In society

In addition to the verdict Pussy Riot

August 23, 2012 Alexander Verkhovsky

Today, the text of the Pussy Riot sentence is finally published, which makes it possible to read it carefully and speak out again. However, the first impression - that a gross judicial error was made - reading the sentence did not correct. Without finding an eye on technical details, it is necessary to make some comments on the merits of the matter.

The essence of the prosecution is that the defendants violated public order, thereby expressing disrespect for society, and according to the motive of religious enmity (see the composition of Article 213 of the Criminal Code ). And this charge has not been proven.

Violation of public order is a thing not so clearly defined so that something can be said categorically. But the logic of proving the very fact of a violation of public order in the sentence is not too convincing.

It is undoubted that Pussy Riot has violated the norms of behavior in the church. A certain order was violated at the same time (hence the initially discussed thought to bring them to administrative responsibility). It is only debatable that this expressed a “clear disrespect for society”, as the composition of the Criminal Code requires.

The verdict claims that in order to assess the violation of public order, the rules specific to the place in which the action takes place should be taken into account. And, of course, this is so. By this, the court, by the way, explains references to “church norms” in the text of the sentence.

But it is also true that for the composition of the crime it is important that in actions there is an intent to contrast oneself with society, to demonstrate disrespect for it, and the law clearly understands society as a whole, and not just the part of it that is present in this place. For example, a person who has started dancing at the funeral, thereby expresses disrespect for the customs of society as a whole, and not just specifically for the friends and relatives of the deceased. Whether Pussy Riot expressed disrespect for the customs of Russian society as a whole and in general to Russian society, is not discussed in the verdict (and I am also unknown), but meanwhile, this is exactly what is important for the qualification of the act.

But the motive of the crime is completely incomprehensibly explained in the verdict.

The explanation, as everyone noted, begins with feminism. The court claims that feminism is not unlawful, but it opposes the traditions approved by the “near the religions”. And then the court is right.

The following is literally the following is said: “The idea of ​​the superiority of one and, accordingly of the inferiority, the unacceptability of another ideology, social group, religion, gives the ground for mutual hostility and hatred, for interpersonal conflict relations.” And you can’t argue with this either - it gives.

But this judgment - ordinary, maybe - is related to the social sciences, but not to the right. The court simply makes a logical mistake. If something “gives the soil for x”, ​​that is, “can give rise to x”, does not mean that it is “directed at x”, and it is the motive that is important for the composition of the crime, and it is the motive that tries to prove the judge.

By the way, if not by the letter, then in terms of meaning the opinion of the judge is contrary to the position of the Supreme Court , approved - I want to quote it more often! - that “criticism of political organizations, ideological and religious associations, political, ideological or religious beliefs, national or religious customs in itself should not be considered as an action aimed at initiating hatred or enmity.”

The motive of religious hatred is revealed on the basis of three points:

- feminist beliefs about which it is not explained why they constitute the motive of the crime;

- the actual violation of the “internal routine” of the temple, which is not the motive of action, but the action itself, the motive should be considered separately;

- The reaction of the defendants during the court session, but there is no detail about this in the sentence, so this is hardly evidence, especially since we are talking about a completely different place and time.

In other words, the motive has not been proven in any way. And without a motive for hatred (and without weapons) there is simply no corpus delicti under Art. 213 of the Criminal Code.

By the way, the judge, it seems, does not see the particular difference between the motive of hatred and the excitement of hatred. Although the verdict justifies the presence of the motive, p. 38 says that enough evidence was found “in the case of the insult and humiliation of Christians and the Orthodox faith, about the initiation of religious hatred.” Such a thing, under Art. 282 of the Criminal Code, just opened, and the judge, it turns out, has already found this charge proven. Its decision will be very likely to be used in the future investigation in the case under Art. 282. In this prospect, it remains only to notice that, firstly, nothing is actually proved, and secondly, insulting and humiliation of faith, unlike insulting and humiliation of believers, is not at all a corpus delicti in our Criminal Code (although it can be considered morally reprehensible).

The last consideration to many is not obvious and should be discussed separately. I suspect, Judge Syrov would not agree with this, because her argumentation gives out a purely church in the spirit of the indistinguishable of the totality of believers and churches. The Russian Orthodox Church is already mentioned at the very beginning of the sentence as an object of insult. This involves some anthropomorphization of the church, which is quite appropriate in a religious, philosophical or poetic text (for example, “the soul of the Church”, “Church Consciousness”), but it does not make sense in the legal text.

In general, the question of what positions the sentence is written is not so simple, and I am not ready to give an answer to it. It is clear that, at least, partly in a large part - not with legal ones. But after all, nevertheless-and not from orthodox Christian. For example, Pussy Riot clothing is described as obscene from the “point of view of church canons for this place”, namely, salts and an amvon. It is completely incomprehensible what kind of canons here are meant if you understand the canons as the canonical law of the Church. Apparently, the judge uses this word in the meaning of “customs” - and there is a strange mixture of different languages ​​in the description of what was happening.

By the end of the sentence, the court copies the fragment from the prosecutor’s documents completely non-legal and at the same time not Orthodox (see p. 36, 2nd paragraph). The judge takes responsibility for the strange text that the defendants expressed disrespect for the dogmas of the Church (although it is difficult to understand how the whole story is to dogma and in what form the expression of respect for dogmas from extra-church citizens is expected), “put themselves in the light belittling internal beliefs of citizens” (sometimes I think that it would be good to turn off the possibility of copying the text), and even somehow They encroached on the originality of Christianity.

This is not on behalf of the secular, albeit authoritarian, state, and not on behalf of the Russian Orthodox Church, not at all on behalf of the law or Orthodoxy. This is a verdict on behalf of people who, through all confused references to “feminism”, “dogmas”, “soil for mutual enmity”, try, speaking in the old way, “stop the disorder”, too annoying to force themselves to be consistent with any norms.

Photos of RIA Novosti