On the off chance that you don’t actually know the Russian band Pussy Riot and what’s going on:
“Three women who protested against Vladimir Putin in a “punk prayer” on the altar of Russia’s main cathedral went on trial on Monday in a case seen as a test of the longtime leader’s treatment of dissent during a new presidential term.
Samutsevich, Alyokhina and Tolokonnikova have been on trial since Monday. They were arrested in early March for performing a “punk prayer” in Moscow’s Christ the Savior Cathedral and posting a video of the performance on the Internet. They have been in jail since.
The women from the band “Pussy Riot” face up to seven years in prison for an unsanctioned performance in February in which they entered Moscow’s Christ the Saviour Cathedral, ascended the altar and called on the Virgin Mary to “throw Putin out!”
The central Khamovniki court in Moscow erupted in chaos Friday when defense witnesses for Pussy Riot were denied the opportunity to testify on the musicians’ behalf.”
I would like to reprint the essay recently posted on the website Free Pussy Riot by Pussy Riot member Nadya Tolokonikovoy. You should read it. Really.
Art and the Human Manifesto of Nadia Tolokonikovoy
The punk band Pussy Riot, which I belong to, is a musical group that conducts unexpected performances
in different urban spaces. Pussy Riot’s songs address topical political issues. The interests of the group
members are: political activism, ecology, and the elimination of authoritarian tendencies in the Russian
state system through the creation of the civil society.
Since its origin in October 2011, the band played concerts in the subway, on the roof of a trolleybus,
on the roof of the detention center for administrative detainees, in clothing stores, at fashion shows,
and on the Lobnoe Mesto on Red Square. We believe that the art should be accessible to everyone;
therefore we perform in diverse public spaces. Pussy Riot never means to show any disrespect to any
viewers or witnesses of our punk concerts. This was the case on the roof of the trolleybus and on the
Lobnoe Mesto, and this was the case at the Cathedral of Christ the Savior.
On 21 February 2012 Pussy Riot band performed its punk prayer “Hail Mary, Expel Putin” at the
Cathedral of Christ the Savior. In the early March 2012 three members of the group were imprisoned
because of the music and political activism. The themes of our songs and performances are dictated by
the present moment. We simply react to what is happening in our country, and our punk performances
express the opinion of a sufficiently large number of people. In our song “Hail Mary, Expel Putin” we
reflected the reaction of many Russian citizens to the patriarch’s calls for vote for Vladimir Vladimirovich
Putin during the presidential election of 4 March 2012.
We, like many of our fellow citizens, wrestle against treachery, deceit, bribery, hypocrisy, greed, and
lawlessness, peculiar to the current authorities and rulers. This is why we were upset by this political
initiative of the patriarch and could not fail to express that. The performance at Cathedral of Christ the
Savior was committed not on the grounds of religious enmity and hatred. Equally, we harbor no hatred
towards Orthodox Christians. Orthodox Christianity worships the same as we do: mercy, forgiveness,
justification, love, and freedom. We are not enemies of Christianity. We care about the opinion of
Orthodox Christians. We want all of them to be on our side – on the side of anti-authoritarian civil
society activists. That is why we came to the Cathedral.
We came with what we have and can: with our musical performance. During this performance we
intended to express our concern: the rector of the Cathedral of Christ the Savior and the head of the
Russian Orthodox Church – the patriarch – supports a politician who forcefully suppresses the civil
society, which is dear to us.
I would like to emphasize the fact that, while at the Cathedral, we did not utter any insulting words
towards the church, the Christians, and the God. The words we spoke and our entire punk performance
aimed to express our disapproval of a specific political event: the patriarch’s support of Vladimir
Vladimirovich Putin, who took an authoritarian and antifeminist course. Our performance contained
no aggression towards the audience, but only a desperate desire to change the political situation in
Russia for the better. Our emotions and expressiveness came from that desire. If our passion appeared
offensive to any spectators, we are sorry for that. We had no intentions to offend anyone. We wish that
those, who cannot understand us, would forgive us. Most of all, we want people to hold no grudges
against us.
We very much wish that people would not see our denial of guilt under the Article 213 (Part 2) of the
Russian Criminal Code as audacity, insolence, or our unwillingness or inability to admit our mistakes.
It seems to me that those who were distressed by our songs tend to take our denial of guilt that way. I
believe that we are all victims of the most perfect misunderstanding and confusion of words and legal
terms.
My key point is that I separate the legal and ethical assessments of our performance “Hail Mary, Expel
Putin”. This is a very important, probably the most important, thing in this proceeding. I insist that the
criminal side of this story must not be confused with the ethical one. The fact is that our denial of guilt
does not mean our unwillingness to explain our actions and apologize for the distress brought by our
performance, and I would like everyone, especially the victims, would try to understand that.
My assessment of the ethics of the Pussy Riot punk prayer is this: our ethical mistake was that we
allowed bringing our newly developed genre — the unexpected political punk performance — to the
cathedral. We did not think that our actions might offend some. In fact, we performed in various places
in Moscow since October 2011, and everywhere — in the subway, in stores, on the roof of the detention
center, on the Lobnoe Mesto – people perceived our actions with humor, cheerfulness, or, at the very
least, with irony. Similarly, based on our experience of the previous performances, we had no idea that
the punk performance could hurt or offend someone. If anyone was offended by our performance at the
Cathedral of Christ the Savior, then I am ready to admit that we made an ethical mistake. This is, indeed,
a mistake because we had no conscious intention to offend anyone. Our ethical – I emphasize, ethical,
and not the criminal — fault lies in the fact that we allowed ourselves to respond to the patriarch’s call
to vote for Vladimir Putin by our performance at the Cathedral, and, therefore, by sharing our political
position with the audience. This is our ethical lapse, and I emphasize and acknowledge it, and I apologies
for it.
However, our ethical slip matches no article of the Criminal Code.
We have been in prison for five months now, but in our actions do not constitute a crime. The violation
of rules of church conduct substantially differs from the accusations of hate and enmity towards the
entire Orthodox religion and all believers that we now face. One does not follow from the other. I
shudder every time I read the indictment that we have come to the cathedral out of contempt and
hatred towards Christians. These are terrible, very bad words and incredibly strong, terrible accusation.
Our motivation was purely political and artistic. I agree, perhaps, we did not have an ethical right to
bring them to the cathedral’s ritual space. But we do not hate anyone.
Think about it: what are hatred and enmity? None of them is a joke. No one may label people with them
just like that. Perjury is happening here. For five months we have been suffering from slander. It is not
easy for me to withstand the cynical and cruel labeling with the feelings that I have not experienced to
any living being on earth. The prosecution accuses us of hiding our true motives (which supposedly are
religious hatred and enmity) to avoid punishment. However, we do not lie because we have principles,
and one of which is: always telling the truth. We did not betray our principles, even though the
investigators detained us, forcing us to admit our guilt under the Article 231 (Part 2). Such admittance
would label us with the false motive — hatred and enmity — and crush and destroy us as honest people.
The investigators repeatedly told us, if we plea guilty, we would be released. We refused.
If we admit our guilt under the Article 231 (Part 2), we will defame ourselves. The truth is precious to
us more than anything, even more than the freedom. Thus, I think there is no reason not to trust our
words. We will not lie, for sure. The content of our laptops and hard drives is presented in the criminal
case, and it refutes the version of the prosecution. These materials prove that we did not have religious
hatred or enmity as our motive. Anyone who reads the content of our laptops and hard drives will
clearly see that our motivation was purely political. The Volumes 3 and 4 of our criminal case contain
our criticism of Putin’s authoritarian policies and our reflections about the benefits the peaceful civil
protests. The Volumes 3 and 4 contain the texts about feminism and interviews of Pussy Riot band. Not
a single word is about religious hatred or enmity.
In all those laptops and hard drives, the prosecution has found not a single piece of evidence confirming
this motive, and now it is trying to get out of their predicament by magically making illogical conclusions.
In our interviews after our performance on 21 February 2012, we repeatedly said that we treated
Christianity with great consideration and respect. The prosecution, realizing their lack of evidence of our
religious hatred, has resorted to the next move. They now claim that our statements of loyalty towards
Christianity cover up our true attitude towards the religion, thus attempting to minimize the backlash
against the illegal act committed at the Cathedral. These statements are illogical because we have
publicly stated our positive attitude towards the religion on 21 February 2012 and on other dates – way
before the news that a criminal case has been initiated.
The conclusion that we “revenge for Hypatia’s death”* is so absurd that even the ones who still
doubted our motives, now realized: the prosecution has absolutely no evidence of the motive of hatred.
Therefore neither the motive nor elements of crime exist.
Two expert reports, ordered by the investigation, found no motive of hatred or enmity in our actions.
However, for some unfortunate reason, the indictment fails to mention these reports. The experts
concluded that the song text, our activities, or the video do not contain any linguistic features of
dishonor or insults towards Orthodox Christians, the Orthodox church officials, or other groups. Neither
they contain any linguistic evidence of hostile attitudes towards the Orthodox religion, Orthodox
believers, or people of other groups. Moreover, the experts noted that the behavior of our group had no
psychological signs of hostility: the girls did not commit aggressive and violent acts against anyone.
In summary, we had no motive of religious hatred or enmity, neither we conducted a crime under
Article 213 (Part 2) of the Criminal Code of Russian Federation.
