The following is our review of the primary and most representative events in the misuse of Russia’s anti-extremist legislation in February 2015.
Lawmaking
In early February 2015, it was reported that the Ministry of Communications had prepared a draft bill to introduce a number of amendments to the media law relating to work of foreign media in Russia. The proposal introduces the grounds for refusal to grant foreign print media outlets a Roskomnadzor permit to work in Russia or for revocation of their authorization. According to the unknown authors of the bill, the grounds for refusal or withdrawal of permission should include publishing unreliable information or materials not in compliance with requirements of the Law on Combating Extremism. We would like to point out that all periodicals working in Russia, including the foreign ones, are already subject to the Russian legislation on combating extremism, but shutting down foreign media outlets is not possible, and the bill partially fills this “gap”. The new “publishing unreliable information” formula is also worth noting.
In late February, the State Duma approved in the first reading the bill, which proposes to add the fifth part to Administrative Code Article 13.15 (abusing the freedom of mass information), which introduces fines for a legal entity guilty of “production or publication of the media containing public incitement to terrorist activities and (or) materials publicly justifying terrorism, and (or) other materials calling for extremist activities, or justifying or excusing such activities.” The bill provides for fines ranging from 100 thousand to 1 million rubles with confiscation of the offending item. Exceptions are provided for the offenses covered by the by the Administrative Code Articles 20.3 and 20.29, which already stipulate the corresponding penalties. In fact, the bill seeks to create an administrative alternative to a series of “propaganda-related” articles of the Criminal Code – potentially, a positive step. However, it is much easier to achieve an administrative conviction than a criminal one – a situation rife with possibilities for abuse.
Criminal Prosecution
In late January 2015, we were informed about the criminal case under Part 1 of the Criminal Code Article 280 (public incitement to extremist activities) against Chuvash RPR-PARNAS activist Dmitry Semyonov, now under a written pledge not to leave town. According to investigators, Semenov shared a caricature of Dmitry Medvedev wearing a Cossack hat, accompanied by the words “Death to the Russian viper” on his VKontakte page. Semyonov himself claims that he posted the offending de-motivator accidentally - he was only interested in a quote from Matvey Ganapolsky, which accompanied the image in question. The de-motivator that constituted the ground for the charges against Semyonov has been widely available on the Internet. Its meaning is unclear - one possible interpretation is that the prime minister’s policy is anti-Russian. However, even in this case, this image cannot be interpreted as a call to action.
It was reported in late February that the Domodedovsky District Court of Moscow dismissed the case under Part 1 of the Criminal Code Article 282 (incitement of hatred or enmity) against IT-specialist Roman Matveyev due to the statute of limitations. Matveyev was charged for publishing seven religion-themed de-motivators in the threads “Orthodoxy”, “ROC (cartoons)” and “Atheism” of the Domodedovo online forum in 2012. We believe that the prosecuting Matveyev was inappropriate since the images he published were satirical in nature and contained no inflammatory appeals.
In the last days of the month, the Leninsky District Court of Ulyanovsk found three local residents guilty of creating a cell of a banned Nurcular organization and participating in its activities. Bagir Kazikhanov was sentenced under Part 1 of the Criminal Code Article 282.2 (organizing the activities of an extremist organization) to 3 years and 6 months' imprisonment in a penal colony; Alexander Melentiev was sentenced under Part 2, of the Criminal Code Article 282.2 (participation in an extremist organization) to a prison term of 1 year and 8 months; Stepan Kudryashov received a suspended 2 year sentence. According to the prosecutors, the three offenders “formed groups with a positive attitude toward death combined with willingness to sacrifice themselves for the sake of the teaching and violation of the territorial integrity of the state.” We would like to remind that we do not consider it appropriate to prosecute Muslims for studying the works by Turkish religious scholar Said Nursi, which contain no incitement to hatred and present no danger. No united organization of Nursi’s followers has ever existed in Russia – the ban on Nurcular was a ban on a phantom organization. Previously, believers who studied the works of Nursi almost never faced real prison terms, but now the situation has changed due to the increasing severity of anti-extremist legislation.
It was reported in early February that FSB officers had detained more than 20 Muslims suspected of belonging to Hizb ut-Tahrir in Ufa and a number of municipalities in Ufimsky and Chishminsky districts of Bashkortostan in connection with a criminal case under Parts 1 and 2 of the Criminal Code Article 205.5 (organizing the activities of a terrorist organization and participating in it). According to law enforcement agencies, unspecified extremist literature, leaflets and electronic media were seized in during the searches. The group of detainees included Rustem Latypov, the head of the Center for Research of Muslim Issues, a non-governmental organization, and Lenar Vakhitov, the leader of the For the Rights of the Muslims movement. As previously mentioned, we believe that charges of promoting terrorism against Hizb ut-Tahrir followers, based merely on the fact of their participation in party activities (conducting meetings, reading the literature, etc.), are inappropriate.
Administrative Prosecution
In February 2015, 12 people faced administrative prosecution that we consider inappropriate.
Four people were charged under the Administrative Code Article 20.29 for mass dissemination of extremist materials or possession with intent to distribute. Proceedings were initiated against a penal colony inmate in Adygea, who introduced his companions to a book from the “Orenburg List” (see below). Another book from this list was found in the mosque of a penal colony in the Sverdlovsk Region; the case against the employee of the colony was opened in January, and he was fined 2,000 rubles in February. The Imam of the Aikhal village in Yakutia was fined 3,000 rubles because two inappropriately banned books by Osman Nuri Topbash from The History of the Prophets series were found in his mosque. An anti-fascist and Left Front activist from the town of Shchekino in the Tula Region posted the audio of the banned song No Chances for Marxists by neo-Nazi band Kolovrat on his VKontakte page and was fined 2,000 rubles, despite the fact that he clearly did not approve of the song.
Notably, the defense in the case of four Tatarstan residents, who were fined under the Administrative Code Article 20.29 in 2014 for sharing Let’s Remind Crooks and Thieves about Their 2002 Manifesto video (clearly inappropriately recognized as extremist), filed a complaint with the ECHR. The claimants believe that Article 6 (right to a fair trial), Article 10 (freedom of expression) and Article 13 (right to an effective remedy) of the European Convention on Human Rights have been violated.
In February, law enforcement officials have repeatedly engaged in inappropriate prosecution of citizens under the Administrative Code Article 20.3 for the promotion and display of Nazi symbols or symbols of extremist organizations. Four people - a resident of Ulan-Ude, an antifascist from Saratov, the above-mentioned Left Front activist from Shchekino, a blogger and an activist of the Tatar national movement from Tatarstan (the latter was sentenced to ten days of administrative arrest) - were prosecuted for demonstrating a swastika in the absence of any propaganda intent.
The owner of a computer club in Volgograd was fined 5,000 rubles under Part 2 of the Administrative Code Article 6.17 (violation of the legislation on protecting children from information harmful to their health and/or development); since the club was open to all age groups and its computers had no content filters installed, minors were in danger of coming across forbidden information including extremist materials. The violations of the law have since been addressed upon request by the prosecutors. As we mentioned previously, we believe that content filters in computer clubs and Internet cafes unduly restrict the rights of adult users.
Late in the month, it was reported that the Novosibirsk Prosecutor's Office opened a case under part 2 of the Administrative Code Article 5.26 (deliberate public desecration of religious or theological literature, objects of religious veneration, signs or emblems ideological symbols and paraphernalia or inflicting any damage or destruction) against Timofey Kulyabin, the production director of the Novosibirsk Opera and Ballet Theater, and Boris Mezdrich, the theater’s director. The case was opened after Tikhon, the Metropolitan of Novosibirsk and Berdsk, complained about violating the rights of believers and “misusing” sacred objects and symbols in the opera production of Richard Wagner’s Tannhäuser. The production uses a modern-day setting, in which knight Tannhäuser is a filmmaker, whose film, The Grotto of Venus, features Jesus as one of its characters. In our opinion, the case was opened inappropriately. Using religious symbols in the context of a theatrical performance can not be considered desecration.
Banning or Blocking of Materials and Other Administrative Actions
On February 27, 2015, the Orenburg Regional Court granted the appeal against the decision of 21 March 2013, made by the Leninsky District Court of Orenburg, and lifted the ban on 50 out of 68 Muslim materials. The Regional Court upheld the complaint against the ban on 50 books, previously recognized as extremist (their status was disputed by representatives of publishers New Light and Dilia) and on two authors, Fethullah Gülen and Shamil Alyautdinov. We would like to remind that the Leninsky District Court had made a notorious decision to ban 68 materials in fifteen minutes in absence of representatives from interested persons and organizations, so that the court decision didn’t even become known for a few months. The prohibited materials included very influential religious works, and the court's decision provoked strong protests in the Muslim community. As a result, it was possible to challenge the decision, but it took two years for the Regional Court to proceed with the case; meanwhile prosecution against believers and communities for distributing the banned literature continued. In our opinion, the victims of this prosecution now have a right to compensation of damages resulting from the implementation of this unjust decision.
In the meantime, bans on religious literature continue to proliferate. Earlier this month, the Supreme Court of the Republic of Tatarstan refused to consider the complaint of seven Russian citizens against the decision of the Apastovsky District Court to ban the excerpts from the Hadith of Imam al-Bukhari, published online. During the trial it became apparent the ban pertained not to the entire 52nd book of Hadith, as indignant believers had thought, but rather to the selection of quotes about jihad from the Hadith (in English translation). However, the same website featured selections of quotes on other topics, so we still view the prohibition of excerpts from the Hadith as inappropriate. The theme of militant jihad can be unpleasant to the authorities and raise concerns in society, but it is directly related to the history of Islam and, of course, appears in a variety of sources, including medieval religious literature. Banning all texts that mention jihad would be an unnecessary and unproductive endeavor. It is modern dangerous provocative statements that can be meaningfully characterized as extremist.
In mid-February, the Vladimir Regional Court dismissed the appeal against the decision of the Oktyabrsky District Court of Vladimir, which recognized the film Pristavnoe Blagochestie [a pun that can be loosely translated as “Piety with Ushers”] as extremist. The decision has entered into force. As we mentioned in our previous report, the film tells the story of the confiscation of the relics of St. Euphemia and St. Euphrosyne of Suzdal from the Russian Orthodox Autonomous Church (ROAC) in 2012. We found no extremist statements in this half-hour piece.
The Tagansky District Court of Moscow recognized as legitimate the blocking of Alexey Navalny’s website navalny.com. Navalny’s complaint was dismissed. It turned out in court that the site had been blocked due to a post by Navalny, where he urged his supporters not to attend an unsanctioned rally on January 15, 2015 and reported about future actions, planned for the spring. Roskomnadzor, guided by the definition of the Prosecutor General’s Office, which, in December 2014, recommended the agency to block websites that call for participation in the January events in accordance with the provision of the Lugovoy’s law. Roskomnadzor insisted in court that it acted within the law – while Navalny didn’t encourage people to attend the event on January 15, his website also contained information about other events. Meanwhile, even this law does not prohibit sharing information about past actions, and the spring rally eventually received a permit.
According to our monitoring, three news outlets received inappropriate warnings on impermissibility of using mass media for extremist activities in February.
Prosecutors in Krasnoyarsk issued warnings to two media editorial boards: Gorodskie Novosti RF (City News RF) periodical and the online resource Newslab Internet Newspaper. Both media outlets published photos of the two monuments to the Great Patriotic War Soldiers in Gvardeysky Park, vandalized with swastika graffiti, among their January 21 materials. The intent of these publications was not to spread Nazi propaganda but to inform citizens about the offense committed in the city.
Portal Infox.ru received a Roskomnadzor warning for an illustration to a two-year-old post about a Charlie Hebdo article. Roskomnadzor ordered the material removed or edited within ten days. Editors complied with the agency’s request, and currently the item is only available in the caches of search engines.
