Translated material
Countering anti-Semitism: successes and failures
The year 2002, like no other, was marked by the conscious efforts of the authorities to counter manifestations of extremism, national radicalism and anti-Semitism. The purposeful actions of the authorities were manifested both at the symbolic level (for example, the constant statements of Russian President Vladimir Putin about the inadmissibility of anti-Semitism or awarding Tatyana Sapunova with the Order of Courage), and at the legislative (new anti-extremist law) and law enforcement (closure of anti-Semitic publications) levels.
However, despite notable successes, it cannot be said that the fight against extremism in general and anti-Semitism in particular is being carried out consistently and in the most successful way.
Adoption of a new anti - extremist law . For a long time, law enforcement and judicial authorities referred to the legal difficulties associated with the suppression of national-radical activities: the current legislation allegedly did not provide an opportunity for effective work in this area. In fact, it has been repeatedly convincingly proven that the existing provisions of the Criminal Code, laws on public associations and the media are completely sufficient to combat national extremism. However, in order to improve the legislative base, on April 30, the presidential administration submitted to the State Duma a draft law "On Counteracting Extremist Activity" and a package of related amendments. On May 28, the bills were considered by the Legislation Committee of the State Duma of the Russian Federation, on June 6 the laws were adopted in the first reading, on June 20 - in the second, on June 27 - in the third (for - 274, against - 145). The upper house of the Russian parliament - the Federation Council - approved the bill on July 10, and on July 25 it was signed by the president.
It is interesting that if the presidential bill was adopted by the Duma deputies in record time (strictly speaking, such a short interval between readings of the bill in parliament is a violation of the rules), the initiative of the deputies themselves of a similar orientation did not meet with such unanimous support. On June 26, the Duma rejected a draft appeal from the Lower House of Parliament to President Putin prepared by representatives of the SPS faction to take urgent measures in connection with the increasing incidence of anti-Semitism, nationalism and extremism. Aleksandra Buratayeva, a representative of Unity, even remarked that "maybe the Jews are doing well, but 200 other nationalities are suffering." 168 deputies voted for the project, with the required 226 votes (1) .
Human rights activists, lawyers and political scientists subject the anti-extremist law to scrupulous analysis and harsh criticism (2) . According to most critics of the law, firstly, it does not introduce anything fundamentally new into the current legislation. Practically all specific forms of actions falling under the definition of "extremist activity" have already been qualified as criminal offenses or administrative offenses and are punishable. This was indirectly confirmed a few months after the adoption of the new law by the Prosecutor General of the Russian Federation Vladimir Ustinov: in his speech to the deputies of the State Duma on October 23, dedicated specifically to the report on the anti-extremist activities of law enforcement agencies, the prosecutor drew the deputies' attention to precedents related to the application of the previously existing normative corps (although for some reason he said that with the new law it became easier to counteract extremism, but it is still too early to draw conclusions) (3) . That is, strictly speaking, the new law, without introducing anything constructive and fundamentally new, was at best only an unnecessary reminder to law enforcement agencies of the need to fight extremism (which in itself is important in the current Russian situation of selective application of laws), and in at worst, an imitation of anti-extremist activity in the face of the public and, to an even greater extent, the West.
The second reproach from critics against the law is that the definition of extremism in this act is too general, broad and vague. The introduction of a new term, defined so vaguely, into legal and law enforcement practice does not at all facilitate the work of law enforcement and judicial authorities.
In addition, many experts fear that if the law does nothing to alleviate the situation and be useful, then it may well aggravate it and turn out to be very harmful. In some of its provisions - mainly those relating to the suspension of a political organization or a periodical - the law allows the Ministry of Justice and law enforcement agencies to assume the functions of the judiciary. Temporary suspension of the activities of the organization before the trial can be - for example, during the election campaign - a good way to put pressure on opposition or simply objectionable political forces. For example, no one can suspect the Liberal Russia party of extremism or nationalism; however, at the time when Boris Berezovsky was a member, the Ministry of Justice could refuse to register it on the basis of the anti-extremist law, since Berezovsky is accused of financing Chechen extremists. Obviously, such an interpretation of the law is absurd, but it follows logically not only from the formal meaning of its text, but also from its entire logic.
The very concept of the law is such that it either repeats the norms and prohibitions already existing in the criminal-administrative legislation, or in some sense restricts the norms in the field of human rights fixed in the current legislation in order to suppress extremist activity. For example, contrary to the previously existing legislative norm, according to which the activities of political and public organizations can be terminated only by court order (Law on Public Associations), the new law introduced the possibility of extrajudicial suspension of their activities.
And, finally, the wording of the law is such that it is impossible to consistently apply it in practice in relation to all subjects of political, informational and economic life to which it can be applied. For example, according to the law, it is possible to close any commercial organization that assists extremists both by financing and by providing them with means of communication, transport, etc. That is, according to the letter of the law, it is possible to close a cellular communication company because an “extremist” used a telephone connected to this company, or close the subway on the grounds that skinheads ride in subway train cars and catch their victims. Even if we do not take the situation to the point of absurdity, we can say with full responsibility that under the new law it is possible to close almost any of the current all-Russian daily newspapers.
All of the above features of the new law automatically mean that it will be applied only selectively. And it’s good if it is applied only to those whom the common sense of investigators, prosecutors and judges (and not the letter of the law, because this is impossible!) Defines as “extremists”, and not to any objectionable active political elite of the party or to economic competitors of "particularly close" entrepreneurs.
It is possible, of course, that the political scientist Vladimir Pribylovsky (4) is right when he pointed out that the purpose of the law, apparently, is not to introduce any new legal norms at all, but simply to focus the attention of officials and law enforcement officers on the fact that at this stage The President of the Russian Federation considers it necessary to fight manifestations of extremism, nationalism and intolerance. This is at least partly the case: since the end of 2002, when information appeared that the Presidential Administration was preparing such a bill, the fight against xenophobia in general and anti-Semitism in particular (using the legislation that existed at that time) has intensified sharply.
Measures against radical publications and propagandists . Even before the adoption of a new law on combating extremist activity, the authorities stepped up the fight against national radicals. In itself, this deserves only approval (all the more, as mentioned above, the new law is by no means necessary for the implementation of this activity and does not introduce anything epoch-making new and fundamentally important). However, the peculiarities of this struggle make us wary.
The attempt to initiate a criminal case on the fact of anti-Semitic propaganda in the Sverdlovsk region had the greatest resonance. On December 13, 2001, the prosecutor of the investigative department of the Office of the Prosecutor General of the Russian Federation in the Urals Federal District M. Zykov initiated a criminal case against the Yekaterinburg diocese on the grounds of a crime under Art. 282 part 1 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation. The basis for initiating the case was the complaint of the head of the Jewish national-cultural autonomy of the Sverdlovsk region, Mikhail Oshtrakh. In his opinion, in periodicals published by the diocese ("Pravoslavny vestnik" and "Orthodox newspaper"), as well as in the book of the early twentieth century religious writer Sergei Nilus, published and distributed by the diocese, "Near is at the door" (which includes the text of "Protocols Elders of Zion") promoted religious exclusivity and incited religious and national enmity towards the Jews.
On March 5, 2002, after a preliminary investigation, N.R. Filimonova closed the criminal case due to the fact that, according to the results of the examinations, “it was found that the publications ... do not promote the exclusivity or superiority of citizens of a certain religion over citizens of another religion, do not promote the inferiority of citizens on the basis of religion or on other grounds. no appeals were found in printed publications that incite national, racial or religious hatred, there are no statements about the superiority of citizens of one religion or their inferiority on the basis of religion. The official wording at the closing of the case was "due to the lack of corpus delicti", i.e., the prosecutor's office recognized the distribution of anti-Semitic materials as legal (5) .
In fact, the situation with the criminal case against the Yekaterinburg diocese can be assessed in two ways. On the one hand, based on the strict letter of the criminal law, the materials published by the diocese undoubtedly incite ethnic hatred. However, within the framework of the concepts of Article 282 of the Criminal Code, any propaganda, in particular, of religious exclusivity, is criminal. Thus, not only such works as "Protocols of the Elders of Zion" or incorrect articles by deacon Andrey Kuraev and verses by hieromonk Roman (these materials, published in Pravoslavny Vestnik and Pravoslavnaya Gazeta, in particular, served as the basis for to initiate a criminal case), but also the Bible itself (both the New and especially the Old Testaments) or the Koran. However, a certain consensus in society and law enforcement agencies did not allow the application of this article "to its fullest", in particular, it was not customary to apply it against "traditional" religious denominations. It is clear that the root of the problem lies in the unreasonably broad wording of the criminal article, however, law enforcement practice, or rather, its absence, somewhat mitigated this legislative blunder. The criminal case in the Sverdlovsk region, although from a formal point of view it was absolutely justified, threatened to become a dangerous precedent, paving the way for numerous (and no less logical in the wording of Article 282 of the Criminal Code) criminal cases against religious organizations. However, the public outcry turned out to be so great that the local prosecutor's office did not take the responsibility to bring the case to its logical end. Maybe for the better. Although, of course, the confident statement of Archbishop Vincent of Yekaterinburg and Verkhoturye "a really acute problem was considered by the investigation without prejudice, not for the sake of one or another political slogan or predilections, but as it should - on a solid basis of clarifying all points of view and in strict accordance with the Law, and not with his personal interpretations by anyone", looks hypocritical and smacks of a "double standard". Be that as it may, the foundations of the problem lie in the wording of criminal legislation and the peculiarities of the law enforcement tradition, and not in a particular edition of a particular Orthodox diocese.
On March 14, 2002, the Sverdlovsk branch of the Congress of National Associations of Russia sent a protest to the Office of the Prosecutor General's Office for the Urals Federal District. The Yekaterinburg Jewish community "Yehudim" joined this protest. On March 28, the head of the department for supervision over the implementation of laws on federal security and interethnic relations of the regional prosecutor's office, senior adviser of justice V. Dvoeglazov replied that "the leadership of the regional prosecutor's office agreed with the decision" ( 6) . On May 28, Archbishop Vikenty of Yekaterinburg and Verkhoturye, at a meeting with the chairman of the local Jewish community, Ya. True, "Pravoslavnaya Gazeta" and other publications continue to publish harsh materials against various sects, not embarrassed in rhetoric. For example, Hare Krishnas, according to the newspaper, are prone to pedophilia and murder, Scientology is "evil with a capital letter" and a "criminal-criminal organization." The Orthodox even had physical clashes with "sectarians" from the New Life Church, whose premises were picketed by zealots of Orthodox piety.
In the same Sverdlovsk region, the publication of the Russian national-cultural autonomy - the newspaper "Russian Community of Yekaterinburg" - was repeatedly accused of inciting ethnic hatred. At the very end of 2001, the leaders of the Jewish Bashkir, German, Gypsy, Tatar national-cultural autonomies, as well as the chairmen of the Sverdlovsk regional society of Kazakh culture, the society of Tajik culture, the head of the national-cultural community signed a statement to the prosecutor's office demanding to initiate a criminal case against the newspaper. Dan Doidu" of the Republic of Sakha, Vice-Chairman of the Ural Regional Society of Greeks. Indeed, a criminal case under Article 282 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation was first initiated against the newspaper, and then closed for lack of corpus delicti (the case was closed by the senior investigator for especially important cases N. Filimonova - she also closed the criminal case against the Yekaterinburg diocese). The editor-in-chief of the newspaper, Sergei Pilshchikov, filed a lawsuit to protect the newspaper's business reputation against the Jewish National Cultural Autonomy, its president Mikhail Oshtrakh, the ATN television company, and journalist Alena Popova, demanding that they refute widespread reports that the newspaper incites ethnic hatred. Pilshchikov lost the trial in the first instance.
In addition, over the past year, the "Russian Community of Yekaterinburg" twice (in April (7) and in August (8) ) received an official warning from the Ministry of Press, Television and Radio Broadcasting and Mass Communications, both times for publishing materials inciting national and religious intolerance and discord.
Official warnings and attempted lawsuits against anti-Semitic newspapers and their publishers also took place in other regions.
On February 8, the trial of Oleg Kitter, publisher of the radical anti-Semitic newspaper Aleks-Inform, ended in Samara. The publicist and publisher was charged under Article 282 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation. Judge A. Morgunkov did not find corpus delicti in the materials of the investigation and acquitted O. Kitter (9) .
On February 18, the Volgograd City Court ruled in the case of the weekly national-radical and anti-Semitic newspaper Kolokol (editor-in-chief Stanislav Terentyev). The court determined that "the materials published in the newspaper have nothing to do with Nazism, but rightly criticize such political phenomena as Zionism, Freemasonry and Judaism" (10) . Anatoly Karman, who accused the publication of propaganda of Nazism, according to the court decision, must pay the latter legal costs (about 1,300 US dollars). The editor-in-chief of the newspaper S. Terentiev, in a letter published ("Kolokol", No. 12 (374), April 2002) to the deputy head of the local administration Sizov Yu.I., commenting on an attempt to convict him for inciting ethnic hatred, states: once faced with violent attempts to hide from the population the acts of Jewish fascism (Zionism), the criminal results of which led to a Russian pogrom throughout Russia ... Jewish fascism (Zionism) is fighting the Russian people, exposing the enemies of Russia and the Russian people.
In April 2002, the authorities of Volgograd banned the broadcast of the TV program "Russian Hour" on the local channel. Its host, the well-known local radical publisher S. Terentyev, was accused of spreading anti-Semitic sentiments. The decision to close the program was made after several complaints from representatives of the Jewish community in Volgograd. The program aired from January to April 2002 on the Akhtuba-STS channel. For one of his statements on the air, Terentyev received a warning from the Volgograd city prosecutor's office. According to local journalists, Terentiev paid for each of his broadcasts. The newspaper "Week of the City" (Volzhsky) suggested that the transfer was paid for by the director of "Caustic" Oleg Bolotin.
On April 17, the Ministry of the Russian Federation for Press, Broadcasting and Mass Communications issued a warning to the newspaper "Kazachiy Krug", which published in issue 8 (479) of February 22, 2002 "The speech of the rabbi to the Jewish people (appeal of the rabbi to his co-religionists)". According to MPTR officials, by publishing materials inciting ethnic and religious intolerance and hatred, the newspaper abused the freedom of the mass media and thereby violated the requirements of Article 4 of the Law of the Russian Federation "On Mass Media". After this warning, and after a wave of protests from Jewish national organizations, the regional administration threatened to cut off the channels that financed the publication. In this situation, the newspaper was forced to close and its editor-in-chief retired.
On the same day, April 17, a warning was issued to the Russkiye Vedomosti newspaper (11) . On July 17, the Timiryazevsky Intermunicipal Court of Moscow satisfied the claim of the Ministry of Press to terminate the activities of the Russkiye Vedomosti newspaper. The reason for its closure was the materials, according to the Ministry of Press, containing calls for inciting ethnic intolerance and hatred (12) .
On August 7, the MPTR issued a warning for anti-Semitic publications to the newspaper Russkaya Sibir (Novosibirsk). On August 8, the Cheryomushkinsky Intermunicipal Court of Moscow satisfied the claim of the Ministry of Press for the closure of the magazine "Russian Host" (13) . The journal received four warnings, but the editors ignored them. On the basis of an examination conducted by specialists from the Research Institute for the Problems of Strengthening Law and Order under the Prosecutor General's Office of the Russian Federation, the court ruled that the magazine published materials inciting ethnic hatred, containing war propaganda, calls for the overthrow of the constitutional order and the seizure of power, and decided to close the magazine.
On October 17, the MPTR issued a warning to two more anti-Semitic publications - the newspapers "Era Rossii" and "I am Russian".
In addition to measures against anti-Semitic publications, attempts were made to punish the anti-Semites themselves.
On March 1, 2002, the Svechensky District Court (Kirov Region) considered the case of Alexei Dobrovolsky (Dobroslav), a neo-pagan ideologue known for his sharp anti-Semitic and anti-Christian statements, who was accused of inciting ethnic hatred. Dobroslav was sentenced to imprisonment for a period of two years (conditionally). Earlier, the "Dobroslav case" was considered by the Shabalinsky District Court and acquitted the accused. After that, the case was sent for further investigation and transferred to another court (14) .
On November 10, the Zamoskvoretsky Intermunicipal Court refused to satisfy the complaint of Boris Stambler, who demanded the resumption of the criminal investigation into the publication by Viktor Korchagin of two issues of the anti-Semitic magazine "Rusich" (the magazine is published in the form of thematic collections, the issues in question were called "Jewish occupation in Russia" and "Generals about the Jews"). At the same time, on November 29, the MPTR issued a warning to the editors of the journal for the next issue, entitled simply and tastefully - "Jewish Masons" (15) .
2 For a selection of expert comments on the law, see A. Verkhovsky's book "The State Against Radical Nationalism. What to Do and What Not to Do?" (M.: ROO "Panorama", 2002), pp. 46-97. project website See also the "Expert Opinion" section of the National Extremism and the State .
3 Society.ru , October 23, 2002 ; Polit.ru , October 23, 2002 .
4 Russian Thought (Paris), No. 4413, June 13, 2002 .
5 Religion in Russia , March 11, 2002 ; Orthodox newspaper , No. 10 (187), 2002.
6 Tikvateinu , Nos. 3-4, March-April 2002.
7 Official website of the MPTR , 29 April 2002 .
8 Official website of the MPTR , 7 August 2002 .
9 Press release of the Association of Committees for the Defense of Jews in the former USSR , February 8, 2002
10 Russian Line news agency, February 25, 2002 .
11 Official website of the MPTR , 17 April 2002 .
13 Lenta.ru , August 8, 2002 .