This House believes the imprisoned members of Pussy Riot should be considered political prisoners

There seems to be little doubt in any one’s mind that Putin and his regime were the focus of the protest. It is, equally, no secret that Putin has a fairly brutal attitude towards political dissent; he has expelled even allies in parliament for criticism[i], uses force to crush unsanctioned protests,[ii] and locks up potential opponents.[iii] Locking up Pussy Riot in order to stop their opposition therefore fits in with Putin’s previous actions against his opposition and seems likely to be the desired result. In the light of that, it seems an extraordinary coincidence that what he would have wanted is exactly what happened. Putin himself said after they were sentenced "We have red lines beyond which starts the destruction of the moral foundations of our society… If people cross this line they should be made responsible in line with the law."[iv]

Putin’s record is not one that suggests that he is happy to step back and allow events to take their course in the hope that what he wants to happen just chances to come along – quite the reverse. Suggesting that this is a happy coincidence for Putin would be a little like suggesting that the decision to have term limits for the presidency, just not for Putin, was just the happy outcome of an impartial process.[v] If this was just the Church and the courts happening to favour the interests of an over-mighty president, then Putin must be the luckiest man alive.

[i] Vasilyeva, Nataliya, ‘Anti-Putin lawmaker ousted in Russia; who's next?’, guardian.co.uk, 14 September 2012

[ii] Heritage, Timothy, ‘Vladimir Putin using force to crush protests, Russian opposition fears’, National Post, 6 March 2012

[iii] Parfitt, Tom, ‘Mikhail Khodorkovsky sentenced to 14 years in prison’, The Guardian, 30 December 2010

[iv] Stott, Michael, ‘Pussy Riot got what they deserved: Putin’, Reuters, 25 October 2012

[v] Boudreaux, Richard, ‘Putin Accepts Term Limits in Principle, but Not for Him’, The Wall Street Journal, 11 April 2012

What is extraordinary is that despite the liberal outrage of much of the Western press, the Russian court system has delivered an appropriate verdict. There can be little doubt that their actions showed a fantastic level of disrespect for the Church, this is the closest relevant charge. Rulings may be convenient or not for leaders of all political persuasions – neither proves bias within the courts.

Pussy Riot’s protest was politically focussed, the response seems politically driven and now they are prisoners. The name and chorus of the song performed was Virgin Mary, Chase Putin Out.[i] It is very hard to see what would be a better definition of the phrase ‘political prisoner’. Where any punishment required for this act – and Proposition contends that there was not – then it was at most a mild public order offence. Amnesty International and the overwhelming majority of the International media have reached that conclusion.

The very fact that this has become a cause celebre shows the extent to which those who able to step back from the situation recognise this for what it is; a clear abuse of presidential power given the thinnest sheen of respectability by a compliant church.

Such religious content as was contained in the protest fairly obviously relates to the setting and is not the main content of the song. It’s a fairly straightforward artistic device. It does, however, raise the question that if the intent of this song was to be blasphemous – a necessary component of proving it to be so – then why did they do such a bad job of it and spend so much their time going on about politics; it would suggest somewhat incompetent activists.

[i] Elder, Miriam, ‘Pussy Riot trial: prosecutors call for three-year jail term’, guardian.co.uk, 7 August 2012

Their song may have gone on to discuss political themes but its basis was an appeal to Mary to rid Russia of Putin. All the rest was trappings after that initial statement – a sort of protracted “because”. It is quite routine for prayers to start with an appeal to diving authority before addressing secular themes just as this did; it was a mockery of a prayer and, therefore, profane.

The Russian Orthodox Church has long been happy to prop up whichever strongman happens to be running the Kremlin, this was particularly the case in the time of the Tsars but was even the case under the Communists for all their supposed Atheism.[i] It certainly would not come as any surprise to Kremlin-watchers that, as Putin’s government shreds the last vestiges of democratic credibility in favour of the strong-arm tactics of earlier Russian leaders – Tsarist and Communist – that the Church would be only too happy to help out with such difficulties as this as the Church and Putin are particularly close.  

The fact is that the long arm of the presidential office now reaches into all parts of Russian public life, including religious life, for example the FSB has harassed other Christian sects and proselytizing has been banned.[ii]  The intrusion of the state has been demonstrated far more effectively by the response to the protest than could ever have been achieved through such an event on its own. Although that reality may be powerfully ironic, it does little to help these political prisoners held at presidential whim and nothing more than hollow and self-serving justification from the courts.

[i] Miner, Steven Merritt, Stalin’s Holy War, The University of North Carolina Press, April 2003

[ii] Levy, Clifford J., ‘At Expense of All Others, Putin Picks a Church’, The New York Times, 24 April 2008

It is not just the hierarchy of the Church that have objected to the bands actions. There have also been popular protests from regular churchgoers who have been offended by Pussy Riot’s actions. Strangely this fact rarely gets more than a line – and often not even that – in the Western press.[i] This is not therefore a case of the Church ‘propping up’ the state rather it is speaking out for the outrage that many of its members feel.

[i] BBC Website. Pussy Riot members jailed for two years for hooliganism. 17 August 2012

There seems to be little doubt in any one’s mind that Putin and his regime were the focus of the protest. It is, equally, no secret that Putin has a fairly brutal attitude towards political dissent; he has expelled even allies in parliament for criticism[i], uses force to crush unsanctioned protests,[ii] and locks up potential opponents.[iii] Locking up Pussy Riot in order to stop their opposition therefore fits in with Putin’s previous actions against his opposition and seems likely to be the desired result. In the light of that, it seems an extraordinary coincidence that what he would have wanted is exactly what happened. Putin himself said after they were sentenced "We have red lines beyond which starts the destruction of the moral foundations of our society… If people cross this line they should be made responsible in line with the law."[iv]

Putin’s record is not one that suggests that he is happy to step back and allow events to take their course in the hope that what he wants to happen just chances to come along – quite the reverse. Suggesting that this is a happy coincidence for Putin would be a little like suggesting that the decision to have term limits for the presidency, just not for Putin, was just the happy outcome of an impartial process.[v] If this was just the Church and the courts happening to favour the interests of an over-mighty president, then Putin must be the luckiest man alive.

[i] Vasilyeva, Nataliya, ‘Anti-Putin lawmaker ousted in Russia; who's next?’, guardian.co.uk, 14 September 2012

[ii] Heritage, Timothy, ‘Vladimir Putin using force to crush protests, Russian opposition fears’, National Post, 6 March 2012

[iii] Parfitt, Tom, ‘Mikhail Khodorkovsky sentenced to 14 years in prison’, The Guardian, 30 December 2010

[iv] Stott, Michael, ‘Pussy Riot got what they deserved: Putin’, Reuters, 25 October 2012

[v] Boudreaux, Richard, ‘Putin Accepts Term Limits in Principle, but Not for Him’, The Wall Street Journal, 11 April 2012

What is extraordinary is that despite the liberal outrage of much of the Western press, the Russian court system has delivered an appropriate verdict. There can be little doubt that their actions showed a fantastic level of disrespect for the Church, this is the closest relevant charge. Rulings may be convenient or not for leaders of all political persuasions – neither proves bias within the courts.

Pussy Riot’s protest was politically focussed, the response seems politically driven and now they are prisoners. The name and chorus of the song performed was Virgin Mary, Chase Putin Out.[i] It is very hard to see what would be a better definition of the phrase ‘political prisoner’. Where any punishment required for this act – and Proposition contends that there was not – then it was at most a mild public order offence. Amnesty International and the overwhelming majority of the International media have reached that conclusion.

The very fact that this has become a cause celebre shows the extent to which those who able to step back from the situation recognise this for what it is; a clear abuse of presidential power given the thinnest sheen of respectability by a compliant church.

Such religious content as was contained in the protest fairly obviously relates to the setting and is not the main content of the song. It’s a fairly straightforward artistic device. It does, however, raise the question that if the intent of this song was to be blasphemous – a necessary component of proving it to be so – then why did they do such a bad job of it and spend so much their time going on about politics; it would suggest somewhat incompetent activists.

[i] Elder, Miriam, ‘Pussy Riot trial: prosecutors call for three-year jail term’, guardian.co.uk, 7 August 2012

Their song may have gone on to discuss political themes but its basis was an appeal to Mary to rid Russia of Putin. All the rest was trappings after that initial statement – a sort of protracted “because”. It is quite routine for prayers to start with an appeal to diving authority before addressing secular themes just as this did; it was a mockery of a prayer and, therefore, profane.

The Russian Orthodox Church has long been happy to prop up whichever strongman happens to be running the Kremlin, this was particularly the case in the time of the Tsars but was even the case under the Communists for all their supposed Atheism.[i] It certainly would not come as any surprise to Kremlin-watchers that, as Putin’s government shreds the last vestiges of democratic credibility in favour of the strong-arm tactics of earlier Russian leaders – Tsarist and Communist – that the Church would be only too happy to help out with such difficulties as this as the Church and Putin are particularly close.  

The fact is that the long arm of the presidential office now reaches into all parts of Russian public life, including religious life, for example the FSB has harassed other Christian sects and proselytizing has been banned.[ii]  The intrusion of the state has been demonstrated far more effectively by the response to the protest than could ever have been achieved through such an event on its own. Although that reality may be powerfully ironic, it does little to help these political prisoners held at presidential whim and nothing more than hollow and self-serving justification from the courts.

[i] Miner, Steven Merritt, Stalin’s Holy War, The University of North Carolina Press, April 2003

[ii] Levy, Clifford J., ‘At Expense of All Others, Putin Picks a Church’, The New York Times, 24 April 2008

It is not just the hierarchy of the Church that have objected to the bands actions. There have also been popular protests from regular churchgoers who have been offended by Pussy Riot’s actions. Strangely this fact rarely gets more than a line – and often not even that – in the Western press.[i] This is not therefore a case of the Church ‘propping up’ the state rather it is speaking out for the outrage that many of its members feel.

[i] BBC Website. Pussy Riot members jailed for two years for hooliganism. 17 August 2012

There is no shortage of possible venues to stage a protest such as this one. A busy supermarket, a train station, a park, the middle of the street – all of them would have fulfilled the requirement for lots of people with attentions to be attracted. Since it was dubbed not a live concert the location would have been totally interchangeable.[i] Holding it in a church – in front of the high alter during mass – was calculated to cause maximum effect, maximum shock and maximum publicity. Causing intended offence during a religious ceremony is about as close to the definition of blasphemy as it would be possible to get.

Vladimir Putin has shrugged off challenges from much more serious critics than an attention-seeking group of musicians. This very act was calculated to cause the greatest possible offence to people of faith. Such a protest in St Peter’s in the same situation would have caused great offence even if the protest had been about Berlusconi. When British gay rights activist Peter Tatchell interrupted the Archbishop of Canterbury’s Easter service some years ago, he was widely thought of as having done his cause more harm than good because it offended so many and was subsequently convicted[ii]. This is no different, it was blasphemous and, under Russian law, there are punishments for blasphemy.

[i] Whitmore, Brian, ‘Pussy Riot: The Punk Band That Isn't And The Concert That Wasn't’, Radio Free Europe, 30 July 2012

[ii] BBC News Website. Tatchell fined £18.60 for pulpit protest.

Firstly protesting in a Church clearly has served to draw maximum attention to the issue and so they appear to have been proven right to have done so. Secondly, it is the severity of the sentence that is the issue here, Tatchell’s actions were described by the magistrate as “a minor public order offence” and he was given a fine of under £20. 

Perhaps more damning than the fact that the protest did cause offence or the fact that it was always likely to was the fact that it was clearly intended to do. At no point can the members of  Pussy Riot been under the illusion that no offence would be caused; quite the reverse, they were counting on it. Counting not only on the outcry in the domestic media but also on the impact that would have on the international  media in an effort to give themselves some cover.

While the charge of ‘hooliganism’ might seem laughable this does meet the Russian definition “The flagrant violation of public order expressed by a clear disrespect for society.”[i] It is clear they did this in terms of their intrusion to areas reserved for priests, by manifestly contradicting common church rules, expressing their disrespect and using swear words,[ii] it is clear that profanity is a much greater offence within a church than outside even if it is a word used in ‘everyday speech’.[iii]

It is important to be clear that this is not Solzhenitsyn, because of the way this was staged it was intended from the outset to do nothing more than grab headlines. There is no denying that there are real political divisions in Moscow and that there are many people with very real issues with Putin’s style of leadership, it is difficult to see how this publicity grabbing stunt does anything to help that cause.

[i] Taylor, Adam, ‘Why Russian Punks Pussy Riot Aren't Heroes’, Business Insider, 16 August 2012

[ii] Whitmore, Brian, ‘Pussy Riot: The Punk Band That Isn't And The Concert That Wasn't’, Radio Free Europe, 30 July 2012

[iii] Fraser, Giles, ‘Pussy Riot's crime was violating the sacred. That's what got Jesus in court’, The Guardian, 10 August 2010

The protest was certainly intended to be noticed – there’s little point in protesting something if it isn’t. The very fact that they were willing to risk imprisonment suggests that this was something more than a media stunt. It’s also difficult to see how this is different from earlier generations of artists who have protested tyranny – the only significant difference seems to be that this tyrant gets on rather better with leaders of the West.

The members of Pussy Riot themselves seem to admit that the protest was at least in part religious, Sparrow, one of the members told the Guardian "It was just a prayer. A very special prayer”.[i] When combined with the setting in the Cathedral of Christ the Saviour shows the intent. It would, in theory, be possible to imagine a protest in such a setting that did not cause offence – or at least sought to minimise it. However, the religious overtones and references seem designed purely to inflame it. They served no purpose in making the case about Putin’s policies but seem calculated to offend the congregation and clergy and, given the setting, the Orthodox Church as a whole.

However, a quiet and dignified protest, while making the political point more powerfully and without offence would not have served the main purpose here; publicity through maximizing offence as a result of deliberate blasphemy.

To intend blasphemy, to commit blasphemy, in the full and wilful knowledge that it is blasphemous and then claim it is political dissent is offensive not only to the religious but to those who have genuinely suffered as a result of their political dissent[ii].

[i] Cadwalladr, Carole, ‘Pussy Riot: will Vladimir Putin regret taking on Russia's cool women punks?’, The Observer, 29 July 2012

[ii] Daily Mail. Mark Dooley. “Am I the only person who thinks that pussy riot should have been jailed?” 24 August 2012.

It’s a parody of a prayer; nobody has ever denied that. If that’s the form of protest to be used, where better than a church? No property was damaged although some feathers may have been ruffled – but fair enough. Protesting the increasingly totalitarian rule of one of the world’s most powerful nations would seem to justify a fairly minor disturbance on a Sunday morning.