Russian human rights activists express serious concern about the new dangerous amendment to anti-extremism legislation

Russian human rights activists and experts have repeatedly expressed their concerns about the 2002 Law on Combating Extremist Activity, which combines an overly broad definition of "extremism" with overly harsh sanctions against people, organizations and the media. The rigidity of the law has not made enforcement more effective, but over the past four years, anti-extremist legislation has increasingly been applied to manifestly unlawful restrictions on civil rights.

And so, on June 28, 2006, the State Duma adopted in the first reading an amendment to this law, which further expands the definition of the concept of "extremism."

Among the additions made, some of which are quite reasonable, three are of particular concern.

First, the definition includes slander against officials associated with accusations of extremism or of committing a grave or especially grave crime. Defamation is a criminal offense and, in essence, its presence should be determined by the court in the relevant criminal process. But the law in question is not a criminal one, and it is very likely that the fact of libel will be established administratively against an organization or publication. Thus, in fact, public accusations of officials of corruption (as a rule, this is a serious crime), of patronage of nationalists, and much more may be prohibited.

Secondly, it is proposed to consider any use of violence against a representative of the authorities as extremism, although it is clear that such actions (undoubtedly illegal) by members of an organization or group do not always characterize it as socially dangerous. They can be purely domestic in nature or spontaneously arise during the dispersal of public actions by the police.

Third, a ban on not only calls for extremist activity, but even the justification of such activity. In combination with the ever-expanding definition, this means that justification of acts of civil disobedience or justification of a clergyman who insists on some kind of "exclusivity" of adherents of his religion will be considered extremism.

The bill poses a serious threat to civil liberties and, above all, to the freedom of activity of organizations and the media. Recent events make us take this threat seriously.

Obviously, before the second reading on such a bill, a broad discussion is needed. There is no justification for such hasty action that restricts civil liberties. Meanwhile, as far as we know, the second reading of the bill is scheduled for July 5, which practically excludes the possibility of not only a serious discussion, but even the development of serious amendments.

We consider it fundamentally important to postpone the second reading of the bill and achieve the removal from the draft of the dangerous provisions currently in it.

Alexander Verkhovsky, Galina Kozhevnikova, SOVA Center,

Tatiana Lokshina, Center "Demos",

Oleg Orlov, Tatyana Kasatkina, Memorial Human Rights Center,

Yuri Dzhibladze, Andrei Kalikh, Center for the Development of Democracy and Human Rights,

Natalia Taubina, "Public Verdict" Foundation and "For Civil Society" Foundation,

Andrey Blinushov, Ryazan Human Rights Society "Memorial",

Julia Sereda, magazine "Map",

Nina Tagankina, Moscow Helsinki Group,

Boris Pustyntsev, "Civil Control",

Alexey Simonov, Glasnost Defense Foundation,

Arseniy Roginsky, Memorial International Society,

Ida Kuklina, Union of Committees of Soldiers' Mothers of Russia,

Svetlana Gannushkina, Civic Assistance Committee,

Valentin Gefter, Institute of Human Rights,

Lev Levinson, Coalition for Democratic Alternative Civil Service,

Elena Grishina, Center for Public Information,

Lidia Grafova, Forum of resettlement organizations.