Confucius, Syrov and Pussу Riot

When Confucius was asked where he would start governing the state, he replied: “The most necessary thing is to correct names.” When the student asked why this was necessary, Confucius replied that the entire order of life depended on it: “If the names are incorrect, then the words have no basis. If the words have no basis, then deeds cannot be carried out. If deeds cannot be carried out, then ritual and music do not flourish. If ritual and music do not flourish, punishments are not applied properly. If punishments are not applied properly, the people do not know how to behave."

In the verdict against the members of the Pussy Riot group, “incorrect names” are constantly used, and in modern language, concepts are being substituted.

The girls were convicted of hooliganism, which the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation defines as “a gross violation of public order, expressing clear disrespect for society,” motivated by hatred or hostility towards a social group of Orthodox believers.

Let's first understand what "public order" is.

Public order is the system of relations between people that has developed in society, the rules of mutual behavior and community life, regulated by current legislation, customs, traditions, and moral norms.

According to Article 14 of the Constitution of the Russian Federation, Russia is a secular state; no religion can be established as state or compulsory; religious associations are separated from the state and are equal before the law.

In a secular state, no religious norms can be included in the “public order.” They define the relations between members of a religious community, have no legal significance and cannot be supported by the state.

And here are the lines from the verdict: “The actions of Tolokonnikova, Samutsevich, Alekhina are an obvious gross violation of generally accepted norms and rules of behavior, taking into account the content of the actions and the place where they were committed. The defendants violated the generally recognized rules and norms of behavior that underlie public order in the Cathedral of Christ the Savior.”

Having equated the rules of the Orthodox Church with generally accepted norms, Judge Syrova made a substitution of concepts.

What follows from this? Since the girls did not violate public order, their actions cannot be regarded as hooliganism. And this is the second and most important change. She alone is enough for the verdict to crumble like a house of cards.

Let's move on.

What is motive?

Motive is an internal urge to act based on personal interest. Motive is an explanation of why a person does this or that, an answer to the question: “What motivated you?”

The verdict did not establish a political motive for the girls’ act, but did establish a motive of hatred and enmity towards the social group “Orthodox believers.” This contradicts both the two examinations and testimonies of the girls, as well as the name of the punk prayer service and the text of the first verse, which, according to them, they managed to perform in recitative in the temple.

Judging by the testimony of the victims and prosecution witnesses, they either did not hear the words of the prayer service, or considered it abusive and blasphemous to the Lord and the Mother of God. Meanwhile, no swear words were used in the CSU, since the phraseological unit “God’s crap” is an idiom widely used in classical literature, and in Hasidism it is a theological term.

The objects of criticism in the prayer service (which should be considered as a work of art) were not Christian values ​​or Orthodox believers, but the tandem of a famous presidential candidate (and KGB lieutenant colonel) and the head of the Russian Orthodox Church, personifying the fusion of state and church. And these two characters are undoubtedly in no way identical to the Lord and the Virgin Mary.

Why does Judge Syrova need these distortions of meaning? Only in order to replace the political motive with the motive of hostility and hatred towards Orthodox believers, which is necessary for a guilty verdict.

The substitution of concepts is inherent in the entire text of the verdict and is expressed in both large and small ways. But even this little thing cannot but have a negative impact on the fate of the girls and their families.

For example, lawyer M.I. Trepashkin, in his FB blog, drew attention to the fact that the young children of Tolokonnikova and Alekhina were called minors in the verdict. It would seem like a trifle, but in a legal sense, the presence of young children is a mitigating circumstance that the court cannot fail to take into account in accordance with paragraph “d” of Part 1 of Article 61 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation:

“The presence of young children,” writes M.I. Trepashkin, “is a more important factor for mitigating punishment than the presence of minor children. Even in this, the judge committed (following the investigator and the prosecutor) a legal-fraudulent trick in the direction of worsening the situation of the accused .”

And why all?

Very simple. An unjust verdict cannot be substantiated without distorting the facts and without resorting to demagogic methods, the most common of which is the substitution of concepts.

Confucius was right. It is a pity that the current rulers do not listen to him.