The following is our review of the primary and
most representative events relating to misuse of Russia's anti-extremist
legislation in May 2014.
Lawmaking
On May 5, 2014 President Vladimir Putin signed an entire package of anti-terrorism legislation which had been proposed in January 2014 by a group of members of parliament from all four factions.
Among these measures, he signed into law “Amendments to Certain Legislative Acts of the Russian Federation (on improvements regarding counter-terrorism),’ which related not only to terrorist activity. Punishment under Criminal Code (CC) Article 212 (mass public disorders) was increased from four to 10 years to eight to 15 years of imprisonment. The wording of the criminal code article was amended; punishment now is envisaged not only for organizing, but also for preparing, mass disorders. A list of methods used in the mass disorders ("the use of firearms, explosives or explosive devices") was supplemented by "substances and objects that pose a threat to those in the vicinity." Part 4 was added to CC Article 212 to penalize “the acquisition of knowledge and practical skills during physical and psychological preparation" aimed at organizing mass riots. CC Articles 282.1 (organization of an extremist community) and 282.2 (organization of the activities of an organization banned for extremism), were extended to include potential criminal liability from one to six years of imprisonment for "the inducement, recruitment or other involvement of a person" in the activities of an extremist organization. From our point of view, the vague wording of the new amendments may lead to unjust prosecutions.
After the “Law on Bloggers” was signed, the laws on information and communication were also amended in order to increase state Internet control – also presumably to counter extremism. Service providers now must notify Roskomnadzor (Federal Service for Supervision in the Sphere of Telecom, Information Technologies and Mass Communications) at the start of activity; they must store data about all user activity within six months after user activity has ended. Service providers must supply this information to law enforcement authorities in cases stipulated by law and must fulfill the requirements of certain equipment and software/hardware that facilitates operational and investigative activities. The legal term "blogger" is defined in the law as the owner of an Internet site or page that has daily access by over 3,000 users and is not registered as mass media. The various aspects of this definition is not clear and Roskomnadzor is designated to clarify them. These "bloggers" must disclose their own actual names, have the obligations of the media but not their rights and shall be included in a special register. Experts note that such implementation represents a significant threat to freedom of speech; the law will also face many technical problems.
On the same day, President Putin also signed the law "On the Rehabilitation of Nazism", proposed by a group of members of parliament headed by Irina Yarovaya ("United Russia"), thereby adding new Article 354.1 CC. Article 354.1 sets a heavy fine or up to five years of imprisonment for “denial of facts established by the verdict of the International Military Tribunal for the trial and punishment of the major war criminals of the European Axis countries, approval of the crimes specified by judgment, as well as the dissemination of false information on the activities of the Soviet Union during World War IIccombined with accusations of crimes established by the said judgment, committed in public.” From our perspective, the law will not add anything to the struggle against neo-Nazi propaganda, since all such possibilities are already foreseen by Article 282 CC. However, due to the new law’s weak and blurry formulations it can be used to restrict freedom of expression, especially in the historical debate.
In the second half of May, the State Duma adopted in the first reading a draft law № 478164-6 on amending Article 20.3 of the Code of Administrative Offences, proposed by "United Russia" Deputy, Sergei Zheleznyak. According to this bill, the new text of Article 20.3 of the Administrative Code would set responsibility not only for propaganda and public displays of Nazi paraphernalia or symbols confusingly similar to those of the Nazis, or symbols of extremist organizations, but also for propaganda and public demonstration of paraphernalia or symbols of organizations “which collaborated with fascist organizations and movements, as well as those cooperating with international or foreign organizations or their representatives, denying the judgment of the Nuremberg Tribunal; sentences of national, military or occupation courts, based on the judgment of the Nuremberg Tribunal." Motivating this formulation for Zheleznyak are those organizations that use "symbols and paraphernalia of the Bandera organization in Ukraine." From our perspective, this bill is motivated solely by foreign policy considerations and is redundant, and it is very probable that an expansive interpretation may lead to different kinds of curiosities and unlawful persecutions.
Criminal Prosecution
In early May, a resident of Sayanogorsk was sentenced under Part 2 of CC Article 282.2 for participation in the activities of a “cell” of the banned movement, "Tablighi Jamaat". Abubakir Beyva was accused of holding meetings of “cell” members in his own apartment and that during these meetings excerpts from banned Muslim books were read out loud. The Magistrate's Court of the city of Sayanogorsk sentenced him to a fine, the sentence was carried out. We remind our readers that we believe that the banning of the movement "Tablighi Jamaat" is illegal because its members do not preach violence and there is no evidence that they were involved in violent acts.
In the second half of May, it was reported that the editor of the blog "Free Speech Adygea," Vasily Purdenko, was convicted under Part 1 of CC Article 282 for inciting hatred against "non-Russians" and was sentenced to a fine of 100 thousand rubles. From our perspective, the article "Being Russian in Adygea is possible, but futile," for which Purdenko was judged and which was banned for extremism, is written from nationalist positions. This article is critical of local authorities: cronyism, violations of national parity and generally improper personnel policy, but we have not found signs of incitement of hatred and enmity towards the Adyghe or dangerous appeals that merit criminal prosecution.
Early this month, the Moscow City Court was assigned a case on cooperation with "Hizb ut-Tahrir", a charge involving four people. In addition to charges under CC Article 282.2 (organization of the activities of an organization banned for extremism) Azizbekov Inamov, Shamil Ismailov, Saypula Kurbanov, and Zikrullohon Rahmonhodzhaev were also charged under Part 1 of CC Article 30 and CC Article 278 (preparation for the violent seizure of power and violent change of the Russian Federation’s constitutional system) and Part 1, CC Article 205.1 (recruiting for terrorist activities). We consider illegal the practice of persecuting "Hizb ut-Tahrir" supporters on charges of plotting to seize power, when these allegations are made only on the basis of political party activity.
In late April, three activists in Kaliningrad - Michael Feldman, Oleg Savvin and Dmitry Fonarev - were arrested on charges under Part 2 of CC Article 213 (“hooliganism committed by a group of persons by prior conspiracy, or by an organized group or associated with resistance to authority”).They stand accused of a March 11, 2014 demonstration, when activists “put a German flag on the FSB (Federal Security Service FSS) building as a symbol of the need for the Kaliningrad region to secede from the Russian Federation and in support of accession to the European Union, which grossly violated the public order." We disagree with the classification of the offense under CC Article 213, which involves committing hooliganism involving weapons - which was not the case - or hate-motivation. However it is totally unclear as hatred towards whom motivated the activists, who hung the flag.
In mid-May, it became known that a criminal case under part one of CC Article 280 (public calls to extremist activity) was brought against an activist of "Civil Movement of the Southern Urals," Constantine Zharinov from Chelyabinsk. The reason was that Zharinov posted on his page on social network "VKontakte" an address from "Right Sector" to "Russian and other oppressed nations" with an appeal for actions of disobedience, the establishment of guerrilla groups and other forms of resistance to the regime. Zharinov maintains that he quickly removed the post, but the FSB managed to pay attention to the appeal and initiated a criminal case. Zharinov views the posting as a mistake, he also believes that FSB interest in him is due to his political science specialization in the history of terrorism, about which he has written several books. Since Zharinov did not indicate that he supports the appeal, and also taking into account the nature of other postings on the website in social networks and blogs that suggest that the author is not characterized by aggressive rhetoric, law enforcement authorities could limit their requirement to that of removing the posting (if it had remained on the page). Prosecution in this case is disproportionate.
In those days, a criminal case was initiated under Part 1 of CC Article 282 (incitement to hatred and enmity) against Alexander Byvshev, a teacher from a village of Kromy in the Oryol region. Byvshev, amateur poet, posted on his page on the social network "VKontakte" his own poem entitled "To Ukrainian Patriots", written in the aftermath of events in the Crimea. It contains a summons to Ukrainians to meet with weapons the “Moscow gangs” who come to their lands. Now the court is considering a civil lawsuit to ban the poem. Charges under CC Article 282 seems to us inappropriate. The author’s hostile feelings are not caused by the ethnicityof a certain group, but rather by the nature of its activities. Thus, his actions cannot be classified under Article 282. In general, we believe that such appeals were harmful for settlement of the situation then in Ukraine, but this estimate remains a matter of political dispute. It is noteworthy that the severity of the Ukrainian crisis inevitably provokes many extreme statements atypical of other times. It is better not to resort to criminal prosecution for even the harshest comments unless they represent a clear and most unequivocal offense. This consideration should first of all apply to appeals addressed to citizens or the government of another country. Otherwise, law enforcement actions can only increase tensions in society which are already high.
Administrative prosecution and other state action
In May, we received reports on five administrative cases being initiated under Article 20.29 of the Code of Administrative Offences for the distribution of wrongfully banned literature.
In Kazan, a case was brought against a local civic activist Boris Begaev for distributing Navalny’s short video “Let’s Remind Crooks and Thieves their Manifesto -2002.” Marat Shaipov from Volzhsk (Mari El) was fined for distributing a Jehovah's Witnesses brochure titled, "What Does the Bible Really Teach?" Officials found much banned literature in the apartment of the head of Jehovah's Witnesses in Spassk-Dalny (Primorsky Krai), and he was fined. In Asbest (the Sverdlovsk region), the head of the religious organization "Irshad" was fined, because in the organization’s prayer room two banned books - "The Life of the Prophet Muhammad" by Ibn Hisham and "The Book of Monotheism" by Muhammad ibn Suleiman Al-Tamimi were found. In the Ryazan region, a prisoner at IR-3 penal colony was fined for attempting to distribute a book called "Fortress of the Muslim.”
Furthermore, in Kunashak in the Chelyabinsk region, FSB officers confiscated books at a bookstore located near the mosque, including "Fortress of the Muslim," "Gardens of the Righteous" and "40 Hadith", which we believe should not have been banned. Reportedly, police officers are deciding whether to initiate an investigation of the storeowners for trading in extremist literature.
In late May, the Ussuriysk city Prosecutor’s office in the Primorsky Krai issued a warning about the illegality of extremist activities to the religious organization of the Jehovah's Witnesses in Ussuriysk, because, according to law enforcement officials, the head of that organization had distributed a book, which had been declared extremist.
We note that in early May, the Tver Regional Court upheld its decision to lift the ban on the Jehovah's Witnesses website. We recall that in August 2013, the Tsentralny District Court of Tver had banned the website jw.org after the Prosecutor’s office s claimed that it contained texts on the list of extremist materials, such as Jehovah's Witnesses brochures, "What Does the Bible Really Teach?," "Close to Jehovah," "Come and follow me, "and others. Jehovah's Witnesses challenged the court's decision, pointing out in particular that the banned texts had been removed from the site. In January, the Tver Regional Court rejected the district court‘s ruling, but the prosecutors had filed a cassation appeal, which was considered and dismissed.
Moscow’s Tagansky District Court earlier this month rejected a claim by the editorial board of the website Grani.ru, which challenged the blocking of its website. We note that in March, at the request of the Prosecutor’s General, Roskomnadzor had brought into the register of banned information the popular opposition websites “Grani.ru”, “Kasparov.ru” and “Daily Journal” (ej.ru), and sent their providers a request to immediately restrict access to them, since they had information about actions that had not been officially approved. According to law enforcement agencies, information about such actions can encourage people to participate in them. We believe that viewing information about certain illegal activities as incitement to illegal acts is a dangerous trend and restricts freedom of speech.
In the latter half of May, the prosecutor’s office of Barnaul sent a warning about violations of the law on combating extremism to the Information Agency “Amitel” and demanded that the perpetrators be subjected to disciplinary action. The pretext for this audit was the article "Commentary, published by the reader of amic.ru turns to be the basis of the criminal case" in which the chief editor used the text of the seditious comment. The editorial office hid the commentary and removed it from the article’s text, but considered the criticism directed towards it to be without foundation. As the chief editor of the news agency correctly pointed out:"the reason for dissemination of this information was to properly cover the results of the criminal case and was not aimed at inciting enmity or hatred.” The aim was “just the prevention from such violations made by the readers (commentators) in the future." The phrase was cited as an example of actions that may result in criminal penalties, the editorial office was not in solidarity with the commentator and did not promote his views.
The magistrate court of the city of Kemerovo in early May acquitted the owner and seller of antiques at the railway station, accused under Article 20.3 of the Administrative Code of the advocacy and the public display of Nazi symbols and paraphernalia. The defendants argued that the Wehrmacht award pins, which they were accused of showing, were displayed in showcase along with other countries’ first and second world wars awards; swastikas were covered with papers, and other symbols on the label pins (eagles, wings, wreath and lightning) are not specifically Nazi paraphernalia or symbols. The Court concluded that the display of these pins did not have a propaganda purpose and did not aim at a public display of Nazism. According to the court ruling, all pins must be returned to the owner. We believe that Article 20.3 of the Administrative Code should not apply to antique dealers but to the manufacturers of modern items with Nazi and neo-Nazi symbols (label pins, clothes, copies of weapons, etc.) and to distributors of such products.
In mid-May, Beslan Teuvazhev, an activist of the organization "Adygehem ya Duney" ("The Circassian world"), was detained in Moscow. He was one of the organizers of a demonstration on the 150th anniversary of the Russian-Caucasian war. He participated in preparing commemorative ribbons for the anniversary. Teuvazhev was arrested as he was returning from the printing office where he had picked up ribbons for the anniversary (May 21). He was taken to a Moscow precinct where, as part of a check up on "extremism", more than 70,000 tapes were confiscated. These objects do not represent a public danger. Inscribed with the “Day of Memory and Grief," green ribbons indicated the official start and end dates of the war in several languages, including Russian and English. We believe it is illegal to remove the entire package of tapes due to suspicions of extremism; for verification purposes, one or more copies are enough.
By the way, in the mid-May it became known that the big print-run edition of the newspaper, “For Navalny,” was returned to his supporters. It had been confiscated from his headquarters in Kirov a year ago. No signs of extremism were found under examination. At that time we note that the Ministry of Interior Affairs Department in Kirov conducted a search for “extremism” in the headquarters – caused by an anonymous telephone call. All copies of the newspaper were sent for examination to the Ministry of Internal Affairs. The Navalny headquarters’ staff tried to appeal the actions of law enforcement officers to the Kirov Pervomaisky District Court; however, the appeal was unsuccessful. The court pointed out that the investigator is obliged to accept and investigate a report on any committed or planned offense.
In late May, the organizer and a participant of a punk rock concert, held on May 9 in the city of Nizhny Novgorod, filed suit on police dispersing the concert as an act of preventing extremism. Fifty camouflaged police officers used force, detained about a hundred people and questioned them without search warrants and did not show their documents. The Ministry of Internal Affairs of Nizhny Novgorod explained that the police had undertaken these checkups on the basis of information to prevent a possible extremist action. We consider such "checks" illegal.
