Russian Punk Band Is Found Guilty of Hooliganism for Anti-Putin Protest

[OlgaH]

I do of course. If you found the link with "normal text" could you post it please. Am I missing something?

Ranetka, if you do know the organization you can read the comments to the scanned documents if you have problem to read the scanned documents 

Согласно распоряжению мэра Москвы № 703-РП от 15.04.2004 года Фонду Храма Христа Спасителя передано в доверительное управление помещение храма общей площадью 55692 кв. метра для использования в соотвествии с уставными задачами некоммерческой организации. Это же постановление предписывает Фонду заключить договор о совместном использовании помещений Храма с Подворьем Патриарха Московского и Всея Руси. Как следует из договора о совместном использовании помещений от 01.02.2006, заключенным между Фондом Храма Христа Спасителя и Подворьем Патриарха Московского и Всея Руси, в пользование Подворью передано всего 78 комнат общей площадью 3697,27 кв. метров, то есть менее 7% общей площади храма. Среди них: кабинеты бухгалтерии, серверная, санузлы, шаферская, трапезная, умывальня, душевая, магазин «Книжная лавка» и магазин «Иконная лавка», подсобки, кладовки и другие комнаты. Помещение Верхнего храма, где 21 февраля 2012 года состоялось выступление панк-группы Pussy Riot, Подворью Патриарха Московского и Всея Руси никогда официально не передавалось. Это обстоятельство также подтверждается выпиской из единого государственного реестра прав на недвижимое имущество и сделок с ним № 05/017/2012-576 от 18.06.2012, согласно которой помещение Верхнего храма находится в собственности города Москвы и в доверительном управлении Фонда Храма Христа Спасителя. Ограничения или обременения права на помещение Верхнего храма Управлением Росреестра по Москве не зарегистрировано.  Исходя из положений ст. 14 Конституции РФ, Российская Федерация – светское государство, в связи с чем никакая религиозная организация не вправе устанавливать в не принадлежащих ей помещениях, являющихся общественным местом, собственный порядок поведения, вводить для посетителей какие-либо ограничения и запреты. Более того данные действия Религиозной организации Подворье Патриарха Московского и Всея Руси по установлению собственного порядка поведения,  введению в общественном месте запретов и ограничений, основанных на правилах Трулльского и Лаодикийского церковных соборов (VII и IV века н.э.), следует квалифицировать как самоуправство (ст. 330 УК РФ).

[Ranetka]

Thank you Olga. I thought you had a text of the verdict somewhere? I found scans of the verdict on the internet but it's not easy to read because it's 42 pages of scanned document :-(

[OlgaH]

Thank you Olga. I thought you had a text of the verdict somewhere? I found scans of the verdict on the internet but it's not easy to read because it's 42 pages of scanned document :-(

I have the scanned too and I can read it easy

http://kp.ru/f/13/attached_file/01/35/2883501.pdf

"The motive of the religion hatred in the defendants' action the court finds in the following. The defendants position themselves with the supporters of feminism, that is a movement for the equality between men and women..."    page 32 "The Orthodoxy has religious - dogmatic fundamentals that are not compatible with feminism."

[Ranetka]

I have the scanned too and I can read it easy

http://kp.ru/f/13/attached_file/01/35/2883501.pdf

"The motive of the religion hatred in the defendants' action the court finds in the following. The defendants position themselves with the supporters of feminism, that is a movement for the equality between men and women..."    page 32 "The Orthodoxy has religious - dogmatic fundamentals that are not compatible with feminism."

Thank you for link, it's much better.


Further in the verdict the judge explains that being a feminist is not against Russian law. Also that according to Russian constitution people are equal regardless of their religion or gender. Then she goes further to explain the logic. Court consider proven that they acted on belief that their views were superior to those of Orthodox church and their actions were pre-meditated to upset worshipers based on this superiority. (this is not a translation just my very very shot explanation of what i understood)

I think it will be much better if we try to translate more or less complete paragraphs to give non-russian speakers more or less true and fair view.

[BC]

Yeah, I wonder why it was deemed irrelevant... like defence experts was not allowed 

Well, reading the interpretation Ranetka provided the Judge also deemed it 'walk, quack, look like a duck'.. 

[OlgaH]

Thank you for link, it's much better.


Further in the verdict the judge explains that being a feminist is not against Russian law. Also that according to Russian constitution people are equal regardless of their religion or gender. Then she goes further to explain the logic. Court consider proven that they acted on belief that their views were superior to those of Orthodox church and their actions were pre-meditated to upset worshipers based on this superiority. (this is not a translation just my very very shot explanation of what i understood)

I think it will be much better if we try to translate more or less complete paragraphs to give non-russian speakers more or less true and fair view.

That the problem I see when I read the whole verdict, Ranetka, they charged within the Church law, not the State law!

Nah... You also can give the religion hatred charges to a person farted in the Church.

Petr Ivanov planned his action in advance. The court found that he ate cabbage soup and been porridge, later pretending to be a parishioner he entered the Church. Talking to the priest he farted loudly expressing his hatred towards the Holy Father, Holy place, and all the true parishioners. After he violently began wave his hands, possibly he was trying to slap the priest... The motive of the religion hatred in the defendant action the court finds in the following. The defendant positions himself with the supporters of atheism. To be atheist is not a crime, and it is his constitutional rights, but atheism contradicts the fundamentals of the Orthodoxy...   

[OlgaH]

Well, reading the interpretation Ranetka provided the Judge also deemed it 'walk, quack, look like a duck'..

btw such subjective attitude doesn't fly in the US courts  so far, I see the jury and experts from both sides 

[OlgaH]

Alexander Pushkin also could be easily charged with propaganda of religion hatred . 

I will not be surprised if some of his work will be forbidden ...

[BC]

http://richard-grm.livejournal.com/184913.html


i forgot do you read Russian? This looks like interesting comment to me. The blogger is analysis the verdict from law point of view.

Ranetka, thanks.

Although my RU is not that good, even computer translated one could get the gist of the author's assessment.  It seemed that the Juge did not allow the same tangental arguments Olga brings up here, knowing well it would go much in the direction this thread has, but instead concentrated on the act and facts instead, much along the line that a 'sane and reasonable man' would interpret when reviewing the specifics of the case.  The aspects as to how much of the floor space was actually paid for by the ROC,  pretty much cleared out of the way by 'de facto', that the chosen venue was indeed a ROC Church and that the lyrics sung on the video clearly were against the Church.  All as simple as 1+1=2 which it really is.

[OlgaH]

Ranetka, thanks.

Although my RU is not that good, even computer translated one could get the gist of the author's assessment.  It seemed that the Juge did not allow the same tangental arguments Olga brings up here, knowing well it would go much in the direction this thread has, but instead concentrated on the act and facts instead, much along the line that a 'sane and reasonable man' would interpret when reviewing the specifics of the case.  The aspects as to how much of the floor space was actually paid for by the ROC,  pretty much cleared out of the way by 'de facto', that the chosen venue was indeed a ROC Church and that the lyrics sung on the video clearly were against the Church.  All as simple as 1 1=2 which it really is.

BC, I personally don't see their dance as a violent action against the Church and I don't see the dance as the the call to violent actions against the Church (like beat or kill someone). The words in the song I see as the words against politics of the Patriarch Gundyaev and Putin politics, not against Orthodox religion itself.

But in Russian justice everything is very simple 

Regarding 'de facto' we have the official documents 

[Ranetka]

That the problem I see when I read the whole verdict, Ranetka, they charged within the Church law, not the State law!

Nah... You also can give the religion hatred charges to a person farted in the Church.

Petr Ivanov planned his action in advance. The court found that he ate cabbage soup and been porridge, later pretending to be a parishioner he entered the Church. Talking to the priest he farted loudly expressing his hatred towards the Holy Father, Holy place, and all the true parishioners. After he violently began wave his hands, possibly he was trying to slap the priest... The motive of the religion hatred in the defendant action the court finds in the following. The defendant positions himself with the supporters of atheism. To be atheist is not a crime, and it is his constitutional rights, but atheism contradicts the fundamentals of the Orthodoxy...   

Olga they were not chanrged by church law. The judge explained the feminist traditions are not always compatible with church tradition. traditionally/historically orthodox church has some norms of how to behave while there. Defendands knew it and acted in full knowledge that what they do is against church traditions. So their actions were specifically in order to upset worshippers. This is the point why so many explanations of how to behave in church. The judge even goes further to explain why the same actions in the underground caused only administrative charges.
It's very simple really - if you dance and song in a carnival it is not disorderly conduct, if you do it on a funeral in a culture which traditionally sees funerals as sad affair this is disorderly conduct. If you dance and single on disable person funeral and singing that all disables should be killed this is hooliganism based on hatred to a certain society group.

[BC]

Regarding 'de facto' we have the official documents 

Olga,

Read up on 'de facto'..

existing in fact, whether legally recognized or not.

[BC]

Olga,

Read up on 'de facto'..

existing in fact, whether legally recognized or not.

The defense you propose is sort of like someone shoplifted in a street kiosk, but according to law that street kiosk had no legal rights to be there in the first place....  thus there was no robbery.

Legally there are two different issues.  One the robbery and the other the illegality of the kiosk location.

Both issues would rarely if ever be included in the same proceeding.

The city of Moscow and RU government have not formally taken issue with how the ROC uses the facility with the courts.  Thus use of the facility as a church for religious purposes is de facto. 

[a guy]

When they move to NYC they can protest in the biggest synagogue there as much as they like.

your comment is a subtle but obvious hate crime.  I believe you should be put on trial for inciting racial and religious hatred.

[a guy]

It would depend.
In a mosque...deplorable.
In a synagogue ...outrageous.
In a Christian church...like Olga stated, the ACLU attorneys would be screaming
'freedom of speech' !!!

Another hate crime.. well noted.

[OlgaH]

Olga,

Read up on 'de facto'..

existing in fact, whether legally recognized or not.

BC, I know what de facto is. Presence of the Church officials and icons in my home doesn't make my home to be the Church 

[BC]

your comment is a subtle but obvious hate crime.  I believe you should be put on trial for inciting racial and religious hatred.

Two problems with that.

One jurisdiction.  The other is that whatever statement she posts here does not infringe on the liberties of others going about their daily lives.

Example.  If she lived in Germany and posted that the Holocaust did not happen, she could be charged.  But living where she does and  posting her thoughts living outside Germany and a select few other countries, it's not a crime.  Now if she shows up in the doorways of a Synagogue and impedes the entry and exit of worshipers, that could be a civil or criminal matter in almost any country.

http://rt.com/news/pussy-riot-cologne-cathedral-463/

Three years in prison have become a closer prospect for some German followers of Russian punk band Pussy Riot. The Catholic Church has pressed charges against Cologne Cathedral intruders, who now face longer prison terms than their heroes.
The three protesters have been charged with disturbing a religious service which, according to German law, could mean up to three years in jail.

[BC]

BC, I know what de facto is. Presence of the Church officials and icons in my home doesn't make my home to be the Church 

No, but a sane, reasonable man woman or child on the premises in question would agree that this is a church.

And that's what counts.

[OlgaH]

The city of Moscow and RU government have not formally taken issue with how the ROC uses the facility with the courts.  Thus use of the facility as a church for religious purposes is de facto.

BC, a museum or a hospital can give the Church a facility for performing their services, after the services performed the facilities will stay the secular places that belong to the museum or the hospital.

[OlgaH]

The city of Moscow and RU government have not formally taken issue with how the ROC uses the facility with the courts.  Thus use of the facility as a church for religious purposes is de facto. 

Yes, the State and the Church are bedfellows, therefore the law doesn't apply to the Church  that's why an action of the 15 y.o. school student who torn down political posters of the United Russia in the school was "anti Christian" too 

[BC]

BC, a museum or a hospital can give the Church a facility for performing their services, after the services performed the facilities will stay the secular places that belonged to the museum or the hospital.

Yes, but the Church in such instances will remove their property when the services are finished.  I doubt these temporary 'places' are consecrated.

[OlgaH]

No, but a sane, reasonable man woman or child on the premises in question would agree that this is a church.

And that's what counts.

an Orthodox attorney Larisa Pavlova used the phrase "normal morals" but could not even give a definition of the "normal morals" 

A sane and a reasonable person in my opinion would take into account the official documents. 

[BC]

Yes, the State and the Church are bedfellows, therefore the law doesn't apply to the Church  that's why an action of the 15 y.o. school student who torn down political posters of the United Russia in the school was "anti Christian" too 

The law, even in RU applies to the Church, but it does take an infringed party in order to ask the courts for remedy.  Courts will usually not allow someone to raise an issue as a third party when there is no issue between the primary parties to begin with..

Lets try to stay on course a bit Olga...  going tangental again?

[Ranetka]

Yes, the State and the Church are bedfellows, therefore the law doesn't apply to the Church  that's why an action of the 15 y.o. school student who torn down political posters of the United Russia in the school was "anti Christian" too 

Any links?

[ML]

Can all of this really be worth 17 pages . . . particularly with no sex?