The link between Putin and Politkovskaya will be recalled in the divergence of scale and tone in the planned commemorations for each figure. The state channel NTV will run a documentary giving the public a “never-before-seen” peek into the life of their dear leader. Other Putinoids will hold everything from rallies to poetry readings, while towns like Rostov and Chelyabinsk will drape their thoroughfares in Putin banners. And just so you don’t think Putin has lost his virility, the Levada Center has conducted a poll that puts the sex into the sexagenarian Putin. According to the survey, 20 percent of women would “would jump at the chance” to wed Russia’s President. How fitting it all is. But make no mistake; such events are not at the behest of the Kremlin. Or so we are told. “I already said that Vladimir Putin is not a supporter of marking his birthday in public,” his press secretary, Dmitrii Peskov told reporters. “He spends his birthday among close friends and family.” Then he added, “We definitely do not encourage any kind of on air celebrations. Although some special celebration was initiated by the channels themselves, we will not approve of it.” As Jan Plamper noted in his study of the Stalin cult, such acts of disavowal amount to “immodest modesty” or “flamboyant modesty.” The leader wants his cult, but doesn’t want to appear to want it. I suspect Putin is no different in this regard.

Plans to observe Anna Politkovskaya’s murder are in stark contrast. Supporters, friends, and family will stage a small and likely solemn picket on Novopushkinskaya Square. The organizers originally wanted to have it at Pushkin Square in the center of town, but the authorities rejected the idea, saying the site will be occupied. This is not to say that Politkovskaya’s murder doesn’t have its own objects of memory. A human rights award has been named after her, two posthumous books have been published—her diary A Russian Diary (2007) and a collection of her final articles in Nothing but the Truth (2010) (published in the United States as Is Journalism Worth Dying For? (2011)—and a few films and documentaries have been produced about her work, murder, and its investigation. New memory objects are in the works.  Just this week, officials in the Czech town Karlovy Vary renamed a park in her honor. And further celluloid immortalizations are in store with a new Hollywood film about the journalist in the planning stages.

There was no love lost between Politkovskaya and Putin. In Putin’s Russia, Politkovskaya called Putin the “soul brother” of Gogol’s Akaky Akakievich on the eve of his inauguration for his second term in 2004:

“[Putin's] outlook is narrow, provincial one his rank would suggest; he has the unprepossessing personality of a lieutenant colonel who never made it to colonel, the manner of a Soviet secret policeman who habitually snoops on his colleagues. And he is vindictive: not a single political opponent has been invited to the inauguration ceremony, nor a single political party that is in any way out of step. Tomorrow . . . Akaky Akakievich Putin will strut down the red carpet of the Kremlin throne room as if he really where the boss there. Around him the polished tsarist gold will gleam, the servants will smile submissively, his comrades in arms, a choice selection from the lower ranks of the KGB who could have risen to important posts only under Putin, will swell with self-importance.”

In contrast to Politkovskaya’s hyperbole, Putin was cold, dismissive, and exact when it came to his critic. When asked for a comment on Politkovskaya’s murder, Putin said, “Yes indeed, this journalist was a harsh critic of the present authorities in Russia, but I think that journalists should know this, at least experts are well aware of this, the extent of her influence on political life in the country, in Russia, was extremely insignificant. She was known in journalistic circles, in human rights circles, in the West. I repeat, her influence on political life in Russia was minimal.” For him, Politkovskaya was merely a “woman” and a “mother,” and as far as who was the real victim of this crime, it was “Russia,” its “current government authorities,” and if that wasn’t ironic enough, those of the “Chechen Republic.” Her murder, Putin continued, “inflicts on the current authorities a far greater loss and damage than her publications.”

Politkovskaya would have hardly been surprised by Putin’s response. Yet I wonder what she would have thought about the last two years of Putin’s second term, the Medvedev interlude, and Putin’s return for a third tour. She would have likely been among those who called Medvedev a sham, and would have been unmoved by Putin’s hat-trick, or that the vast majority of Russian society passively accepted it. After all, her general assessment of Russia was incredibly dark, and she showed little hope that it would change. “Our society isn’t a society anymore,” she wrote in Russian Diary. “It is a collection of windowless, isolated concrete cells…There are thousands who together might add up to the Russian people, but the walls of our cells are impermeable.” Her prophesies about “revolution” in Russia were similarly laden with dread. “Our revolution, if it comes, will be red, because the Communists are almost the most democratic force in the country, and because it will be bloody.”

She minced few words when it came to the opposition too. In February 2004, she rhetorically asked, “Why is it so easy in Russia to put down democratic opposition? It is something in the opposition themselves. It is not that what they are confronting is too strong, although of course that is a factor. The main thing is that the opposition lacks an unflinching determination to oppose.”  A month before her murder, her diagnosis of Russia’s democratic opposition had hardly changed: “To put it bluntly, I do not believe their democratic convictions run that deep. I don’t trust any of them, other than Kasparov, and I doubt that he will be able to move mountains on his own.”

Her assessment of her colleagues in journalism was no less caustic. In an article found on her computer after her death, presumptuously titled, “So What Am I Guilty Of?” Politkovskaya compared her peers to “koverny,” Russian circus clowns who entertained the crowd between acts. “Almost the entire generation of Russian journalists, and those sections of the mass media which have survived to date, are clowns of this kind, a Big Top of kovernys whose job it is to keep the public entertained and, if they do have to write about anything serious, then merely to tell everyone how wonderful the Pyramid of Power is in all manifestations.” She, on the other hand, refused to play the clown, and accepted the fate of pariah. “What am I guilty of? I have merely reported what I witnessed, nothing but the truth.”

This begs the question of what she might have thought about the Russia of 2012. It’s widely maintained that Russia has changed. Would Politkovskaya have changed with it? What would she have made of the New Decembrists and some of the Young Turks at their head, like Alexey Navalny and Sergei Uldaltsov? Of the protests against Putin, which during her life were never more than a few hundred people, at best, and now number in the tens of thousands? Of the political vibrancy of Runet, the centrality of blogs and Twitter, and the new crop of activist-journalists? Would she write them off as clowns? And what of Russian society? Would Politkovskaya look at all this and still see it as a tetragon of windowless, impenetrable concrete cells? Is there still even a place for Politkovskaya in today’s Russia? Where would her role be, when Chechnya and the North Caucasus in general are literally out of the Russian sight and out of the Russian mind? Sadly, thanks to three shots to the chest, and one to the head, we’ll never know.

This post was also published at Warscapes.

AUTHOR: Sean Guillory
URL: http://seansrussiablog.org and http://newbooksinrussianstudies.com
E-MAIL: sguillory1 [at] niu.edu

President Islam Karimov, Office of the President, Uzbekistan

Your Excellency,

I am William Nicholas Gomes, Human Rights Ambassador for Salem-News.com

I came to know about the situation from Front Line Defender.

On 27 September 2012, human rights defender Ms Gulshan Karaeva was arrested in her home in Qarshi and taken to a local police station where she was informed of charges brought against her. Gulshan Karaeva is Chairperson of the Kashkadarya regional branch of the Human Rights Society of Uzbekistan (HRSU). She was released on the same day after four hours’ detention at the police station.

Gulshan Karaeva was told at the police station that she had been charged under two articles of the Criminal Code: article 139, “Slander”, and article 140, “Insult”. These charges are based on allegations by two women who Gulshan Karaeva suspects of working for the National Security Service (SNB). These two women attacked members of the human rights defender’s family on 19 July 2012, and later have accused Gulshan Karaeva of calling them prostitutes, although the human rights defender denies ever having made such statements. Gulshan Karaeva was detained for four hours at the police station, after which she was released.

Gulshan Karaeva has previously been the subject of threats and intimidation. On 19 May 2012, two women attacked the human rights defender in a local shop, beating her on the head. The attackers attempted to take her outside of the shop but she managed to seek help and the two women were removed from the shop. That same day, unknown persons sprayed the gate and walls of the human rights defender’s home and that of her neighbour, with explicit and abusive graffiti. These incidents are believed to be related to Gulshan Karaeva’s public statement issued on 5 May 2012, in which she declared that she had refused a proposal of cooperation put to her by the SNB.

On 7 July 2011, Gulshan Karaeva’s dog was poisoned. In addition to this, she received threatening phone calls from unknown individuals. The following day, she was attacked by Mr Arif Pardayev, a resident of Kashkadarya region, who was travelling in the same taxi as the human rights defender from Tashkent to Qarshi.

In light of the previous threats, physical attacks and intimidation directed at Gulshan Karaeva, I express serious concern for her security, and her physical and psychological integrity as well as that of her children, one of whom is disabled. I view these charges as part of an ongoing campaign of threats and intimidation against Gulshan Karaeva, as a result of her legitimate and peaceful human rights work in Uzbekistan.

I call upon the authorities of Uzbekistan to:

1. Immediately drop all charges against Gulshan Karaeva as it is believed that they are solely motivated by her legitimate and peaceful work in defence of human rights;

2. Take all necessary measures to guarantee the physical and psychological integrity and security of Gulshan Karaeva, as well as that of her family members;

3. Take measures to ensure that all human rights defenders in Uzbekistan, while carrying out their legitimate work in the defence of human rights, are able to operate without fear of reprisals and free of all restrictions and reprisals, including judicial harassment.

AUTHOR: William Nicholas Gomes
URL: www.williamgomes.org
E-MAIL: williamgomes.org [at] gmail.com

President Islam Karimov, Office of the President, Uzbekistan

Your Excellency,

I am William Nicholas Gomes, Human Rights Ambassador for Salem-News.com.

I came to know about the situation from Front Line Defenders.

On 30 September 2012, at approximately 10:00 am, human rights defender Mr Uktam Pardayev was beaten and arrested at a service station in the town of Djizak by several armed policemen. Since his arrest, relatives of the human rights defender have been denied any information regarding his situation or whereabouts. Uktam Pardayev is the Chairperson of the Independent Human Rights Society of Uzbekistan (IHRSU) in the region of Djizak.

On 30 September Uktam Pardayev entered a service station on Tashkentskaya street in the town of Djizak, in his car, when three policemen who were present suddenly ordered that the station be closed and told the human rights defender not to move. They refused to explain to Uktam Pardayev the reason for this order, and additional police officers were called in. Minutes later, four more uniformed policemen arrived in a second car, after which Uktam Pardayev was beaten, forced into a white Zhiguli car and driven off in an unknown direction.

Since the time of his arrest, Uktam Pardayev’s relatives have been refused information about the human rights defender’s whereabouts. They have visited the city police stations, the local office of the Department of Interior Affairs, and the national security office. Uktam Pardayev’s brother handed out written requests to inform them about his brother’s whereabouts, which was accepted by the Department of Interior Affairs, but refused by the national security office.

Calls by Uktam Pardayev’s relatives to police officers have not been answered. Only at midnight on 1 October was Uktam Pardayev’s brother able to connect with the district policeman of Khandzor district, who told him not to bother and that nothing bad was going to happen to the human rights defender. Front Line Defenders tried to talk to the same policeman, but after hearing the name Uktam Pardayev, the policeman hung the phone. In a phone call to the Djizak prosecutor’s office, the prosecutor’s assistant answered that they would find out what is happening.

In mid-September 2012, Uktam Pardayev was followed by a white Daewoo Nexia car by persons in plainclothes. On 8 September, neighbours of the human rights defender were visited by officers from the Department of Internal Affairs and questioned about Uktam Pardeyev’s movements and contacts. On 30 August, Uktam Pardayev’s house was visited by police officers, who in a later phone call reported having been sent by the Department of Interior Affairs, and the human rights defender’s mother was asked for his phone number.

Uktam Pardayev has previously indicated he believes these measures started after a visit to his house by officials from the American Embassy about his Human Rights work.

In addition to this, Uktam Pardayev has been continuously denied an exit visa since the start of his application in December 2011. During an interview for his application on 25 January 2012, he was questioned by an unnamed security official about the type of human rights activities he was involved in. On 11 June 2012, the Djizak Inter-District Court refused to consider Uktam Pardayev’s appeal against the denial of his visa application on the ground that it was outside of the court’s jurisdiction. On 29 August 2012, the Regional Court of Djizak, overruled the decision of the court of first instance and sent the appeal back to be heard by the court.

I believe Uktam Pardayev’s arrest is part of an ongoing pattern of harassment against the human rights defender.

I call upon the authorities of Uzbekistan to:

1. Immediately reveal the exact whereabouts of human rights defender Uktam Pardayev, and release him immediately and unconditionally, as it is believed that he has been targeted as a result of his legitimate human rights activities;

2. Ensure that the treatment of Uktam Pardayev, while in detention, adheres to all those conditions set out in the ‘Basic Principles for Treatment of Prisoners, adopted by General Assembly resolution 45/111 of 14 December 1990′, and grant him immediate and unfettered access to his family and legal representatives;

3. Take measures to ensure that all human rights defenders in Uzbekistan, while carrying out their legitimate work in the defence of human rights, are able to operate without fear of reprisals and free of all restrictions and reprisals.

AUTHOR: William Nicholas Gomes
URL: www.williamgomes.org
E-MAIL: williamgomes.org [at] gmail.com

How else to explain bringing a lawsuit against the Russian fashion designer Artem Lebedev for writing “god” in lowercase letters? Actually, Lebedev wrote “F*ck god,” but in justifying their lawsuit, Orthodox activists say that they were offended by the disrespect the lowercase type denotes.

Or the fact that a group of Orthodox activists have prevented the performance of Jesus Christ Superstar in Rostov by charging that the musical offends their religious sentiments. That’s right Jesus Christ Superstar. Funny, the musical has been running in Russia for 20 years, and now suddenly its offensive. The bees are buzzing indeed.

At the moment there is no law to hold Lebedev or the Rostov Philharmonic responsible for offending the faithful. But that might soon change. The Russian Duma is planning on turning the Russian codex back before 1917 by passing what essentially is a blasphemy law. The proposed law, which has support across party lines, will make “publicly insulting the religious beliefs and feelings of citizens” punishable up to a 300,000 ruble fine, 200 hours of community service, or a max of three years in prison, and “the desecration of objects and articles of religious worship and places of religious rites and ceremonies” liable to a fine between 100,000 to 500,000 rubles, 400 hours of service, and up to five years in the slammer.

Now, Michael Bohm’s idea that Russia is becoming Iran and must choose between becoming “anti-Western and theocratic or liberal-­democratic” is quite presumptuous, not to mention downright silly. But that’s the kind of hyperbole that his editorializing is known for. Nevertheless, the upsurge in concern about the sanctity of Russian Orthodoxy does suggest that something is amiss. And that something, I would argue, is that the Russian state has yet to offer its citizenry an ideology to bind the nation. The outlandish maneuvers on the part of Orthodox activists and the politicians that seek to capitalize on them are expressions of this ideological lack. The militant turn to Orthodoxy, however, is hardly a cure. In fact, such gestures in a society that is lukewarm about religion in general are likely to perpetuate the symptoms.

AUTHOR: Sean Guillory
URL: http://seansrussiablog.org and http://newbooksinrussianstudies.com
E-MAIL: sguillory1 [at] niu.edu

Recep Tayyip Erdoğan

Mr. Recep Tayyip Erdogan, Prime Minister, Turkey, receptayyip.erdogan@basbakanlik.gov.tr

Dear Prime Minister,

I am William Nicholas Gomes, Human Rights Ambassador for Salem-News.com.

I came to know that OMCT  has been informed by reliable sources about the arbitrary arrest of Mr. Ali Tanrıverdi, Chairperson of the Mersin Branch of the Human Rights Association (İnsan Haklari Derneği – İHD).

According to the information received, in the early morning of September 25, 2012, police teams of Mersin Security Directorate carried out simultaneous raids in the province of Mersin, in the context of operations targeting the Kurdish Communities Union (KCK) – an organisation said to be the “urban branch” of the armed Kurdistan Workers Party (PKK). These operations resulted in the arrest of at least 42 people, including Mr. Ali Tanrıverdi, together with journalists and members of the Kurdish political party Peace and Democracy Party (BDP). Mr. Ali Tanrıverdi’s house was raided while the office of İHD was simultaneously searched for four hours and electronic devices were seized, without any search warrant being produced and while the executives of the organisation were not present. Mr. Tanrıverdi was reportedly not allowed to call his lawyer during the raid on his house, and he and other detainees were informed that they would not be authorised to consult their lawyers during 24 hours.

I recall that this new wave of arbitrary arrests and detentions is part of a wide-range anti-terrorism operation, initiated in 2009 and intended to dismantle the KCK as an alleged “terrorist network”. In fact, this campaign has targeted dozens of peaceful activists who have been involved in advocating for a peaceful resolution of the Kurdish issue and are not involved in any terrorist acts. These peaceful activists include human rights defenders in Turkey, particularly İHD members, members of trade unions, lawyers and journalists.

Consequently, I recall that 12 other İHD members are currently in pre-trial detention pending the outcome of trials on spurious terrorism-related charges: Messrs. Muharrem Erbey and Arslan Özdemir, Diyarbakır Branch Executives; Messrs. Şerif Süren and Orhan Çiçek, Aydın Branch Executives; Mr. Reşit Teymur, Siirt Branch Executive; Mr. Abdulkadir Çurğatay and Ms. Veysi Parıltı, Mardin Branch Executives; Doğubeyazıt Representative Şaziye Önder; Mr. Mensur Işık Muş, former Branch Chairperson; Mr. Hikmet Kapancı, Malatya Executive; Mr. Bekir Gürbüz, Adıyaman Branch former Chairperson and Mr. Osman Işçi, former staff of the General Centre.

Accordingly, I call upon the Turkish authorities to put an end to the continuing harassment of human rights defenders and urges the Turkish authorities to immediately and unconditionally release all human rights defenders currently held in detention, since their detention is arbitrary as it only aim at sanctioning their human rights activities.

Actions requested:

i. Guarantee in all circumstances the physical and psychological integrity of Messrs. Ali Tanrıverdi, as well as that of all human rights defenders in Turkey;

ii. Release immediately and unconditionally Messrs. Ali Tanrıverdi, as well as all human rights defenders since their detention is arbitrary as it only aim at sanctioning their human rights activities;

iii. Put an end to all acts harassment, including at the judicial level, against Messrs. Ali Tanrıverdi, as well as against all human rights defenders in Turkey;

i. Comply with the provisions of the United Nations Declaration on Human Rights Defenders, especially its Article 1, which states that “everyone has the right, individually and in association with others, to promote and to strive for the protection and realisation of human rights and fundamental freedoms at the national and international levels”, as well as Article 12.2, which provides that “the State shall take all necessary measures to ensure the protection by the competent authorities of everyone, individually and in association with others, against any violence, threats, retaliation, de facto or de jure adverse discrimination, pressure or any other arbitrary action as a consequence of his or her legitimate exercise of the rights referred to in the present Declaration” ;

ii. More generally, ensure in all circumstances the respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms in accordance with international and regional human rights instruments ratified by Turkey.

AUTHOR: William Nicholas Gomes
URL: www.williamgomes.org
E-MAIL: williamgomes.org [at] gmail.com

Mr. Almazbek Atambayev, House of Government, Kyrgyzstan

I am William Nicholas Gomes, Human Rights Ambassador for Salem-News.com.

I came to know about the situation from Front Line Defenders.

On 14 September 2012, human rights defender Mr Farhodhon Muhtarov was arrested and ill-treated by police in the city of Bishkek. He was detained in the local police station but released later that day. Up until December 2010 when he fled Uzbekistan and applied for political asylum in Kyrgyzstan, Farhodhon Muhtarov worked with the grassroots movement Human Rights Alliance of Uzbekistan, which works on a variety of human rights issues including torture, access to justice, the right to a fair trial, economic and social rights, and the rights of vulnerable groups.

On 14 September, police broke down the door of Farhodhon Muhtarov’s apartment, beat him and verbally insulted him and members of his family. The police did not produce an arrest warrant, nor did they provide any explanation for the human rights defender’s arrest until he was in the police car on the way to police station, when he was told he would be extradited to Uzbekistan due to a request made by the Uzbek authorities. Farhodhon Muhtarov produced the identification card he had been given by the Kyrgyz authorities stating that he had applied for asylum, but the arresting officers refused to take it into consideration, claiming that the ID was fake. At no stage was the human rights defender provided with any official documents or explanations regarding the reasons for his arrest.

Following the arrest, several local human rights defenders went to the police station to intervene on Farhodhon Muhtarov’s behalf. They highlighted the arbitrary nature of the arrest and police released him several hours later. However, police officials are denying him and his family access to their apartment and they have changed the locks. Reportedly, these officials have verbally demanded money from Farhodhon Muhtarov in return for allowing him back into his home. Moreover, police officials who remained to search the apartment after Farhodhon Muhtarov’s arrest seized documents and electronic goods, including a laptop computer and a video recorder.

In 2009, Farhodhon Muhtarov was sentenced to 5 years in prison in Uzbekistan on trumped-up charges of fraud. In December 2010, his sentence was changed to forced labour. The change of sentence gave Farhodhon Muhtarov the opportunity to flee Uzbekistan for Kyrgyzstan, where he applied for political asylum. He also filed an application for asylum to the UNHCR, but there has not yet been any decision made on either of these applications.

In light of its arbitrary nature,I believe that the arrest of Farhodhon Muhtarov may be linked to his human rights activities in Uzbekistan.

I urge the authorities in Kyrgyzstan to:

1. Ensure that human rights defender Farhodhon Muhtarov and his family are given immediate access to their home and compensated for any damage caused during the arrest;

2. Ensure that any objects seized from Farhodhon Muhtarov’s apartment following his arrest are immediately returned;

3. Carry out an immediate, thorough and impartial investigation into the arrest of Farhodhon Muhtarov and the allegations that he was beaten during the carrying out of the arrest, with a view to publishing the results and bringing those responsible to justice in accordance with international standards;

4. Take all necessary measures to guarantee the physical and psychological security and integrity of Farhodhon Muhtarov and his family members;

5. Guarantee in all circumstances that all human rights defenders in Kyrgyzstan are able to carry out their legitimate human rights activities without fear of reprisals and free of all restrictions including judicial harassment.

AUTHOR: William Nicholas Gomes
URL: www.williamgomes.org
E-MAIL: williamgomes.org [at] gmail.com

President Ilham Aliyev, Office of the President, Azerbaijan

Your Excellency,

I am William Nicholas Gomes, Human Rights Ambassador for Salem-News.com.

I am came to know about the situaiton from Front Line Defenders.

On 12 September 2012, human rights defender Mr Ilham Amiraslanov was sentenced to two years imprisonment by Sabirabad District Court. Ilham Amiraslanov is an active member of Kura Civil Union and is involved in the ongoing protests against corruption and inefficiency in the delivering of assistance to victims of the flooding of the Kura River in May 2010 in Azerbaijan.

On 12 September, Ilham Amiraslanov was convicted and sentenced to two years imprisonment for unauthorised possession of firearms and ammunition under Article 228.1 of the Criminal Code of Azerbaijan. According to reports, the judge refused to hear the defence witnesses and did not allow the journalists present to enter the courtroom. Ilham Amiraslanov’s lawyer believes that neither the investigation nor the trial were conducted objectively, that numerous human rights violations were committed during the arrest of the human rights defender and that the case was politically motivated. The lawyer announced that they would appeal the court decision.

Ilham Amiraslanov was arrested on 8 June 2012 near the village of Esgerbeyli in the region of Sabirabad by police officials from the Department for Combating Organised Crime (DCOC) of the Ministry of Internal Affairs. The police officers pulled an opaque bag over his head and took him to an unknown location, which he could later identify as the Olympic Complex in Sabirabad. The human rights defender was subjected to torture and cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment while in detention, including being beaten on the head and face.

On 18 June, Ilham Amiraslanov wrote a letter to the Prosecutor General asking him to investigate the illegal activities of the police, including the planting of a weapon on him and the planting of ammunition at his home. In the letter he described in detail how he was beaten on the head, particularly around the eyes and mouth, and kicked by different police officers and verbally humiliated while in detention.

I am seriously concerned by the sentencing of Ilham Amiraslanov, and believe that it is directly related to his peaceful and legitimate activities in the defence of human rights. In light of the reported ill-treatment of Ilham Amiraslanov in detention, I express concern for his physical and psychological integrity.

I urge the authorities in Azerbaijan to:

1. Immediately quash the conviction of human rights defender Ilham Amiraslanov and effect his immediate and unconditional release, as I believe that he has been convicted solely as a result of his legitimate and peaceful human rights work;

2. Carry out an immediate, thorough and impartial investigation into the arrest and detention of Ilham Amiraslanov and the allegations that he was subjected to torture and cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment whilst in detention, with a view to publishing the results and bringing those responsible to justice in accordance with international standards;

3. Take all necessary measures to guarantee the physical and psychological integrity and security of Ilham Amiraslanov while in detention;

4. Guarantee in all circumstances that all human rights defenders in Azerbaijan are able to carry out their legitimate human rights activities without fear of reprisals and free of all restrictions including judicial harassment.

AUTHOR: William Nicholas Gomes
URL: www.williamgomes.org
E-MAIL: williamgomes.org [at] gmail.com

President Evgeny Shevtchuk, City of Tiraspol, Pridnestrovian Moldavian Republic

Your Excellency,

I am William Nicholas Gomes, Human Rights Ambassador for Salem-News.com.

I came to know about the situation from Front Line Defenders.

On 6 September 2012, Mr Stepan Popovskij, Chairperson of the Republican Social Movement for the Protection of Property and Social Rights of Peasants “Peasant Union”, was notified by A A Orzul, a local policeman in the Pridnestrovian Moldavian Republic (PMR) (also known as Transnistria), that he had been charged with an administrative offence and that the case would be heard by the Municipal Court of Slobozia on 10 September. He has been charged with illegal organisation of public meetings.

Stepan Popovskij is a prominent human rights defender dedicated to defending peasants’ land and property rights. In this context, he provides legal advice and court assistance to citizens whose rights have been violated. Stepan Popovskij has also organised many public meetings in closed spaces especially designated for public meetings in different villages in the PMR, with the aim of explaining to citizens their rights and suggesting ways of resisting the illegal seizure of their land.

This is not the first time Stepan Popovskij has faced such charges for his activities. On 21 August 2012, the human rights defender was notified by another policeman, D V Gibeskul, of similar charges against him. However, the policeman did not provide information on Stepan Popovskij’s procedural rights and duties while notifying him of the charges. The policeman demanded that the human rights defender present himself at the headquarters of the Municipal Court of Slobozia on 23 August, where he was informed that he was accused of organising public assemblies without notifying the authorities. However, according to Article 4 of the Law of the PMR on the Organisation and Conduct of Assemblies, assemblies in specially designated closed spaces can be conducted without providing any notification.

On the morning of 23 August, D V Gibeskul asked Stepan Popjvskij to sign a new charge sheet for the alleged administrative offence, alleging that he had refused to sign the previous one in which the human rights defenders’ procedural rights had been violated. Stepan Popovskij demanded that the official produce the original charge sheet, but the local policeman refused to do so.

Upon entering the judge’s office, Stepan Popjvskij was informed that consideration of the case against him would begin immediately in that office. The new charge sheet, brought by the policeman, was filed there and then by the judge, even though this is the duty of the policeman. Stepan Popovksij’s request to have the case heard in the courtroom, and not in the office of the judge, was declined by the judge. Another request to obtain the original charge sheet from D V Gibeskul was ignored by the judge. In view of this, the human rights defender requested that the case be adjourned for five days in order to give him time to prepare his defence, but the judge only agreed to an adjournment of less than 24 hours. However, on 24 August, the judge closed the case due to the multiple procedural violations committed by D V Gibeskul.

I am concerned that the filing of baseless charges by different officials against Stepan Popjvskij in such a short space of time may form part of a campaign aimed at hindering the human rights defender from carrying out his peaceful and legitimate human rights activities.

I urge the authorities in Moldova and the Pridnestrovian Moldavian Republic to:

1. Immediately drop all charges against human rights defender Stepan Popjvskij, as it is believed that these measures have been taken against him solely on account of his legitimate and peaceful work in defence of human rights;

2. Guarantee in all circumstances that all human rights defenders in Moldova and the Pridnestrovian Moldavian Republic are able to carry out their legitimate human rights activities without fear of reprisals and free of all restrictions including judicial harassment.

AUTHOR: William Nicholas Gomes
URL: www.williamgomes.org
E-MAIL: williamgomes.org [at] gmail.com

Still, there’s been a burst of Orthodox militancy of late. Here’s a list of recent events: A call for Orthodox believers to form patrol squads to tag along with police to combat “enemies of the faith” (Thankfully, the police declined). The outspoken Father Vsevolod Chaplin blesses the measure, saying that “It’s a step in right direction.” A group of Orthodox activists descends on G-Spot, a museum of erotic art in Moscow, with bricks in hand and threaten its curator, Alexander Donskoi. A similar group of Orthodox, accompanied by a NTV camera crew, no less, burst into Teatr.doc to disrupt a so-called “Eyewitness theater” where a panel of witnesses to the Pussy Riot trial were giving their impressions.

Then there are reports that Alexandr Sidyakin, the United Russia deputy who came up with the law upping the fines on protests, is working on a blasphemy law based on the German and Austrian codices. He later denied that any such law is in the works.

For their part, the so-called “enemies of faith” have not remained silent. On 17 August, the bare-chested activists of FEMEN cut down a cross in central Kiev to protest Pussy Riot’s two year prison sentence. Then ten days later, a previously unknown group, Narodnaya Volia, or People’s Will, the namesake of the 19th century Russian terrorist group, took a chainsaw to three crosses in village of Smelovsky in Chelyabinsk Province and another in the district of Varavino-Faktoriya in Arkhangelsk. According to Narodnaya Volia’s statement:

“The cutting down of the Russia Orthodox Church crosses in the village of Smelovsky, Verkhneuralsky District of the Chelyabinsk Region and in the city district Varavino-Faktoriya in Arkhangelsk is part of our operation against the Russian Orthodox Church called Krestopoval and was carried out by the military wing of our Movement, the flight combat units Neizvestnyye [the Unknown]. . . Russian Orthodox Church signs are a response to the statement on the creation of Orthodox militia, the Russian Orthodox Church’s reprisal of the Russian girls from Pussy Riot, and the insult by Archpriest Dimitrii Smirnov of the prominent Russian revolutionary movement leader Vladimir Ilyich Lenin. . . We demand the immediate release of the Pussy Riot members. Attacks against the Russian Orthodox Church will continue until our demands are fully met.”

Then there is this week’s Russian tabloid sensation: two women were found murdered in Kazan with “Free Pussy Riot” written on the wall in their blood.  RuNet was immediately ablaze with all kinds of conspiracy theories (Why didn’t initial reports mention the blood tinged “Free Pussy Riot”? The cops must have planted it . . . ) and cries of provocation from Pussy Riot supporters, and their denunciation by Pussy Riot foes (Archpriest Smirnov: “The blood of the murdered women of Kazan is on the conscious of Pussy Riot’s supporters”). The cops immediately dismissed any real connection to Pussy Riot and passed it off as the work of a crazy person.

The police were right: the killer turned himself in and revealed that his Charley Mansonesque scrawl was meant to throw off the cops.

Sill, the discourse on Pussy Riot gained new intensity.

And now Vedomosti reports that there are plans to create the All-Russian Association of Orthodox Youth. Interesting timing. Actually, the idea seems that have been in the works as Putin was asked about it at this year’s Seliger summer bash. He supported the idea as long as it didn’t become “a new quasi-Orthodox Komsomol.” Wouldn’t that be ironic if it did?

The Pussy Riot Affair only gave the idea of a Orthodox youth organization more purpose. According to Vadim Kvyatkovskii, the meeting’s coordinator, Pussy Riot showed that missionary efforts among youth require intensification. Surveys have shown that youth tend to support Pussy Riot more and often have negative views of the Orthodox Church. That said, Pussy Riot bogey-women have the potential to draw religiously inclined youth into defending the faith. During the trial, the church affiliated group Georgievtsy increased its membership from 400 to 600. Even United Russia’s youth wing, Molodaya gvardiia is looking to get into the act. It’s leader, Maksim Rudnev, said that there is room to work with Kvyatkovskii’s new Orthodox youth organization.

But perhaps its too soon to lump Kvyatkovskii’s group in with the Orthodox fanatics. Pussy Riot may spark new earnest, but not militant urgency. One sign of this is that Kvyatkovskii has ruled out the idea of his new youth group joining the Orthodox patrols. When asked about his position on the matter in an interview on Slon.ru, he responded:

Militias are a form of united citizens, but no more. In general, I don’t know of a single such voluntary patrol really existing. I know that where were several PR efforts, but I am not confident that this most effective way to unite youth. For example, we have young guys actively participating in helping Krymsk. This experience showed them that such volunteer groups now have much more demand. We aren’t very close with the tendencies toward some conservatism. On the contrary, we talk about the openness of the church and our activities, and we are prepared to make steps towards any interested people. Therefore we are not close or interested in the idea of a street patrol as some kind of watchdog.

It seems that in the search for new militants, Russian Orthodoxy’s street fighting men will have to look elsewhere.

Picture: Ridus

AUTHOR: Sean Guillory
URL: http://seansrussiablog.org and http://newbooksinrussianstudies.com
E-MAIL: sguillory1 [at] niu.edu

My article, “The Shattered Self of Komsomol Civil War Memoirs,” has come out in the Fall 2012 issues of the Slavic Review. You can download it here (PDF).  Here are the opening paragraphs:

Komsomol literature in the 1920s repeatedly evoked the memory of the civil war as a means to inspire young communists to sacrifice themselves for the construction of socialism. In the words of Alfred Kurella, “The heroic times of the civil war presently take on a great role in satisfying youth’s romantic proclivities.” The war, he explained, bound the Komsomol around a “single principle,” for it recalled a time when all “surrendered to one great purpose” and “individual identity was significant only as part of a large family. Everybody conformed to the principle that bestowed life or death.” Like other European nations, which used memories of World War I in the construction of national unity, the Komsomol recalled the civil war in order to unite youth around a common heroic memory. The civil war functioned as a “meaningful and sacred event,” providing “ever-present saints and martyrs, places of worship and a heritage to emulate.”

The desire to codify the civil war as a foundational event began with the creation of the Komsomol’s historical commission in December 1920: Istmol, or the Commission for the Study of the History of the Russian Youth Movement. Throughout the 1920s, Istmol collected documents and organized evenings of reminiscence and exhibitions to commemorate the participation in the civil war by members of the Komsomol. Istmol also solicited civil war veterans to write memoirs that would bring revolutionary heroism to life, adding color and depth to the official documents. Their publications varied in content and style, and recollections were often published with very few revisions. The result was a heterogeneous body of literature lacking a dominant narrative for civil war memory. The recollections constituted the main literary form of civil war commemoration since the obituaries, tributes to fallen Komsomol leaders, and articles highlighting the enthusiasm of and service provided by members of the Komsomol that were published during the war.

Komsomol civil war memoirs display an ambivalence toward the civil war. This contrasts with our broader understanding of the war’s memory as a heroic period in which communists sacrificed themselves wholeheartedly for the revolution. Alongside a narrative that framed the war as a “heroic epoch,” veterans voiced confusion, personal loss, hardship, physical suffering, and fear in the face of death. It is precisely because of these elements that Komsomol civil war narratives can be seen as part of the important phenomenon of war remembrance at the turn of the century. These narratives, like many of their European counterparts, are ultimately personal stories that attempt to come to terms with the personal transformations that war brought upon young soldiers and to render the strangeness of these experiences understandable to both the readers and the soldiers themselves.

Read whole article, see here (PDF).

AUTHOR: Sean Guillory
URL: http://seansrussiablog.org and http://newbooksinrussianstudies.com
E-MAIL: sguillory1 [at] niu.edu