Pussy Riot and Russia

Eggy Baby!

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!

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?

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.

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.

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!

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!

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!

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 . . .

Eggy Baby!

JustinDee wrote: »

That's better then . . .

Or he could use the presidential pardon.

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.

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.

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?

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'.

Eggy Baby!

Laminations wrote: »

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Laminations

Publicity and shock value

Eggy Baby!

Laminations wrote: »

Publicity and shock value

Sure even their name is meant to shock.

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

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.

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....

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.

Eggy Baby!

Cardinal Richelieu wrote: »

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.)

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 . . .

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.

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

Eggy Baby!

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.

Her words didn't hold much weight in Russia. Her main body of work was against corruption and abuse in the army during Chechnya. Her criticism of Putin is just a sideshow compared to this. Novaya Gazeta had characteristics of a tabloid newpaper, too (calling it a tabloid doesn't completely condemn the journalists who have posted in it.) Added to this, I didn't call her unknown, I said she had little renown among Russians, most of whom were supporters of Putin and didn't want to listen to what she had to say. Stop twisting my words.

She had greater impact in the west than she did in Russia, and as usual, western media outlets overplayed her role in Russian journalism (much like media outlets here describe Gary Kasparov as an "opposition figure" although he has little leverage in Russia).

So what? And all in a post where you bleat about "tabloids" too? lol

Well, because you have cited numerous critics of Putin who seem to inspire your line of thinking. Simply listing journalists who agree with you won't convert me over to your point of view. "Go read Luke Harding" is, frankly, a lazy excuse for not contributing to debate.

You'd need more than a cherry-picked blogger from the States to disprove some of her and other journalists' findings.

Get off your high horse. You just cherry picked several journalists to make a point five seconds ago. Adomanis is a journalist for Forbes.

One of the many journalists who cover news, political and current affairs of the Russian state.

Don't take what he says as fact just because he is a journalist..even then, there are many jounalists who would have an opposing point of view to Harding.

In fairness, i'm wasting my time as usual perpetuating static arguments over sources, or whatever. I'd like a decent debate over the subject matter, and not mudslinging because I read Adomanis from time to time. I'm sorry that my sources aren't good enough for you, but honestly, I don't give a flip.

goose2005

RedRightHand wrote: »

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'.

They didn't disrupt a service, there were only a handful of people in the church. And if the church won't keep away from politics, they can't complain if politics won't keep away from the church.

Eggy Baby!

goose2005 wrote: »

They didn't disrupt a service, there were only a handful of people in the church. And if the church won't keep away from politics, they can't complain if politics won't keep away from the church.

The lyrics of the protest weren't aimed at the church though..?

JustinDee

Eggy Baby! wrote: »

Her words didn't hold much weight in Russia. Her main body of work was against corruption and abuse in the army during Chechnya. Her criticism of Putin is just a sideshow compared to this. Novaya Gazeta had characteristics of a tabloid newpaper, too (calling it a tabloid doesn't completely condemn the journalists who have posted in it.) Added to this, I didn't call her unknown, I said she had little renown among Russians, most of whom were supporters of Putin and didn't want to listen to what she had to say. Stop twisting my words.
She had greater impact in the west than she did in Russia, and as usual, western media outlets overplayed her role in Russian journalism (much like media outlets here describe Gary Kasparov as an "opposition figure" although he has little leverage in Russia).

I really can't see how you can even begin to qualify this regurgitated tilt as anyway close to credible. Who on earth are you to say how renowned she was in Russia? She was a foremost critic on the occupation in Chechnya ffs. You can bet your keyster she was known.

Eggy Baby! wrote: »

Well, because you have cited numerous critics of Putin who seem to inspire your line of thinking. Simply listing journalists who agree with you won't convert me over to your point of view. "Go read Luke Harding" is, frankly, a lazy excuse for not contributing to debate

Its what you're doing. A reciprocation. You're quoting a blog from 1000s of kms away on a subject 1000s of km away. Mark Hendrickson still writes for Forbe as does Jerry Boyer. Does this make it the be all and end all? Of course not.

southsiderosie

MOD NOTE -

Can folks stop sniping please?

Also, if this turns into the same 'are they or are they not a dictator' argument that pops up like clockwork in threads on Syria, I'm closing the thread because it is just going to descend into the same old trench warfare and it is beyond tiresome at this point.

plasmaguy

Whether it's a mafia run state or not, I'm not sure. There have been allegations along those lines by a lot of people, people who know Russia far better than anyone on this thread, experts on Russia for example.

However, there is certainly an establishment in Russia that knows how to scratch each others backs and such establishment are certainly not confined to Russia, we had similar FF centred establisment in Ireland for most of our history, ie judges appointed by FF, the media/RTE under the control of FF, FF related broadcasters, newspapers that were pro FF, banks that were pro FF and so on, a religion that was cozy with FF. I am not trying to derail the thread, just giving a flavour of how establishments work all over the world.

To me it seems Pussy Riot were a victim of the Russian establishment. The nature of such establishments is they become more entrenched as the years go by, and formulate laws in parliament to suit them.

Let's be honest, freedom of speech, protest and of the media is severaly limited in Russia.

You criticise a member of the Russian establishment at your peril and there are countless cases of people suffering at the hands of the Russian establishment.

Eggy Baby!

Let's be honest, freedom of speech, protest and of the media is severaly limited in Russia.

Freedom of speech is generally respected. The only time censorship was introduced was in response to extremism. Freedom to protest is also respected. The only time protests are broken up is when Limonov's lunatics get out of hand and cause anarchy. The fact that there were protests of 100,000 people only a few months ago is largely testament to this respect.

Television media is largely state-owned but there are many, many independent newspapers and the internet is very free. The fact is, there are so many media outlets in Russia the government (in the words of Medvedev) "couldn't control all of them even if they wanted to". Russia still is behind western nations when it comes to these things however.

In general, it's not perfect, but its not severely limited either. During the Chechen wars, however, it was a different story.

The only place in Russia where freedom of speech, assembly and the media is not respected is in Chechnya, which, in a strange way, is an understandable reaction to the chaos over there.

You criticise a member of the Russian establishment at your peril and there are countless cases of people suffering at the hands of the Russian establishment.

But is that certain repression state-sanctioned or not? Politicians with a grudge against a journalist could use their connections to make their life hell, but is that not just a problem with the rule of law in Russia rather than with government policy?

However, there is certainly an establishment in Russia that knows how to scratch each others backs and such establishment are certainly not confined to Russia, we had similar FF centred establisment in Ireland for most of our history, ie judges appointed by FF, the media/RTE under the control of FF, FF related broadcasters, newspapers that were pro FF, banks that were pro FF and so on, a religion that was cozy with FF.

Agreed.

laoch na mona

they should get done for a public order offence or trespassing at the most

everyone has there right to protest

Eggy Baby!

laoch na mona wrote: »

they should get done for a public order offence or trespassing at the most

everyone has there right to protest

Community service is really the harshest thing they should get. We'll see on the 17th!

Brussels Sprout

Pussy Riot come across as a bunch of attention-whores who did something ridiculously offensive purely for shock value (they're also terrible musicians). What exactly did they think was going to happen? The Russian justice system is not renowned for its leniancy. They're basically a bunch of idiot hooligans who in the west would probably be fined and made do some community service. Now they're being paraded in a cage in court and made into the poster girls for the anti-Putin side which is a real shame since there are many others out there who are more deserving of the attention.

RedRightHand

Brussels Sprout wrote: »

Pussy Riot come across as a bunch of attention-whores who did something ridiculously offensive purely for shock value (they're also terrible musicians). What exactly did they think was going to happen? The Russian justice system is not renowned for its leniancy. They're basically a bunch of idiot hooligans who in the west would probably be fined and made do some community service. Now they're being paraded in a cage in court and made into the poster girls for the anti-Putin side which is a real shame since there are many others out there who are more deserving of the attention.

Putin will be happy when after their release they are elevated to be the official voice of the opposition.

Eggy Baby!

RedRightHand wrote: »

Putin will be happy when after their release they are elevated to be the official voice of the opposition.

Lol yes he will. They steal the publicity of Navalny etc. Navalny is much more important to Russia because he aids the elimination of corruption which must be one of the Russian state's highest priorities in the next decade or so. I wouldn't, however, like to see him in government.

cyberhog

Russian band Pussy Riot luckier than it realizes
Tuesday, August 14
By Peter Worthington

In Stalin’s time, or even in the fading days of Sovietism, there’d be no publicity, no public trial, no knowledge even of the girls staging a political protest inside a cathedral. They’d just disappear.

Today in Russia — imprecise and fragile as their allegiance to democracy and freedom is — people can criticize the leadership. Newspapers can rail against Putin. Scandals like the crew of a nuclear submarine being drunk appear in newspapers, which would be unheard of in the relatively recent past.

The Pussy Riot girls likely have no appreciation of how lucky they are.

The oldest of then was six when the Soviet Union collapsed, and the Russian Mafia ruled the economy until Putin restored something resembling order and rule of law.

http://www.torontosun.com/2012/08/14/russian-band-pussy-riot-luckier-than-it-realizes

brimal

All three guilty of 'hooliganism motivated by religious hatred', and given 2 years in jail.

Cries of 'shame!' from the public in the courtroom. Shame indeed.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-19297373

Eggy Baby!

They will probably end up serving half of that anyway.

Higher

If the lead singer wasn't so attractive this would have been a non-story irrespective of Putin's OTT reaction.

nyarlothothep

I find the judgement primitive

Judge Marina Syrova convicted the women of hooliganism motivated by religious hatred, saying they had "crudely undermined social order".

There are certainly some types of people that value the concept of a pecking order as they invest their identity and self worth in addition to their material well being into it. However a conceptual attack or expression of protest on the so called social order shouldn't necessitate a 2 year jail sentence. However that being said, the quintessential ancient human drive for established lines of heirarchy and coercion, deriving perhaps, from a shared ancestry with Chimpanzees, means that challenges to the social order invite extreme oftentimes farcical and hilarious reactions. Hence I find the judgement to reflect typical instinctual drives towards maintaining the social order in conjunction with playing up to the demands of humans who prize it.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

A Dub in Glasgo

No great surprise that one or two would bring Che into this - I mean WTF is the relevance? You might as well go and say 'In the time of Franco..., in the time of Stalin... in the time of Cromwell..., in the time of Botha...'

Weird

Permabear

This post has been deleted.