Lawmaking
On February 22, the State Duma adopted an anti-extremist bill containing amendments to the Federal Law “On Freedom of Conscience and Religious Associations” and the Labor Code on the first reading. The bill proposes a ban on participation in religious associations for people against whom there is evidence of involvement in extremist activity or terrorism, as well as for foreign citizens and stateless persons. For the latter part, the rationale was described as the undesirability of their residence or stay in Russia. The demand duplicates existing rules regarding NGOs, but puts it in the context of religious organizations in an extremely vague manner that invites legislative abuse.
The bill also gives regions of the Russian Federation the right to establish guidelines on the religious education of religious organizations’ staff, including clergy (in Tatarstan, such a law has already been adopted). Such regional laws create gross state interference in religious organizations’ internal affairs. The purpose of such legislation is clear: to prohibit imams trained in Arab countries from Russia’s mosques. At the same time, it is clear enough that such a ban on foreign-educated ministers would also affect Russia’s Catholics, Jews and many others.
Civil trials
In late February, the Novosibirsk regional court deemed the religious group Elle Ayat extremist, banning its activities. Elle Ayat’s followers adhere to a life without medicine, instead applying (literally) texts from the journal Star of Selennaya to affected areas as a remedy to any and all diseases. The group’s leader has previously been criminally investigated under Article 159, fraud. Prosecutorial examinations carried out by the staff of Novosibirsk’s psychiatric hospital No. 3 determined that the “adherents of the religious group apply to citizens methods of psychological influence harmful to physical and mental health.” True as this may be, such activities are not subject to Russia’s laws on extremism. According to experts, Elle Ayat’s videos and printed materials promote the superiority of the group’s followers over those of other religions, in addition to negative treatment of world religions. However, it is Sova’s position that none of this qualifies the group for a ban on extremist grounds. We note a 2011 Supreme Court statement that "the criticism of political organizations, ideological and religious groups, political, ideological or religious beliefs, and national or religious practices should not in itself be regarded as an act aimed at inciting hatred or enmity."
Criminal prosecution
In early February we became aware of a criminal case under Part 1 of Article 282 (incitement to hatred or hostility, and the humiliation of human dignity) against Ufa history and social studies teacher Guzalia Galimova. Galimova was accused of harsh statements regarding the behavior of Russian women at Turkish tourist resorts. From Sova’s viewpoint, this was not an instance of incitement to hatred. As for humiliation, it is Sova’s position that this section of the article should be removed entirely from the Criminal Code.
At the end of February, the Investigative Committee of Tatarstan reported a criminal case under Part 1 of Article 282 against Almetyevsk resident Vladislav Zakirov. He is charged with distributing videos containing negative assessments of “a specific national religious group” over a social network. Sova has not had a chance to review the videos, but judging simply by the description of the crime it is a misuse of the law; Article 282 does not cover negative assessments.
Towards the middle of the month, the Soviet District Court of Kazan fined Pavel Khotulev 100,000 rubles (about $3,250) for a few anti-Tatar comments in the “Russian language in the schools of Tatarstan” group of the social network My World. According to media reports, Khotulev asserted that instruction of the Tatar language in schools should be voluntary, while Russian should be taught on the same scale as in other regions; he also criticized local authorities. We reviewed a few of the comments and did not see any hate speech. Khotulev intends to appeal the decision.
At the beginning of February a magistrate’s court in Novosibirsk’s Oktyabrsky district indicted – during the first session of the trial – imams Ilkhom Merazhov and Kamil Odilov under Part 1 of Article 282.2 (organizing activities in association with an organization banned as extremist). Merazhov and Odilov are accused of having organized a local chapter of the banned religious group Nurcular. The actions of the accused – to create home madrassas, allegedly with financing from Turkey – are said to be a bid to “change the state structure of the Russian Federation.” We remind readers that Merazhov and Odilov were targeted for prosecution only because they had read books by Turkish theologian Said Nursi with other Muslims. Sova considers both the ban on Nursi’s works and the ban on Nurcular, an alleged group of his followers – which does not exist in Russia at all – to be inappropriate. There are indeed some Muslims with an interest in Nursi’s books, and they are now the subjects of regular persecution.
In this connection, the Interior Ministry and FSB conducted 23 searches of the apartments of Naberezhnye Chelny followers of Said Nursi this month. Law enforcement agents report seizures of large amounts of literature, computers, disk drives and teaching materials. The searches are the basis of two criminal cases under Part 1 of Article 282.2 of the Criminal Code in respect to a man and woman who are alleged to have coordinated the activities of “male” and “female” “underground madrassas.” The man was reportedly arrested, with the woman placed under house arrest.
Early in February the formal complaint Nadezhda Tolokonnikova, Maria Alekhina and Ekaterina Samutsevich vs. Russia was filed at the European Court of Human Rights. Yonko Grozev and Irina Khrunova, the lawyers for the three Pussy Riot members, outline in the complaint how Russia’s case against Pussy Riot violated several articles of the European Convention on Human Rights; Tolokonnikova’s, Alekhina’s and Samutsevich’s right to free speech was violated along with their right to liberty, personal integrity and a fair trial, let alone the article of the Convention prohibiting torture.
Administrative prosecution
The owners of three shops selling Islamic literature (two in Chechnya and one in Karachay-Cherkessia) were charged under Article 20.29 of the Administrative Code, the production and distribution of extremist materials. In two of the three cases it is known that the shop owners were targeted for selling books included in a list of 68 Islamic texts banned in March 2012 by Orenburg’s Lenin Court. We note that the case that banned the books, which Sova considers to have inappropriately applied the law, is set to be overturned soon.
At the beginning of February we became aware of a ruling in the Soviet District Court of Ulan-Ude confiscating, with the intent to destroy, four Third Reich medals, namely iron crosses featuring swastikas. They had been exhibited in a local pawnshop’s window. We believe that the confiscation of the medals was done illegally: according to Article 20.3 of the Administrative Code (propaganda and public demonstration of Nazi paraphernalia or symbols), on which the case was brought against the shop’s owner, an individual who displays Nazi symbols should be fined and required to remove the medals from the window. The confiscation of the medals – which clearly held material value for the shop owner and were not an instrument of propaganda – is not justified. Further, it is impractical to destroy them given their historical value. Instead, for example, they could be donated to a museum.
Materials banned for extremism
At the beginning of the month we became aware that the Central Regional Court of Kaliningrad deemed 14 books and two brochures connected to Said Nursi as extremist. The decision is final. Literature included in the collection Risale-I Nur seized during a search of a Kaliningrad citizen being subject of an investigation under Part 1 of Article 282.2 of the Criminal Code. As is normal in recent years, the court banned all the seized literature indiscriminately and en masse. The result is that four of Nursi’s texts have now been banned twice, while another two are now the subject of three separate bans.
