Offended bridge

Peter Pavlensky turned the absurd trial in which he passes the accused into an artistic action of silence

In St. Petersburg, in the 199s of the world site, the court began on the artist-activist Peter Pavlensky. He is accused of vandalism , who was committed during the Freedom campaign in support of the Ukrainian Maidan.

The consideration of the case on Wednesday in the afternoon began with a detailed description of the crime, which, according to the investigation, committed Pavlensky in the early morning of February 23, 2014. The representative of the prosecution, holding a multi-page text in his hands, with numerous details and repetitions described how Pavlensky found a car and a driver on the eve of the action to bring car tires, iron sheets, anarchist black and Ukrainian yellow-blue flags, as well as combustible mixtures to ignore the barricade "using" " unidentified remedy ". The prosecutor repeated several times that Peter Pavlensky and the participants in the action had intent had intent to insult generally accepted concepts of morality and cause harm to the bridge - a cultural monument, which was defiled as a result. The amount of damage was also indicated - 27 thousand rubles, which had to be spent on cleaning of burned tires and on laundering from soot paving stones of the bridge.

However, when the reading was completed, the judge was not able to get the answer from the Pavlensky answer, whether he was clear to him, whether he agreed with the accusation - because before that the judge refused the defense to the petition to participate in the process of another lawyer, Pavel Yasman. The prosecutor said a protest, because by law a person cannot be a defender in the case in which he was previously an investigator, and the judge agreed with this argument. The participation of this particular lawyer was important for Pavlensky: according to him, Yasman, being on the side of the prosecution, saw the innocence of the artist and switched to the side of defense, which in itself says a lot.

Hearing about the refusal of the petition, Pavlensky expressed indignation for the fact that the most important participant in the process was suspended by formal signs: “This is a direct proof that we are all now made by participants in a cheap farce. But I do not want to help this farce, which rejects the human act by bureaucratic methods, so I declare the regulation of silence in my disagreement. I will be present, but not to act, but not to act. I don’t intend to answer questions, ”said the artist.

The "regulations of silence" Peter Pavlensky withstood perfectly - he did not say a single word anymore. The lawyer Svetlana Ratnikova said for him - in particular, she had to assure the judge who frankly did not know how to do in such a situation that Pavlensky hears everything, understands everything and does not need a ghost, but that he does not agree with the accusation, because he does not consider the action of “freedom” by a crime. The judge, who still could not come to terms with the “Rules of Silence,” suggested that Pavlensky was silent, deciding to take advantage of the 51st article of the Constitution and not testify against himself, and the lawyer, and could not explain the essence of the “regulations of silence”, did not object.

Your browser does not support HTML5

Peter Pavlensky - about talking paper and judges

Then the interrogation of witnesses began. The employee of the company "Center", who acted as a victim, told how much money had to be spent on unscheduled cleaning - this cleaning, along with water and detergents, flew to the company in the same 27 thousand rubles, which amount to the amount of damage caused by the artist. When asked whether the damage was caused by the bridge itself, the victim answered the question, to the question, whether he believes that the action “Freedom” insulted generally accepted concepts of morality, replied that he could not speak for everyone, but his feelings were not offended.

My action "Freedom" is evidence that there is no enmity between the Ukrainian and Russian peoples that official propaganda insists all the time

Other witnesses were not so indifferent to issues of public morality. The photographer "Kommersant", who read about the upcoming action on social networks and who came to shoot it, suggested that the action still had the goal of shaking the foundations. Another employee of the Street cleaning company generally spread a lot about the fact that the action insulted him personally, however, at the end of his speech, it turned out that when he goes to work, he was offended each time the appearance of the garbage lying on the streets.

The employee of the municipal department of culture was most disturbed not by the harm inflicted by the low-adultery bridge, but by the danger that the open flame was representing. He even remembered the famous story of how Nick burned out from the fireworks at the arch of the General Staff, emphasizing that the firefighters could not get closer to her from behind the crowd in Palace Square. True, he did not correlate his story with the fact that the action of Pavlensky took place at 7 in the morning in the complete absence of passers -by.

An employee of the Committee on State Use and Protection of Monuments stated that, in her opinion, the actions of Pavlensky are vandalism and insult the bridge. When the lawyer tried to find out what an insult to the bridge was, the official said that the locks that lovers hang on the bridge, she also considers an insult and vandalism. And in general, the bridge - an object of cultural heritage - is like a living creature for it. However, agreeing that the concept of "vandalism" implies damage, she could not say what damage Pavlensky inflicted to a little-and-adolescent bridge. By the way, none of the witnesses could answer this question.

Commenting on the court hearing, Peter Pavlensky suggested that the court may “try to somehow stop it, because his action“ Freedom ”is evidence that there is no enmity between the Ukrainian and Russian peoples about which official propaganda is all the time.”

The next court session is scheduled for September 16.