Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Pussy Riot and Russia

Options
  • 07-08-2012 11:01pm
    #1
    Registered Users Posts: 1,142 ✭✭✭


    At the moment, and I'm sure most of you guys have heard of this, there is a situation developing in Russia regarding a punk band named "Pussy Riot". The short story; they have been accused of religious intolerance and hooliganism by Russian prosecutors following a so-called "punk protest" on the altar of the Cathedral of Christ Our Saviour in Moscow, one of the most iconic and traditional Cathedrals in the Russian Federation.

    Here is an article for those who are not familiar with the story:
    http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/breaking/2012/0807/breaking18.html

    The group is composed of three women; Maria Alyokhina, Nadezhda Tolokonnikova, and Yekaterina Samutsevich. They originally were to be put under for the maximum of seven years but recently that has been cut to three years.

    The group members themselves look a bit like the Rubber Bandits with tea cosies on their heads.

    Several high profile western musicians such as Sting and Madonna have spoken out in support of Pussy Riot.

    While there is a lot of debate on this at present, I'd like to first present both points of view:

    On one side, people are saying this is a representation of the general crackdown on dissent by Putin following the protests over there. Pussy Riot's "punk prayer" was laced with anti-Putin lyrics and was generally oppositional in nature. It called upon the Virgin Mary to remove Putin. The defence lawyers of Pussy Riot are (like they did for Khodorkovsky before them) representing the case as the brutal Russian state out for revenge against dissenters or those who are against the system.

    In the middle, however, we have people who believe that Pussy Riot should be punished, but that 3 or seven years is far too harsh a punishment and, rather than representing an authoritarian streak in Putin, it represents the draconian Russian legal system which is in need of reform. A poll by the Levada Centre here;http://www.forbes.com/sites/markadomanis/2012/07/31/what-do-russians-think-about-pussy-riot-the-answer-might-surprise-you/ (scroll down a bit for the table) found that most Russians were in favour of at least a punishment. 29% said forced labour would be viable. Only 5% said they should be let go scot-free. Putin said:
    ....that there was "nothing good" about the February protest which saw the band performing a "punk prayer" at the altar of the Christ the Saviour Cathedral, calling on the Virgin Mary to "Throw Putin out!"
    "Nonetheless, I don't think that they should be judged so harshly for this,"
    On the other end, we have people, exemplified by the Orthodox clergy, whose Jimmies were truly rustled by such an act. The fact that the punk group danced (scantily clad) on an altar reserved for priests in Russia's most famous church was compounded by the fact that their song contained scatological references. Patriarch Kirill himself was outraged at the "punk prayer" and said that the group were "doing the work of Satan". many Russians (as seen in the Levada poll) also wanted to see the group go under for "two years at least". in another poll, 70% of Russians said their opinions of the Orthodox Church "remained unchanged".

    As for my opinion? Putin will probably allow them to be punished in some way to appease the Orthodox demographic, and the powerful church, but as for Russia becoming a dictatorship, I doubt it. As this case is so high profile, I presume Putin will show an air of leniency to help his public image.

    As the situation is fluid I will be giving constant updates.

    P.S Again, I have a pure hatred for troll comments like "Putinhitler kills babies!!!1" or "Nashi is Putinjugend!!!1!" so try and avoid them like the plague. Cheers!


«134

Comments

  • Closed Accounts Posts: 46,938 ✭✭✭✭Nodin


    Its fineable (if thats a word) but hardly a prison offence.
    As for my opinion? Putin will probably allow them to be punished in some way to appease the Orthodox demographic, and the powerful church, but as for Russia becoming a dictatorship, I doubt it. As this case is so high profile, I presume Putin will show an air of leniency to help his public image.

    You don't see any contradicting sentiments or narratives in that bit above, by any chance?


  • Registered Users Posts: 1,142 ✭✭✭Eggy Baby!


    You don't see any contradicting sentiments or narratives in that bit above, by any chance?

    I don't mean he will directly intervene in the courts a la a dictator, but could apply pressure on the judges. I don't know if the President can grant clemency in Russia but if so, he could do that too. Also, by "leniency" I mean "a smaller punishment". So an attempt to appease both the opposition and the Church.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 46,938 ✭✭✭✭Nodin


    Eggy Baby! wrote: »
    I don't mean he will directly intervene in the courts a la a dictator, but could apply pressure on the judges..............


    ...thats not really much better, tbh.


  • Registered Users Posts: 6,696 ✭✭✭Jonny7


    Eggy Baby! wrote: »
    As this case is so high profile, I presume Putin will show an air of leniency to help his public image.

    So you're saying Putin controls the courts? surely not! ;)


  • Registered Users Posts: 1,142 ✭✭✭Eggy Baby!


    Nodin wrote: »
    ...thats not really much better, tbh.


    Well the courts in Russia aren't really independent anyway. Just looked it up and the Russian president does have the power to pardon so Putin could easily overturn any harsh verdict (whether he will or not, that's another thing, considering he hasn't used it that often).
    So you're saying Putin controls the courts? surely not! wink.gif

    You misunderstand "air of leniency". What I meant is that Putin will portray a mild public image, not really against Pussy Riot, not really for the Church. The quote of his I supplied in the OP suffices as evidence of this.

    But of course he does control the courts!


  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 6,684 ✭✭✭JustinDee


    Eggy Baby! wrote: »
    I don't mean he will directly intervene in the courts a la a dictator, but could apply pressure on the judges

    That's better then . . .


  • Registered Users Posts: 1,142 ✭✭✭Eggy Baby!


    JustinDee wrote: »
    That's better then . . .

    Or he could use the presidential pardon.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 6,684 ✭✭✭JustinDee


    Eggy Baby! wrote: »
    Or he could use the presidential pardon.

    That's hardly anything near pressuring the judiciary into making a decision go a certain way.


  • Registered Users Posts: 1,142 ✭✭✭Eggy Baby!


    JustinDee wrote: »
    That's hardly anything near pressuring the judiciary into making a decision go a certain way.

    I didn't say it was....its just an option.


  • Registered Users Posts: 4,693 ✭✭✭Laminations


    OP you gave your opinion but you didn't state what you think should happen. I'd be in the middle, whatever about free speech and criticising Putin which I'm all for, you don't get to gatecrash a place of worship dance around on the alter. So they should be punished for that but with something like an apology and community service. But this is Russia, they tend to be less lenient in their punishments. Do you think Putin should intervene in the judicial process?


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 63 ✭✭RedRightHand


    I don't accept the narrative that these girls are imprisoned for 'daring to criticize Putin', he's constantly being ridiculed in new media as well as some old media. I would think that in most countries such a stunt would be subject to some form of legal sanction(at least in a liberal democracy that guarantees religious freedom). At this stage the best outcome would be a sentence of time already served.

    There is no right to disrupt a religious service... I cannot remember Miss Ciccone storming a cathedral to vent her anger at the Catholic Church but I am looking forward to seeing the video of Sting storming the Al-Aqsa mosque and singing 'Don't stand so close to me'.


  • Registered Users Posts: 1,142 ✭✭✭Eggy Baby!


    Do you think Putin should intervene in the judicial process?

    A very difficult question!

    I value an independent judiciary. As a result, I believe Putin should not intervene (although he could) as it could set a precedent and damage the independence of the courts. But if the judiciary is heading along the path of administering a draconian sentence for an action that doesn't deserve it, it is the only option.

    What should happen, in my opinion, is that Putin pardons Pussy Riot and then reforms the law to make sentences like this much less draconian. If i were in Putin's position, this is what I would do. However, Putin could lose the support of the Orthodox Church if he does so. So he's actually in a Catch-22 here.

    The question is; why did they do their protest in the church? Why not do so elsewhere? Pussy Riot clearly went in knowing what they could be accused of and who they would insult (not only the Orthodox clergy but also the predominantly Orthodox Russian population!) by doing what they did.

    Or, he could let Pussy Riot go to jail for 6 months, then pardon them and change the law to make the sentence much less severe.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 46,938 ✭✭✭✭Nodin


    Eggy Baby! wrote: »
    .........
    The question is; why did they do their protest in the church? Why not do so elsewhere?..........

    Because historically and currently the Russian Orthodox Church gets into bed with the state.


  • Registered Users Posts: 940 ✭✭✭cyberhog


    Eggy Baby! wrote: »

    Several high profile western musicians such as Sting and Madonna have spoken out in support of Pussy Riot.

    I think people should know that our friend Sting is one of those human-rights promoting singers who take big money to sing for human-rights abusers.

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/lifeandstyle/lostinshowbiz/2010/feb/22/sting-uzbekistan

    I would let Pussy Riot off if we could lock up the insufferable Mr Sting instead.


  • Registered Users Posts: 1,142 ✭✭✭Eggy Baby!


    Nodin wrote: »
    Because historically and currently the Russian Orthodox Church gets into bed with the state.

    But the protest was against Putin, and not the church.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 46,938 ✭✭✭✭Nodin


    Eggy Baby! wrote: »
    But the protest was against Putin, and not the church.

    ...I'd imagine the point of having it in the church to was to make in the linkage. Could be wrong, of course.


  • Registered Users Posts: 1,142 ✭✭✭Eggy Baby!


    Nodin wrote: »
    ...I'd imagine the point of having it in the church to was to make in the linkage. Could be wrong, of course.

    I see where you're coming from but it could have been just to cause a stir and seek attention.

    Also, why not outside the church?

    The lyrics contained some religious elements but largely ignored the church.


  • Registered Users Posts: 4,693 ✭✭✭Laminations


    Publicity and shock value


  • Registered Users Posts: 1,142 ✭✭✭Eggy Baby!


    Publicity and shock value

    Sure even their name is meant to shock.

    (Reminds me of that scene in Father Ted; Clit Power)


  • Registered Users Posts: 1,476 ✭✭✭sarkozy


    Pussy Riot-related neologism: Leninancy - the impulse to have or act of having sex with Vladamir Illiyich Lenin. Poss. common usage: to describe Vladamir Putin's authoritarian (post-Bolshevik) tendencies. E.g. "Putin is a massive Leninancer."

    PS: they're victims, and famous, because one of them is really, really, really hot.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 1,142 ✭✭✭Eggy Baby!


    Poss. common usage: to describe Vladamir Putin's authoritarian (post-Bolshevik) tendencies.

    Is that your opinion?
    PS: they're victims, and famous, because one of them is really, really, really hot.

    There's a reason they wear those balaclavas....


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 2,407 ✭✭✭Cardinal Richelieu


    Eggy Baby! wrote: »

    The group is composed of three women; Maria Alyokhina, Nadezhda Tolokonnikova, and Yekaterina Samutsevich. They originally were to be put under for the maximum of seven years but recently that has been cut to three years.

    Why did he only arrest 3 of them? 6 in the group and 4 filmed doing the church stunt.


  • Registered Users Posts: 1,142 ✭✭✭Eggy Baby!


    Why did he only arrest 3 of them? 6 in the group and 4 filmed doing the church stunt.

    Because they were the ones doing the singing I think, which is the contentious issue here.


  • Registered Users Posts: 1,476 ✭✭✭sarkozy


    Eggy Baby! wrote: »
    Is that your opinion?
    Yeah. I think, historically, there's lots to be said about the historical continuity from Tsarist Russia, through matur Bolshevism/Stalinism, through to today's Russian oligarchy, of which Putin is the powerful figurehead. Unlike, for example, Assad in Syria, who is a hostage to the ruling elite (and officiating terrible, terrible things as a result).

    What we're also seeing is a Russian Orthodox Church resurgent. After a century of being driven underground, suppressed, quashed, conservative Russia, hungry for something eternal and for stability, the church is finding a new political power with the backing of an intensely nationalist government.

    I don't have a detailed knowledge of the true extent of freedom of speech in Russia. Maybe Pussy Riot went too far, but the regime lets most people express themselves, but this is a country that orders killings of investigative journalists committed to telling the truth. Remarkably, the communist governments in the 1960s (and Russia immediately after the revolution) were remarkably open to free expression.


  • Registered Users Posts: 1,142 ✭✭✭Eggy Baby!


    of which Putin is the powerful figurehead.

    The Russian government is a bureaucratic and oligarchic leviathan run by many special interest groups and factions. Putin controls the most powerful faction (that of the siloviki and Yedinaya Rossiya, the largest and most powerful) and as a result holds power. He is no figurehead. Russia is a fractured corporation which he manages to hold together. Its a common misconception that Putin is the "top of a pyramid".
    Maybe Pussy Riot went too far, but the regime lets most people express themselves, but this is a country that orders killings of investigative journalists committed to telling the truth.

    You seem pretty sure of this, so give us irrefutable (not circumstantial) evidence that journalists have been assassinated on orders from the highest echelons of the Russian government. Good luck.
    through to today's Russian oligarchy,

    Russia is significantly less oligarchic than it was in the 90s so this "historical continuity" appears to be devolving.
    Remarkably, the communist governments in the 1960s...were remarkably open to free expression.

    Considering Khrushchev had the Gulag system dissolved and Stalinism revoked, yes it was. But still far from perfect.
    the church is finding a new political power with the backing of an intensely nationalist government.

    Yedinaya Rossiya are not "intensely nationalist". An intense nationalist would have been Yeltsin. Putin is much more mild.

    Verdict on the 17th of August by the way.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 6,684 ✭✭✭JustinDee


    Eggy Baby! wrote: »
    The Russian government is a bureaucratic and oligarchic leviathan run by many special interest groups and factions. Putin controls the most powerful faction (that of the siloviki and Yedinaya Rossiya, the largest and most powerful) and as a result holds power. He is no figurehead. Russia is a fractured corporation which he manages to hold together. Its a common misconception that Putin is the "top of a pyramid

    I'd suggest you change whichever reading material you're paraphrasing here.


  • Registered Users Posts: 1,142 ✭✭✭Eggy Baby!


    JustinDee wrote: »
    I'd suggest you change whichever reading material you're paraphrasing here.

    Nothing constructive to add to the debate? Check!

    One line ad hominem quip? Check!

    Poster is JustinDee? Check, check, check!

    (Lifted from Mark Adomanis by the way, with just a few observations of my own. Mark Adomanis believes that the Russian government is authoritarian by the way, so don't say he is a "tool of the Kremlin"/whatever buzzword you have to discredit my sources. Also, how about you back up your own claims with sources? Good luck finding some! Putin has much less power than you think.)


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 6,684 ✭✭✭JustinDee


    Eggy Baby! wrote: »
    Nothing constructive to add to the debate? Check!

    One line ad hominem quip? Check!

    Poster is JustinDee? Check, check, check!

    (Lifted from Mark Adomanis by the way, with just a few observations of my own. Mark Adomanis believes that the Russian government is authoritarian by the way, so don't say he is a "tool of the Kremlin"/whatever buzzword you have to discredit my sources. Also, how about you back up your own claims with sources? Good luck finding some! Putin has much less power than you think.)
    No need to be the touchy victim, whoever you are.

    Just suggesting you broaden your reading base and be less selective with it. What next? Roxburgh? Sturmer?
    Try material from others such as Luke Harding. Martin Sixsmith ran a very investigative piece on the whole Yukos sham too. Even Pilger has done so too. There are two or three other Russian journalists who would disagree with what your favoured blogger says but they're no longer with us . . .


  • Registered Users Posts: 1,142 ✭✭✭Eggy Baby!


    Try material from others such as Luke Harding. Martin Sixsmith ran a very investigative piece on the whole Yukos sham too. Even Pilger has done so too. There are two or three other Russian journalists who would disagree with what your favoured blogger says but they're no longer with us . . .

    Ah yes....Luke Harding. I am familiar with his book "The Mafia State" because its contractually obliged to appear in every article on the Guardian website with the keywords "Putin" and "Russia". That guy is just basically Britain's resident Putin critic. I heard him refer to Russia as being "feudal" outside of Moscow, which is a baseless claim.

    They are basically just Mark Adomanis, but on the other side. Politkovskaya was a journalist basically working for an anti-government Russian tabloid. This can be seen in her OTT language (she calls Putin supporters "Chekists")She wasn't killed on orders from Putin, probably by orders from Kadyrov or a representative of the many other powerful people she managed to annoy, or perhaps a disgruntled colonel. Really and truly, she had little renown within her country and didn't cause enough of a stir for the government to really take notice. However, Putin should have protected her as she represented the country's new independent reporting.

    If I'm honest, I get my fill of anti-Putin stories by searching for ten minutes straight on the internet. Clearly he rustles a few jimmies over here.

    P.S Justin Raimondo seems to agree with me a lot too.


  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 6,684 ✭✭✭JustinDee


    Eggy Baby! wrote: »
    Ah yes....Luke Harding. I am familiar with his book "The Mafia State" because its contractually obliged to appear in every article on the Guardian website with the keywords "Putin" and "Russia". That guy is just basically Britain's resident Putin critic. I heard him refer to Russia as being "feudal" outside of Moscow, which is a baseless claim
    One of the many journalists who cover news, political and current affairs of the Russian state.
    Eggy Baby! wrote: »
    They are basically just Mark Adomanis, but on the other side. Politkovskaya was a journalist basically working for an anti-government Russian tabloid. This can be seen in her OTT language (she calls Putin supporters "Chekists")She wasn't killed on orders from Putin, probably by orders from Kadyrov or a representative of the many other powerful people she managed to annoy, or perhaps a disgruntled colonel. Really and truly, she had little renown within her country and didn't cause enough of a stir for the government to really take notice. However, Putin should have protected her as she represented the country's new independent reporting
    Firstly, she was not an unknown so again, less subjectivity in your remote source material would be advisable. Dismissing one of the media she published with as 'tabloid' is also trite and woefully misleading.
    You'd need more than a cherry-picked blogger from the States to disprove some of her and other journalists' findings.
    Eggy Baby! wrote: »
    P.S Justin Raimondo seems to agree with me a lot too.
    So what? And all in a post where you bleat about "tabloids" too? lol


Advertisement