Posts Tagged ‘Elena Vlasenko’
April 17th, 2013
Self-censorship has poisoned Russian media, art and other spheres.
In the past few years, criminal prosecution of artists and new laws have made it clear for those who criticise the Kremlin or Russian Orthodox Church in their creative work, will face consequences for portraying either of these institutions negatively.
A Russian artist came under fire for depicting members of Pussy Riot as religious icons
Just last week, the State Duma passed two controversial laws in the first hearing. One forbids obscene language in movies, books, TV, and radio during mass public events. The other stipulates criminal punishment — including five years in prison — for “insulting believers’ feelings”. Both laws, as far as human rights activists are concerned, limit artists’ freedom of expression, and encourage self-censorship.
Index spoke to three notable artists to find out how the art community deals with self-censorship, and the ever-increasing restrictions on freedom of expression in Russia.
Artyom Loskutov, an artist from Novosibirsk, is famous for holding “monstrations” — flash mobs with absurd slogans like “Tanya, don’t cry” and “Who’s there?”. In 2009, he was arrested on drug possession charges, but he claims that the marijuana was planted on him by police. A blood test proved that he had not taken any drugs, and his fingerprints were not found on the package. Three years on, he faced three administrative cases, and paid a 1000 rouble fine for creating icon-like images of Pussy Riot members Nadezhda Tolokonnikova and Maria Alekhina and placing them on billboards. He was accused of insulting believers. He is currently appealing the court ruling in the European Court of Human Rights.
The artist told Index that the cases against him are acts of censorship, but vows to remain defiant and continue with his work:
The icons idea concerned two kinds of mothers: one mother is honoured as a saint, the two others — Tolokonnikova and Alekhina — were thrown in prison. The authorities, including the court, are becoming more insane, and one wouldn’t want to cause persecutions. But I can’t say that given that, I refuse to implement any of my plots. In the 90s my generation felt that we had nothing, except free speech, and all the 2000s attempts to take it away meet nothing but incomprehension
In 2010, The prosecutor’s office in Moscow’s Bassmany district examined the works of Moscow-based artist Lena Hades, “Chimera of Mysterious Russian Soul” and “Welcome to Russia”. Russian nationalists appealed to the authorities claiming these paintings insult Russians. The case did not go to court, but Hades told Index that Russian galleries feared exhibiting her paintings after the incident.
“Galleries are afraid of financial sanctions,” Hades says, “Although 95 per cent of my paintings are about philosophy rather than about social events, they are only exhibited in Tretyakov Gallery and Moscow Museum of Modern Art”.
Despite reduced chances of her work being exhibited, Hades still painted Pussy Riot’s members, and went on a 25-day hunger strike against their prosecution. The artist is no fan of self-censorship, even if it comes at a cost. According to her, no artist that responds to reality can accept self-censorship:
This is not courage, this is aristocratic luxury of doing what you want. Self-censorship is more harmful for a modern Russian artist than censorship. He is frightened of scaring away galleries and buyers and prefers to paint landscapes with cows — anything far enough from real social life
Artist Boris Zhutovsky has a long-standing relationship with censorship. In 1962, he was slammed by then Soviet leader Nikita Khrushchev, who banned work by Zhutovsky and his colleagues. For several years following the incident, the artist faced difficulties in finding employment, and his work was not exhibited in the USSR.
Zhutovsky continues to court controversy today: in the past few years he has painted the trials of Russia’s most well-known political prisoners, businessmen Mikhail Khodorkovsky and Platon Lebedev, who were first convicted in 2005. He explained Russia’s culture of self-censorship to Index:
Self-censorship is based on fear, and the amplitude of this fear has changed throughout my life. In the times of Stalin, it was the fear of the Gulag and execution. In the times of Khruschev it was the fear of loosing a job or a country – a person could be forced to leave the Soviet Union. After Perestroika the fear shrank, and now the fear which nourishes self-censorship is the fear to anger your boss
He is optimistic that a younger generation of artists will not accept self-censorship as a standard, as the the era of Putin is far from that of Stalin, but only time will tell.
April 2nd, 2013
Russian non-governmental organisations are facing a wave of state inspections, which some believe are taking place as revenge for united protests against a law classifying international NGOs as “foreign agents”.
The list of NGOs visited by prosecutors and other inspectors during last days, is impressive: Transparency International, Amnesty International, Memorial, Moscow Helsinki Group, Human Rights Watch, Agora, For Human Rights (Za prava cheloveka), GOLOS, and numerous regional NGOs.
Even regional organisation Shield and Sword of Chuvashiya, which actually appealed to the Ministry of Justice seeking “foreign agents” status, has received a notification of an inspection.
According to the law, an NGO that receives financing from abroad, has to register as “foreign agent” or face criminal charges. “Foreign agents” are obliged to mark the literature and online content they produce as “distributed by foreign agent”. The law stipulates that they have to report to inspection bodies far more often than organisations that do not receive financing from abroad. The frequency of “foreign agents” inspections is not limited by the law. Russian authorities have gained a legal tool for paralysing NGOs they don’t like simply by swamping them with inspections.
Several human rights NGOs unanimously concluded the law doesn’t comply with justice and the constitution and made a decision to boycott it by not registering as foreign agents.
Many of them came through planned inspections by the Ministry of Justice this winter – not as “foreign agents”, just as NGOs – to face extraordinary prosecutors’, tax, sanitary and other authorities’ inspections in March.
Russian veteran rights activist, head of “For Human Rights” organization Lev Ponomarev refused to provide prosecutors with the organisation’s documentation. He says, according to the law about, prosecutors had to provide him with information about violations of law by his organisation – such information being supposedly the only purpose for their sudden extraordinary inspections.
Prosecutors still haven’t provided NGOs with this information.
But the General prosecutor’s office representative Marina Gridneva has said the prosecutors “act in compliance with the law”.
President Vladimir Putin, replying to Russian ombudsman Vladimir Lukin concerns over the inspections, said these “are routine measures linked to the desire of the law enforcement agencies to bring the activities of organisations in line with the law.”
Political scientist Dmitry Oreshkin told Index on Censorship that the authorities aim to emphatically close one of Russian human rights NGO “or make it hysterical” in order to chill others.
“The authorities think the problem will be solved, when someone shuts down in fear” said Oreshkin. “Lev Ponomarev has survived the Soviet era fighting for human rights, he knows the law better than law enforcement bodies, and he is not likely to be the one to fulfill the authorities’ expectations by fearing them.”
The authorities, according to Oreshkin, are demonstrating incompetence and incapability.
“The NGO boycott obviously enraged the Kremlin. Human rights activists, more than anyone else, now how crucially solidarity is.”
The state’s inconsistence, demonstrated during the ongoing NGOs inspections is based on a wrong perception of the word “law”, Oreshkin claims:
“The law concerns a citizen and an authority; the authorities have passed laws against citizens hoping they won’t have to keep within the law themselves”.
August 2nd, 2012
With the opening of the Pussy Riot trial in Moscow this week, Elena Vlasenko explains why the feminist punk collective is a threat to the church-state axis of Putin’s Russia
July 10th, 2012
A draft law is set to create a digital blacklist of Russian websites which promote drugs or suicide or contain contain porn or “extremist” materials.
The draft law would allow websites to be blacklisted without judicial oversight — it merely requires law enforcement authorities to notify a hosting and/or telecom access provider. The provider then informs the website owner they must delete the controversial content, if the content is not removed within 24 hours the provider blocks not just the URL of the particular material but the whole website’s IP address and domain name. If the provider doesn’t block the website, it shares responsibility with the website’s owner.
Because it was composed by senior officials from the four major political parties, the draft law is likely to be passed quickly. The legislation’s authors insist it will protect children, but human rights activists see it as an attempt to censor a segment of the Russian internet and fear it will be used to threaten political protest.
Russian-language Wikipedia has been blocked in protest of the draft law
“As a rule limitations and censorship are imposed under the pretence of protecting children,” Andrei Soldatov, editor-in-chief of website Agentura.ru and an expert on Russia’s intelligence services told Index. “Hosting and telecom access providers will have to buy special blocking equipment, which can later be used anything the state wants to block.”
Russia’s Presidential Rights Council has published a brief analysis saying:
Legal users are likely to suffer mass blockings, because tough restrictions will be based on subjective criteria, which makes Russian jurisdiction highly unattractive for Internet business.
The councils experts went on to say:
The draft law doesn’t imply possibilities to review the decision about website’s URL and DNS blocking and to prove it wrong, so its difficult to interpret such blocking as anything, but actual censorship.
Ever since Vladimir Putin came to power extremism legislation, together with drug and defamation laws, have been used to silence the Kremlin’s critics. Human rights activists fear this new blacklist will also be abused for political purposes.
Activists see it as a third legislative response to the huge anti-Putin protests staged over recent months. Two other new laws passed since Putin’s return to the Presidency toughened fines for breaking the rules on holding rallies, and targeted NGOs that receive overseas financing.
The first hearing on the blacklist law will be held this week, it will provoke street protest but activists know they are unlikely to influence the Duma, lawmakers are also unmoved by a new UN resolution condemning attempts to limit freedom of expression on the internet.
Kirsty Hughes, Chief Executive of Index on Censorship said:
The Bill currently passing through the Duma is aimed squarely at clamping down on online dissent. The law will force ISPs to install filters at huge cost to prevent access to websites that the Communications Regulator deems “extremist”, with no judicial oversight. With Compromat.ru, a site exposing regime corruption targeted by the Moscow prosecutor last week, it’s clear that in Putin’s Russia freedom of expression is in decline.
March 15th, 2012
In a “repressive” decision, Moscow city court refuse to release two members of punk feminist group Pussy Riot. Elena Vlasenko reports
(more…)
