Judgment Watch: Pussy Riot and Russian Secularism

CLAIRE MARSHALL
Volume 2, Issue 6 (Originally Published 27 August 2012)
 
Pussy Riot and Russian Secularism
Three members of Pussy Riot, a Russian political punk band made up of women disguised by balaclavas and pseudonyms, were charged and convicted under article 213.2 the Russian Criminal Code. Article 213 makes hooliganism unlawful, which is, per the Code, a 'gross violation of the public order which expresses patent contempt for society'. The Code requires the mens rea of contempt to be accompanied by 'violence against private persons or the threat of its use' or destruction of public property, and carries a selection of compulsory terms including corrective labour and up to two years imprisonment.

Pussy Riot's offence was performing a protest song against Russian President Vladimir Putin inside of the Christ the Saviour Cathedral in Moscow, film of which was used in a film clip for the track. They were in the building for only minutes before being escorted out by security guards.
The trial was a shamble of 'witness' statements from groups including a testimony by psychiatrist who labelled one of the women's interest in political issues as an 'anomaly' and representatives from the Church itself who stated they were offended and shocked by Pussy Riot's demonstration. The women all argued that they were protesting against the Church's support for Putin, rather than the religion itself. Judge Marina Syrova cited heavily from the church's testimonies, ruling that 'the actions of the defendants reflected their hatred of religion' and found that they had 'committed hooliganism driven by religious hatred', sentencing them to the maximum penalty offered under Article 213.4; two years imprisonment in a penal colony.

It is difficult, even with a broad reading of Article 213, to find that the women committed the necessary act to constitute the crime. The act requires that either violence is used against private persons or that property be damaged or threatened; and neither requirement was met by the women's performance. This casts enormous doubt on the integrity and independence of the residing judge. The global reaction has been one of outrage, state representatives and international bodies condemning the excessiveness of the penalty.
 
Vale: Tony Nicklinson
Tony Nicklinson, one of two men with locked-in syndrome who challenged the British High Court to change the legal ban on voluntary euthanasia died after refusing food and contracting pneumonia for the week since the Court rejected his claim. Nicklinson could not attempt suicide himself because of his condition and needed assistance. His lawyers attempted to argue that the doctrine of necessity should be allowed as a defence in assisted suicide cases. The Court rightly found that the decision to alter the existing law was one for Parliament, despite their recognition of what was a 'deeply moving' situation. Nicklinson's fight for autonomy in death drew vital attention to the need for a more progressive, humane approach to the end of life. He is survived by his wife and two daughters.
 
Claire Marshall