Real extremism

The New Region agency reports that on May 1 of this year, a DPNI march took place in Moscow. Before the start of the march, the organization’s leader, Alexander Belov, warned his colleagues: “Throw your hand up not with an open palm, but with a fist. Otherwise, I won’t be able to do anything if the police want to talk to you.” The same agency reports that during the demonstration, DPNI activists marched, shouting: “Glory to the Russian people! No to the Chechen freak!” and “Death to the chumps!” The police officers accompanying the columns did not respond to such calls.

If they didn’t react, it means they didn’t see extremism in what was happening. However, this does not mean that it is generally impossible to find extremists in Russia. In particular, the Samara District Court this February identified one of them, however, a citizen of a neighboring country - candidate of sciences and associate professor Aydin Alizade, leading researcher at the Institute of Philosophy and Political-Legal Research of the National Academy of Sciences of the Azerbaijan Republic. Alizadeh wrote a scientific article “Navruz Holiday and Islamic Doctrine”, which interested the employees of the Samara mosque, who distributed it in the form of a brochure. The associate professor and candidate not only indicated in his article that Nowruz is a pre-Islamic holiday (no one seems to argue with this), but also put forward the thesis about the inconsistency of his celebration with the “classical Islamic tradition.” An examination was presented to the court, which literally said the following: “The ultimate goal of using the brochure is to contrast Islamic and non-Islamic cultural traditions, to split society along religious lines. Distribution of the brochure may contribute to inciting interethnic and interreligious national hatred.” The court fully agreed with this.

Thus, if a scientist in his work came to the same conclusions as representatives of the Wahhabi movement in Islam (by the way, the state religion of Saudi Arabia), then this work is extremist - and, therefore, forbidden. Tomorrow, in the same way, perhaps, we can ban an article by an Orthodox scholar who will condemn the riotous celebration of Maslenitsa as a relic of paganism, incompatible with religious orthodoxy. But seriously, a ban on scientific work is unlikely to stop discussions about which customs are consistent with the Islamic tradition and which are not. Only they will be carried out using articles reprinted or rewritten by hand, among which there may be truly extremist materials prepared by semi-literate self-proclaimed “imams” and inciting inter-religious hatred. Discussions are thus driven underground, which can harbor many demons.

What is the reason for such “double standards”? Is it not that the fight against Wahhabism is perceived by law enforcement officers as a “state matter,” even if we are talking about ideological discussions with the participation of qualified specialists. As for the xenophobes roaming around Moscow, there are no instructions to show intransigence. Moreover, “anti-Caucasian” slogans are unlikely to cause personal hostility in a police officer who during the day accompanies the DPNI march and in the evening, for example, collects rent from the same “persons of Caucasian nationality” caught on the Moscow streets. And finally, the conciliatory attitude towards extremists - real ones, not leading scientists - is facilitated by the current idea that young guys will eventually go crazy, join the army and, returning from it, become useful members of society. The only problem is that many of them, having undergone “socialization”, remain in the ranks of radical nationalists - similar to those who were just found guilty of the explosion at the Cherkizovsky market (let us remember that, in addition to several students, among them was the head of a youth club, and former warrant officer of the FSB).

And conciliation only breeds real extremists. You can cite monitoring data from the Moscow Bureau of Human Rights, according to which in January - the first ten days of April 2008, at least 93 attacks motivated by xenophobia were recorded: the result was 57 dead and at least 116 injured, which completely exceeded the indicators, for example, for the entire 2006 year. Among the victims of the attacks were Kyrgyz (9 dead, 4 injured), Uzbeks (9 dead, 3 injured), Tajiks (6 dead, 23 injured), Azerbaijanis (6 dead, 6 injured), Russians (5 dead, 12 injured) and so on further.

What about the Russian authorities? The Prosecutor General's Office recently proposed making further amendments to the current legislation, specifically dedicated to the fight against extremism. How is it proposed to fight? Very simple. Firstly, by introducing liability for the media for refusing to publish a refutation on the recommendation of state authorities and local self-government. If this provision becomes law, then the media will have to refute any information that not even a judge, but an ordinary official deems necessary. And for an “unreasonable refusal to refute” the editor-in-chief will face an administrative fine of up to 500 rubles, and the editorial board - from 3 to 5 thousand rubles. For Moscow the numbers are symbolic, but for the provinces - not so much.

Secondly, it is proposed to strengthen control over the Internet - this is a long-standing dream of domestic officials. If the law is passed, access to material deemed extremist may be blocked by an Internet service provider. A mechanism is being introduced to recognize Internet materials as extremist - by a federal court based on a statement from the prosecutor. If a website repeatedly posts materials deemed extremist by the prosecutor and the court, it will be closed. Moreover, lists of extremist Internet materials and sites will be regularly published in the media. Providers will be required to stop servicing a site that ends up on this “black list” within a month. However, law enforcement officers even now have means of influencing the Internet - the same Samara court not only recognized an article about Navruz as extremist, but also banned the website of an Azerbaijani scientist. But if the prosecutor’s amendments are adopted, the range of such means will expand significantly.

Thirdly, it is proposed to strengthen control over religious organizations, which will have to provide the authorities with data “on the basics of religious doctrine and the practice corresponding to it.” And if these organizations are engaged in religious education, then they will have to present educational programs that have passed state registration. Given the well-known dislike of Russian officials for religious organizations that are not included in the narrow list of “traditional” ones from the 1997 law on freedom of conscience, one can imagine what problems this will create for religious minorities.

If these amendments are adopted, officials will receive additional leverage to protect their own interests, and extremists are unlikely to be seriously limited in their capabilities. One can only agree with the gloomy admission of the deputy chairman of the Duma Security Committee Gennady Gudkov: “Again they suggest tightening the screws - we are tightening them, but the situation is getting worse.”

The author is vice-president of the Center for Political Technologies