> for what is basically vandalism by western standards
Singing a song protesting the president and religion in a church is not vandalism, and in many countries would not be considered a crime at all.
Singing a song protesting the president and religion in a church is not vandalism, and in many countries would not be considered a crime at all.
That's what Pussy Riot have been jailed for - hate speech, not for singing an anti-Putin song. In fact they were screaming profanities in the cathedral, and their anti-Putin song was added later to their YouTube video.
What qualifies as "hate speech"?
"On 4 March 2010, a jury returned a verdict of guilty against Harry Taylor, who was charged under Part 4A of the Public Order Act 1986. Taylor was charged because he left anti-religious cartoons in the prayer-room of Liverpool's John Lennon Airport on three occasions in 2008. The airport chaplain, who was insulted, offended, and alarmed by the cartoons, called the police.[11][12][13] On 23 April 2010, Judge Charles James of Liverpool Crown Court sentenced Taylor to a six-month term of imprisonment suspended for two years, made him subject to a five-year Anti-Social Behaviour Order (ASBO) (which bans him from carrying religiously offensive material in a public place), ordered him to perform 100 hours of unpaid work, and ordered him to pay £250 costs"
Not quite 2 years prison sentence, but a (suspended) jail term nevertheless. But then again, it was not a desecration of a main cathedral either, it was just a cartoon on a wall in an airport prayer room...
Maybe Pussy Riot gives us a case to abolish hate speech laws altogether? So nobody should be threatened with arrest or fine for saying bad things about Muslims, homosexuals, Christians, Jews or whoever, as it is the case now.
I'm having a hard time seeing any other interpretation as trying to make offence, a victimless crime, a criminal act.
Here are the actual lyrics of the song performed: http://freepussyriot.org/content/lyrics-songs-pussy-riot
As far as I can see the only words in their which might be seen as trying to inspire 'harm' are 'Virgin Mary, put Putin away'.
If they have chosen another venue for their anti-Putin song, I guess the prosecution would not have any case against them.
Besides, they did not have time to really sing anything in the cathedral. The sound was added to the YouTube video later.
I think all hate speech laws should be abolished, since there is such a thin line between 'inciting hatred' and 'offending sensitivities'.
People do stuff like this all the time in the U.S. – this is performance art, and no more intrusive or offensive than typical performance art, and those people don't go to jail. And Alabama churches aren't some otherworldly place.
A guy in the UK was arrested and given (suspended) jail sentence, a fine and 100 hours of unpaid public labour for leading anti-religious cartoons in an airport prayer room. All because a chaplain felt offended by his cartoons... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_speech_laws_in_the_United_...
This is actually quite funny: the people behind Pussy Riot campaign now have to explain to Western liberal public why Russian hate speech laws are bad, but European laws that forbid insulting Muslims and homosexuals are good.
Because if Pussy Riot sang their anti-Putin song not in the cathedral, but, say, in the street, they won't get get the press.