Rulemaking

Towards the end of the month, the State Duma adopted in the first reading a bill containing updates to Russia’s laws on espionage and treason. The Criminal Code’s current language regarding treason defines it as promoting hostile actions – on behalf of foreign states or organizations – that threaten Russia’s external security. The new version removes the word “external,” while the definition of “security” is dangerously broadened so that it can now be threatened by such vague actions as, for example, “consultations.” The new version of the law proposes the mention of international in addition to foreign organizations, despite the fact that many civil organizations registered in Russia happen to be international. The bill also leaves unclear how assisting someone in changing the constitutional order can be considered treason. Because the Russian Constitution is not unmodifiable, even the foundations of the constitutional order can be changed constitutionally. Only a violent attempt to disrupt the country's constitutional order could be considered a crime, but the bill doesn't stipulate this.

We remind readers that the government submitted a similar bill to the State Duma for review in December 2008, but the following month, then-President Dmitry Medvedev returned it for revisions that were never made.

During this same period, the Duma was presented with the bill "On Amendments to the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation and Certain Legislative Acts of the Russian Federation in order to counter the insult of religious beliefs and the feelings of citizens, the desecration of objects and subjects of religious worship (of pilgrimage), places of worship and ceremonies," which had been prepared by the State Duma Committee on Public Associations and Religious Organizations.

This bill very clearly encroaches on the explicitly secular nature of the Russian state (which happens to be a foundation of the country’s constitutional order), duplicates various already-existing legislative norms, and is discriminatory against various religions.  We have outlined our position on this bill in detail here (Russian text). It is Sova’s position that the bill is impossible to fix, and as such should simply be recalled. Addressing insults to citizens’ religious sensibilities requires a completely different approach.

Criminal Prosecution

September saw the expiration of a statute of limitations, and thus the suspension of the trials of four of 12 people accused in the so-called “Cases of the 12.” The case had been initiated under Article 282.2 parts 1 and 2 of the Criminal Code, the organization of and participation in the activities of a banned organization. The defendants are and were Saint Petersburg activists belonging to the Other Russia party. We remind readers that we consider the case to be unlawful, as Other Russia is not the subject of a ban. The case is also improper because the defendants are accused of membership in the National Bolshevik Party, which is the subject of an illegal ban.

Meanwhile, a Moscow court is continuing an investigation under Article 282.2 Part 2 against National Bolshevik activists who occupied the front office of a Foreign Ministry building in 2008. Activist Alyona Goryacheva was put under investigation in Orenburg and brought to Moscow in late September in connection with the case. We remind readers that four participants in the stunt were already convicted and fined this July.

Administrative Prosecution

In early September it was reported that the magistrate’s court in the Republic of Tatarstan city of Aznakaevo charged local storeowner Ilmir Kharisov under Article 20.29 of the Administrative Code, the mass distribution of extremist materials. Kharisov was convicted for selling the book Life of the Prophet by Safi al-Rahman al-Mubarakfuri, which was in our opinion improperly banned as extremist in Orenburg’s Lenin District Court in March of this year. Kharisov has been charged a 2,000-ruble fine, along with the confiscation of the literature. We also note that the book was being sold at a time when the ban had not yet been made public.

In mid-September, the sale of books targeted by the same ban brought a judgment from the Avtozavodskiy District Court in Togliatti resulting in a 50,000-ruble fine under Article 20.29 of the Administrative Code. The defendant is a local branch of a regional bookstore chain. A Samara branch of the same company had earlier been targeted in a similar case.

In the beginning of the month, the magistrate’s court of Tyumen’s Lenin District fined a local resident 3,000 rubles after he posted a link to the movie Miracles of the Koran, the subject of an improper ban, to a social network.

Materials Banned for Extremism

In mid-September, the Orenburg Regional Court began hearing an appeal against a decision by Orenburg’s Lenin District Court, which had recognized 68 Islamic materials as extremist. Lawyers from the Council of Muftis of Russia are currently representing the interests of the authors and publishers. We remind readers that the March 2012 Lenin District decision was made without the authors’ and publishers’ involvement in the case, and was only made public towards the end of June. That decision also banned practically an entire library, confiscating a wide variety of Islamic texts from a follower of twentieth-century Turkish theologian Said Nursi. The targeted parties were able to enter 14 complaints against the ban after the court renewed the deadline for appeal, as the initial decision had not been made public during the initial ten-day window.

At the end of the month, Our Voice editor-in-chief Vasily Bokin appealed a decision by the Ulyanovsk region’s Inzensky District Court, which in August had deemed an article entitled Stop the Genocide, which had appeared in the newspaper’s second issue (in June 2009), as extremist. The article was an open letter by Bokin to residents of the village of Oskino who do not teach their children the Erzya language (a Uralic language spoken by about 700,000 people primarily in south-central Russia, and the official language of the Republic of Mordovia), and describes possible methods of combating discrimination. It is our position that the registration of Bokin's article as extremist was improper, though the newspaper deserves a warning. While the piece does not make explicit calls for violence, and purports even to make claims against them, the author is clearly sympathetic to the prospect of the hypothetical terrorist events the article presents.

During the same period, the Soviet District Court in the city of Orel began hearing a case over the extremist status of the wesbite orlec.ru. The site, a popular local resource billing itself as a free encyclopedia, allows residents to anonymously and "ironically" comment on topics concerning daily life in the city. In spring the site published the articles "Mosque," "Aquarium" and "Economics," which according to expert opinions contained "signs of incitement to hatred between groups of people united by nationality and religion," as well as "calls for acts of violence." Though the texts were quickly removed by administrators, their inclusion on the site was the subject of proceedings begun in summer under Article 282 Part 1, incitement to hatred or hostility, and the humiliation of human dignity. Though it appeared towards the end of September that the entire site would be banned for extremism, in the beginning of October the court decided to allow it to continue its regular operations. It is our position that Orlec's administrators should simply receive a warning to continue more effective moderation of the site, so that the more aggressive posts can be promptly removed.

Blockage of Sites and Other Administrative Measures

In the second half of September, as part of the continuing fight against the spread of Innocence of Muslims, the US-made Islamophobic amateur film that caused outrage across the Muslim world, the General Prosecutor's Office requested that regional prosecutors oblige local Internet service providers to block access to the film, or to other resources hosting it, alleging that it violates extremism laws. Rozkomnadzor, the national media regulator, made similar recommendations. As a result of both, providers in a large part of Russia's regions received such orders. As such, Innocence of Muslims and sites hosting it (including YouTube) are blocked by a number of providers in the North Caucasus and the Southern Federal Districts, where many of Russia's Muslims reside. The film was also removed from the pages of Vkontakte, Russia's most popular social networking site.

We find it important to note that the prosecutors' and Rozkomnadzor's demands that providers block access to the film were illegal, as the film had not yet been banned. Moscow's Tverskoy Court found the film to be extremist in an October 1 decision, but, as the period under discussion is the previous month, it goes without saying that the decision had not yet entered into force. We also find the ban of the individual film to be an insufficient reason to fully deny access to popular resources like YouTube.

In mid-September the City Prosecutor of the Tatarstan city of Zelenodolsk issued an extremism warning to a resident of the village of Bolshie Kulbashi, who had been the subject of neighbors' complaints that he offended their religious sensibilities by condemning the general celebration of secular holidays, as well as funeral wakes on certain days. It is Sova's position that such an interpretation of intra-faith differences as extremism is unjustified, and that as such the warning was unlawful.

In the beginning of the month it was reported that the Selection Committee for the Eighth Annual Kazan International Muslim Film Festival, under pressure from the Spiritual Administration of the Muslims of the Republic of Tatarstan, eliminated from the running a film about Said Nursi. The reason was that Nursi's works and followers have been targeted by Russian authorities in connection to the persecution of the organization Nurcular, which the Russian government considers extremist. As we have noted so many times in the past, the ban of Nursi’s texts is illegal, as is the harassment of his supporters, who have never formed a unified organization (which “Nurcular” is purported to be).