Following the verdict of Pussy Riot

We are publishing an article by Alexander Verkhovsky for the "Ezhednevny Zhurnal", dedicated to the analysis of the verdict on the members of the punk band Pussy Riot, the text of which was published online on August 22, 2012.

Published today finally, the text of the Pussy Riot verdict, which makes it possible read it carefully and speak again. However, the first impression that a gross judicial error was made - the reading of the verdict did not correct. Not carping about technical details, it is necessary to make some remarks on the merits of the case.

essence the charge is that the defendants violated public order, thereby expressing disrespect for society, moreover, on the basis of religious enmity (see composition of Art. 213 UK ). And this accusation has not been proven.

Violation public order is not a thing so clearly defined as to be to state something categorically. But the logic of proving the very fact of violation public order in the verdict is not too convincing.

Undoubtedly that Pussy Riot violated the norms of behavior in the church. There was some order violated (hence the originally discussed idea of ​​bringing them to administrative responsibility). It is only debatable that it was expressed “clear disrespect for society”, as required by the composition of the article of the Criminal Code.

IN the sentence states that in order to assess a breach of public order, one should take into account the rules specific to the place in which the action. And, of course, it is so. This court, by the way, explains the references to "church norms" in the text of the verdict.

But it is also true that for the corpus delicti it is important that the actions contain intent to oppose oneself to society, to demonstrate disrespect for it, and the law clearly understands society as a whole, and not just that part of it that present at this location. For example, a person who drunk started dancing on funeral, thereby expresses contempt for the customs of society as a whole, and not only specifically to friends and relatives of the deceased. Did Pussy Riot express disrespect for the customs of Russian society in general and for the Russian society, is not discussed in the verdict in any way (and I don’t know this either), but between that is what is important for the qualification of the act.

But The motive for the crime is not clearly explained in the verdict.

Explanation, as everyone noted, it starts with feminism. The court argues that feminism is not illegal, but it opposes the traditions approved by "a number of religions." And here the court is right.

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

But this judgment - ordinary, perhaps - is relevant to the social sciences, but not to the right. The court is simply making a logical error. If something "gives ground for X", that is, "can give rise to X", does not mean that it is "directed to X", but for it is the motive that is important to the crime, and it is the motive that is trying to prove judge.

By the way, if not in letter, then in meaning, the opinion of the judge contradicts the position of the Supreme Court , affirming - 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 should not, in and of itself, be seen as an action aimed at inciting hatred or enmity . "

motive religious hatred is identified on the basis of three points:

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

- actually violation of the "internal order" of the temple, which is not a motive actions, and the action itself, the motive, would have to be considered separately;

- the reaction of the defendants during the trial, but this is not mentioned in the verdict no details, so this is hardly evidence, especially since speech It's about a completely different place and time.

Otherwise speaking, the motive is not proven in any way. And without a motive of hatred (and without a weapon), it’s just there is no corpus delicti under Art. 213 of the Criminal Code.

By the way, the judge does not seem to see much difference between the motive of hatred and inciting hatred. Although the verdict justifies the existence of a motive, on page 38 it says that enough evidence was found “in the case of insulting and humiliating Christians and the Orthodox faith, about inciting religious hate." Such a case, according to Art. 282 of the Criminal Code, only still instituted, and the judge, It turns out that I have already found this accusation proven. Her decision will be very probably used in a future investigation into the case under Art. 282. In such perspective, it only remains to note that, firstly, nothing really case has not been proven, and secondly, an insult and humiliation of faith, in contrast to insulting and humiliating believers is not at all a crime in our Criminal Code (although it may be considered morally reprehensible).

Last thing consideration is not obvious to many and should be discussed separately. I suspect with this Judge Syrova would not agree either, because her argument betrays purely ecclesiastical in spirit indistinguishability between the body of believers and the Church. Russian the Orthodox Church is already at the very beginning of the verdict mentioned as an object insults. This suggests some anthropomorphization of the Church, which is quite appropriate in a religious, philosophical or poetic text (e.g. "soul Churches”, “church consciousness”), but does not make sense in a legal text.

At all the question of from what positions the verdict was written is not so simple, and I am not ready to give answer to it. It is clear that, at least in part and to a large extent, from legal. But after all, all the same - and not from orthodox Christian ones. For example, Pussy Riot's clothing is described as obscene from the "church point of view" canons for this place, ”namely, salts and pulpit. It is completely incomprehensible that for the canons are meant here, if we understand the canons as canon law Churches. Apparently, the judge uses this word in the meaning of "customs" - and what happens a strange mixture of different languages ​​in the description of what was happening.

TO at the end of the verdict, the court copies from the documents of the prosecutor's office a fragment of a completely legal and at the same time non-Orthodox (see p. 36, 2nd paragraph). 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 history has to dogmatics and in what form is the expression of respect for dogmas expected from non-church citizens), “exposed themselves in a light that belittles internal citizens' beliefs" (sometimes I think it would be nice to have forensic computers disable the ability to copy text), and even somehow encroached on originality of Christianity.

This the verdict is not on behalf of a secular, albeit authoritarian, state, and not on behalf of The Russian Orthodox Church is not at all in the name of law or Orthodoxy. This judgment on behalf of people who, through all the confused references to "feminism", “dogmas”, “grounds for mutual enmity”, they are trying, in the old way, “to stop mess", too annoying to force myself in the process of curbing comply with certain standards.

Sources

• Alexander Verkhovsky. Following up on Pussy Riot's verdict // Daily Journal. 2012. August 23.