Alexander Verkhovsky: Almost, 282 at once...

On March 18, 2102, the site Ovdinfo.org published an article by Alexander Verkhovsky "Just a little, immediately 282 ..." about appeals to the prosecutor's office on behalf of the Orthodox community on case of Pussy Riot, who offered to sign in a number of Moscow churches.

Just a little, immediately 282 ...

Today, On March 18, two options appeared on the network for contacting the prosecutor's office on behalf of Orthodox community in the case of Pussy Riot (one reproduced on the website Novaya Gazeta - http://www.novayagazeta.ru/news/55108.html , the other is on the Facebook page of Deputy Editor-in-Chief of the Kultura newspaper Mikhail Tyurenkov - http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=340598705990654&set=a.10404382631... ). Moreover, one of these options, or a similar one, was read from the ambos many Moscow churches, and signatures were collected among the parishioners (see, for example, in Learn Olga Bakushinskaya - http://bakushinskaya.livejournal.com/867272.html ). Who is the author of the appeals is not clear at the moment, but judging by the fact that his read in many parishes, the initiators of the appeal are in the Moscow patriarchy.

The essence of appeals is quite simple. The authors are satisfied with the criminal prosecution Pussy Riot for mocking sacred objects and insulting religious feelings Orthodox believers, but are dissatisfied with the fact that they are not held accountable those who collaborated with them during the action itself, as well as those who support them Now. Specifically, the authors argue that there is a “deliberate provocation, aimed at inciting hostility towards Orthodoxy, the hierarchs of the Church and all believers." The elements of this “provocation” are the actions of journalists, working in the temple during the Pussy Riot action in the temple, and common in Internet videos showing the action itself, the lyrics of the song, “blasphemous photos". Accordingly, the authors ask that all these actions be investigated and bring the perpetrators under Article 282 of the Criminal Code, it is understood - for inciting hostility to Orthodox believers.

If we try to put aside emotions, political assessments and discussions about role of the Church in society, then how thorough is the proposal that prosecutor's office not named at the moment public figures?

First, insulting the feelings of certain citizens, unfortunately, is not now subject to legal scrutiny. Pussy Riot members accused of not insulting feelings, which would be an administrative offense (part 2 of Art. 5.26 of the Code of Administrative Offenses), and in group hooligan actions motivated by hatred for some religious group (the exact wording of the charge is not yet known). This is absolutely different accusations. "Motive of hatred" in the form in which it is present in Russian criminal law, implies hatred and enmity precisely towards people, united by some common feature, for example, by a common religion, and not at all to their shrines, for example. So it is written in the Criminal Code, and in it every word has the meaning.

Secondly, the authors of the appeal do not give any arguments in favor of the fact that many people reposting Pussy Riot videos, texts and photos are driven by precisely hostility to the Orthodox, and not, say, to the leadership of the Russian Orthodox churches. The enumeration by the authors in one row of Orthodoxy proper, the Church, based on it, and the believers who profess it, is understandable from a religious point of view vision, but has nothing to do with the law. And by the way, many people who republished those photos and videos could do it completely neutrally, without any hostility to anyone.

Thirdly, for the composition of Article 282 of the Criminal Code, it is important that some actions are not only and are not so much motivated by enmity towards someone as directed precisely at public incitement of such enmity in others. To me by the nature of work many times I have seen texts (and other materials) that clearly express and, one might say, promoting hostility towards certain groups of people, including Orthodox believers (I repeat - not to Patriarch Kirill, not to the Russian Orthodox Church, not to some Orthodox organizations, namely the Orthodox as such). Among many materials in defense or in support of Pussy Riot such are found too, but very rarely. If the authors of the appeal were not too lazy to find exactly materials that clearly promote hostility towards the Orthodox, then let it be about them and wrote to the prosecutor's office, and did not encourage her to senselessly shovel many thousands of internet comments.

Fourth, call for criminal liability for journalists covering that or any other, even the most disgusting, activity - this directly contradicts basic ideas about freedom of speech. These notions have long been fixed in the decision of the European Court of Human Rights in the case of Jersild v. Denmark: journalist was prosecuted for airing an interview with neo-Nazi group, and the ECtHR considered this an unacceptable restriction of freedom words. And the decisions of the ECtHR for Russia are not just a guide, they are a source rights.

And finally, if anyone is too fond of the ECtHR or my own reasoning seem unconvincing, it is worth referring to the clarifications of the plenums Supreme Court of the Russian Federation. Decree of the Plenum of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation "On judicial practice in criminal cases on crimes of an extremist orientation” from June 28, 2011 among other things, claims that criticism of religious associations, beliefs and customs cannot, as such, be prosecuted under Article 282 of the Criminal Code. A Decree Plenum of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation "On the practice of application by the courts of the law of the Russian Federation" On the means mass media” dated July 15, 2010 d. confirms that the media cannot be held responsible for quoting xenophobic statements (to which the authors of the appeals, obviously, attributed to the Pussy Riot stock).

So, the appeal to the prosecutor's office, signed, I suspect, by many of our citizens, is too loosely connected with the rule of law, and it can be hoped that The prosecutor's office will evaluate it the same way.

The authors of the appeal can only be advised not to appeal to the prosecutor because of the overlaps of public controversy, and learning in this controversy is effective participate. Sources

• Alexander Verkhovsky. Just a little, immediately 282 ... // Ovdinfo.org. 2012. March 18.