Misuse of Anti-Extremism Legislation in June 2011

A remarkable event this month was the June 28 Resolution of the plenary meeting of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation N11 "On judicial practice in criminal cases involving crimes of an extremist nature." We see it as a first, significant step towards improving the situation in this area of the law. For our detailed commentary in Russian, see here.

The Supreme Court’s Resolution contained several points we consider groundbreaking. Among them: criticism of political, ideological, and religious organizations in and of itself cannot be considered hate speech; the limits of permissible criticism of public officials and politicians should be wider than similar criticism of private individuals; expert examination should be appointed only when necessary, and experts cannot be asked questions which repeat the wording of the Criminal Code (a common practice is, for example, to ask the expert if a certain text "incites hatred" - a question the judge should answer). Human rights activists have spent years trying to draw attention to these procedural and legislative problems, and we are happy to see their voices finally heard.

At the same time, the Resolution failed to elaborate on some other points with which we take issue. The Supreme Court did not state concretely what type of groups it considers to be covered by anti-extremist legislation when it comes to crimes motivated by hatred against a "social group." The Resolution also does not explain the meaning of Article 282.2 of the Criminal Code (organization of activities of a group or organization which has been banned for extremism) and leaves unaddressed the question of how to consider the activities of a banned group when these activities are conducted under other names and logos but with the same membership and mission.

In any case, there is no way the Supreme Court could possibly address and solve every problem of the misuse of the anti-extremist legislation, as the real source of most problems is the law itself; it is not possible to change a bad law by a good commentary.

We will see the true effectiveness of the Resolution only after monitoring court decisions over the next several months. Unfortunately, history shows that local and regional courts often ignore Supreme Court resolutions, as we saw with last year’s Resolution "On media law."

Criminal prosecution

In June, two criminal cases treated under Article 282 were terminated: one involving employees of the Evening Tyumen newspaper, and one involving a member of the Communist Party in Kirov; both cases dealt with alleged incitement to social hatred. In Tyumen, the case addressed hatred of the police, while the Kirov case addressed hatred towards "State Duma deputies excepting members of the Communist Party of the Russian Federation." The Tyumen case was dropped due to a lapsed statute of limitations.

One follower of Said Nursi, in Orenburg, was sentenced in June after being convicted of organizing forbidden activities in relation to the banned Muslim organization "Nurcular." The charges fell under Part 1 of Article 282.2 of the Criminal Code, and resulted in a prison term of one and a half years.

Also in June, a new trial against Gorno-Altaisk Jehovah’s Witness Aleksander Kalistratov began. Kalistratov had previously been acquitted of incitement to religious hatred (Article 282), but a higher court revoked that decision.

Administrative prosecution

At least four court decisions were reached based on wrongful use of the Code for Administrative Offences: in Omsk, Petropavlovsk-Kamchatsky, Ulyanovsk, and in the Sverdlovsk Region. Two of the decisions resulted in fines on library directors for stocking banned books. In reality, the directors were punished for doing their job, as stocking books is libraries’ main purpose.

This was the argument used by the Pushkin Library in Omsk, which refused to comply with an order to withdraw banned literature from its collection and faced charges from the Prosecutor's Office. This is the first case of its type of which we are aware. As anti-extremist legislation and the law "On Librarianship" are in conflict with one another, in many cases sanctions are brought against libraries in compliance with one code but violation of another. In June of this year, we noticed a significant increase in the number of such sanctions.

Official warnings to media and others

In June two warnings were improperly issued regarding alleged extremist activity; one to a public organization and the other to a magazine. In the first case, a complaint for discrimination by the Taimyr group "Protection of the Rights of Indigenous Peoples of the North" was seen as an extremist activity. In the second case, Roskomnadzor issued a warning to the literary and art magazine Teegin Girl for the academic publication of a WWII folklore text praising a German intelligence agent.

Improper warnings for incitement to social hatred of political opponents were issued to a Zhigulevsk Communist Party activist for an anti-Putin leaflet, and to a Kazan-based administrator of "Autonomous Action," a libertarian-communist website.

Recognition of extremist materials

Russian courts reached two important decisions addressing Scientologist and Jehovah’s Witnesses publications this month.

In Salsk (in the Rostov Region), nine Jehovah’s Witnesses books and journals were declared extremist - though six of those were already present on the Federal List of Extremist Materials. In Shchelkovo (in the Moscow Region), more works of L. Ron Hubbard were banned, though the exact titles and numbers are not yet clear. We remind readers that just last month, Scientologist texts were removed from the Federal List of Extremist Materials due to a lifted ban by a Surgut court.

Rulemaking

The only legislative initiative in June was a bill introduced to the State Duma by Vladimir Zhirinovsky’s Liberal Democratic Party, proposing the complete abolition of the federal law "On countering extremist activities." Though the LDPR made some reasonable arguments, the bill is clearly a stunt; the law could only be repealed through the passage of other legislation including parts of the Criminal Code that refer to it. Additionally, we question the motives of the Liberal Democrats, who most likely proposed the bill in a bid to appeal to radical nationalists.