Religion

Should Russians Have Rioted Over Pussy Riot Instead?

America's response to Russia's response to speech Russia considered religious hatred doesn't match America's response to speech it considers religious hatred

|

blasphemy wasn't the charge but religious hatred was in the mix

Back in August when three members of the Russian punk group Pussy Riot were sentenced to two years in prison for hooliganism, related to an incident in which they entered a cathedral in Moscow to perform at the altar in protest of the Russian Orthodox Church's relationship with the state, some Russian apologists took issue with the way the Pussy Riot was being framed in the West as a free speech issue. The Italian journalist Enza Ferreri said "any civilized country has the law that protects feelings of religious people being offended." The World Russian People's Council similarly framed the issue as one of "religious tolerance":

Defenders of the infamous group justified, glorified and even called on people to repeat their clear hooliganism only because it was targeted against the Church. This indicates serious moral problems in the influential part of the global liberal community and shows that the principles of tolerance and freedom of conscience they declare are very far from their real goals.

The State Department laid out the U.S. government's stance on the Pussy Riot trial after a verdict was reached:

The United States is concerned about both the verdict and the disproportionate sentences handed down by a Moscow court in the case against the members of the band Pussy Riot and the negative impact on freedom of expression in Russia.

Contrast the reaction to a sentence of hooliganism in Russia for an incident described as "motivated by religious hatred" by the court to the U.S. government's near universal condemnation of a film (free speech!) made in America believed to be motivated by religious hatred and blamed by the government for worldwide protests and a terrorist attack in Libya neither the Libyans nor anyone else believed had anything to do with just a film, and draw your own conclusions.

NEXT: Vid: Wake the F*ck Up! (A Rebuttal)

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. “any civilized country has the law that protects feelings of religious people being offended.”

    So civilized.

    1. “Not as clumsy or random as absolute free speech, but an eloquent relgious sensitivity law, from a more civilized age.”

      Would Jedi or Sith riot if you blasphemed the Force?

    2. “But with the blindfold on, I can’t even see! How am I supposed to judge?”

    3. “any civilized country has the law that protects feelings of religious people being offended.”

      This, coming from an italian, a citizen of the country that prosecutes geologists for not accurately predicting earthquakes. Epic idiocy.

  2. One might wonder how much sympathy Pussy Riot would be getting if they had been a neo-Nazi death-metal band desecrating a synagogue.

    1. Re: Turd in the Punchbowl,

      One might wonder how much sympathy Pussy Riot would be getting if they had been a neo-Nazi death-metal band desecrating a synagogue.

      Or a quasi-feminist death-metal group desecrating an Orthodox church…

      Oh, wait…

  3. Should Russians Have Rioted Over Pussy Riot Instead?

    Uh… no.

    […]some Russian apologists [sic] took issue with the way the Pussy Riot was being framed in the West as a free speech issue.

    Because entering private property where they were not invited or welcomed is considered “free speech” by those that are not “apoligists” for Russia… or some shit like that.

    By the way, I don’t care what happens to the gals from Pussy Riot. They certainly acted in a way contrary to the Non-Aggression Principle. Yet they’re considered by some in the Media (and also, it would seem, by some in Reason as well) as free-speech martyrs, when the truth is far less romantic.

    1. Indeed. I was leaning their way at first, reflexively, and if they’d done it in the street outside the church, I’d be fine with it. But interrupting someone else’s religious service in that way is just obnoxious. This is pretty much equivalent to the Fred Phelps boneheads crashing funerals to make their point.

    2. But not enough for Reason to boycott Russian propaganda outlets (or maybe they have, I haven’t seen any RT links lately)

  4. the U.S. government’s near universal condemnation of a film (free speech!

    Obama is off the hook. He wasn’t alone. It was a universal action by the US government! The House, Senate and entire Federal judiciary condemned that movie trailer.What was the president to do but go along. I blame Mitt Romney.

  5. Contrast the reaction to a sentence of hooliganism in Russia for an incident described as “motivated by religious hatred” by the court to the U.S. government’s near universal condemnation of a film (free speech!)

    To contrast, indeed!

    First of all, the film represents no act of aggression against any single individual; it was not made with stolen property (as far as it is known) or produced in burglarized premises. Second, whatever condemnation it received notwithstanding, it is NOT a crime to create a video or a film that has a script and fully consenting adults as actors.

    Instead, your beloved “Pussy Riot” gals entered a venue with no permission from the owners, for a purpose that was not agreed by the owners, to disrupt the peaceful activities inside with no previous arrangement, agreement, contract or even a nod from the owners. They totally violated the Non Aggression Principle. These two events cannot and should NOT be compared because there’s NOTHING to compare.

  6. Just because Russia Today is the only time any of you hacks can get on television and not have to put up with Gutfeld….

  7. This makes a whole lot of sense dude. Wow.

    http://www.AnonData.tk

  8. The United States is concerned about both the verdict and the disproportionate sentences handed down by a Moscow court in the case against the members of the band Pussy Riot and the negative impact on freedom of expression in Russia.

    I’m completely confused by the state department’s statement. I thought that the future didn’t belong to people like Pussy Riot?

  9. You have to admit, if Ted Nugent or Hank Williams, Jr. showed up at a predominately Liberal Democrat church uninvited and staged an anti-Obama prayer they would very rightly be arrested for trespassing.

    1. More than that, if they did it at Rev. Wright’s church, they’d probably be charged with a “hate crime”

  10. Certainly the president’s remarks in front of the UN could have been construed as a subtle show of support for Putin. From one Fascist to another.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.