy Riot stylized as Orthodox icons made by artist Artem Loskutov.

Prosecutors continued the broad and extensive “verifications” of non-governmental organizations. Although in many cases the reason for such checks was cited as the verification of compliance with anti-extremist legislation, examiners took no specific actions to conduct such special checks. Prosecutors in the Jewish Autonomous Region accused a Pentecostal group of extremist activities based on the results of such a “verification.” Investigators found signs of extremism in the charter of local religious community ROSKhVE, which contained a truncated version of the wording of the Law on Freedom of Conscience, stating that “this religious organization is a voluntary association of citizens of the Russian Federation, formed for the profession and spread of Evangelical Christianity.” However, it failed to specify that participants in the group’s religious activities may be people living in the Russian Federation without citizenship.