5 ms·

> for what is basically vandalism by western standards Singing a song protesting the president and religion in a church is not vandalism, and in many countries

by A1kmm 14y ago

> for what is basically vandalism by western standards Singing a song protesting the president and religion in a church is not vandalism, and in many countries would not be considered a crime at all.

eps 14y ago
Makes you wonder what would've happened to these Pussy Riot clowns should've they picked some Alabama church for their performance.
- daliusd 14y ago
  I'm not sure if it is fair comparison because there was no place for religion in Soviet Russia.
  - deleted 14y ago
    [deleted]
- ianb 14y ago
  Nothing? As far as I can tell they went into a church, a public church (though maybe under false pretenses) and performed while being filmed, against the wishes of the people there, and I'm guessing were asked to leave and did not do so. You could come up with crimes in the U.S. for what they did, but convictions wouldn't happen, and anything more than minor legal harassment is unlikely. And if some zealous prosecutor did put forth some effort the defense could and would be robust, and it would take a long time, and it would be very questionable what the outcome would be, with a wide variety of available defenses. The people who end up in jail over stuff that seems minor usually put forward a terrible defense. People do stuff like this all the time in the U.S. – this is performance art, and no more intrusive or offensive than typical performance art, and those people don't go to jail. And Alabama churches aren't some otherworldly place.
  - mladenkovacevic 14y ago
    You and I may understand it as performance art but next time you're feeling particularly creative, gather a few of your artsy chums, go into a Manhattan synagogue, put on Balaklavas over your faces and start to scream out profanities against Israel and capitalism. Then proceed to enjoy the hilarity as NYPD hauls you away and FBI puts you on a no-fly list. With both Moscow's and New York's experience with large-scale terrorist attacks I'm not surprised by how jumpy their citizens might be.
  - 1gor 14y ago
    There is quite a difference between the US and EU countries with regards to hate speech laws. A guy in the UK was arrested and given (suspended) jail sentence, a fine and 100 hours of unpaid public labour for leading anti-religious cartoons in an airport prayer room. All because a chaplain felt offended by his cartoons... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_speech_laws_in_the_United_Kingdom http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_speech_laws_in_the_United_... This is actually quite funny: the people behind Pussy Riot campaign now have to explain to Western liberal public why Russian hate speech laws are bad, but European laws that forbid insulting Muslims and homosexuals are good. Because if Pussy Riot sang their anti-Putin song not in the cathedral, but, say, in the street, they won't get get the press.
deleted 14y ago
[deleted]
deleted 14y ago
[deleted]
1gor 14y ago
In Iceland they would get 2 years for simply insulting a religion group (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_speech http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_speech), as well as in many other EU countries (but not in the US). That's what Pussy Riot have been jailed for - hate speech, not for singing an anti-Putin song. In fact they were screaming profanities in the cathedral, and their anti-Putin song was added later to their YouTube video.
- itmag 14y ago
  In Sweden, we have the Hets mot folkgrupp ("agitation against a people") law which forbids disparaging/threatening comments against ethnic/sexual minorities, and allows jail time for up to 2 years.
- xentronium 14y ago
  What qualifies as "hate speech"? As far as I understand (I wasn't there), the worst thing they shouted in the cathedral was "holy shit" (literally translated into Russian as "срань господня"). That wasn't any kind of violence rally, and that was mostly political performance, not religious.
  - 1gor 14y ago
    What qualifies as "hate speech"? I'll give you a UK example (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_speech_laws_in_the_United_Kingdom http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_speech_laws_in_the_United_...) "On 4 March 2010, a jury returned a verdict of guilty against Harry Taylor, who was charged under Part 4A of the Public Order Act 1986. Taylor was charged because he left anti-religious cartoons in the prayer-room of Liverpool's John Lennon Airport on three occasions in 2008. The airport chaplain, who was insulted, offended, and alarmed by the cartoons, called the police.[11][12][13] On 23 April 2010, Judge Charles James of Liverpool Crown Court sentenced Taylor to a six-month term of imprisonment suspended for two years, made him subject to a five-year Anti-Social Behaviour Order (ASBO) (which bans him from carrying religiously offensive material in a public place), ordered him to perform 100 hours of unpaid work, and ordered him to pay £250 costs" Not quite 2 years prison sentence, but a (suspended) jail term nevertheless. But then again, it was not a desecration of a main cathedral either, it was just a cartoon on a wall in an airport prayer room... Maybe Pussy Riot gives us a case to abolish hate speech laws altogether? So nobody should be threatened with arrest or fine for saying bad things about Muslims, homosexuals, Christians, Jews or whoever, as it is the case now.

by A1kmm 14y ago

> for what is basically vandalism by western standards Singing a song protesting the president and religion in a church is not vandalism, and in many countries would not be considered a crime at all.

eps 14y ago

Makes you wonder what would've happened to these Pussy Riot clowns should've they picked some Alabama church for their performance.

daliusd 14y ago
I'm not sure if it is fair comparison because there was no place for religion in Soviet Russia.
- deleted 14y ago
  [deleted]
ianb 14y ago
Nothing? As far as I can tell they went into a church, a public church (though maybe under false pretenses) and performed while being filmed, against the wishes of the people there, and I'm guessing were asked to leave and did not do so. You could come up with crimes in the U.S. for what they did, but convictions wouldn't happen, and anything more than minor legal harassment is unlikely. And if some zealous prosecutor did put forth some effort the defense could and would be robust, and it would take a long time, and it would be very questionable what the outcome would be, with a wide variety of available defenses. The people who end up in jail over stuff that seems minor usually put forward a terrible defense. People do stuff like this all the time in the U.S. – this is performance art, and no more intrusive or offensive than typical performance art, and those people don't go to jail. And Alabama churches aren't some otherworldly place.
- mladenkovacevic 14y ago
  You and I may understand it as performance art but next time you're feeling particularly creative, gather a few of your artsy chums, go into a Manhattan synagogue, put on Balaklavas over your faces and start to scream out profanities against Israel and capitalism. Then proceed to enjoy the hilarity as NYPD hauls you away and FBI puts you on a no-fly list. With both Moscow's and New York's experience with large-scale terrorist attacks I'm not surprised by how jumpy their citizens might be.
- 1gor 14y ago
  There is quite a difference between the US and EU countries with regards to hate speech laws. A guy in the UK was arrested and given (suspended) jail sentence, a fine and 100 hours of unpaid public labour for leading anti-religious cartoons in an airport prayer room. All because a chaplain felt offended by his cartoons... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_speech_laws_in_the_United_Kingdom http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_speech_laws_in_the_United_... This is actually quite funny: the people behind Pussy Riot campaign now have to explain to Western liberal public why Russian hate speech laws are bad, but European laws that forbid insulting Muslims and homosexuals are good. Because if Pussy Riot sang their anti-Putin song not in the cathedral, but, say, in the street, they won't get get the press.

deleted 14y ago

[deleted]

deleted 14y ago

[deleted]

1gor 14y ago

In Iceland they would get 2 years for simply insulting a religion group (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_speech http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_speech), as well as in many other EU countries (but not in the US). That's what Pussy Riot have been jailed for - hate speech, not for singing an anti-Putin song. In fact they were screaming profanities in the cathedral, and their anti-Putin song was added later to their YouTube video.

itmag 14y ago
In Sweden, we have the Hets mot folkgrupp ("agitation against a people") law which forbids disparaging/threatening comments against ethnic/sexual minorities, and allows jail time for up to 2 years.
xentronium 14y ago
What qualifies as "hate speech"? As far as I understand (I wasn't there), the worst thing they shouted in the cathedral was "holy shit" (literally translated into Russian as "срань господня"). That wasn't any kind of violence rally, and that was mostly political performance, not religious.
- 1gor 14y ago
  What qualifies as "hate speech"? I'll give you a UK example (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_speech_laws_in_the_United_Kingdom http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_speech_laws_in_the_United_...) "On 4 March 2010, a jury returned a verdict of guilty against Harry Taylor, who was charged under Part 4A of the Public Order Act 1986. Taylor was charged because he left anti-religious cartoons in the prayer-room of Liverpool's John Lennon Airport on three occasions in 2008. The airport chaplain, who was insulted, offended, and alarmed by the cartoons, called the police.[11][12][13] On 23 April 2010, Judge Charles James of Liverpool Crown Court sentenced Taylor to a six-month term of imprisonment suspended for two years, made him subject to a five-year Anti-Social Behaviour Order (ASBO) (which bans him from carrying religiously offensive material in a public place), ordered him to perform 100 hours of unpaid work, and ordered him to pay £250 costs" Not quite 2 years prison sentence, but a (suspended) jail term nevertheless. But then again, it was not a desecration of a main cathedral either, it was just a cartoon on a wall in an airport prayer room... Maybe Pussy Riot gives us a case to abolish hate speech laws altogether? So nobody should be threatened with arrest or fine for saying bad things about Muslims, homosexuals, Christians, Jews or whoever, as it is the case now.