At the Human Rights Council under the President, proposals were made to amend anti-extremist legislation

At a meeting of the Council for the Development of Civil Society and human rights, which took place in Stavropol on July 5, 2011, were discussed in in particular, issues of countering terrorism and extremism. Council Member Valentin Gefter made a proposal to make significant changes to anti-extremist legislation. The amendments were prepared with the active participation SOVA Center.

V. Gefter said (quoted from the transcript of the meeting of the Council, published on the website of the President of Russia):

"You you know, maybe it's not so massive things that I'll talk about now to speak (as briefly as possible), but they cause a great resonance. This is about modernization of our counteraction to extremism, including, of course, purely law enforcement methods. We are all aware of the danger of direct threats and criminal acts directed against the foundations of the constitutional order. But if talk about something other than terrorism, then the most visible in this sense, to me seems to be violent crimes motivated by hate. And against it like even if our anti-extremist legislation was conceived, it is already almost 10 years. In terms of law enforcement, there are obvious successes. Managed to reduce the number of hate-motivated murders. But there are also obvious failures. on them and sent our proposals.

First. The activity of aggressive groups of various persuasions does not decrease, and in some cases becomes more brazen and increased danger.

Second, what worries us most now is what we call illegal anti-extremism, which increasingly leads to unjustified restrictions, and sometimes to a direct violation of the rights of citizens and their associations.

IN In this regard, we are now proposing to you significant amendments to the federal law on combating extremist activity, related article Criminal Code and other normative acts. Incidentally, I note that several days ago, a resolution of the plenum of the Supreme Court was issued, in the development of which we also took part. There the first steps in the field of law enforcement in the first the line of criminal legislation (CC) already exists, but this is clearly not enough. It seems to us that we need to start in this sense (in the sense modernization of anti-extremist legislation), primarily with the legal definitions of extremism. At present, it is excessively broad, vague and, most importantly, goes far beyond linking extremism to violence, to threats of its use, promote and justify this violence. But I note that we must be guided not only by domestic legislation, but also by international ones. The SCO Convention, which we signed back in 2001, clearly states that extremism is primarily a violent crime.

All is: this breadth, vagueness, lack of attachment to violence - generates a lot of abuses, which, from our point of view, discredits countering extremism in the eyes of society. And most importantly, such a setting task does not allow law enforcement officers to concentrate their efforts on really the most dangerous activities.

Let I will spend some time of yours and colleagues on several, in my opinion, curious examples and absurdity of the application of the law, and a clear abuse of the right in such cases. Look here. First. The district court in Moscow recognized the slogan Athos monks "Orthodoxy or death" extremist, and another court is not admitted.

Or in different regions is currently prohibited as extremist organizations, there is mind branches, departments and publications of Jehovah's Witnesses, and for their propaganda even trying to file criminal charges. How would we address these heretics in quotation marks or not directly related, but the violence in these words and actions associated with their publications and propaganda, does not smell.

Third. In Omsk, a graduate student was fined for promoting Nazi symbols. He posted leaflets, where on the image of ex-President Bush he drew a swastika as a sign protest against his policies. And it is with us, in the Russian Federation, now called extremism and is punished in this case administratively.

AND a close example to us here is territorial, regional. District Court of Stavropol satisfied the claim of the local prosecutor's office to block a peaceful religious website islamhouse.com only because of the famous book "Monotheism" - forbidden labor founder of Wahhabism, written in the 18th century. No relationship naturally, to the current so-called Wahhabis in quotation marks does not have.

All these examples of both administrative and often criminal law enforcement practice say that it is absolutely necessary to focus this anti-extremism on the most socially dangerous, on the ideologically motivated, anti-human in its motives for racist violence and what is associated with it. including direct calls, organization, financial support and provision of these criminal acts. And for this needs to be reviewed, we believe that the legal mechanisms used should be improved those that work and discard those that don't work.

Last thing, what I notice. We tried within the framework of the working group, which Tamara Georgievna already mentioned, on the liberalization of criminal legislation, to submit for consideration GPU this set of questions. Unfortunately, whether it was right after the Manege area, or our climate is different, it seems that we only need to strengthen repression, did not find any response at all. Our request: we enclose these documents, I hope Mikhail Alexandrovich handed them over to you, both explanatory, and himself draft amendments to the legislative acts in order to start a detailed and meticulous work from the start. Without it, we will only get more more instability, more high-profile cases."

Dmitry Medvedev in his closing remarks, obviously reacting to the words of V. Gefter, said:

"In a relationship extremism, its nature, the legal side of it all. Here too, oh than to think in the sense of what colleagues were talking about. Because extremism is Still, it's not a way of thinking, it's an action. If we take a different position, we we must come to very bad conclusions. But on the other hand, there is established legislation. It must be treated with respect as long as it works, however, if you need to change something, you can change it. I in general, I think that the canons are, of course, very important, but there are things that who develop, our ideas change."

Draft amendments to the law "On counteracting extremist activities", in the Criminal Code and a Code of Administrative Offenses was handed over to the President along with an explanatory note.

Sources

• Inc. inf.
• Meeting of the Council for the Development of Civil Society and Human Rights // Website of the President of Russia. 2011. July 5.