Legal Aspect: extremism

The air of the program is available here.
The source of the publication - official site of the Echo Moskvy radio station.

TEXT: Y.ROZOVA: Greetings! My name is Yana Rozova. The author of the “Legal Aspect” program, Managing Partner of the Law Firm "YUST", Vice President of the Federal Chamber of Advocates of the Russian Federation Yury Pilipenko is beside me.

Y.PILIPENKO: Good afternoon everyone in the studio and good afternoon, dear audience.

Y.ROZOVA: Our today’s guests are: Valery Vasilievich Lazarev – a Professor of the Moscow State Juridical University, Doctor-at-Law. Good afternoon!

V.LAZAREV: Good afternoon!

Y.ROZOVA: And Aidar Sultanov - lawyer, member of the Association on improvement of life and education, a member of the editorial board of the “Bulletin of civil proceedings” magazine, the author of over one hundred publications in juridical editions.

A.SULTANOV: Good afternoon!

Y.ROZOVA: In this program, we discuss the events of political, economic and social life from the legal point of view – I call your attention to this. Besides, we make some digresses into the history of advocacy. The today’s subject of the air is extremism. The recent recognition of Elmir Kuliev’s translation of the Quran as an extremist material is the motive.

DOSSIER:

The Oktiabrsky district court of Novorossiysk ruled the Russian text of the Quran an extremist material. The judge decided on September 21 that he mentions of the believers’ – in this case, Muslims’ – superiority over the rest of the people could cause an increase of the number of extremist crimes.

Y.ROZOVA: A question immediately arises: how legal is the ruling and should it be contested? The question is to you first, Yury.

Y.PILIPENKO: Yana, it is a difficult question you ask. I am hard put to commenting on it for several reasons. Reason one: I as an advocate, in principle, have a rule to not comment on the cases I took no part in; and if I took part in a certain case, it is difficult for me to comment on it due to the attorney-client privilege. Still, I would like to say…

Y.ROZOVA: Right, I’d like to know your civil position.

Y.PILIPENKO: You are welcome to it. That ruling left me with uneasiness. It seemed to me strange and funny that it took the Novorossiysk court 7 minutes to rule our book extremist in such a, I’d say summary execution regime. When In say “our book” I mean the following: I am by no means a follower of Islam, but I consider myself a man of culture, and as such, I consider the Quran to be our book and treat it with respect – of which any book, especially one like the Quran, is worth. And it is difficult for me to answer your question also for the following reason: I hardly understand what extremism is in such, as it is called, philosophical view. I’d redirect the question to our guests, but first I’d give some historical examples.

Y.ROZOVA: Oh, may I chime in here?

Y.PILIPENKO: Yes, certainly.

Y.ROZOVA: Suppose I am a thesaurus. Because I will now briefly cite that, according to the thesauruses, extremism is adherence to extreme views and measures. And a hollow space is bracketed.

Y.PILIPENKO: Well, as a rule, such extreme measures are more often than not addressed to the political sphere. There are some examples – forgive me for giving a lot of them, so that it would be easier to choose any single one you like and pass your judgment if it is extremism or not. I will begin with Herostratus, who, as you remember, burned down a temple, became a historic character and a very successful person in general – his name became commonly known. Just how extremist is that deed? Emperor Nero, if I am not mistaken, led his own horse to the Senate – how extreme and extremist is that? Some more recent examples: I’ll mention Ilich – not the infamous Ilich the Jackal, with whom I studied at the same university, but Vladimir Ilich Lenin, who, if one may say so, currently resides in the very center of our capital, in the Red Square.

Y.ROZOVA: Extremism or not?

Y.PILIPENKO: I understand that Vladimir Ilich Lenin eschewed all but the most extreme measures in politics. Perhaps the NEP is the only exception that confirms the rule. Several examples from the newest history, so to put it. We are gradually approaching a very sad anniversary – 20 years of shelling of the Russian Parliament, the White House. Just how extremist were those actions, or was it just a common historical event, general practice of historical everyday? There are persons who believe, inter alia, that certain styles of art may be considered extremist. Take, for instance, the famous “Black Square” by Casimir Malevich – is it extremism in art or not? To think that a simple geometrical shape of black color was given to us as a masterpiece of visual arts. The final example, to not tire out the guests and the audience…

Y.ROZOVA: And I’d keep listening to you – it is so interesting!

Y.PILIPENKO: The final example: Eduard Limonov, nee Savenko, and a dozen of his supporters on 31^st of each month goes to Triumfalnaya Square with an insistence worthy of a better employ. Do you believe that it is an extremity and possible extremism here? Valery Vasilievich, I’d like to begin with you, if you don’t mind.

V.LAZAREV: Very well. If you don’t mid either, I’d like to add another historical example. Socrates should perhaps be declared as the extremist number one – he was blamed for corrupting the youth and propagating views that were not in line with the democratic ways of Athens. Do you remember the Athens democracy? Socrates was, to put it very mildly, very skeptical towards the Athens democracy. And, from that point of view, his views were ruled, as you say, extremist, since the trial – and that trial was special…

Y.ROZOVA: That is to say, he was actually tried back then?

V.LAZAREV: There was a trial. Another matter is that Socrates said: “Yes, I am guilty…”

Y.ROZOVA: He confessed.

V.LAZAREV: Yes, Socrates accepted death. He drank the cup himself. His friends prepared his escape, and he was ready to do that but said: “What will happen if everyone escapes the law?” – a very interesting moment. If you like, one of the examples you gave…

Y.PILIPENKO: Please comment on an example I gave.

V.LAZAREV: There, the example when the “limonovists” went to the square. You see, it is this: there is a book by a pupil of mine – he is a doctor-in-sciences now – and another PhD wrote a theoretical book on extremism. And it gives, don’t you know, not one, not two, not five, not ten definitions of extremism. Hence, we cannot limit ourselves to a single indicator of extremism. You mention “extreme methods” – right, but what about the goals?

Y.PILIPENKO: We are not the only ones to mention those. Everyone does, in principle.

V.LAZAREV: Yes, the encyclopedia has it, and it is correct – extreme methods. But what about the goals? You say that the “limonovists”, when they go to the square, aim at the overthrow of… But, even if they do, those goals are always evaluated differently. The fact that the Constitution was revoked by the Decree No. 1400, and that the White House was shelled – all this is quite peculiar. Extremism from the part of the state is also notable, even though we usually consider that extremism is directed against the State. But here the State itself…

Y.PILIPENKO: Could it be that the State is the one that wins the fight between extremists?

V.LAZAREV: Such interpretation is perhaps also possible. I only want to say that there are many indicators of extremism. Of course, one should look to the law in order to define this or that way of conduct extremist. But if you ask me to comment on the law, I may say some words…

Y.PILIPENKO: I will too.

V.LAZAREV: Right. And the supporters of Limonov, under that law, may be brought to liability – or not.

A.SULTANOV: Allow me. I have noted that we, very gradually, move away from the legal meaning of extremism towards the political one.

Y.ROZOVA: Quite the contrary – away from the political one towards the legal one.

A.SULTANOV: No. Unfortunately, we have created a legal term out of a political one, and it is very dangerous to make it legal. That term should not be a legal one. In essence, it is a label, and who is it put onto? On those who think differently in a dangerous way. Another label used to be employed – “anti-Soviet”. The same happens to “extremist” nowadays. Like “sedition” before, and “heresy” before that. All this has already happened. Socrates’s example is doubtlessly very indicative. What did he say? He said that one should not vote by beans. And they said he was inciting to violence. My God! We could go back further: before that, there was Pythagoras, who is famous for being a mathematician. He is even more famous for being the first philosopher. And the very word “philosopher” appeared thanks to him. He had a very powerful religious order, which was slandered and burned. They locked all of them in a building and burned them.

Y.PILIPENKO: I understand how we got stuck in history – I beg your pardon – I understand that there are many people who are perhaps afraid of commenting on today’s extreme manifestations out of fear of being proclaimed extremists, correct?

A.SULTANOV: I would gladly like to answer Yana’s question. As I am a practicing lawyer, I like answering practical questions. But one has to know the question’s history in order to answer a practical question. And this question’s history is rather simple. When we were adopting our Constitution, Article 29 of it, we simultaneously stipulated the prohibition on censorship and on divulgation of all misanthropic things. I have run over the materials, and all people who took part in the Constitutional assembly spoke about the ban on calls to violence.

Y.ROZOVA: And, if I am not mistaken, there’s the respective law that was adopted in 2002, I think.

V.LAZAREV: Yes, in July of 2002. A very imperfect one.

A.SULTANOV: Unfortunately, the word “violence” was out of that law in 2007, but that is a separate matter. I still want to answer the question regarding the ruling – should it be contested or not? Of course, it should be contested, because it is completely unlawful. But even if…

Y.PILIPENKO: The ruling by Oktiabrsky court…

Y.ROZOVA: We will be back after the news and speak on this in more detail. I have just – forgive my interrupting – paid attention to that such trials age getting ever more frequent. You may disagree, but when I was preparing for the program, I noticed it. Also, much depends on the region, where this or that trial is held. Some regions acquit, others, to the contrary, rule extremist. That is to say, they do what they think is necessary, no matter… That is, there is no uniform opinion…

V.LAZAREV: The law is such that it in fact allows resolving the respective cases in one way or another.

Y.PILIPENKO: What about the current legal regulation of extremism? How do you determine if the law is adequate in that part?

A.SULTANOV: Well, “adequate” – for what? As for the law enforcers, it actually enables them to do whatever they like, because no judgment by any court is based on the evaluation of the material. Only experts’ studies are given. That is, only an expert’s study can tell if there is extremism. Consequently, what is our law? The law is the criterion by which the person should define his or her conduct. That is, must I hire experts in order to find out what I can and cannot say?

Y.ROZOVA: And then again, who will choose the experts, right?

A.SULTANOV: Well, the expert’s study is a whole another subject.

Y.PILIPENKO: Tell me please, may the law itself or the procedure of adoption contain lawful elements bordering on extremism? What I mean is the following: the law on reform of the Russian academy of Sciences was recently adopted, and one of the Duma leaders spoke on the stand and said that the law contained an unsolvable contradiction. But the law was ready for adoption and should be voted on. So tell me, isn’t such approach to the law making a premise to the appearance and creation of such contradictions in the society and the State?

V.LAZAREV: Yury Sergeevich, do you remember the old ladies who went and blocked the respective highway?

Y.PILIPENKO: I do.

V.LAZAREV: Extremism or no extremism?.. And what drove the old ladies to that? It was precisely the legislation.

Y.ROZOVA: We will speak on this too after the news.

NEWS.

Y.PILIPENKO: The author of the “Legal Aspect” program, Managing Partner of the Law Firm "YUST", Vice President of the Federal Chamber of Advocates of the Russian Federation Yury Pilipenko is in the studio. Our today’s guests are: Valery Vasilievich Lazarev – a Professor of the Moscow State Juridical University, Doctor-at-Law, and Aidar Sultanov - lawyer, member of the Association on improvement of life and education, a member of the editorial board of the “Bulletin of civil proceedings” magazine, the author of over one hundred publications in juridical editions. The theme is extremism.

Y.PILIPENKO: And we invited trouble – having only spoken about extremism on air, and there is news that one more song has been ruled extremist and will likely be banned in the entire territory of the Russian Federation. Such are the news that haunts us. What do you say to that?

V.LAZAREV: Alas, I will return to the idea that the legislation needs amending.

Y.ROZOVA: Should we ban that article altogether?

V.LAZAREV: Well, when the amendments were discussed two months after the adoption of the law, 40 amendments were made by the second reading of another law, and all of them practically excluded the introduction of that term. The term is such that great many things could be meant by it… If we read the article that gives the definition of extremism, we will see that not only the law-making technique was not observed, but it is very hard to understand whether it is an offence or not. If it is an offence – all four indicators of a corpus delicti are needed: the subject – one; the subject’s relation and purposes – two; the objective side and the object, respectively – and all this need to be actually stipulated. I think that the Penal Code should deal with it and not this law.

Y.PILIPENKO: Valery Vasilievich, I understand that we all agree that the definition of extremism given by the current legislation is defective.

V.LAZAREV: Very much so.

Y.PILIPENKO: I must say even more – this one my view may seem extreme – I am very much skeptical towards the current Russian legislation. There are many reasons, I will name but two. First – pardon my boasting – I have a very good base legal education, I spent my 6 university years well. Second – I know those people, who write Russian laws, closely, and I am not sure that their university years were well spent. I’d prefer leaving interpretations of the legislation alone and getting back to a concrete fact, the ruling by the court.

Y.ROZOVA: The one that was the motive for our program, yes.

V.LAZAREV: It is quite indicative.

Y.ROZOVA: Aidar, I have heard you spoke with Elmir Kuliev.

A.SULTANOV: No.

Y.ROZOVA: You didn’t, but is he at all aware of what has happened?

A.SULTANOV: As much as we understand from the media, he is really aware of the problem. Even more so as this is not his first work that was ruled extremist. The first book “Road to the Quran” was ruled extremist in March of 2012 together with 65 more books in the city of Orenburg, which only became known in June of 2012. That decision was contested by the publishers. The time limits for contestation were reinstated, and the proceedings go on. But the books are already on the federal list of the extremist materials, and those who distribute those books are subject to liability.

Y.ROZOVA: In other words, if you had that book on you, we could incur liability?

Y.PILIPENKO: If you wanted to distribute it, to give it to someone as a present.

A.SULTANOV: Or if you started citing it on air, for example.

Y.PILIPENKO: Right, but let’s get back to the ruling as it is very indicative in itself. The only motive of the court is the opinion by the expert, who conducted...

Y.ROZOVA: The study.

Y.PILIPENKO: The study, right, and only…

Y.ROZOVA: May I quote, in order to avoid any… The judge referred to an information on a study, which says that “divulgation of such materials – I quote – causes the increase of the crimes of extremist nature”. The point is that it says that the true believers – it is what we mentioned in the beginning – the Muslims are somehow above the rest of the people.

A.SULTANOV: You know, each and every religion contains a postulate that it is the true and correct one. And each and every religion insists that its way is the right way, and wants to correct the others and say: “Your ways are wrong, follow our way”. But this is probably normal as they offer salvation of the soul.

Y.ROZOVA: Right, and it is also a translation.

Y.PILIPENKO: How much, do you think, the translation is coherent with the original? Were you lucky to become familiar with the original?

A.SULTANOV: You know, before I answer the question, I’d like to say that that reference to the fact that only the translation was ruled extremist is not the first attempt at justification. Long ago, in 2009, in Kazakhstan, an entire bunch, 207 information materials, were ruled extremist – including surahs. And there the matter of translation was raised as a justification. But, not six months later, the General Prosecutor’s office spoke out, and the surahs and the Quran were taken out of that list. For the following reason. When the translation is said to be extremist – who studied the authenticity of the text? Was the judge at all competent to judge if the translation is different…

Y.PILIPENKO: Well, I suppose he had a specialist’s opinion too?

A.SULTANOV: …Is different from the original? I doubt that. According to the commentary given by the mass medium, he had a simple study…

Y.PILIPENKO: And here is a question. The books like the Gospel, the Old Testament, the New Testament, or the Talmud – do our courts check those for extremism in principle or not?

You know, there were such attempts. But I would also like to remind about one important thing. The point is that Russia, after all, adheres to the protection of rights and interests. It ratified the European Convention on protection of rights and interests. By the way, this year is the 15^th anniversary of it becoming binding on Russia. And the European Human Rights Court has expressed its viewpoint many times: the states may not breach their neutrality and check the legitimacy of the beliefs. The actions and not the beliefs should be condemned, because someone else’s beliefs are certainly someone else’s. They may contain anything. No persecution for beliefs is allowed.

V.LAZAREV: The ABC of jurisprudence: actions and only actions are to be evaluated.

Y.ROZOVA: Do you agree that that article, that law should not exist?

A.SULTANOV: But of course. Only actions should be punished, and the Penal Code is sufficient for that.

Y.ROZOVA: Good. And we have what we have, and there is no getting away from that. For example, if we think on something to change in the law, what should be done for that?

V.LAZAREV: I thought that the court, in general, should not compromise itself. The court is forced to follow the law in such procedure… extra procedure: no polemics, no real study, but special proceedings. The court should be freed from considering cases according to such special procedure. Let them decide according to the administrative procedure, and then one will be able to go to courts with a complaint against the judgment passed.

Y.PILIPENKO: Well, the court will consider the complaint according to that approximate procedure.

V.LAZAREV: No, not that. The court will then be forced to bring all those who are accused of extremist activities to liability.

Y.PILIPENKO: Including the author of the Quran.

A.SULTANOV: I beg to disagree. We, in principle, know who published the book. The ruling says that it was King Fahd complex of publishing the holy Quran. This is in fact a public institution established by the kingdom of Saudi Arabia especially for publishing, divulgation, scientific interpretation. Furthermore, Saudi Arabia is a theocratic state, where the Quran is the main constitution, the source of the basic laws. This means that the judge goes and rules the source of law of another state extremist – well, that is funny.

Y.ROZOVA: Jurisdiction is such a fine science – anything you want can be included in…

A.SULTANOV: One really has to be very attentive.

Y.ROZOVA: Right, I only want to ask: right now, at this moment, is it all the Supreme Court can do to oblige all regional courts to pay no attention to such complaints?

V.LAZAREV: It is hard to hope that the Supreme Court would give explanations and pass special resolutions on such cases. They are very complicated. And I reiterate that much depends on the wordings of the respective law.

Y.ROZOVA: What, will we have to request the State Duma to consider it?

V.LAZAREV: If I am not mistaken, I believe that the Constitutional Court has not yet dealt with any cases that would directly involve that norm, that law as an object of an inquiry…

Y.ROZOVA: We have half a minute left…

Y.PILIPENKO: There were many attempts but no cases actually accepted by the Constitutional Court.

A.SULTANOV: Well, as the last remark, I’d like to say that our laws actually enable us to fully protect our breached rights. Even that same procedural code. The only thing is that the defense should be constructed correctly.

Y.ROZOVA: The result, Yury. Ten seconds.

Y.PILIPENKO: I can summarize that we have a problem of definition of extremism in our legislation. Perhaps I understand that, lamentably, anything that does not comply with tolerance can be ruled extremist. I have to urge our listeners towards tolerance, or one may become an extremist sooner or later.

Y.ROZOVA: Thank you so very much!