Pussy Riot

[Jamie Parsons]

Dear Vladimir Orlov,

     Not to beat a dead horse, but the example you provided isn't
significantly different from the one in Esaulov's original article; the
country of the incident has merely been changed.

"May I please provide the following example: wearing swastika and
singing Nazi songs is not prohibited by the law in many countries.
These include Engand, for instance.
But does it say that you are alowed to make Nazi protest in an English
synagogue interrupting the service, forced out by the security and
escaping afterwards, without being prosecuted?

I bet this whole story would have followed by the great lawsuit,
irrespective that Nazi ideology is not illegal in this country -- and
irrespective to what some people might think, even if they support
these so-called 'liberal activists'."

     Granted, display of swastikas and other Nazi symbols is not illegal in
America or England, as it is in Germany.  (I'm not sure about the law in
Israel.)  However, a neo-nazi (of Jewishness in general, I gather?) staged
in a synagogue *would* constitute a hate crime under US law, and would
indeed be subject to more that simple trespassing or "disturbance" laws,
which would seem to correspond to the legislation you mention under
"hooliganism."  A feminist protest, however tasteless, that was held in a
synagogue or church would *not* constitute a hate crime under US law; at
most, the protestors would be charged with trespassing or public
disturbance, which would certainly not merit 7 years in prison.

Regards,
      Jamie L. Parsons

2012/3/18 Vladimir Orlov <v.orlov05 at googlemail.com>

> Sorry Seelangers for appearing here too often,
> but I have already made my bed and now I have to lie on it.
>
> Maybe because the beginning of this polemics was in Russian, the
> following aspect is not obvious enough,
> so let me please repeat it.
>
> 1) The accusing formulation of Pussy Riot is 'hooliganism'. You can
> check it out. That is, no linkage to Bolshevism or to any form of
> oppression against the church is provided by Russian justice. I mean
> it.
> Significantly, there IS a law article that sounds разжигание
> религиозной вражды (fomentation of the religious strife, don't know if
> my translation is exact or not), but this is NOT what activists of PR
> are accused for. (Thankfully.) Indeed, the accuracy and the extent of
> real justice demonstrated by the law in Russia awaits to be seen.
> However, only the court decision could provide the valid argument in
> the debate whether PR deserves to be defended, or not, in my opinion.
>
> NB: Yevgeniy had noted hat PR's collaborators will be accused by that
> article. Lets see what will really happen.
>
> 2) Ivan Esaulov makes a direct link between Holocaust and the tragedy
> of Orthodox church under Soviet regime. As seems, many people do not
> share this view. But many people do.
>
> May I please provide the following example: wearing swastika and
> singing Nazi songs is not prohibited by the law in many countries.
> These include Engand, for instance.
> But does it say that you are alowed to make Nazi protest in an English
> synagogue interrupting the service, forced out by the security and
> escaping afterwards, without being prosecuted?
>
> I bet this whole story would have followed by the great lawsuit,
> irrespective that Nazi ideology is not illegal in this country -- and
> irrespective to what some people might think, even if they support
> these so-called 'liberal activists'.
>
> In conclusion I will say that many people (myself including) do not
> see PR as 'liberal'. Liberalism is something different -- which,
> sadly, does not exist in today's Russia. But this is a matter of a
> different discussion.
>
> PS:
> Re Svitlana Kobets.
>
> In my view, that is a very interesting observation. PR themselves,
> however, do not associate themselves with this yurodivy tradition,
> described by Likhachev. As many people in Russian media say, PR demand
> Christian mercy, but they never asked for forgiveness. Nonetheless, it
> would have been better for them to mention something like you showed,
> indicating that the church has already undergone through these
> practices without any special harm for it.
>
> PPS:
> Re Yevgeniy Slivkin.
>
> Спасибо Вам за замечание,
> я, разумеется, могу сообщить Вам много возражений. В первую очередь --
> нельзя полностью доверять изданию грани.ру, спонсируемому Борисом
> Абрамовичем (против которого возбуждены уголовные дела уже, кажется, в
> пяти странах). Другие издания не дают информации о вовлечённости РПЦ
> (что, конечно, вполне вероятно, я понимаю). В любом случае, я думаю,
> надо дождаться сначала, кого в действительности арестуют по этой
> статье, и потом уже делать выводы.
>
> Если нужно, я готов продолжить нашу дискуссию публично,
> но я надеюсь, Вы согласитесь, что в этом нет необходимости (если её не
> обозначат специально).
> Разумеется, мне было важно и интересно услышать Ваше мнение.
>
> Regards,
>
> --
> Dr. Vladimir Orlov
> PhD in Musicology (Cantab)
> http://cambridge.academia.edu/VladimirOrlov
> Trustee of Cultural and Artistic Affairs, Russian Cambridge Foundation
> www.russiancambridge.org
> +7 8332 375760 (home)
>
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------
>  Use your web browser to search the archives, control your subscription
>  options, and more.  Visit and bookmark the SEELANGS Web Interface at:
>                    http://seelangs.home.comcast.net/
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------
>

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Use your web browser to search the archives, control your subscription
  options, and more.  Visit and bookmark the SEELANGS Web Interface at:
                    http://seelangs.home.comcast.net/
-------------------------------------------------------------------------