Misuse of anti-extremism in August 2013

The following is our review of the primary and most representative events in the misuse of Russia’s anti-extremist legislation in August 2013.

Criminal prosecution

In August we recorded reports of active persecution of Muslims who study the works of Turkish theologian Said Nursi. We remind readers that we consider the ban on Nursi’s works – and on the literally non-existent organization Nurcular, which Russian law enforcement allege is made up of Nursi’s followers – to be illegal. The ban on this phantom organization serves as a pretext for the initiation of criminal charges under Article 282.2 of the Criminal Code (the organization of and participation in the activities of an extremist organization) on people against whom there is no evidence of participation in socially dangerous activities.

In mid-August, the Oktyabrsky District Court of Novosibirsk denied local imams Ilkhom Merazhov and Kamil Odilov the right to appeal a May 2013 magistrate court’s sentence against them under Part 1 of Article 282.2. They are alleged to have organized activities in association with Nurcular.

In late August a St. Petersburg magistrate’s court sentenced Shirazi Bekirov under the same article to six months in a penal colony on charges that he organized religious meetings in order to study Nursi’s works.

In early August we became aware of raids on the residences of eight Krasnoyarsk Muslim women, in the course of which banned books by Nursi were seized. One of the women was criminally prosecuted later in the month on charges stemming from the raids on allegations that she was organizing a Nurcular “women’s cell” studying texts by Nursi and bringing women to a Tatarstan madrassa.

Criminal charges under the same article were also levied against a resident of the Rostov region named Ismailov after it was alleged that he was organizing a group for Azerbaijanis to study banned texts by Nursi.

Other Muslims face persecution under Part 1 of Article 282.2 in relation to the activities of the banned religious group Tablighi Jamaat, which is known to be non-violent. As such, in early August, a Kansk magistrate’s court sentenced one Kabylbek Alyev to a fine of 100,000 rubles (about $3). Alyev was accused of organizing a local Tablighi Jamaat chapter and holding meetings with the purpose of studying religious literature including texts banned as extremist.

As for the unregistered Islamist political party Hizb ut-Tahrir, some of its Russian propaganda does contain signs of extremism, giving prosecutors basis to charge its supporters under Article 282.2. However, we believe attempts to formally accuse Hizb ut-Tahrir’s members of plans to overthrow the sitting Russian government simply on the grounds that they generally support the establishment of a global caliphate are unlawful. In late August, Bashkortostan FSB agents raided the homes of several Ufa residents in connection with a criminal case filed under Article 282.2 of the Criminal Code. Nine individuals faced the confiscation of computers and religious literature in the raids, and later, four who had previously been suspected of involvement in Hizb ut-Tahrir were charged under Article 278 of the Criminal Code: the violent seizure of power. We remind readers that a trial on analogous charges is already underway in Chelyabinsk against Hizb ut-Tahrir members.

Jehovah’s Witnesses have so far managed to avoid criminal prosecution on extremism charges. In the beginning of August, the Akhtubinsky city prosecutor’s office notified one Elena Grigorieva that criminal charges against her under Part 1 of Article 282 of the Criminal Code (incitement to religious hatred) had been closed, and that she had the right to “rehabilitation.” Grigorieva was accused of “publicly distributing among the residents of the Akhtubinsky area views and beliefs aimed at the humiliation of a group of persons on religious grounds, promoting the uniqueness and superiority of the religion promulgated by the Jehovah’s Witnesses over other religions.” Her house had been searched, after which she was forced to resign from her job. The case was returned to the prosecutor after the court pointed out serious irregularities in the investigation.

We learned in early August that the Investigative Committee of Sverdlovsk opened a criminal investigation on the same charges – Part 1 of Article 282, the incitement to hatred or hostility, and the humiliation of human dignity – into blog posts by Asbest Pentecostal Petr Tkalich. Two 2006 texts in particular seem to be the source of the charges: both contain criticism of the Russian Orthodox Patriarchate and generally the attitudes of modern Orthodox believers, though they do not call for any actions that could be considered illegal. We remind readers that, according to the Resolution of the Plenum of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation No. 11, On Judicial Practice in Criminal Cases Involving Crimes of an Extremist Nature (2011), “the criticism of political organization, ideological and religious associations; political, ideological or religious beliefs; or national or religious practices in and of itself should not be regarded as an act aimed at inciting hatred or enmity.” Tkalich’s residence was raided and some of his property was sent for examination.

Charges under Part 1 of Article 282 were brought in another case, in mid-August, against Aleksandr Serebryannikov, the owner of the Bloger51, a public website devoted to problems in the Murmansk region (to which Serebryannikov also contributes). By virtue of its very purpose, Bloger51 is critical of the regional and municipal authorities. According to the Investigative Committee of Russia, the case against Serebryannikov was opened in connection with “statements inciting hostility against a group of people united on the basis of religion.” The indictment refers to nationalist content in a paragraph about the murder in Moscow of Adil Nazim-Ogly Makhmudov, the former head of the Murmansk region’s representative office in the capital. Serebryannikov claims that the text was placed during a hack of the website and was removed by an editor immediately after it was noticed. It is Sova’s position that a criminal investigation is unnecessary in cases of the surgical removal of illegal information from a website.

Around the same time, we became aware of a criminal case under the same article against Vasili Purdenko, the editor of the blog Free Speech Adygea. Purdenko’s residence was searched, leading to the seizure of documents, electronic media and a computer. Criminal charges where initiated over the September 2012 publication of an article entitled Being a Russian in Adygea is Possible, but Hopeless. Purdenko asserts that the text was written by one A. Ivanov, but the investigation adheres to the idea that it was written by Purdenko. Regardless of author, it is Sova’s position that the case was opened improperly. The article was written from a nationalist position and contained criticism of the local government, charging it with cronyism, violations of national parity and generally misguided personnel policies. However, the material did not incite violence and did not contain other signs of hatred or enmity towards Adyghs.

In mid-August the Zamoskvoretsky District Court of Moscow convicted local antifascist Igor Kharchenko under Part 2 of Article 213 of the Criminal Code (hooliganism committed with the use of objects used as weapons by an organized group motivated by social hatred) and Article 111 of the Criminal Code (intentional infliction of grievous bodily harm), sentencing him to three and a half years in a penal colony. The punishment was set considering time already served. Additionally, Kahrchenko was ordered in a separate civil lawsuit to pay some 300,000 rubles (about $9,000) in compensation to the injured party. We remind readers that Kharchenko was convicted for the July 2010 attack of ultraright activists Vladlen Sumin and Vladimir Zhidousov (also the source of the criminal charges). We found arguments by Kharchenko’s defense regarding his alibi – which the court did not consider – to be convincing. Moreover, we stand opposed to the inclusion of neo-Nazis in the ranks of vulnerable groups granted special protection under Russia’s anti-extremist legislation. We also recommend the general removal of the obviously vague ‘social group’ concept from the anti-extremist articles.

Administrative prosecution

Early in the month, the Oktyabrsky District Court of Belgorod fined a local resident 1,000 rubles under Article 20.29 of the Administrative Code (the dissemination of extremist materials) after he posted the book On the Way to the Koran on social network VKontakte. The book was banned in 2012 by two separate Russian courts – the Kuibyshev Court of Omsk and the Leninsky Court of Orenburg (which included it in a larger ban of 68 materials). We see the ban as unreasonable. The book contains no calls to violence, and anyway, the prohibition of religious texts on the grounds that the authors promote the uniqueness or superiority of their religion over others is illegal and pointless. As such it is our position that the Belgorod resident was fined unlawfully.

In the second half of the month we became aware that the Kuibyshev District Court of Omsk fined a local resident 1,500 rubles under the same article after he posted a lecture by British Salafist Khalid Yasin entitled Aliens to VKontakte. The lecture is included in the Federal List of Extremist Materials, and contrasts Islamic teachings with the temptations of the modern world, specifically those of Western civilization – but does not advocate violence in its proposal for a resolution. Therefore, the ban on the lecture and the prosecution of those who distribute it are illegal.

Bans on extremist grounds and other government actions

Later in the month it was reported that at the request of a prosecutor in Kazan’s Sovetsky district, a collection of manuscripts by Fayzrahman Sattarov, the leader of the banned group calling itself Fayzrahmanists, was banned on extremist grounds. The court considered testimony from linguistic, psychological and theological experts, concluding that the texts in question were aimed at “creating a negative perception of other religious groups and an aggressive model of behavior towards them.” Experts testified that “a number of the interpretations of religious norms as well as the form of creation and functionality of the religious group imposed by the texts do not correspond to classical notions of Islam, and are specific” to the Fayzrahmanists. They also stated that the group’s materials “contain statements intended to incite hatred between people on the basis of their attitude to religion.” We note that the “formation of a negative perception” of another’s religion and non-conformity to “classical notions of Islam” are not included in the definitions of extremist activity given in Russian statutes. On the question of whether the materials contained statements aimed at inciting hatred, we can only respond that in terms of “aggressive behavior,” the community has not been known to exhibit any.

The St. Petersburg prosecutor’s office sent warnings this month to the corporate leadership of massive chain bookstores Dom Knigi and Bukvoed over their sale of a novel authored by Joseph Goebbels. It is possible that the shops were issued the warnings to let them know preventatively that they were breaking the law. However, the prosecutor’s office also sent to the General Directorate of Russia’s Interior Ministry in St. Petersburg and the Leningrad Region an order to conduct an examination for violations of the law On Countering Extremist Activity in connection with the Goebbels books. We remind readers that the law On Countering Extremist Activity includes works “by the leaders of the National Socialist Workers’ Party and the Fascist Party of Italy, publications justifying or excusing national and/or racial superiority or justifying the practice of committing war crimes or other crimes towards the total or partial destruction of an ethnic, social, racial, national or religious group.” Goebbels’ novel, in our view, is covered by the clause. However, it should be established as such by a court, and until then the imposition of warnings for its sale is illegal. Incidentally, the Moscow prosecutor’s office appealed to a district court in late August with a lawsuit to deem the novel extremist.

In late August we became aware that Roskomnadzor, the media oversight agency, issued a warning to the founder of Chelyabinsk TV channel Kanal TV on allegations that he had used the media to carry out extremist activities, specifically for a segment in a July 31, 2013 episode of the news show Telefakt. We remind readers that on this day Kanal TV’s newscast was interrupted for a few minutes, during which a cut from the 2010 documentary Russia: The Putin Era and a story on Putin’s return to the presidency in 2012 by a Georgian Russian-language channel PIK was shown. From our point of view, the warning was issued illegally. The video simply listed events and developments in Russia under the Putin era that generally serve as the basis for criticism in opposition circles. The list contained nothing extremist.

Towards the end of August the St. Petersburg Museum of Power on Nevsky Prospekt, the city’s main thoroughfare, was sealed off by police pending an investigation on suspicions of extremism. Paintings by Konstantin Altunin included in an exhibition entitled The Rulers were named in the investigation, with four of them removed from the museum and sent off for examination. According to the museum’s administrators, the police never filled out the necessary documents for such conduct. Police found it necessary to inspect the painting Rainbow Milonov, which features the MP against the LGBT flag; Escort, which features Putin with Prime Minister Dmitri Medvedev in lingerie; From the Confession, which features Patriarch Kirill tattooed; and Erotic Dreams of Deputy Mizulina. Law enforcement claim the paintings contain “offensive images of politicians, frankly pornographic images, images inciting religious hatred and insulting the feelings of believers.” We have seen the paintings in question and see no evidence of extremism in them, though, like many works of contemporary art, they may offend a given person’s feelings. We also note that for a study of extremism, seizure of the paintings is unnecessary – photographs of them will suffice.