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.

The post Self-censorship’s chill on artistic freedom in Russia appeared first on Index on Censorship.

In our increasingly digital times, freedom of expression may look like one of the positive beneficiaries of our ever more interconnected world. Countries like China or Iran build firewalls and employ small armies of censors and snoopers in determined attempts to keep their bit of the internet controlled and uncritical of their ruling elites. But with social media, blogs, citizen journalism, and ever greater amounts of news on a diverse and expanding range of sites, information is shared across borders and goes around censors with greater ease than ever before.

Yet online and off, free speech still needs defending from those in power who would like to control information, limit criticism or snoop widely across people and populations. And it would be a mistake to think the free speech attackers are only the obvious bad guys like China, Iran or North Korea.

While Putin’s Russia jails members of Pussy Riot, passes new laws to block websites and journalists continue to face risks of violent attack, it is Turkey, in 2013, that has more journalists in jail than even Iran or China. In 2004, the European Union assessed Turkey as democratic enough to be a candidate for EU membership. Today, Turkey’s government puts pressure on media companies and editors to rein in critical journalists and self-censorship is rife.

Meanwhile, in the UK, a fully paid-up member of the democracy club, the government and opposition argue over whether Parliament should regulate the print media (“statutory underpinning”, to use the jargon introduced by the Leveson Report into the phone-hacking scandal). On 18 March, the UK’s three main political parties agreed on a new press regulation system whereby an independent regulator would be set up by royal charter. And in this debate over media standards and regulation, the most basic principle, that politicians should not in any way control the press (given their interests in positive, uncritical press coverage), has been too easily abandoned by many. Yet the press faces big questions: what has happened to its standards, how can individuals fairly complain? Similar debates are under way in India, with corruption and the phenomenon of ‘“paid news” among concerns there. Falling standards provide easy targets for those who would control press freedom for other reasons.

Plenty of governments of all shades are showing themselves only too ready to compromise on civil liberties in the face of the large amounts of easily accessible data our digital world produces. Shining a light on requests for information — as Google and Twitter do in their respective transparency reports —  is one vital part of the campaigns and democraticdebate needed if the internet is not to become a partially censored, and highly monitored, world.

Google’s recent update of its figures for requests for user data by law enforcement agencies shows the US way ahead of other countries — accounting for over a third of requests with 8,438 demands, with India coming in at 2,431 and the UK, Germany and France not so far behind India.

Both India and the UK have also used too widely drawn laws that criminalise “grossly offensive” comments, leading to the arrest and prosecution of individuals for innocuous social media comments. Public outcry and ensuing debate in both countries is one sign that people will stand up for free speech. But such laws must change.

A new digital revolution is coming, as millions more people move online via their mobiles. As smart phone prices fall, and take-up expands, the opportunities for free expression and accessto information across borders are set to grow. But unless we are all vigilant, whether we face democratic or authoritarian regimes, in demanding our right to that free expression, our digital world risks being a partially censored, monitored and fragmented one. This is the global free speech challenge of our times.

This article appears in Fallout: free speech and the economic crisis. Click here for subscription options and more.

The post Global view appeared first on Index on Censorship.

The post Russia: British artists investigated for extremism and blasphemy appeared first on Index on Censorship.

The post INDEX INTERVIEW: “Punk prayer is not a crime,” says released Pussy Riot member appeared first on Index on Censorship.

Religious sensitivities have mostly been responsible for silence from Pakistani politicians on the controversial laws — slammed internationally for their usage against religious minorities in the country. Politicians speaking out against the laws have faced hardship, and even in some cases — death. In January this year, governor of the state of Punjab Salman Taseer was slain after criticising the law, and Minorities Minister Shahbaz Bhatti was murdered last year after speaking out against the country’s blasphemy laws, under which 1,000 cases have been lodged against individuals for allegedly desecrating the Qur’an since 1998.

Of course, Pakistan is not alone in upholding vague blasphemy laws that make it easy to clamp down on free speech in the name of protecting religion. Here are some ridiculous blasphemy cases from around the world this year.

RUSSIA — PUSSY RIOT

Three members of feminist punk group Pussy Riot were this month sentenced to two years in prison after being charged with “hooliganism motivated by religious hatred” for a 40-second performance staged in Moscow’s Christ the Saviour Church. Nadezhda Tolokonnikova, Maria Alekhina and Ekaterina Samutsevic were arrested in March for their “punk prayer” — which invoked the Virgin Mary to cast out Russian President Vladimir Putin. The case has garnered international outrage, as local activists believe that the charges brought against the women are actually politically motivated.

TUNISIA — PERSEPOLIS

In post-revolution Tunisia, the General Director of a TV station that aired a film depicting God as an old bearded man, was prosecuted and fined for “violating sacred values”. Nabil Karoui’s station, Nessma TV, aired the animated film Persepolis, based on Iranian artist Marjane Satrapi’s graphic novel by the same name.

And concerns about freedom of expression in Tunisia only seem to grow, as its ruling Islamist party moved to outlaw blasphemy in a bill filed on 1 August. If passed, “cursing, insulting, mocking, undermining, and desecrating” religious symbols from the three Abrahamic faiths (Islam, Judaism, and Christianity) could lead to two years in jail, as well as a hefty fine of 2000 TND (£794).  While the ruling Ennadha Party claims to want to protect free speech, blasphemy is treated differently — in the name of protecting an “Arab Muslim identity”.

INDIA — SANAL EDAMARUKU

Indian skeptic Sanal Edamaruku, has built a career out of challenging religious superstitions and mystics. Edamaruku now faces blasphemy charges for “deliberately hurting religious feelings” after pointing out that the “miracle” of “holy water” dripping from a crucifix in a Mumbai-based Catholic church was actually the result of a leaky pipe rather than divine intervention. He potentially faces jail time, and is currently remaining outside of the country in order to avoid arrest.

EGYPT — NAGUIB SAWIRIS & ADEL IMAM

Earlier this year, beloved Egyptian comic Adel Imam was sentenced to three months in jail for “insulting Islam” in films he made in the early 1990s. A Cairo court eventually dropped the charges, which were brought against the comic by Islamist lawyer Asran Mansour, for allegedly ridiculing political and religious figures. Also this year, Islamists accused Coptic businessman Naguib Sawiris of “blasphemy and insulting Islam” after he posted a picture of a veiled Minnie and bearded Mickey Mouse on the social networking site Twitter. The charges were eventually dismissed. Both of these case sparked outrage and fears that a clampdown on free expression in the country might take place, as the newly elected President Mohamed Morsi is a member of the Muslim Brotherhood.

POLAND — POP STAR DODA
Well-known Polish pop star Doda was fined at the start of the year for comments she made in a 2009 interview, where she said that she had difficulty believing in the Bible, as it “was written by someone drunk on wine and smoking some herbs”. Doda, who launched her career with a solo album entitled Diamond Bitch, was fined 5,000 zlotys by Polish authorities for her comments — deemed to be offensive in the deeply Roman Catholic country.

Sara Yasin is an Editorial Assistant at Index on Censorship. She tweets from @missyasin

The post Five bizarre blasphemy cases appeared first on Index on Censorship.

Kirsty Hughes, Chief Executive of Index on Censorship, said:

“In Putin’s Russia, free expression has become a crime. The women of Pussy Riot should be released immediately  — and should never have been  put through this absurd case.  Artistic expression is not a crime — it’s a right, and an integral part of all free societies.  The PussyRiot verdict is the latest indication that Vladimir Putin’s Russia does not respect human rights and is sliding backwards to dictatorship”.

Nadezhda Tolokonnikova, Maria Alekhina and Ekaterina Samutsevic were arrested in March, after performing a 40-second “punk prayer” against Russian President Vladimir Putin in Moscow’s Christ the Saviour Church. The case has been condemned by activists as being politically motivated, and has drawn criticism from well-known musicians from across the globe.

READ MORE ABOUT PUSSY RIOT

For media enquiries on this story, please contact Padraig Reidy: padraig@indexoncensorship.org /  @mePadraigReidy

The post Russia: Pussy Riot found guilty appeared first on Index on Censorship.

Pussy Riot spoke to us exclusively in May, read the interview here.

Plus: Pussy Riot versus the religarchy – feminists punks take on Russia’s church and state

The post UK: Leading musicians call for Pussy Riot release appeared first on Index on Censorship.

The post Russia: Pussy Riot detention extended appeared first on Index on Censorship.

The post Russia: Judge extends detention of anti-Putin punk group Pussy Riot appeared first on Index on Censorship.

A Moscow court has confirmed the legality of the pre-trial detention of alleged Pussy Riot members Maria Alekhina, Nadezhda Tolokonnikova and Ekaterina Semutsevich.

The women had appealed against the Tagansky court decision detaining them until 24 June — when they will face a criminal trial on charges of hooliganism for allegedly staging an anti-Putin performance in Moscow’s Christ the Saviour Cathedral in the run-up to recent presidential elections. But the court has turned down their appeal.

Two of the three accused Pussy Riot members are mothers of young children. The maximum sentence for their charges is seven years in prison.

Tolokonnikova, Alekhina and Samutsevich deny the allegations and are considered prisoners of conscience by Amnesty International and other leading human rights activists in Russia and abroad.

The women’s arrests triggered an emotional public discussion about the Orthodox church’s relationship with Russian authorities and society. Radical nationalist movement members have been preventing activists from protesting against Pussy Riot arrests. The Church, led by patriarch Kirill, who publically supports Vladimir Putin, performed a public prayer in April “against blasphemers”. Kirill’s support of the Pussy Riot prosecution has concerned many religious Russians, who have petitioned for the release of the women.

Pussy Riot members who have not yet been arrested are now in hiding and are difficult to reach. They gave this exclusive email interview to Index on Censorship.

– Did you expect these consequences — arrests, criminal proceedings, your supporters being beaten and insulted by radical nationalists — when you planned your cathedral performance? Would you repeat the performance if you knew how this would end?

– We didn’t expect the arrest. We are a women’s group which is forced to consume the ideas of patriarchal conservative society. We experience each process that happens in this society. Besides, we are a punk band, which can perform in any public place, especially one which is maintained through our taxes. That’s why we would definitely repeat our prayer. It was worth it: look at the awakened pluralism — political and religious!

– The state remains intolerant towards much artistic expression. What about broader Russian society?

– We are trying to educate society and will definitely take the importance of this process into account in our further actions. We expect people to at least look through Wikipedia after watching us on YouTube.

– What must you do now to avoid arrests?

– After Putin’s inauguration, just wearing a white ribbon on your clothes — a symbol of protest — has become a reason for arrest in Moscow. So we don’t wear them now.

– Will you continue performing? You said that anonymity helps you replace the band members in case they get arrested. Have many people offered to join you?

– Many people have expressed their wish to participate in our perfomances and we are planning them right now. We don’t consider the patriarch’s ignorant opinion and are not going to perform any protest songs against him personally.

– The Russian Orthodox church, according to notable human rights activists, has lost its right to establish moral standards after having severely condemned you, as did some intellectuals who preferred not to notice your persecution. Who, in your perspective, is likely to take their place?

– We think that one can learn moral values through literature, music and art, but definitely not in church. And as far as people are concerned, any human being who advocates humanistic ideas should support any prisoner who has lost her freedom because the authorities are afraid to give up their power.

The post Russian punk collective Pussy Riot speaks exclusively to Index appeared first on Index on Censorship.