Hard Conversation

To express own opinion even indirectly in protection of the article 282 today means to draw damnations and jeers upon oneself. But personal law of the intellectual – intellectual honesty and progression.

The Kremlin "coursed" by the international campaign in protection of PussyRiot, having easily caught deputies “dare you”, dragged terrible "anti-blesphemous" resolution. It was followed immediately by the bill punishing blasphemers.

There’s no prize for guessing that it will be accepted with the same triumph as the adoption of cannibal amendments to the law on state secret on Friday.

It is amusing that proving the need to patch legislative hole urgently, parliamentarians unequivocally prove that punk prayer which took place in February doesn’t fall under existing criminal legislation.

Now let’s refer to the article 282 of the criminal code of the Russian Federation. The problem is that it’s applied, as a rule, meanly and crafty. Though in principle the Russian Federation should have adopted similar article.

Article 20 «International Covenant on Civil and Political rights» says:

1. Any propaganda for war should be forbidden by the law.

2. Any performance in favor of the national, racial or religious hatred, representing instigation to discrimination, hostility or violence, should be forbidden by the law.

Adoption of this Pact – reaction of the world community as a result of painful understanding of lessons of fascism and the Second World War. But it is obvious that the purpose of this norm – protection of the person and human obshchnost against psychological preparation of their enslavement or even destruction. Wars begin with eloquent reasonings on «intolerable narrowness» borders. The genocide begins with grumbling about "parasitism" and

Article 20 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political says:

1. Any propaganda for war shall be prohibited by law.

2. Any advocacy of national, racial or religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence shall be prohibited by law.

Adoption of this Covenant – reaction of the world community as a result of painful understanding of lessons of fascism and the Second World War. But it is obvious that the purpose of this norm – protection of the person and human communities against psychological preparation for their enslavement or even destruction. Wars begin with eloquent reflections on the theme of “intolerable narrowness” of borders. Genocide begins with grumbling about "parasitism" and "malignancy" of ethnic groups and "perversity" of faiths.

Now let’s return to Alyokhina, Tolokonnikova and Samutsevich accused of incitement of religious hatred. Proceeding from its legal sense, this hostility is directed to oneself. Just the same absurdity as judicial arrest for the period of a month of insane Piotrovsky who poured two quickly washed icons with ink. I sincerely consider Piotrovsky as the political prisoner and do not understand why deprivation of freedom didn't cause resonance.

I noted that idiotic legal absurdity which rose before state charge in a course of search of the direct object of religious hatred on two processes on exhibitions in the Museum named after Sakharov. There hostility (in case of the first exhibition of 2003 – it was illustrated by real disorder) was directed only and exclusively on organizers.

In due time society talentlessly, excuse me for sharpness, simply “fell on deaf ears” judgments on exhibition cases – connected to Samodurov, Yerofeev and Vasilovsky. Say, big deal penalty. Having received a little, inquisition got the brass to do more: in two years three young women appeared in a cell. Now the whole regions of Russia appear without YouTube without trial or record!

I will emphasize: violations of the intra church regulations or peace of mind of parishioners, damage of church utensils and subjects of a religious cult – can't obviously be either humiliation, or prosecution of the believers for their religious affiliation. After all notorious article 282 of the Crimonal Code which was, by the way, adopted exactly following the idea of the article 20 of the International Covenant actually declares only such manifestations of religious hatred and hostility a crime. While icon – not the person. The platform of intra temple construction – not the person.

Real background of absolutely fair scandal round the film “Innocence of Muslims” such is – statements about primary perversity of Islam constructed on farcical image of prophet Mukhkhamed can be a part of psychological justification of mass violation of the rights of Muslims, their discrimination, tortures, murders. It could be said that message of this film is identical to the one of "The Protocols of the Elders of Zion” or of the religious honoring of children who ostensibly become the victim of Judaic ritual murders.

The international law and the liberal Russian legislator of the 90s using the law tried to prevent propaganda preparation of practice of “collective punishments” of peoples. But damage of the icon or vandalism against church, mosques, synagogues is not racism justification. It – either madness, or small mean prankishness. While justification of primary and exclusive perversity of the world religion is a pretext for possible disfranchisement. If not to refer to the Jewish example I will remind of very bad relation to Catholics in England and the USA which lasted many generations – they were not forgivable as center of their spiritual life was in Rome. Anglo-Saxons Protestants considered it "unpatriotic".

Though “the law on blasphemy” will make religion (not all, certainly, only four "main" faiths as prosecutor’s office won’t defend the feelings of Baptists and Catholics) sponsored by the state. Icons and plastered walls will be equated to alive, suffering people. The state will cease to be secular, but political struggle with it will be included into near-state religion. I could describe colourful picture of mutual recriminations – orthodox half moon under the cross (in memory of capture of Kazan) on each poppy-head; “treatise about Joshua” in Talmud … A ban of caricatures of Jean Effel, of eroticism of a pigeon of Parni – Pushkin’s favourite, of Leo Taxil's satires, of doll performances of Obraztsov’s “Creation Myth” and “Adam and Eve” … Easter prayers for confirmation of Jews …

Everyone will easily imagine it oneself. Thousand years of deadly fight of religions and then centuries of fight against clericalism have sated world culture with disturbing and provoking subjects and images.

It’s necessary now to tell about campaign of writers in protection of their colleague who a year ago with all his heart told bitter words that ethnic groups of the North Caucasus produce not production, but children. The budget “feeds them” after all. The budget, let’s say, feeds not them, but corrupted police modes – micro-Tunises, micro-Egypts and micro-Syrias where the most severe arbitrariness is excused by guarantee of stability and opposition to Islamic revolution. The population there is under double and threefold oppression.

I am not the supporter of prosecution of suddenly got brave at a meeting writer. The problem is that now there’s even less civil society in the meaning of the general understanding of certain norms, than even during late Brezhnev's times. The writer Kirill Eskov who prepared address to protection of Konstantin Krylov is most of all known for anti-Tolkien’s continuation of "Lord of the Rings" - the novel “The Last Ringbearer” in which crushed orks are exposed to merciless genocide from the part of the winners.

So, if Eskov so convincingly and sincerely described moral preparation of elves for slaughter didn't understand how the anti-Caucasian invectives will end?! Except protection of the colleague I would wait from him human words in condemnation of nationalist demagogy.

When in 1915-16 grand duke and idol of progressionists Nikolay Nikolaevich organized so-called “military riots” and universal ethnic cleansing of Jews from immediate battle area* at the front, elite of the Russian intelligentsia prepared publicistic collection "Schit” - in protection of victims of anti-Semitic persecutions.

Today there is no a voice of intelligentsia in protection of Caucasians or migrants.

I would be happy with simple companionable literary trial of xenophobes. Though it isn't present, as there is no civil society. The authorities rush about between desire to lean on "patriotism" and fear of chauvinistic revelry. In America, which 1st amendment is praised by all dissatisfied with the article 282 xenophobe disappears from a decent society. In our country his ratings go high.

* Military security service didn’t have a notion how to distinguish those who simply spoke Jewish language and who – Australian spy.

Send by mail

Print