Misuse of Anti-Extremism Legislation in July 2011

In July we recorded one dubious criminal charge, and several questionable administrative decisions. In some cases, courts rejected improper accusations of extremism, but more often such accusations were approved. Also, of particular note is the involvement of the Federal Migration Service in prosecuting charges of extremism against a trade union activist.

Criminal Prosecution

July was relatively quiet in this regard; we noted only one case we believe applied improper anti-extremist legislation. This was a criminal case against 13 young people in the city of Miass, in the Chelyabinsk region. The defendants are accused of attacking visitors at a local rock music festival in August of last year. While we do not dispute the defendants' involvement in organizing and participating in riots (Parts 1 and 2 of Article 212 of the Criminal Code), they are also accused under Part 2 of Article 282 of the Criminal Code – incitement to hatred against a social group committed with the use of violence by an organized group. In this case, the state is classifying rock fans as a social group.

It is our position that the use of anti-extremism legislation in this case is unjustified. It is not only doubtful that fans of rock music constitute a separate social group, but also that doing so would be to unnecessarily extend the list of vulnerable groups protected by such legislation. Such an extension would be similar to the classification of "nationalists" or "the police" as social groups, as we have seen in previous cases.

Administrative Prosecution

In July, one case was filed and two convictions issued using charges of unlawful violation of Article 20.29 of the Administrative Code (possession with intent to distribute, or distribution of extremist materials). One was against a Jehovah's Witness in the Rostov region, while the other was a library director on Yekaterinburg who was found to have stocked banned literature.

We also would like to draw attention to the Lipetsk acquittal of an entrepreneur who sold Nazi German trophies. The antiquarian was charged under Part 1 of Article 20.3 of the Administrative Code (Advocacy and public demonstration of Nazi attributes or symbols). The court decided – in our view correctly – that the defendant's actions did not constitute a promotion of the National Socialist Party program.

Prohibition of Extremist Materials

The Soviet District Federal Court in Krasnoyarsk classified the Said Nursi pamphlet "Twenty-five Drugs," and books "The Way of the Sunna" and "Twenty-third Word" as extremist. The reason was that the texts were identical to previously-forbidden Nursi pamphlets and books.

In July we also became aware of a ban of two Jehovah's Witnesses leaflets by the Zavodskoy District Court in Kemerovo. The texts in question were entitled, "Religion – the Stronghold of the World?" and "Be a Zealot for True Worship." Just like in October of last year, when the same court banned other Jehovah's Witnesses publications, the ban was totally unknown until its appearance on the Ministry of Justice website.

We also note the claim by the Tarusa (Kaluga region) City Prosecutor's Office that Alexander Savko's painting "Sermon on the Mount," which was exhibited at the "Forbidden Art 2006" show, should be considered extremist. The Prosecutor's Office states, "the work contains graphic information and calls for extremist activity, in particular a promotion of disabling rights on the basis of religion, in this case of the Orthodox faithful." Savko's work is a modified version of Julius Schnorr von Carolsfeld's “Sermon on the Mount,” with Christ replaced by Mickey Mouse. We remind readers that anti-extremist legislation does not protect ideals and feelings, but the state and society from real and often violent threats, and people from various discriminatory practices. In our view, the painting presents no such threat.

Other Illegal Activities of the Authorities

In July, we continued to face the attempt to bind the problem of illegal immigration to the theme of extremism. In Kemerovo, the local Center on Counteraction to Extremism participated in an operation to apprehend illegal immigrants, while in the Samara region, police officers received official anti-extremist warnings due to illegal migrants working within their jurisdiction. Meanwhile, the illegal immigrants were not found guilty of anything falling under the auspices of extremist activity in Russian law in either case.

We draw particular attention to the cause of trade unionist Dmitry Dubonos, a Ukrainian citizen living in Arkhangelsk. He is married to a Russian citizen and, until recently, held a Russian residence permit. However, Dubonos' permit was revoked under strange circumstances, with the local government claiming he was an advocate for "violent change to the Russian constitutional system." Neither the appeal on the revocation, nor the attempt to figure out what danger Dubonos poses to the constitutional order of the country was successful, as Federal Migration Service and Federal Security Service officials told a court that such information constitutes a state secret. We suspect that the main reason was Dubonos' trade union activities, given his position as chairman of two such organizations in the Arkhangelsk Region. Dubonos intends to appeal the court decision that canceled his residence permit.