Misuse of Anti-Extremism in November 2015

The following is our review of the primary and most representative eventsin themisuse of Russia’s anti-extremist legislation in November 2015.

Lawmaking

In late November, President Vladimir Putin signed into law the ban against recognizing sacred texts of the world religions as extremist. Thus, the Law on Combating Extremist Activity now includes Article 3.1 “Specifics of the application with regard to religious texts of legislation of the Russian Federation concerning combating extremist activity,” which reads as follows: The Bible, the Koran, the Tanakh, and the Kangyur, their contents, and quotations from them cannot be recognized as extremist materials.” You may recall that we believe that this law is not going to affect the practice of banning religious texts.

Members of A Just Russia party introduced two draft bills of similar content to the State Duma in November.

Early in the month, Deputy Dmitry Gudkov re-introduced to the State Duma a modified version of the draft law “On Countering Rehabilitation of the Crimes of the Stalinist Totalitarian Regime (Stalinism),” proposed by Federation Council member Konstantin Dobrynin and initially introduced to the parliament in September.

In late November, a group of parliamentarians, led by Sergey Mironov, introduced to the State Duma a bill intended to criminalize denial or approval of genocide. It proposed to punish such statements by a fine of up to 300 thousand rubles or equal to the salary for the period of up to two years, or by imprisonment for up to three years. For crimes committed with the use of mass media, the penalty could go up to 500 thousand rubles and the term of imprisonment - to up to five years. Obviously, the sudden introduction of this bill in the Duma was triggered by the incident with a Russian warplane shot down in Turkey.

Notably, the recommendation N7 of the European Commission against Racism and Intolerance (ECRI) asks for penalties to be introduced for “denial and justification” of legally recognized genocides, war crimes and crimes against humanity. In our view, administrative responsibility - in the form of fines for individuals, officials and legal entities for the justification (in the broad sense, as stated in the draft law ) crimes of Nazism and Stalinism, along with genocide and crimes against humanity, recognized by the International Criminal Court and other international tribunals – could implement these recommendations and become a workable alternative to both bills as well as to the already adopted law against “rehabilitation of Nazism.” Such sanctions would be, on the one hand, not excessively harsh, and, on the other hand, would, undoubtedly, have an effect on officials, prominent mass media outlets and publishing houses that hypothetically present the greatest danger of spreading “historical revisionism.”

Including in the text of Article 282 specific forms of statements denying crimes against humanity, which could be interpreted as incitement to hatred, is another possible course of action. Then, the fact that a revisionist saying was aimed at inciting hatred will have to be proven in court, thus removing, at least in principle, an additional threat to the freedom of historical debate.

Criminal Prosecution

In late November, the Petrozavodsk City Court delivered a verdict in the case of Vladimir Zavarkin, a deputy of the Suojärvi Urban Settlement Council, accused of public incitement to separatism. Zavarkin was sentenced to a fine of 30 thousand rubles under Article 280.1 Part 1 of the Criminal Code (public calls for action aimed at violating the territorial integrity of the Russian Federation). The criminal case was initiated after the deputy addressed the meeting for the resignation of Head of the Republic of Karelia Alexander Khudilainen in Petrozavodsk on in May 2015. In his emotional speech, Zavarkin proposed to hold a referendum on the secession of Karelia from Russia in response to the inaction of the authorities. The video of Zavarkin’s address was recognized in court as extremist in early November. In our opinion, his statements hardly qualify as separatist propaganda; moreover, we also generally believe that only calls for violent separatism merit prosecution.

In early November, it was reported that the case of separatism under Part 2 of the same Article 280.1 (public incitement to violate the territorial integrity of the Russian Federation with the use of mass media or the Internet) was filed against Lenur Islyamov, the owner of the ATR television channel and the former vice-premier of the Crimean government. Islyamov family enterprises were searched, and the Central Bank of Russia revoked the license of a bank they owned for risky credit policy. Islyamov in fact has repeatedly publicly stated that Russia should return the Crimea to Ukraine, and that the Crimean Tatars were ready to fight for the peninsula. He is also one of the organizers of the commercial blockade of Crimea from the Ukrainian territory. In our opinion, this blockade did, in fact, violate the law - the Ukrainian law, but it is not clear what articles the Russian authorities can use for prosecution in connection with the blockade. We believe that it is inappropriate to accuse people, who never recognized Crimea joining Russia, of separatism. Although the acquisition of Crimea is not problematic in accordance with Russian laws, it is a problematic issue with regard to international law, and its opponents are entitled to continuing the dispute.

In mid-November, the Supreme Court of Tatarstan dismissed the appeal by Chairman of the Tatar Public Center Rafis Kashapov against the sentence, imposed on him by the Naberezhnye Chelny City Court under Part 2 of Article 280.1 and Part 1 of Article 282. Kashapov’s punishment of three years in a penal colony was not changed. The Supreme Court of the Republic merely canceled an additional punishment imposed by the lower court - a two-year ban on using social networks. We would like to remind here that Kashapov was charged for publishing the following four publicly accessible materials on his VKontakte social network page in 2014: “Crimea and Ukraine Will Be Free of the Occupiers,” “Hitler and Danzig Yesterday, Putin and Donetsk Today!” “Defend Ukraine and the Entire Turkic World,” and “Where Russia is, there are tears and death.” We had an opportunity to read these articles and have not found any criminal content that can be qualified under Article 280.1; the author merely expresses his own opinion and relays the norms of international law. We found no signs of incitement to hatred on ethnic grounds or calls for military action. As for the criticism of the Russian authorities, according to the Supreme Court clarification regarding the practice of anti-extremist legislation, it should not be considered as incitement to hatred and prosecuted according to Article 282.

On the last day of November, the Taganrog City Court concluded the retrial of sixteen Jehovah's Witnesses and convicted all sixteen of them under Parts 1 and 2 of Article 282.2 (organizing activities of an extremist organization and participating in such activities). The prior trial ended in a guilty verdict only for seven defendants, and the rest were acquitted. At the retrial, however, four members of the banned Taganrog community were convicted for organizing continuation of its activities and involving minors in them (Article 150 Part 4 of the Criminal Code) and received suspended sentences, ranging from 5 years and 3 months to 5 years and 6 months along with a 5-year probationary period and a fine of 100 thousand rubles (they were released from paying it due to the statute of limitations). Twelve more people have been sentenced to fines, ranging from 20 is 70 thousand rubles as members of the banned community, and were also released from paying due to the statute of limitations. The charges against Jehovah’s Witnesses stated that, being “fully aware” of the ban against the Taganrog community and “motivated by extremist urges,” they resumed and continued its activities, namely conducted prayer meetings and studied religious texts. The Taganrog Community of Jehovah's Witnesses was recognized as extremist by the Rostov Regional Court in September 2009 and liquidated, in our view, inappropriately.

In November, a visiting panel of the Moscow District Military Court issued two convictions under Article 205.5 Part 2 of the Criminal Code (participation in the activities of the organization recognized as terrorist) for involvement in banned religious party Hizb ut-Tahrir: to soldier Ruslan Asylbaev in Bashkiria, and to an unnamed 22-year-old soldier of interior troops in Yekaterinburg. Both were accused of propaganda of the organization’s ideas (in particular, among their colleagues) and distribution of its materials. Both were sentenced to five years' imprisonment in a penal colony. As we mentioned on many occasions, we view charges of terrorism against Hizb ut-Tahrir followers, based exclusively on their party activities (meetings, reading the literature, and so on), as inappropriate

Two court cases that involved charges of religious extremism were closed in November.

Early in the month, we found out that the criminal proceedings under Part 1 of Article 282, initiated in 2013 against Nail Bikmaev, the imam of the Rostov Cathedral Mosque of the Central Spiritual Board of Muslims of the Rostov Region, had been terminated. The Rostov Regional Prosecutor's Office and the Voroshilov District Prosecutor's Office of Rostov issued a written apology to Bikmaev for unjustified criminal prosecution. According to the investigators, in 2011-2012, the imam made statements during his sermons, aimed at inciting racial, national, religious or social hatred, including against Jews and Christians. Inappropriately banned books Gardens of the Righteous and The Fortress of the Muslim were found and seized during the search. A new expert opinion by the FSB Institute of Criminalistics concluded that the Imam’s statements “considering their context, had no intention to cause enmity and hatred to the representatives of the confessions.”

At the same time, the criminal case under Article 282.2 part 2 against Nurlan Borbiev, Ibrohim Dzhurakhudzhaev and 14 other people was closed due to the statute of limitations in Novosibirsk. All of them had been accused of spreading the ideas of Tablighi Jamaat, recruiting supporters and participating in Tablighi Jamaat meetings. We regard the ban against Tablighi Jamaat – a religious association, which engaged in propaganda of Islam and have never been known to call for violence - as inappropriate, and we view prosecution against its supporters as unjustified.

Administrative Prosecution

In November, we learned that four people faced responsibility under Article 20.29 of the Administrative Code for illegal distribution of prohibited materials or their storage with intent to distribute. A retiree from the village of Chernigovka in the Primorsky Region was fined one thousand rubles after two copies of Zhuan Falun (the core book of the Chinese spiritual practice Falun Dafa) were found in her home, and two citizens testified that she had given them similar books as gifts. An elderly woman, the head of the Jehovah's Witnesses community in Serov of the Sverdlovsk Region was sentenced to a fine after 50 reportedly prohibited pamphlets had been confiscated from her. In Chelyabinsk, the court issued a fine of two thousand rubles to an owner of an English language school after What is Scientology? by L. Ron Hubbard was found in the school. Imam-hatip of Kobylkino village (Kamensky District of the Penza Region) was fined one thousand rubles because his mosque provided public access to banned books Tales from the Koran for children and General Overview of Islam.

In November, we learned about the three prosecutions under Article 20.3 of the Administrative Code for displaying Nazi or extremist symbols not intended as propaganda of extremism.

Social commentator Vadim Shtepa from Petrozavodsk was fined for publishing on a social network a photo of a World War II Finnish tank bearing the hakaristi sign, reminiscent of the Nazi swastika, which is still in use by the Finnish army and is depicted on the Finnish presidential banner, for posting photographs of the “Yarosh’s business card” and for an illustrated publication, in which the blogger compared the historical Karelian flag with the flag of Right Sector.

On the day of the Russian March, a court in Volgograd sentenced Anatoly Boltykhov - the coordinator of the International Human Rights Alliance and an activist of the People's Militia in the Name of Minin and Pozharsky to nine days under arrest for placing a campaign poster of the Right Sector leader Dmitry Yarosh on his VKontakte page in May 2014. We would like to remind that the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation only recognized Ukrainian Right Sector as extremist organization in November 2014. It has to be noted, however, that, since the image was not removed after the Right Sector’s ban, from that moment on, the police could have viewed its presence on the social network as a continuing offense.

A resident of Chelyabinsk was fined for publishing on VKontakte in 2012 a screenshot with Nazi symbols from the Iron Sky movie– a sci-fi comedy about the war of earthlings against the Nazis, hiding on the moon since their defeat in World War Two.

Materials Blocked and Banned as Extremist

In early November, the Sakhalin Regional Court overturned the notorious decision by the Yuzhno-Sakhalinsk Court of 12 August 2015, which recognized the book Prayer (du'aa) to God: its purpose and place in Islam as extremist. We welcome the decision of the Regional Court, because we believe that this book was deemed extremist inappropriately. In our opinion, asserting the superiority of one’s religion over the others cannot be considered a sign of extremism, since such a conclusion runs contrary to both law and common sense - any adept is convinced in the superior truth of his religion. We view attempts to consider ancient religious texts from modern legal perspective as ridiculous and extremely harmful, since such attempts are perceived by believers as an attack on their scriptures and obstruction of their right to freedom of conscience.

The Pervomaisky District Court of Izhevsk discontinued the civil case on recognizing the book Falun Dafa as extremist material in early November. The lawsuit was based on the assertion that the content of the book is similar to the banned book Zhuan Falun. The plaintiff, the Republican prosecutor, retracted his claim, since, in the course of the preliminary hearing in September 2015, it became clear that he could not provide the imprint information for the book he was seeking to recognize as extremist. As mentioned previously, we view bans against materials produced by the followers of the Falun Gong spiritual practice as unjustified and inappropriate.

It is worth noting that, in late November, Roskomnadzor issued a written warning to the editorial board of Portal-Credo.ru Internet resource for publishing the Report into Allegations of Organ Harvesting of Falun Gong Practitioners in China by Canadian human rights defenders David Matas and David Kilgour. The brochure of the same name, published in 2007, was included on the Federal List of Extremist Materials. According to the Portal-Credo.ru, the text was published back in 2006. The text that prompted the warning by Roskomnadzor was deleted from the portal in 2015. We believe that this report by the Canadian human rights defenders on the problem of the persecution of Falun Gong practitioners in China, shows no signs of extremism.

In late November, the Leninsky District Court of Grozny granted the petition of the Chechnya Republican Prosecutor's Office and banned the Twitter page titled Charlie Hebdo for distribution in Russia. According to the prosecutors, who agreed with the court, Charlie Hebdo page featured “images, intended to offend religious feelings of believers by expressing disrespect to the image of the prophet,” as well as caricatures of the crash of the Russian A321 plane in Egypt. It was indicated that distribution of these materials, “can serve as a factor for incitement of ethnic or religious hatred and enmity.” Numerous Twitter accounts use the name Charlie Hebdo and are not related to the publication; it has not been reported which of them was banned.We believe that restricting access to the Charlie Hebdo cartoons violates the right to freedom of speech. The assertion that their distribution “can serve as a factor” for something else is too broad to be used as the basis for banning materials; this formula can arbitrarily apply to almost any statement. However, from our point of view, the Charlie Hebdo caricatures contain no evidence of incitement to hatred against any religious or another community, protected by Russian legislation.

In mid-November, the Leninsky District Court in Vladivostok banned activities related to using and operating local file-sharing network SHARA and the corresponding hardware and software. The prosecutors pointed to “systematic fact of distribution via this file-sharing network of information forbidden by law, including child pornography, extremist materials, and information, which can be used for makingexplosives and explosive devices, thus representing a potential security threat and possibly leading to a harm to persons, using the services of the file-sharing network.” The administration of file-sharing networks can introduce rules for users, but is obviously unable to effectively monitor content in real time examining the contents of each file. In addition, it is odd to close a file sharing system for violations of its individual users - the same unscrupulous users will easily move to take advantage of other similar portals.

In the second half of November, at the request of the Prosecutor General, Roskomnadzor blocked work-way.com, the website of the Communist working class movement The Worker's Path. The website was blocked out of court under Lugovoy's Law for calling for participation in mass (public) actions held in violation of the established procedure. The charge was based on the fact that the site posted information about the trucker protests along with their location, schedule of the events and names of the organizers; it also posted calls for participation in the strike. We believe that Lugovoy’s Law unduly restricts the right to freedom of speech and freedom of assembly.