An interview with Yegor Kholmogorov and Alexei Navalny about the Pussy Riot case

On February 21, five young women wearing masks

performed a punk

song in Moscow's Cathedral of Christ the Savior: "Mother of God, Drive Putin Away".

Mother of God,

[applause]

drive

Putin away.

Drive

Putin away. The action lasted less than a minute.

The women and their film crew were escorted out

of the cathedral, but the very next day a music video appeared online

that included

footage from the performance. Police detained two

members of the punk group, Nadezhda

Tolokonnikova and Maria Alyokhina. They faced

up to seven years in prison. A week later,

the action became the number one topic on

the internet.

The Church rightly points to

the inadmissibility of such behavior in a

church and the offense caused to the feelings of millions of

Orthodox believers. Their opponents argue that

sending two young

mothers to prison for seven years is absurd. Around

the offenders, a halo of victims

of the regime begins to form. Many participants in the civil

protest movement shift their

attention from the rigged elections to

this particular case. Should freedom

of self-expression be limited by respect for

the traditional values of other people?

Hooliganism and sheer stupidity

or something else, and who benefits from it?

Good evening, dear

viewers.

It's Friday, and this is our talk show. Our guests are

Yegor Kholmogorov—hello—and Alexei

Navalny. Good evening, good evening. Today we

will be talking about the group

Pussy Riot—or, if you prefer, there are other less

polite translations of the name—and

all the events that unfolded

around

it. Who shall we start with? Let's start with Yegor

Kholmogorov. Yegor, what do you think? Well, first of all,

let's use the informal "you." We're all

among friends here. Fine, informal it is. Well, I

think this was, all in all, quite a

successful—brilliantly successful—

provocation, a provocation that was

directed both against the Russian

Orthodox Church, which now every

Lent a certain part of our

"progressive" public seems to make a habit of attacking. You see,

last year the Church was being hounded by

Anastasia Volochkova, who loudly

came out denouncing and cursing, as they say, and

so on, because one of the

priests had said something not especially approving

about her photos in a nearly nude style posted

online. And this year we have another

story, a more serious one. On the other

hand, this is also, broadly speaking, a provocation against

our civil society and, in a sense, against

the democratic

movement. Why? Because it really struck it

at what I think is its weakest

point. And that weak point is that

a significant part of our

democratic movement consists of people who are very

sharply, painfully anti-clerical,

and this is not an ideological

or philosophical anti-clericalism; it is

a crude, street-level anti-clericalism. In that

style. Today this is already the second TV show

I've appeared on about this topic.

Mr. Gozman, on Vladimir Solovyov's program,

started explaining that the cathedral

is somehow fake, improper, and that it was

built with kickback money, and that

the patriarch has the wrong kind of watch, and that in this

lower hall, which in fact,

by the way, does not even belong to the Church at all

but to Moscow City Hall,

something improper is held there.

And therefore, we are told,

these young ladies had the right, as it were,

to express themselves in this way regarding

Orthodoxy and the Orthodox Church: supposedly, if

we don't like your sacred things, then

we have the right to mock them, and

most importantly, to emphasize that this is

done with impunity. And this reaction was

completely obvious. That is, beforehand,

after a decade of the activities of people like,

for example, Marat Gelman,

funded by the state,

which, by the way, should attract Alexei

Navalny's attention,

there had been a corresponding

conditioning of public opinion. And so,

naturally, the first automatic

reaction of the liberals, so to speak—

well, not only liberals; there are also

neo-pagans and many others—was:

"Oh, great, sock it to the priests! How

right, how cool, what an awesome

thing—those bastards had it coming, smack them in the face,

right in the face!" That was the kind of

delight that switched off any

rational, critical

perception and created what you might call

a herd effect, a group stampede

in the direction of this unrestrained

apologia for these actions. And when

that apologia kicked in, instead of

what should have been a completely

straightforward legal response from civil society—

that this was outrageous, that it was wrong, within the

limits required by law—this

It should be punished; it’s just that these boundaries

should not be crossed, and because of that

since that reaction did not follow, there came

a defensive reaction from Orthodox believers

in earnest. What does that mean if now

these ladies are made into an example, demonstratively...

so to speak, before the whole world, with them

being punished under the code—that is what you’d call

what is in the code

with the help of pre-trial detention (SIZO, remand jail) and so on and so

forth, and so on. We ourselves, we

Russian nationalists, know all this perfectly well

we’ve been through all of this; we went through it in the case of

Mirzaev, that there would have been much

more, perhaps, of a calm

attitude, less emotionally charged

if there had not been an element of threat in it

of demonstrative

impunity—that because you’re some favorite

of blogger Oleg Kozyrev and other

representatives of the liberal crowd, over

some wonderful LiveJournal and so on—this does not

give you

the right to mock an Orthodox church

and Orthodox saints. Now tell me

please, from your point of view, is this

really a threat to the Church? Well, how

shall I put it—a threat to the Church

is the acknowledgment of the fact of demonstrative

socially approved sacrilege. There are no

guarantees that tomorrow there will not

appear, say, some kind of

radical, some pseudo-left

radical terrorist group

that will kill priests

or plant bombs in churches, or

something else, citing the fact that

these disgusting priests—and we saw that these

priests are disgusting; the girls showed us everything

clearly enough, got it.

All right, Alexei, well, what would you say to us

to argue for another hour? I understand that I am 85% on

Yegor’s side, and the Pussy Riot action was

quite thoroughly disgusting

anti-social, immoral, and

apparently contains signs of a serious

offense. But here we simply need

to step back a little from emotions and

think about whether this was

an anti-social act, and whether it deserved

for these people to have unleashed upon them

some state machine with all its stupidity and

senselessness

which in fact turned the whole

situation upside down. I would just

like to remind you of the chronology: when Pussy

Riot carried out their action, everyone knew who

these people were. Everyone understood perfectly well who

these people specifically were; everyone condemned them

and said it was terrible stupidity. As

a political action, it was meaningless. They

were met with broad consensus on

this point; even people with anti-clerical

views said: all right, you may not

like the Orthodox Church, you may not

like the Patriarch—criticize him somewhere else; you

burst into a church and behaved like idiots

Everyone discussed and condemned them. What happened

after that? There was a lull for a while

then there was a political order, and then

these girls were hunted down by Center E (the anti-extremism police unit), the FSB (Federal Security Service), and others

they were arrested amid shouting; 40 people are in

the investigative group, and now there are

five investigators for especially important cases

We don’t investigate terrorism like this; we have

very few crimes at all for which

such forces have been thrown at them. These

girls are hunted down and arrested, and what do we see?

They receive universal sympathy. Why?

Not because anyone supports their

idiotic action in the Cathedral of Christ the Savior

but because everyone perfectly well

understands—this is a very loose use of

the notion of universality, this talk of ‘universal’

sympathy. For example, I do not feel the slightest

sympathy. Everyone condemned them here

too—I observed what I observed. Everyone

lives in some kind of media environment, and in the

media environment, among people of my

circle, from what I observe in the media

in newspapers and so on, I saw

unqualified condemnation of their action in the

Cathedral of Christ the Savior. After they were

arrested, it became obvious to everyone that their

arrest, first of all, had

an obvious political subtext, and

secondly, from the standpoint of procedure, from

the standpoint of, I don’t know, their specific

personalities there, from the standpoint of the danger of their

misconduct, it was somewhat disproportionate

They received sympathy. Why? Not because

people support their action, but because

all people, including foolish

young women who carried out a disgusting action in a

church, have a right to justice, to

some kind of equal treatment from the secular

state machine. And I, as a lawyer,

know perfectly well that there is no such thing as

hooliganism for which women would

be arrested when they have small children

And if we look at the personalities

of those arrested, we will see that they simply do not

have the ability to influence the investigation, intimidate

witnesses, flee punishment, and so on

Further, I don't think there's anything to thank anyone for. I believe they should

be subjected to an honest, impartial

trial and receive whatever punishment the judge deems appropriate.

Today I was tried by Judge Borovkova

Borovkova. It was a completely dishonest

and biased trial, but that does not

mean that I should—this is what I do not

dispute—this is what they deserve, they should

receive it. And I especially do not understand

you see, all this is happening within a certain

information context. They released

a local police officer in Kazan who had unlawfully

arrested a man,

falsified the detention records, and there

he was tortured to death.

And he was released to house arrest.

All I demand from, I don't know, from

society, from the state—from here, I demand

justice. So if they have

the possibility of being released on bail

or under house arrest, or on a pledge not to

leave, then that is what I want, and that is why I stood in

a one-person picket. I demand that they, in

accordance with the Criminal Procedure

Code, be released on a pledge not to

leave, or under house arrest, and then at

trial be judged fairly, without staging

some kind of show trial. An interesting

thought. Here is what I want to draw your

attention to. Let me take the floor, uh, if we

are talking about a fair trial—well, in

Russia there is no fair judicial system,

but nevertheless one has to respond to this

somehow. If we speak from the point

of view of jurisprudence, you say

that this bad local police officer behaved

badly and yet he was released. Well,

presumably the logic should be that we

should not compare the behavior of these

crazy girls with that police officer. They are not

competing with each other; it is not a

competition between them. Rather,

their actions must be compared with

the law. What does the law say about arrest? You

didn't list all the grounds for arrest, as far as I can tell,

for example

the assumption that they will continue

their criminal activity. Actually, do you

have any doubts that they will continue? I, for

one, have no such

doubts. I have serious concerns. Their

track record consists in the fact

that this is a radical group that

carries out what some call

artistic actions; others

call them acts of hooliganism.

As I understand it, for their previous

actions they were not subjected

to any criminal prosecution, only

mainly administrative penalties.

They could commit a similar act again. I believe, I believe

that they could do so. I believe that

if they were under house

arrest, for example, and had the opportunity

to communicate with their children, then

the possibility of continuing to commit

any kind of

antisocial acts, and so on, would be completely ruled out.

I do not feel sorry for the mother; I feel sorry for

the law. So I want—No, but right now you are

playing on the 'mother' angle here.

Excuse me, Tolokonnikova, please show us here

the attack on

a police officer, a representative of the

lesbian community. And here, and here,

a mother is expecting, expecting a baby. Here she is,

waiting, preparing for

childbirth—a wonderful mother, a прекрасная

woman.

One angle is better than the next. They say she has

not been in contact with the child for several months

now; the child lives somewhere else.

Well, I don't know about that. I know one thing:

any person, no matter what disgusting

images of them might be shown

on screen, still

deserves an honest and fair trial.

After all, it wasn't us who brought these postcards; it was

—I agree that these people deserve

a completely

fair hearing and trial.

Was there a certain deliberate

act involved—that is, did they do it deliberately

or not deliberately? They did it

quite clearly deliberately. It seems to me

that the whole question here is one of legal definition:

whether what they did

was petty hooliganism,

an administrative offense, or whether it was in fact

hooliganism of medium gravity,

which is, generally speaking, a criminal

offense—that is, whether they did it

for reasons of religious

discord or hatred, with the aim of inciting

enmity, and so on. This is something that

must be examined in court, so let us

examine it in court. Exactly right. I

honestly am not at all a fan

of all these extremist-related additions

to our Criminal Code, with all those

motives of this kind, that kind, and so on—

this or that kind of hatred. Yesterday, one

representative of the Orthodox Church, when we

were discussing this topic with Nevzorov,

said, 'Let's convict them under Article 282,'

and I had to pull him up right there

and explain why Article 282 should not

be applied anywhere, ever. And these

aggravating formulations—I also, I...

I completely agree that the wording from

this or that kind of hatred is

equally inapplicable here; in this

case, from this point of view, their crime

consisted in trampling on the freedom

of conscience of believers who

And in this church, people pray according to certain

rules established by Orthodox canon

law over a thousand years, and other rules, uh,

someone said there, well, they were also

praying too. But different rules of prayer are, as it were,

not provided for in this church; they are

excluded. But now look further regarding

the matter of

the next part — arrest. So, uh, the idea of

house arrest, for example, appeals to me

that is, I think that of course

house arrest would have been a more appropriate measure than

detention in a pre-trial detention center (SIZO). But, say, to let them go

free — why is that impossible? In my

view, because it is not about those

pictures Volodya showed us, but

for example

those, yes — and there are even more

terrible pictures. That is, you showed us

rather mild pictures, whereas in

those, let's say, for example

the facts that are also publicly known

to all of us, for example from

the diary of that same Lursarno

regarding the way, uh,

Ms.

was involved in getting one of the activists jailed

also a rather unpleasant one, of course

a pretty unsavory character, Shiman, but she

in fact, together with her husband and

Verzilov, handed him over to the Ukrainian

police for one of the actions, and

the reasoning was, well, he'll sit in jail — that's

a great PR stunt. It's great PR for us

all. It's great PR for the group, and so

on. At the same time, when this

comrade quickly broke and led

the cops to their apartment, accordingly they

after that accused her of betrayal

and that same Nadya began demanding that he

be raped anally, and so

on. These are not the kinds of things

that should be discussed in court

— no, look, here's the problem

here, in my view. Of course I'm not a lawyer, and

I'm just trying to convey the full

complexity of this situation. Further,

it turned out that Verzilov and To

lokonnikova also robbed this Shitman

and stole his belongings, some money, and

so on. What I'm saying is that, unfortunately,

the facts known to us indicate

that at least one of these ladies

who are now in custody represents

a certain objective public

danger. Very good — may I

pick up on what you said: in the case materials,

as far as I know — I haven't worked on

this case — as far as I know, none of this

is there. None of this is in the case materials

there. There is video, there are some

witness statements, but no, none of the

other facts that would tell us about

the subjective side, about the personalities of these

defendants under arrest — none of that

is there. Therefore, I simply stand by

the simple fact that in Russia there currently are no

women with young children

who are charged with

hooliganism and are being held in

custody. There just aren't any; these are extremely rare

cases. I'm not even sure there have been any. And

the existing practice

shows us — well, there was that high-profile

case when the daughter of the head of the

Irkutsk election commission ran over two

people, killing one of them outright, while

the other was left disabled. Yet she did not spend

a single day in custody, and then she

was given 2 years with the sentence deferred for 14

years because she had a young child. The fact

that Tolokonnikova may be vile, the fact

that Tolokonnikova may be

repulsive to all of us because of her photographs

some vile acquaintances, whatever she

was doing there — that does not mean that Tolokonnikova should have the

criminal procedure code applied to

her differently. But

many people don't like that. Tell me, please, are you

speaking now as a human rights advocate,

as a lawyer, or as a politician? I am speaking as I

speak — as a politician, as a lawyer, and as a

citizen. I believe that as a politician I cannot

stand on any other, uh, norms

and rights. No other ground there

— concrete... Let's talk about you as a

politician. Well, actually

there is such a field of knowledge as the psychology

of the masses

Yes, of the masses

they have difficulty simultaneously handling two

ideas on one issue. There is a

phrase: "Execute, not

pardon" — understanding the nuances is very difficult

for the masses; they would like to know where to put

the comma: either "Execute, not pardon,"

or "Do not execute,

pardon." Here, it seems to me, the dichotomy is

as follows: either you support

— in your position, and in how people

on the outside perceive you — either you

support the outrage that in a church

you must not defile the place, or you say that

Listen, let’s show mercy to those

who desecrate a church. That’s an excellent question.

So, that claim means there is no

dichotomy, and I am not going to be

the kind of politician who reacts to

the psychology of the masses. I don’t care, in that

sense, about the psychology of the masses. I want to be

a politician who says what he believes

in and the things he

stands for. So I hold, I believe, to

moral principles, and it is necessary, and

at the same time I can stand on the side of

the law. I am saying quite clearly: I find

their act disgusting. If I were, if I

were in a church and saw some girls

run in and start running around, I would call

the police and demand it, because I see that they are

committing hooliganism. I would demand that they be detained

and taken away. After that, let the court deal with them.

But at the same time, my moral and civic

position tells me that just because they are

disgusting to me and caused a disturbance, that does not

mean that there should be applied to them

some kind of double standards because someone

is demanding their crucifixion, someone doesn’t

like a drunk person on the street—shall we

beat them with sticks? Someone doesn’t like a drug addict—

About standards, then—don’t you think it’s

actually strange that they let go

these

those very district police officers in Kazan, that these

children of officials are being shielded

from investigation, from trial, given deferred sentences

and so on? Doesn’t it seem to you that

in this situation you are not so much

acting as a human rights defender for

the observance of a general standard with respect to

them, but rather that in fact you are demanding

for yet another privileged

category of persons the same kind of

exceptional justice, that is, the same

special measures. From my point

of view, a violation of the law in

one case does not justify a violation of the law in another.

That is, the general standard must be

truly uniform, and if that standard

requires, so to speak, severity and not

leniency, then it must be

the same for everyone. It must apply to

that district police officer, to Mirzaev, to

the daughter of a female official, to Tolokonnikova. Not

because Orthodox believers somehow hate her in particular,

but because she committed

a socially dangerous act. That’s it.

That is my view.

Under the Criminal Procedure Code, there are two grounds.

There is the likelihood that criminal

activity will continue; there is the likelihood

that the person will evade justice. Given that

some of the other members of the group

did in fact go into hiding—though today, it seems,

someone else among them was detained—well,

that factor is present too. Accordingly, is it not

the norm in this case, what one might call

so to speak,

serving

Tolokonnikova’s pre-trial detention in a SIZO (pre-trial detention center) until trial, and serving time in

the same kind of SIZO, only in Kazan, for those

district police officers, and the absence of any absurd

leniency, so to speak, for the daughters

of officials, and no justification for Mirzaev

because he is, you see, some kind of public asset, and so

on? In other words, isn’t it the case—aren’t

you trying to suggest to us

that we should in effect soften the standard for these people

because crooks and thieves have softened the standards?

That is exactly how the situation looks.

I, on the contrary, am defending a certain legal position.

As a person who investigates

corruption, for example, I

filed a complaint concerning Gazprom executives

and a criminal case was opened on the basis of my

statement; charges were even brought, and

they were supposed to go to court. It’s not even that they weren’t

arrested or placed under travel restrictions—

they were not even removed from their positions.

Then the cases fell apart. These

people continue their comfortable

existence, swimming in money, and so

on. But that is not a reason to let others go.

Right, it is not a reason. But aren’t we creating

yet another category? Not at all, that’s not correct.

And in fact, the position of some

people who say, “Well, you see, they

first of all, are right to speak out against

the Patriarch because he is covered in

gold and rides around in a Mercedes,” or

“Let’s release the artists because

an artist can do whatever he wants” —

that position is just as

disgusting to me. I don’t care that they are

artists, I don’t care. But I know, I know

a certain legal practice. I know

the Criminal Procedure Code. So,

specifically, Tolokonnikova

is officially registered in Norilsk, and from that

someone might conclude that

she could evade the investigation and go

to Norilsk because she is not registered in Moscow.

But on the other hand, I see

another side of the case, which is that

she has a young child; she

could be placed under house arrest; her

foreign passport could be taken away, and so on.

And the degree of danger posed by her act, it is not

that is, she cannot intimidate anyone.

she cannot threaten witnesses

the investigation, and so on. If we want to broaden this

it shows us that she may be capable of intimidating

witnesses. I don't know, but I clearly

clearly say this: then let it be raised during the court proceedings

they promised to break her, to rape her

with a strap-on, they said. But that's a completely different matter. And

don't twist things, because at the

court hearing where, at the two

court hearings where decisions were made

about keeping her in custody

none of this was mentioned at all. And if

it was not said at the court hearing

then, as far as the court is concerned, it does not exist. For example, I

am hearing about this for the first time; for me, it does not

exist. We are in court, after all, in court. But these

people—well, if we're not in court, we can

call each other whatever we like here. But

if we are deciding the question of any person's freedom

even the most repulsive person, we

must adhere to the rules. Moreover, I

want to say, as an Orthodox Christian, that

this whole situation is working against us

because their unjust

arrest really fueled anti-clerical sentiment and

gave additional trump cards to the most

unhinged people

and objectively fed anti-Navalny sentiment

This is a game

for someone—Raevsky, for someone else—anti-... In other words,

each of us has moments when, when I

do something or speak out publicly

in defense of Arakcheyev and Khudyakov, purely on

procedural grounds, I have absolutely

a procedural attitude here. I did not work on the case

myself. I know one thing: twice

these people were acquitted by a

jury, and then with a different panel and a whole host of

procedural violations, these people

were imprisoned unjustly

On the other hand, from the

left-liberal side, I get a whole lot of

criticism: 'That's it, Navalny, we've

lost faith in you, we hate you'

anti-Navalny sentiment—I don't care, because I

demand that Arakcheyev, Khudyakov, Ulman—whoever

it may be—they all deserve

a fair trial, regardless of the supposed will

of the Chechen people or whatever, I don't know

the media situation, the political situation

because it may be useful to Putin there for

pacification, blah blah blah—I don't care

If we are talking about categories such as

life and death, freedom and

lack of freedom, we cannot give in here

to emotions. Why is Themis depicted with

a blindfold? It means her eyes were covered

so that she would not see all these

photographs, she would not see posts about

some kind of 'shitman' and so on—none of that

exists for her. If it does exist, then it

must be brought to court, and in court it

is examined. I am saying once again that, well

there is nothing like this in Russia now—no one would

for hooliganism, whether minor or criminal—it is still unclear

whether it is a criminal offense

for hooliganism, two women with small children

would be sitting in detention while there was

an investigative team of five

investigators for especially important cases. This

this obvious political

taint simply ruins everything for us. We

say: these hooligans came into a church, they

insulted us, they should be punished, and they

should indeed be punished. But when

politics gets mixed into this, these hooligans

gain sympathy, and no one any longer

discusses their antisocial act. Instead

everyone discusses how they are political prisoners. And

that, by the way, is where the real

danger of this whole story actually lies

Why? Let's say that despite all this, I

am categorically opposed to

them being locked up for long

terms at all, and that

would be a major problem for, say,

the civic movement, for

the democratic movement, for

the Orthodox Church, for anyone else

if, for example, they then receive a prison

sentence or something else, rather than

community service. Why? Because in

fact, the authorities would thereby solve a very

important problem: they would close off the issue

of political prisoners, almost. Why? Because

well, we know perfectly well, in general

most of our liberal public would

push them into any list

of political prisoners and put them in first place

after which the automatic reaction

of, say, the entire more or less Orthodox

conservative public would be to throw

that list of political prisoners into the trash. Yes

we don't need that list, because as for

Khodorkovsky, people have already cooled off, so to speak

over nine years; that is, he no longer provokes

that same intense butthurt, but, well

the man has served his time, he's done his time already

let him come out. But here this is

an absolutely fresh, new story in which

a political

tinge will be given to it. So this is, in fact, a very dangerous

and very risky thing. But

the whole question is where, where exactly, in my view

the decisive point lies

From one point of view, the key element of this whole story

for Alexei lies in the equal

application of the law; from my point of view,

perhaps precisely because I am not a lawyer

or some failed theologian or

someone else, it

consists in this: for as long as we do not have

there will not be

a painfully inflamed anti-clerical mood in society

that treats absolutely any, so to speak,

any middle finger shown at

the Church, at the Patriarch, at

priests, with delight

justification, flowers, praise, and so on

until then, these situations will

keep reproducing themselves

The Church is supposedly in league with the repressive

machine; right now it looks as if

the Church has sicced the repressive machine on them

which has broken all the rules and is beginning

to grind everything up there. I absolutely

agree with Yegor that this deals

a colossal blow to the human rights

movement and to the issue of political prisoners. If they

are convicted unjustly, with

these procedural violations

that keep occurring, they will be put on the

list of political prisoners, and instead of

discussing the problem of the existence of

political prisoners, we will endlessly debate

whether Pussy Riot is one or not

This is an absolutely harmful thing. And in

fact, the stupidity of these Pussy Riot girls and

the cunning and meanness of the state

machine lie in the fact that this case

has now displaced our entire

real political agenda, which

consists of election fraud, what

Yegor was talking about at the very beginning,

real lawlessness, the dispersal of

rallies and demonstrations, and so on. We

are now running around; I go, I go to this

picket and stand there for Pussy Riot because

I demand that the criminal law be applied to them

properly

Alexei, again, a serious question:

you know, by the way, I wrote a very

sharp text right after you

went out to that picket, not at all because

of the fact that you went there, but because

you came out with a poster, with that kind of

portrait on it. I mean, right away this

already seemed to me absolutely

an incomprehensible move for a lawyer and a complete

blunder for a politician: in this case, to defend

not some abstract people

who broke the law, but Nadya and Masha

That immediately turns into: they’re good girls

Yes, that’s true, that’s true, but here it’s

that kind of genre: everything gets mixed together when we

move into things like this, all of it

gets mixed together. If we say, you

know, I’m saying that they were put under arrest

unjustly, then what arises from that is

the whole Nadya-and-Masha theme

poor unfortunate girls, and everyone has already forgotten that

they were running around in there and so on. No need for that.

I don’t want people to love Nadya and Masha

I want to go out myself and say:

I demand that Masha and

Nadya

I demand that hooligans and

those who desecrated a church be tried according to

the law. From the very beginning I said this was an act of

action

hooliganism. I was not standing there with a poster because

there is no need to stand there with a poster if, when

they were jailed, when they began to be

deprived of their freedom unjustly, I considered it

necessary to express my

position. Likewise, when they did this,

despite the fact that Verzilov, Tolokonnikova’s husband,

served 15 days with me in detention

on the neighboring bunk, I said that I

condemn them; they should be held

accountable for it. In my view,

give them 15 days each and send them

home, and after that it would have been a great

victory for the Orthodox Church and a major

humiliation for the radical part of the

anti-clericals. That would have been excellent, but unfortunately everything

got turned upside down

They turned into some kind of strange

political prisoners, and anti-clericals, again, all of them

or at least their hard core. I admit that for

25 years I was some kind of crazed

militant atheist. Well, life goes on, I

stopped being an atheist, but I was one, and

people have the right to hold such

positions, of course. They can say whatever

they want. There is no need to hand them trumps, and

there is certainly no need for the state

to work on their behalf. Because right now

the state, the police, have made it so that

the Church now looks like some kind of

aggressor. So everyone has already forgotten that

they were running around the altar, and the Church

looks like this aggressor, I don’t know, some kind of

destroyer and all the rest of it

There are fights near the courthouse, some kind of

fights near the Cathedral of Christ the Savior

some prayer services in defense of it in the church. What

do we need all this for? And all of this

was provoked by one very simple thing:

the application to them of an unjust measure of

detention pending trial. What exactly did it provoke?

This is an unjust use of force. And it seems to me

that originally, after all, this was

the appearance of desecrators in a church. Look,

look, first we had this appear:

these crazy people from Ukraine with their bare breasts

running around out front — FEMEN. Yes, and quite recently she

was jumping around on the church steps around

the Cathedral of Christ the Savior. A few

weeks after that, there was another

attack — this time by those so-called “rabid wombs”

jumping around there. I believe that once

is an accident, twice is a coincidence, and

now there will be a third time. We live in

a modern society, and we must

proceed from the fact that there are many

people who hold

extreme views. Here is a small example:

I lived in the States for half a year when I was studying at

Yale University. Every day when

I was going to the university, I passed by

a family planning clinic — in fact,

it was basically an abortion center.

There was a picket there every day. Interestingly,

they call an abortion facility a

family planning center. They call it that precisely

in order to avoid

criticism, but it is still clear that it is

an abortion clinic. There was a picket there by radical

Christians who stood there with rather

harsh slogans — and rightly so,

they were right to stand there; that is their position. There are

people who hold

anti-clerical views. Some people find it interesting to watch,

some do not, but we have

the law, the police, the prosecutor’s office, and the courts

that draw exactly this line and

determine whether a person has crossed it or

not. If he has crossed the line into

the territory where criminal offenses begin, then

that very blindfolded Themis (the goddess of justice)

draws her sword and cuts something off with it,

with that sword. But as for everything else — if Themis does not

work, how will things develop? Well, if

Themis does not work, what must we do? We

must at least call for

Themis to work. But they are calling for: well, let’s

kill them, then. Let’s just

take them, hand them over from Petrovka 38 (Moscow police headquarters), give them

to some other madmen who

consider themselves Orthodox and who will kill them for the

glory of, I don’t know, the Russian Orthodox

Church. By the way, I for one do not at all

rule out such a possibility. If they are released now,

if they are let go — I’d wager on their

heads. The only problem is that I,

for example, would not be sure

that if something like that happens,

it will be done by Orthodox believers and not by someone else in order

to, as the newly elected

president put it... Why are you taking, forgive me,

the position of some kind of commander

of a Chechen OMON unit (special police force) who, for example,

calls for blood revenge? They have it

traditionally.

I’m talking about the fact that this is inevitable, you see.

For me

around the courthouse, if you please.

They found a place to shout against Putin

there — that’s what I think.

I sympathize with them

as

foolish... “for I know my transgressions, and my sin is ever before me”

“Against You, You only, have I sinned, and done evil in Your sight”

...

There they are.

Damn, stand next to the other

poster — “for I know my...”

...“transgressions... Against You only have I sinned.”

[music]

before You. Faith...

People — nonsense.

What nonsense? What does this have to do with Christ? All right,

let’s step away from the court. Are you feeling brave or what?

Come on then.

Girl, all right, all right.

Fine. What filth, really, what

some people started some kind of fight.

What is all this for? We

built a society and invented law

so that this kind of ugliness would not happen — so that some

wouldn’t be doing things to others there, some tearing up

posters.

We created the police so that they would

maintain public order,

enforce it; so both sides need to be

separated, and let them stand there picketing, while the court

— this Moscow City Court — should make

a fair decision. When some start

splashing others there — fine, today

these people came and they have force. And tomorrow there will come, I

don’t know, 500 supporters of Pussy Riot and

they’ll beat up another picket — would that be a normal

situation? Today vigilante justice can happen to one side,

and tomorrow vigilante justice can

happen to the other. Alexei, what do you

think — if we do not ignore

this

problem, did it harm the protest

movement of the opposition? Of course.

Of course. Objectively, what they did, and

the timing in which they did it — as I said,

they shifted it. They completely shifted

the political agenda. Yes, they are now

under attack from the repressive

machine. We are forced to defend them, and I am

forced to defend them purely from a human-rights

standpoint, despite their rather disgusting

actions. By doing so, well, they

shift the whole plane of the discussion. Well, it would be

better if you defended them not for their

disgusting actions, but defended them on the grounds

that their rights have been violated. But as for

their actions — to defend those? Good Lord, I said.

I said: by defending their rights, I am defending

myself, in fact, because in exactly the same

way I myself was being tried there today.

It was completely unjust: the witness was not

called, the motion was denied, and so

on. The same thing is happening to him.

That is why I am defending

the Criminal Procedure Code; I am defending

the law; I am defending myself and other people

in a similar situation.

Since we are now discussing this, although we

really ought to have been discussing the Chechen

"carousels" (organized voter fraud schemes) caught on video cameras, and

why these people are not being sent to prison

immediately — that is a genuinely

anti-social act, a very dangerous one.

At the same time, roughly speaking, does it make sense in

some situations — situations that are clearly, as they say,

provocations, setups, and a mess —

to keep banging your head

against the wall, so to speak?

having explained the reasons why you are doing it.

Not to support these ladies, while saying

that yes, a great deal of

injustice and lawlessness is happening to them. But

since a significant part of this

story was created by them quite consciously,

dragging people into a situation where people

are forced, as the saying goes, to be up to their necks in shit,

having to clean up these, so to speak,

legal wreckages created by them, their

actual crime — shouldn’t one

call it exactly that? So what we

see is that what is happening is not justice.

I stated my position on this point

quite clearly. I said that it is not merely that I do not

approve of their action — I consider it

offensive and unacceptable. It is a

serious offense. Let them, let them

sort out whether it is a crime,

a misdemeanor, or an administrative

offense — let that be determined.

I am speaking out so that they

are released, because I believe that

the Criminal Procedure Code requires

it, gives grounds for their release.

Let them be released, that’s all. I am not

interested in, so to speak, some elaborate

dirty trick. For example, people come to you on behalf of

a large group of the progressive

public and ask that Alexei

Navalny become

their lawyer. Well, no one came to me

asking me to be their lawyer,

because they understand perfectly well that I

would refuse. Yes, there are other people there,

quite qualified ones. But of course

I am not going to defend them. Uh, I do not know

how many people may listen

to my position, but if you

claim to be a politician,

a public figure, then I state my

position. They ask me: do you think

they should remain in custody? I

say: no, I do not. Are you afraid to

say that publicly? No, I am not afraid, I, I

will say publicly that they should be

released before trial, and publicly I also

say that their act was

disgusting; I condemn them. And if they are

jailed, if the court convicts them on criminal charges and gives them some

term — well, let us see. We will

watch.

After all, it is a court. If the court does everything procedurally

correctly, if new

circumstances come to light, and everything is

examined, if there is truly

an adversarial process and everything

that is required, if it is a fair

trial, then of course everyone will

accept that court decision.

Ladies and gentlemen, in fact, judgments often have a

biased character. That is why we

came up with the adversarial nature of the court process;

humanity invented it for a reason.

That is why I believe I will accept a fair

trial — well, from the point

of view, again, of my own level of

legal consciousness. If I follow

the proceedings, then I will accept it. But honestly

speaking, it seems to me that in this

situation, unfortunately, we again

have very weak civic institutions. And unfortunately,

the events of the last few weeks there

have weakened them even further.

As a result, we cannot, for example,

carry out something like a civic

investigation of this story. That is,

to be honest, I am afraid that, let us say,

the investigation and the court will establish neither

the organizers, nor those who ordered it, nor

the instigator of this crime. They

will stop at the perpetrators, although there

even from the style of the texts that

are published in this LiveJournal, it is

clear that they were written, at the very least, not

by these young women; that this is, that this is a man’s

hand — you can feel it, you can feel that it is

someone much more deeply involved in

certain political processes.

In terms of organization...

Well, let us put it this way: he may rather be

the cover in this situation.

Excuse me, that changes the matter completely if

it turns out — in that sense, if there are

such concerns and someone really

thinks so, then this truly deserves

a genuinely serious judicial

examination, if it turns out that

the person was acting on some kind of, I do not know, some...

close to state structures

perhaps someone arranged that money

if it was deliberate, then we're dealing with a different intent

that comes into play if those Pussy Riot people were simply there

carrying out an artistic action and wanted

to get publicity or make some kind of statement

some sort of manifesto. Do you consider this

to be art? No, well, just a second, this is

a matter of examining whether there was intent to

offend or not. If there was intent on the part of

those behind it to stage a political

provocation or something else, that changes

the case. That's exactly what needs to be examined

but I have the feeling that

these five investigators for especially important

cases—I don't know what exactly they're doing in

the case there—and there

they arrested these two young women who were already

well known to everyone. There were 40 people

from the FSB special forces (Federal Security Service). I have the feeling that

all this is being done not in order to

establish the real circumstances of the case

but in order to demonstrate: we

will crush you. You know how people say

Muslims say: Allah gave a person a tongue on one

side to speak the truth, and on the other

to conceal it. So what, then, is the purpose of

having five investigators for especially

important cases? So that, God forbid, they don't

actually investigate? My first impression

was that this was purely a police

provocation aimed simply at

openly sinking this protest

movement. Cui bono—who benefits?

Who benefits most from this situation? It seems to me

that the ones who benefit most are precisely

the Kremlin puppeteers. Yes, I don't know who

benefits from it. But what is happening

and its consequences, right—judging by

the consequences and the context of what

we have now, in the end, what we are

discussing—it is obvious that all this has gone

clearly beyond the bounds of an ordinary

investigation into that offense

an administrative one, that is. Here already

absolutely everyone has gotten involved, and each of them

is pulling out their own meanings and using this whole

situation

for political

manipulation, and so on. And that already

of course changes the matter, and that, of course, again

should now be interpreted in favor of

the idea that, all right, folks, let's have

more

of the Criminal Procedure Code

and less intrigue, less politics, less of

some people trying to worm their way into this. Here

right now everyone is saying it openly, even

the investigators there are saying, well, we're waiting for

a phone call—whether to release them or not. What is

that supposed to mean? What rule of law are we even talking about when

these people are effectively saying publicly

and again the Church is trying to insert itself into

all of this, saying that supposedly

the Patriarch should decide, should call someone

and determine whether they should stay in jail or not

This is completely unacceptable

It is completely unacceptable for such

discussions to take place. As a lawyer,

advise me: can this case be terminated

on the grounds of reconciliation between the parties, conditionally speaking, or

No, this is not a private prosecution case

So then what kind of phone call from

the Patriarch could there be here? A call from the Patriarch, from a legal

point of view—well, we see that

there have been a large number of leaks, yes

these are anti-clerical rumors, but a large number

of leaks have come specifically from the investigation, from

the authorities. The point is that

there was and still is a legend that keeps mutating

actively among the anti-clerical camp, saying, well,

supposedly the Patriarch called Putin, and

Putin said to jail them all, and now

the Patriarch should also call Putin and

say, like, release them all. Well, that

if that existed, it was a leak from the side of

the anti-clerical community. I don't know who

came up with it, but the fact is that we see

a great deal of political context and not

much sign of

a legal one. Tell me, as a political expert,

well, actually

this dealt the protest movement

a colossal blow. Yes,

seriously, it dealt a colossal blow

to all of us. I think it dealt

a colossal blow to the Church

a colossal blow to human rights defenders who stand

simply on the side of the law. It dealt a blow

to the protest movement. It dealt a blow

to politics in the country in general, because

the main thing is this: what we started with, what we're talking about

is not rigged elections

but a hooligan-style action in a church. There you have it

What did you think of the last rally?

Look at the last rally—even

if you go around asking what people were talking about at that rally

In

the end, there was support for businessman

Kozlov in

his very controversial dispute with Mr.

Slutsky. Frankly, I don't know who there

is right, who is to blame, or what happened

Today Maxim Katz, whose

existence I only learned about at that rally,

turns out to be a presidential candidate, and

has a wonderful proposal

There was some kind of joke from the stage, haha, and we all

appreciated it and laughed at that joke. It was

very funny — that was the main thing, very

rational and productive. Yes, very, very

funny. Everyone is joking, everyone, everyone, everyone, just

and then they went on and proposed standing up for

Pura, and the majority of

those present took it not in

the sense that what happened should be

punished within the framework of the law, but rather in the sense

of, "Aha, they went after the Church — well done, let's

come on."

"Freedom for our heroines" was proposed.

Nationalists were told to roll up their flag.

Well, I was at the rally. I wasn't on stage,

I was just there in the crowd, and I did not

get the impression that

this was how nationalists took it. Yes, well,

in fact, people took it in the following

way. And most importantly, fewer people came to the rally

than to the previous one. Yes, that, that

is an important thing. In my opinion, these are all links in a chain

that lead to... I stood at this

rally there in the middle of the crowd and saw how

people were taking it all in. It seems to me they

were taking everything, on the whole, quite

reasonably. But what you're right about is that

actions like this, they shift

the center of discussion and the real agenda into

some kind of nonsense. What they did there

— Pussy Riot — was an aggressive, aggressive

act, an unacceptable act. But it is

certainly not some crucial part of

the country's political agenda, of the country's life.

It's absolutely nonsense, an insider squabble, and

an insider squabble, just some kind of nonsense.

They've made up, supposedly, some important

issues, but conflicts in the sphere of religion

happen constantly. Well, some

pastors in America burn Qurans, and that

leads to certain consequences. This

happens. Well, it's just part of people's lives, it

happens all the time. It is not

some kind of background to our lives — various more

or less significant conflicts around

religion. But when we start, instead of

discussing substantive things, discussing this stuff instead,

that's wrong. And there is a feeling

that what happened here — whether it was planned

or unplanned — but the fact that our

discussion is being deliberately pushed in that direction is a fact.

Tell me, please, from your point of view,

can a successful mass political movement

in Russia afford to treat

Orthodoxy (the Russian Orthodox faith) as such disrespectfully?

Does such a

movement have the potential to become truly mass?

A movement of that kind... I think that

a movement that lays claim to

representing the majority

of course cannot treat

anything at all disrespectfully,

including, naturally, religion.

Therefore, people who insult

other people on religious grounds

will presumably be unlikely to gain any

majority. Nevertheless, we should remember

that just 20 years ago our country was

predominantly a country of atheists. Or else

of some kind of strange pagans,

who... well, that ended badly,

ended badly, but nevertheless there is

a large number of people who

amount to percentages, or

possibly even tens of percent,

who still hold fairly

aggressive atheist positions, so I do not

rule out that... But atheism and

anti-clericalism are different things, after all.

Different things, different things, with different

definitions. Nevertheless, people who

hold such views, obviously, they

are also numerous enough to be

represented in the Duma (the lower house of Russia's parliament) or somewhere else as well.

Well, apparently right now they probably cannot

form a majority. Roughly speaking,

in my view, say, for a person who is an

anti-clericalist or anti-Christian

in Germany, joining the CDU/CSU would make no sense; he should

go to some other

parties. By the way, that does not mean environmentalists

must necessarily be anti-clerical. I,

for example, support environmentalism, support the Greens.

That is an inalienable right of the Russian people, but with

what gesture... The Greens are, generally speaking,

a kind of, how should I put it,

left-liberal party there, in favor of

LGBT rights and all the rest.

All the other things... maybe.

But that's not the point.

The German situation is not ours; our situation

is different precisely in the sense

that here, completely, these kinds of

political cores have not been formed.

For me, for example, the big problem is that

we completely lack

a Christian-democratic core.

If anyone does try to work on this,

on this,

it is mostly... that is, an Orthodox

Christian-democratic

political core, with a kind of national-

democratic element, ideally — that too

in that context — has not been formed in

politics at all. And yet,

objectively speaking, this ought to be

the largest political force in our

society, because after all, in our

There is a public demand for democracy, and

there is also a demand for traditional

Christian values, broadly speaking, and for

there to be no doubt that

marriage is something entered into between

a man and a woman.

That abortion is something that may be

tolerated in society at times, and in

legislation, but cannot, so to speak,

be regarded as something inspiring

enthusiasm; that blasphemy is something

that is unquestionably

condemned, along with many other things. At the same time,

Of course, again, just as

we as a society need to move away from this kind of

paternalism toward the state,

so too we Orthodox Christians need to move away

from this kind of paternalism toward

the authorities—the idea that, well, they'll throw us something,

they'll build a church there with budget funds,

while stealing most of the money

for themselves—but, well, it's a holy cause, isn't it?

How could they not steal from something sacred?

And by the way, there was a funny moment when we

were arguing yesterday with Nezo; there was this amusing

moment. He apparently decided he was going to stump me

just then. He said: so, what do you think

about the fact that in Germany and

many other European countries

people pay a church tax? Let those who

want to support the church do so. I said:

I'm perfectly fine with that. In fact, I think

that's exactly how it should be: Orthodox believers themselves should

support their own church, rather than shifting it

onto the state, which in return gets

a great many different benefits and

advantages in terms of spiritual justification,

spiritual apologetics for things that cannot

be justified, uh, justified. And so

for some reason here, very aggressively, very

aggressively, democratic and

liberal values are being tied to

anti-clericalism. And for me, precisely,

the tragedy is that those Pussy Riot girls made

yet another attempt at making that connection, and

a huge part of the liberal crowd, for

one emotional reason or another,

swallowed it. But we should—people

are trying to speak not in their own name, right?

Here Yegor is now trying

to speak on behalf of liberals,

and punk women staging a profane spectacle in a church

start speaking on behalf of Orthodox believers.

It's ridiculous. To conclude, let's have each of you

take literally one minute

to state your position personally,

addressing the people you want to speak to.

You have that opportunity on this issue

related to this matter. It's time to sum up briefly.

My position as a person and as a citizen

is that any people, no matter how

disgusting their actions may have been,

deserve justice; they deserve

equal treatment from the courts, the police,

the prosecutor's office, the FSB (Russia's security service), whoever it may be. And I

absolutely do not approve of this action.

Pussy Riot is repugnant to me as

an Orthodox believer, as a human being, and as a citizen.

They behaved offensively, but the fact that

they are now being subjected to political

repression is, to me, completely obvious.

The identities of these suspects,

the subjective side of the case, the degree

of social danger posed by this offense

do not require that they now

be held in custody, and their detention

is obviously politically

motivated and, I believe, causes damage—

serious political damage—to the protest

movement, to Orthodox believers, and to the Russian

Orthodox Church. Therefore, the sooner

their civil rights are restored

and they receive a truly fair

trial and fair punishment,

the better. I believe that blasphemous acts,

insulting the Orthodox Church, and

violating the rights of believers are acts

that unquestionably should be

punishable under the law, and the punishability

of these acts should be established as

a norm, as an absolutely objective norm, not

tied to any completely false

pseudo-legal wording such as

"inciting"

religious hatred, and so on, but simply

on the basis of the fact that there are certain

profane actions in a church, and they should

be punished severely, but according to the law.

Therefore, the main task, in my view,

is to ensure that, on the one hand, our

society does not, out of hostility toward

the Orthodox Church, fall into apologetics for

such acts; and on the other hand, that

an Orthodox-minded rational attitude

does not come to see the punishment of these

acts of blasphemy by the state

when it is disproportionate as, so to speak, its

some kind of internal justification. That is,

we must not justify

lawlessness; we must not justify

blasphemy by saying that it is directed against

lawlessness, and we must not

justify lawlessness by saying that it is

directed against it. Thank you. And finally,

I want to say the following: in my

view, they are vile female provocateurs.

which were used, at best,

without their knowledge to

discredit the opposition and the protest

movement. This is very

bad. I hope that in the future no

similar actions will be repeated, and for that

to not happen again, there must be

appropriate punishment. Let the court

assign credit where it is due. Thank you for your attention.

[music]