But this refers only to those opposing the government

/ / By Boris Vishnevsky, Novaya Gazeta, 07.04.2014

On 15 April, the State Duma is going to adopt in the second reading the amendments to the so-called “anti-terrorism package” [of laws]. It was submitted to the State Duma in January, after the terrorist attacks in Volgograd, by a group of MPs, including Irina Yarovaya, Andrei Lugovoi, Alexander Sidyakin, Adam Delimhanov and other persons specializing in repressive laws.

The original version adopted in the first reading on 28 February suggested that, according to the explanatory note, “the crime aiming at promotion, justification and support of terrorism be regarded as an aggravating circumstance.

In addition, it was proposed not to apply limitation periods to persons who have committed terrorist crimes as crimes against the peace and security of mankind.

It was also proposed to clarify the purpose of committing a crime, i.e. to add the so-called notion of “destabilisation activities to the state power bodies and local authorities” to the “impact on decision-making bodies of the state and municipal authorities, international organisations”.

Finally, there was introduced a new type of offense – “organisation of committing terrorist crimes, as well as the organization of financing of terrorism” – with punishment by imprisonment from 15 to 20 years.

And now, in the midst of the “new circumstances” related to the escalation of the conflict around Crimea and Ukraine in general, the State Duma Committee for Security and Anti-Corruption has prepared stringent amendments that, generally speaking, have nothing to do with the fight against terrorism. They are directed in the opposite direction, which is significantly more relevant in the light of the events in Ukraine.

What is offered?

First. “Organisation of mass disorders accompanied by violence, pogroms, arson, destruction of property, use of weapons, explosives, explosive, poisonous or other substances and objects that represent a danger to others, as well as armed resistance to authority ” (Article 212 of the Criminal Code “Mass-scale Riots”) is proposed from now on to be punished by imprisonment for up to 15 rather than up to 10 years [as envisaged by the Criminal Code at present].

Second. “Preparation of a person for organising riots or participation in them” (Article 212 of the Criminal Code have not envisaged such an offense in before) will be publishable by imprisonment from 8 to 15 years.

Third. The persons who “undergone training for the methods of organising riots, rules for handling weapons, explosive devices, explosives” and so on (Article 212 have not envisaged such an offense either), will be imprisoned from 5 to 10 years and a fine of up to 500 thousand rubles will be imposed on them.

Fourth. Citizens who acknowledge their guilt, i.e. inform the authorities that were trained as future participants in the riots, or help to identify other “trainees” or organisers or sponsors of the “training”, will be exempt from liability. Unless they have not committed other crimes.

Fifth. There will be established a system of fines for “declination and the recruitment of persons for participation in an extremist activity”, including “with taking the advantaged of an official position”.

We should note here, that yet there has been virtually the only case where an accusation of alleged “organisation of mass disorders” was brought to court – the May 6, 2012 case of a rally in Bolotnaya Square, [Moscow]; the defendants were Sergei Udaltsov and Leonid Razvozzhaev of the Left Front, as well as their former colleague Konstantin Lebedev who was working hard to for bringing up charges against them.

At the same time none of the pogroms organised by nationalists in recent years (or on obvious reasons of ethnic enmity and hatred), for example, the [pogrom] in Biryulyovo, [Moscow], failed to be qualified as a crime falling under Article 212 of the Criminal Code, for some reason everything was reduced to ordinary hooliganism. Although all the signs of mass-scale riots were there. But protesters did not oppose the government, and their protest was not recognized as a “riot.”

Russian nationalists are not dangerous to the authorities, as they are “socially close”. Recently they have become even closer with the authorities passionately supporting them in the “Crimean issue” and stigmatising the democratic opposition for being “traitors” and “defeatist attitudes”.

Absolutely different people turn out to be dangerous for the authorities: those who oppose their policies. It is their protests that are qualified as “riots”. And the above-described changes in legislation are designed and adopted so that to fight against such people.

The original publication