Yesterday someone gave me The Wall Street Journal article from Sunday, July 29, 2006, titled “Putin Signs Law Against Slander Of Public Officials” by Alan Cullison. My first response upon reading the title was “I haven’t heard of such a law or a bill being passed!” Then I searched the major Russian media outlets and didn’t find anything about the bill that would provoke dire concerns about freedom of speech in Russia. That’s when I went to the website of the Rossiyskaya Gazeta (Russian newspaper), which publishes all new bills passed by the Duma, and found out that the first thing the WSJ got wrong was the name of the bill. I found more errors when I read on.
First of all, the bill signed by President Putin is named “Federal Law of the Russian Federation from July 27 2006 #148-F3 On the Changes to the articles of 1 and 15 of the Federal Law ‘On the Counteraction to the Extremist Activity’”. The WSJ piece was primarily concerned with article 1, where the term extremist is legally defined, and article 15, part of which says that the “author of the printed, audio, visual and other materials, designated for the public broadcasting and carrying one or more of the characteristics defined by the article 1 of the Federal Law, should be accountable as a person involved in extremist activity and should be accountable according to applicable laws of the Russian Federation”. Setting aside article #15, let’s get into the more important controversy surrounding the bill’s revisions to article #1, and see what the WSJ reporter missed.
The WSJ writes in its first paragraph, “Russian President Vladimir Putin signed a law making slander of a public official a criminal offense…” To Western readers, this sounds like the Kremlin has just been authorized to prosecute anyone who criticizes the Russian President, Governors, or other elected officials. To understand the legitimate intent of the Duma, let’s examine what the new article #15 adds to Russian Federal Law.
The point of article #15 is to legally define “extremism”. In brief, extremism is defined as “attempts to forcefully change the constitutional organization and territory of the Russian Federation”; “creating and participating in illegal paramilitary organizations”; “terrorist activities and their public approval”; “exciting religious, racial and national hatred”; “carrying out acts of public disorder, hooliganism, and vandalism based on ideological, political, racial, national and religious hatred, or hatred against a certain social group”; “propaganda claiming the superiority or inferiority of citizens based on their relationship to social, racial, national, religious, or language groups”; “propaganda and public demonstrations of Nazi attributes and symbols, or attributes and symbols similar to Nazi attributes and symbols to the level of their confusion”. Article 15 also bans financing and public support of such activities.
This new hate crimes legislation comes as a long-awaited response to numerous racist attacks and Nazi marches in Russia. Such laws banning Nazi and fascist symbols are hardly unique to Russia - most of the legal language on the books today in European Union countries is modeled after the post-WWII German Basic Law, which banned the Nazi Party and its symbols.
The problem is, the Wall Street Journal takes out of this context the ban on “public slander against a person serving in a government position of the subject [state] of the Russian Federation, while he is executing his government duties, or related to their execution, while [slander] connected to accusing the official of executing the acts described in this article, only if the fact of the slander is verified by the court”
What was lost in translation is that this text does not ban criticism of government officials, but only prohibits accusing them without evidence (slander) of being terrorists or supporters of terrorism. The charge of slander must still be proven by evidence presented in court. For the average American to better understand why it might be a very bad idea to allow people to claim that the Governor or Prime Minister of a Russian state is a terrorist, I’d like to give our readers a short example. Let’s say one day a journalist claims that Ramzan Kadyrov has a copy of “The Satanic Verses” or the Mohammed cartoons in his office.
Calling the Governor of Texas a terrorist probably won’t lead to violence, but deliberately slandering a state official in a country with over 50 nationalities, during a time of rising racial and Islamic fascist sentiment can cause more harm than the ordinary American can imagine. There is already some evidence that fascist parties in Russia have incited violence through the media – last year the Rodina (Motherland) Party ran a notorious television ad vowing to “rid Moscow of the dirt” that depicted people from the Caucuses as watermelon-eating ruffians. On May Day, a fascist march through downtown Moscow attracted thousands of people.
The second paragraph of the WSJ article says that “Putin’s decision to sign the law is a harbinger for an even greater clampdown on Russian society…” The WSJ writer forgets that this bill was written by the Duma (Parliament), approved by the Federal Assembly (Senate) and only then signed by Putin, who currently enjoys a 70% approval rating, according to public opinion polling in Russia.
In paragraph three, Lilia Shevtsova, a political analyst for the Carnegie Foundation in Moscow, says that “He [Putin] is signing a law that erases all ability to criticize the authorities and to have any real discussion in the media…” Our response is: this is not true. Please read more about the number of private media outlets in Russia here, and keep in mind that hundreds of newspapers and online news outlets daily call Putin names and argue that he is too soft a leader.
Paragraph four of the article says that “Since Mr. Putin became president in 2000, the Kremlin has stifled debate within the country by taking over critical media outlets, launching criminal and tax investigations of political opponents…” The problem is, here at Russia Blog, we don’t include the oligarchs Berezovsky, Nevzlin and Khodorkovsky in this category of “political opponents”. Russia Blog has a different perspective about these “dissidents”: that they are criminals who looted state assets, who lost their struggle for money and power to the Kremlin, and that they deserve to be in jail.
Furthermore, the fourth paragraph adds: “The government also enacted a law earlier this year imposing burdensome regulations on non-government organizations.” RussiaBlog has written before about the NGO bill – we found it an understandable response, because it was not acceptable to have Russian political campaigns receiving foreign money (something that is also illegal in the U.S.). It was not good for the Russian Orthodox Church to serve as Russia’s leading seller of alcohol and tobacco, or for foreign intelligence services to clumsily infiltrate Western businesses and non-profits, thereby damaging their reputations in Russia. We ask: if Russian NGOs were doing real legitimate charity work, why couldn’t Moscow, a city with the world’s highest per capita number of billionaires, generate any real philanthropy?
Many Russians will find the sixth paragraph of the WSJ article funny, because it quotes the opinion of a washed-up politician who currently makes his living starring in Pizza Hut commercials - “former Soviet President Mikhail Gorbachev, had urged Mr. Putin to veto the law…” There is a reason Gorbachev stays out of the spotlight in Russia now, and it’s because he is widely hated for his achievement of letting the Soviet Union fall apart.
Paragraph eight of the article says: “On Friday, a government agency responsible for monitoring political and religious groups announced that media are forbidden from mentioning the name of a fringe political party, the National Bolshevik Party, headed by the anti-establishment novelist Eduard Limonov.” This is false. Number one, the “agency” in question never prohibited use of the name, but asked the press to use a different name for this organization. Number two, this organization does not exist as a legal entity and isn’t registered as a political party. Number three, Mr Limonov’s novels are filled with an enormous amount of cuss words, and his career includes doing time in prison for public acts of violence.
Paragraph twelve reads: “Civic groups say they already face prosecution for criticizing Kremlin policy in the Caucasus region, where Russian forces have been battling a vicious insurgency of Islamists and Chechen separatists.” Russia Blog would like to point out to the WSJ’s readers this region has been stable and peaceful for almost half a year, after twelve years of civil war. Today Chechnya has 30,000 new private businesses, and a quarter million refugees have returned home. The elected Chechen prime-minister is enforcing the laws of the Russian Federation, killing the terrorists, building the largest mosque in the world to glorify Islam and the new Chechen government, and supposedly enjoys an 85% approval rating.
The same paragraph continues declaring that “On Friday, the lawyer for a Russian human-rights activist said his client, who has been campaigning against police abuses in the southern Russian province of Dagestan, fled to Ukraine and asked for political asylum to escape prosecution…Osman Boliyev, who heads the Romashka rights group in Dagestan, was accused of participating in rebel activity and of illegally acquiring a gun in 2000”. Russia Blog is very skeptical about the Romashka (Camomile) group. For some people like Mr. Boliyev, there’s no way left to make money, except by claiming to be a dissident and bilking naïve foreign foundations.
Given the state of Russian society and the widespread violence we have seen in the streets and the army, I believe that article 1 and 5 may be necessary to prevent a revival of fascism in Russia. Russians do not want to see their country repeat the mistakes of the Weimar Republic in Germany, which in the name of democracy tolerated people who openly vowed to destroy the constitutional order. I would remind our readers that this is not just a dilemma for Russia, but also for the Western countries. Since 9/11, many Westerners have asked why Al-Muhajiroun and other Islamofascist groups can publicly recruit for the global jihad and vow to replace the constitution with Sharia under the guise of “freedom of speech”. As the American Supreme Court Justice Robert Jackson observed in 1949, the Bill of Rights is not a suicide pact, and this is even more true in Russia, a country which has suffered so much from Stalinist, Nazi and Islamofascist extremism in the last century.
As a Russian, I think it is more prudent to act sooner rather than later, while the economy and approval rating of the Kremlin are still high. Russia’s oil-fueled prosperity may actually be turning back the forces of desperation and hatred: in the last two years the per capita income of Russians has increased by one-third. Old babushkas who fought Hitler’s army, and young Russian businessmen, who want to develop their backward Russian regions have no problem with this bill. They want peace and stability on the streets so that Russians and foreigners alike can feel safe working and investing in Russia.
Comments
Here is some evidence that, in fact, the state is trying to punish use of the National Bolshevik Party name and not merely "asked to find a different name for this organization" as you claim:
http://www.globalvoicesonline.org/2006/07/28/russia-ukraine-stories-about-words/
Posted by: Lenard | August 2, 2006 2:54 PM
This is why I love US business journals' (WSJ, Economist, etc.) articles on Russia. Just yesterday, the country was being overrun by hate speech and neonazi skinheads. How terrible! Today, the evil Putin regime (tm) is taking away the hate speech rights of neonazi skinheads. How terrible!
Damned if you do, damned if you don't.
Posted by: Vladimirs | August 2, 2006 4:49 PM
Well, I read the rant of LaRussiaphobe. Still going strong, I see. Such colorful language and creative descriptions of Yuri!
I found the above posted article to be thoughtful and analytical; an understandable path through the maze of legalease.
I guess the fallout and common man's interpretation remains to be seen.
Posted by: Tanya | August 2, 2006 11:52 PM
A bill like this would engender a lot of wailing and gnashing of teeth if it was passed in the US. Most likely more than the Patriot Act did. But then, the US is an outlier when it comes to freedom of speech. Every other democracy in the world has some sort of limitations on speech for one reason or another.
This article is just another example of Americans making the false assumption that everyone thinks like Americans.
Posted by: Jason Herr | August 3, 2006 7:02 AM
Vladimirs, I'm not sure you understand the situation accurately. Let me try to help you.
At the outset, let me say that you're a bit confused about the Economist. It's a British publication, not an American one.
Also, I hope you didn't mean to imply that President Putin has enacted this measure in response to Western concerns about racism in Russia. It couldn't be more clear that President Putin is not interested in accomodating the West, or else he would not be providing military and quasi-military aid to Iran and Venezuala.
Now, as to the Western view itself:
First of all, many are concerned that Russia's new legislation is not a genuine attempt to end racism, but rather an attempt to cover an assault on the opponents of the regime in power. Second, assuming it is genuine, many are afraid that this wide net will scoop up many innocent persons along with the guilty. Third, throwing people in jail for speaking is not going to change anyone's mind about racism, it will only drive the racists underground and make them more determined. What is wanted is a genuine grass-roots attempt to educate Russians about the evils of racism, and this is lacking. You don't address any of these concerns, so your characterization of the Western view is rather unfair.
When one sees the public face of Russia, one sees a white Slavic face. The regime could be doing much more to bring non-Slavics into positions of public authority, and it could be speaking out much more against racist actions. The fact that it isn't doing this gives many reason to question the bona fides of the new law.
Moreover, it's hard for anyone in the West to imagine how a measure restricting speech can do anything but harm Russia's already fragile media establishment, and rather frightening to see Russians turn the clock back on free expression so soon after their bad experience with such measures during the communist period.
Posted by: Lenard | August 3, 2006 8:03 AM
I cannot agree with your defense of the amendments to the law about extremist activity. Of course, the WSJ article might have taken a little too general approach to explaining the actual law and controversial amendments, but this in any way does not undermine the validity of points made by it, because these amendments are in fact very troublesome and can lead to even more infringement on free speech.
For example, this amended law can be used to prosecute anybody who says that Putin's government violates freedom of speech. Article 1 of the law outlines what extremism is. Among other things, it says that it is extremism "to violate rights and liberties of a person and a citizen[…]". Then, within the same article it says it is extremism to accuse (slander) public officials that they are doing what is listed in the article, including the above statement about violation of rights and liberties. So it can be considered extremism to accuse Mr. Putin or anybody else in office of curtailing freedom of speech provided that it is proved in court that such accusations are false... but we all know how legal system works in Russia. It is naive to even hope that litigation in such case will not be corrupt.
Your attempts to make it look like the Russian government is not so bad after all deserve further scrutiny themselves.
Posted by: Victoria S. | August 3, 2006 8:37 AM
I wonder why you haven't gotten my trackback yet? Please see http://blog.thetikihut.net/2006/08/02/how-to-tell-constructive-writing-from-diatribe/ for my comments. Thanks Yuri and everyone else for the interesting exchange of ideas.
Posted by: Josh Hansen | August 3, 2006 11:59 AM
Dear Josh,
I'm sorry about the delay in posting your trackback. Sometimes spam filters grab the "good" links with the bad ones. Thank you for taking time to analyze both posts, and thank you for reading the RussiaBlog!
Yuri
Posted by: Yuri Mamchur | August 3, 2006 12:44 PM
Lenard: "Here is some evidence that, in fact, the state is trying to punish use of the National Bolshevik Party"
I would not call it "evidence", for the referenced link (eventually) points to some russian blogs and online forums, which may not be 100% correct, to put it mildly.
It appears that they object to the use of the word "party", for a "party" is an organization properly registered with the government. I guess in US it is similar if a group of people claimed that they were a not-for-profit organization (hint: and collected donations) without actually registering itself with the state and IRS.
Posted by: Ivan Pomidorov | August 4, 2006 12:41 AM
In response to one of our reader's comments, we are not saying that the Wall Street Journal should not be talking about press freedom in Russia, only that many Russians would question Westerners' priorities, in light of the daily human rights abuses (dedovshina and child exploitation) that tend to receive little Western media coverage. And obviously many NGOs (two based right here in greater Seattle) like the Gates Foundation and World Vision are doing good work and saving kids in Africa from AIDS and starvation. We hope that if we draw enough attention to the issues, similar organizations will step up their efforts to help Russian orphans.
Thanks for reading!
Posted by: Charles Ganske | August 5, 2006 6:59 PM
Ivan, it so happens that this link comes from a respected website, Global Voices, something you seem to overloook. GV has looked at the issue and found the statements important. They may not be correct, but until you disprove them with conclusive evidence they may be correct as well. It seems to me the author of this piece was just as loose with "evidence" as you imply I am being. Do you choose to selectively judge "evidence" because you agree more ideologically with the author than with me? If so, that's hardly very scientific.
Charles, many in America would question Russians' priorities in choosing to embrace an authoritiarian government and provide significant military assistance to sworn American enemies. I hope to see you devote equal energy to that topic and to helping Russians understand how they are going astray. Meanwhile, based on the comments it seems you could have done a much better job explaining the purpose of your article. In your article about child exploitation I've explained why it is totally ridiculous to suggest that the Western media should already be covering that story. Frankly, I think the tone you use in referring to a very well respected publication like the Journal is totally inapporpriate and smacks of arrogance and rush to judgment.
Posted by: Lenard | August 9, 2006 4:32 PM
Lenard: "Ivan, it so happens that this link comes from a respected website, Global Voices, something you seem to overloook[sic]."
Lenard, you seem to not understand where Global Voices gets its "voices" from, so to speak. Global Voices, at least in this particular case, translates posts from some seemingly obscure russian blogs and forums, which, as I pointed out, may not be correct. Those original posts may qualify as an opinion but not "evidence", I think, for the posts use bad links as their "source" AND we don't really know who wrote them (it could be you!).
You also seem to conveniently ignore my analogy with not-for-profit organizations in the US, they HAVE TO BE REGISTERED with the government too.
For more information about NBP and its place in Russian politics, see the following article:
"But the organisation with strongest support among anti-government youth – the National Bolshevik Party – has radical and anarchist tendencies. It combines references to both Nazi and the Communist ideology in its name and symbols. And although its leaders are less blatantly extreme as they were some years ago, they could hardly be described as liberal or pro-Western."
Posted by: Ivan Pomidorov | August 10, 2006 7:43 AM
Not saying I disagree with you Ivan, but I wouldn't put too much stock in the article you link to. Justin Raimondo of Antiwar.com is best described as a "tool". He is a modern day Walter Duranty as far as I am concerned.
The following link I think best sums it up:
http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=17310
Posted by: Jason Herr | August 10, 2006 2:20 PM
Jason, thanks for the info! Very enlightening.
Ivan, you seem not to understand that Global Voices is a well-respected outlet of information about Russia and that it doesn't just go around willy-nilly reporting gossip. It's editors are sophisticated people who only publish things they feel are worthy of attention. Frankly, their reputation is much more significant that yours. You are nobody, with no credentials of any kind. For you to dismiss an institution like Global Voices is arrogant and just plain silly.
The Soviets had all kinds of wonderful rationalizations for their attempts to crush free speech too, just like you seem to. Well, they did anyway, until they disappeared from the face of the earth. If you think that Russia is treating NBP fairly and not suppressing political dissent, then we must disagree on that point. I feel that your position is wildly detached from reality. There simply is no viable opposition party in Russia of any kind, and that's not an accident, it's the Kremlin's own doing, with actions just like this one.
Posted by: Lenard | August 11, 2006 1:16 PM
Jason, the quote I'm using from that article (see above) actually comes from BBC.
I linked to the article because it does bring up some intersting points, for example, US government funding of Russian opposition.
Posted by: Ivan Pomidorov | August 11, 2006 4:11 PM
So what Ivan is saying is that if somebody he disagrees with uses a source that can be questioned, that person is a fool. But if Ivan himself does it, he has his reasons, which are perfectly valid and don't undermine his crediblity at all, and certainly don't make him a hypocrite.
Do I have that right, Ivan?
Posted by: Lenard | August 12, 2006 2:56 AM
Mr. Mamchur has not read his text attentively. He incorrectly claims that "this text does not ban criticism of government officials, but only prohibits accusing them without evidence (slander) of being terrorists or supporters of terrorism." The actual text of the law refers not to "terrorism" but to "extremism", which is defined VERY BROADLY and includes, for example, an activity "undermining the security of the Russian Federation".
So get this - if you claim that a Russian state official damages Russian security through his actions, you can be accused of being an extremist - after the pliable government-controlled court "determines" that what your claim is not true, as if such issues can EVER be "objectively" determined. I myself am very unhappy at the anti-Russian sentiment recently appearing in many Western publications, but let us not make their case even stronger by manipulating the evidence!
Posted by: Ivan Ivanov | January 21, 2007 11:59 AM