“The leading fighting brigade of our political system.”
By Sean at 5 October, 2009, 10:49 pm
It looks like Nashi might have crossed a line in their campaign against Alexander Podrabinek. According to Vremya, the Civil Society Institutions and Human Rights Council under the President of the Russian Federation made an official appeal calling for an investigation of Nashi’s “illegal and amoral” campaign to hunt down the journalist. The appeal reads:
The campaign to hunt the [Podrabinek] clearly violates existing legislation and demonstrates obvious signs of extremism: fomentation of discord and the violation of a citizen’s human rights and freedoms. There presently are signs of the violation of articles 23 and 25 of the Russian Constitution (the inviolability of private life and residence.) The violation of article 24 which prohibits the use and distribution of information about the private life of an individual without his sanction: it is unlikely that A. Podrabinek gave his address to anyone for the organization to picket his home. Finally, and this is the most important, is article 29 which guarantees everyone the freedom of thought and speech and prohibits the use of force against the expression of those thoughts, opinions, or in their rejection.
Ouch! The Council wasn’t the first to note Nashi’s violation of the law. On 2 October, Vedomosti denounced Nashi’s campaign, noting that lawyers agreed that the organization violated the law. But the business daily merely cited that their protests outside Podrabinek’s apartment violated the civil code because Nashi didn’t get permission from the city to hold daily pickets. I wonder if after hearing these charges Nashi will add the Council and Vedomosti to its lawsuit against Ekho Moskvy. The youth organization is demanding 500,000 rubles in damages from the radio station for its accusations that Nashi is hunting Podrabinek. But they are. Aren’t they? How else to you interpret Nikita Borovikov threat that if Prodrabinek doesn’t apologize then Nashi will “force” him to leave the country?
And all of this after Nashi received adulation from its godfather in the Kremlin, Vladislav Surkov! Didn’t the Council not get the memo? Nashi is responsible for the political freedoms that every Russian now enjoys. Surkov told a group of Nashists in late September, “I am free and therefore I am for Putin and Medvedev. I am free and therefore I am “Ours” (Nash) and not an alien (chuzhoi)–this is my choice.” He then continued: “You are the leading fighting brigade of our political system. I as before believe that your prevalence on the street is also our essential advantage. We have it thanks you and all those who brilliantly know how to conduct mass rallies.”
With an endorsement like that, I’m sure the Council’s appeal will fall on deaf ears. Investigate Nashi. Yeah right.
Just when I thought things couldn’t get any sillier.
Photo: Kommersant
Popularity: 1% [?]
Comments
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
Time to fire Pamfilova from her position, and let courts decide if there is extremism in Podrabinek’s article:
http://www.regnum.ru/news/1211941.html
Prodrabinek could emigrate to the United States and start a pompous radio show that nobody listens to. That’ll show ‘em.
Can you clarify?
In your last post you wrote:
Now you write:
I’m confused…
I think it is clear that the players in this story are all a little self-involved and melodramatic. But you keep saying, “All this over a kebab-house!” I might be terribly wrong, but it seems there is a larger struggle here for who gets cast in roles of heroes and villains when history finally is written and the self-appointed protagonists like the dissidents and Nashists just happened to use the kebab house issue to do battle. I see this kind of stupid myopic pissing contests for the title of “Most noble and persecuted” all the time. Take the so-called war on Christmas. I suspect to most people, fighting over where to put a Christmas tree is ridiculous, and few people really feel passionately about it one way or another. But these silly clashes do seem to suggest a more widespread latent ambivalence about our national identity and a more widespread dysfunction in our society. That there is ambivalence about national identity and dysfunction in civil society in Russia isn’t really so surprising.
Anyway, it’s nice to know there ARE the laws you quote in Russia. It would also be nice to know they are enforced.
As for Surkov, it’s not clear to me that the Kremlin has as much control over Nashi as people assume. I have a hard time believing Medvedev’s right hand man gave the kids orders to do what they’ve done to Prodrabinek. Seems like if the govt. really wanted to get rid of him, they wouldn’t be relying on teenage bullies.
And it must be said that in almost any country you can expect to stir up controversy and get a significant amount of hate mail and public persecution for writing an article calling your country’s military veterans “idiotic, base, and stupid.” You do that and someone is going to flip out and tell you to leave.
poemless,
> Anyway, it’s nice to know there ARE the laws > you quote in Russia. It would also be nice to > know they are enforced.
Quoted were not the laws, but the articles of constitution and accusations of violation seem baseless to me. Say, I don’t think that any court is going to find that picket in public place is in constitutional violation of private residence right for the dwellers of the apartment in the building nearby. Also if someone says that Podrabinek needs to apologize to the vets or leave the country this is speech which can not violate Podrabinek’s constitutional right to choose his place of staying.
Also note that claim of “illegality” of the picket in Vedomosti is based solely on the fact that “Nashi” had submitted a weekly picket notification (not a permit!) instead of a daily one. BTW, here I find troubling that Lukin, HR represenative, is eager to limit Nashi’s rights to free speech on what sounds like a bureaucratic technicality.
Speaking of Surkov, there was a beautiful bit in a New Times piece this week about how Nashi called off it’s hounding of Limey Ambassador Tony Brenton after the Brits called Aslambek Andarbekovich in and politely told him that he may have problems getting a British visa if his punks don’t cut the bullshit.
The New Times’ sourcing is notoriously unreliable, of course, but it’s certainly an amusing detail.
In honor of Tanya and Andrew Waller, do allow me to apologize for the incorrect contraction in the post above.
Pyotr, you gotta do some research on the concepts of freedom of speech and privacy. There’s also the issue of when speech turns into threats. Volumes of literature on this stuff. Nashi has freedom of speech, but it cannot infringe on Potrabinek’s freedom from threats and his freedom of privacy. I’m not familiar with how these issues are treated in the Constitution, but freedom of speech is never meant to legitimize what Nashi are doing at the moment.
Sean, I have to agree with Poemless that this does seem to be about more than a Kebab house. Potravinek’s letter was pretty dumb, sure. But look, everyone picks their battles. If there was shadiness that resulted in the name change, and Potrav thought such shadiness is inconsistent with a free Russia, he speaks out about it. I am well aware of the concept of a liberal intelligentsia out of touch with the masses (see: every where on earth). But sometimes, just like in the U.S., they serve a purpose. They aren’t going to have any electoral sucess in a climate that is 1) rigged in favor of United Russia and 2) uniquely hostile to liberalism. But I just don’t see this story as a reason for a rant against liberals who, ya know, want to set the Soviet record stratight.
And there’s much bigger issues in the world, I know. But I first have to take care of the world I know. -Jay Z
> Nashi has freedom of speech, but it cannot infringe on Podrabinek’s freedom from threats and his freedom of privacy.
Which they do not infringe upon, in my opinion and neither Nashi’s behavior raise to the level of “threats”. If Podrabinek disagrees, he is free to find an appropriate law he thinks being violated in this case and bring forth the legal action.
Re Poemless (and to some extent Freddy).
I’m not sure what you’re confused about, but I’ll take a stab at clarifying. Nashi is hounding Podrabinek. No doubt about that. And the fact that they want to sue Ekho for saying so is laughable. But the fact that Podrabinek actually believes that there are people high up that want him dead is equally laughable. My suspicion is that him going into hiding is nothing more than a publicity stunt to match Nashi’s publicity stunt.
Most people are saying that this scandal is about a larger fight about identity and history, as you and Freddy say. And I don’t disagree with this. I just wanted to give a different view that notes how this debate can reach absurd proportions where name of a shashlik joint is politicized by all sides. I think poemless’ example of Christmas is a good analogy.
I also agree that the Kremlin doesn’t have control over Nashi. And if they wanted to get rid of P. Nashi wouldn’t even be consulted. Besides Surkov’s hyperbolic praise, I have a feeling the Kremlin doesn’t know what to do with Nashi but at the same time likes having them around just in case. The Bolsheviks faced a similar problem in the early years of the Komsomol.
Re: Liberals. I have a lot of contempt for many of Russia’s liberals. Mostly because I know what they are against, but I am completely unclear as to what they are for. Besides support for vague, abstract notions of freedom of speech, human rights, and “democracy,” what do Russian liberals stand for exactly? And I’m not trying to be sarcastic. I really don’t know and suspect they don’t either. I mostly stand with left-wing radicals (ecologists antiglobalists, trade unionists, anarchists and communists) in Russia and to some extent the KPRF.
I don’t know if the Kremlin is really hostile to liberalism as much as it is hostile to liberals. I think the memories of what happened in the 1990s and their belief that the liberals sold Russia out to the West is still very strong. I can’t say that I blame them.
“But the fact that Podrabinek actually believes that there are people high up that want him dead is equally laughable. My suspicion is that him going into hiding is nothing more than a publicity stunt to match Nashi’s publicity stunt.”
Sean, I agree that people “high up” wanting him dead may be a stretch. But please remember that a stomping by unidentified assailants is not an unthinkable punishment for those who run afoul of Nashi and their ilk. Ask Yury Chervochkin’s headstone.
So while he may be overestimating his significance, I can understand why he might not want to show his face for a while.
But please remember that a stomping by unidentified assailants is not an unthinkable punishment for those who run afoul of Nashi and their ilk.
Oh I’ll concede that. Getting jumped by Nashi or some of their paid football hooligans is a real possibility. And if Podrabinek said that he was going underground to avoid that then I would totally understand.
Btw I wonder how their recruiting for the youth street militias are going. Yakemenko promised 100,000 by Christmas!
One last note, Sean: Presumably you saw Yakemenko’s batshit religious brother — Public Chamber member Boris — encouraging people to make Podrabinek’s “entire life a nightmare.” (http://boris-yakemenko.livejournal.com/)
Another reason he might not want to show his face around town.
I look forward to Yakemenko’s street militias. Seems like a fruitful use of our tax rubles.
What is the connection between Chervochkin’s case and Nashi? Can you point to a single case of Nashi’s physical threats and of someone getting a “stomping” after those threats? The kind of behavior your are implying is more characteristic of NBP or of Russian “liberals”, not of Nashi.
“What is the connection between Chervochkin’s case and Nashi?”
That’s why I added the “and their ilk” qualification. I consider Nashi thugs and bullies that intimidate their targets with their numbers and the implied threat of physical violence.
The people who stomped Chervochkin to death — presumably for his political activities, though this will never be proved — were also thugs who used their numbers and weapons to kill him.
Pardon for not making that clear the first time.
I consider Nashi thugs and bullies that intimidate their targets with their numbers and the implied threat of physical violence.
Rather paranoid view on Nashi and not supported by the facts, but hope it works for you.
By this logic, then, going back, it could be said:
But please remember that a stomping by unidentified assailants is not an unthinkable punishment for those who run afoul of Russian “liberals” and their ilk. Ask Yury Chervochkin’s headstone.
Sorry, I’ve just seen more examples of thuggery and intimidation by pro-Kremlin youth groups in recent years than by the so-called “liberal” opposition. Clearly you and I have different experiences.
I think Chervochkin was stomped to death for being a politically obnoxious punk in his hometown, and that people associated with police or pro-Kremlin youth groups may have had a role in the attack.
No worries, the crime will never be solved, so you can always say I’m engaging in baseless speculation.
I always thought the idea that Nashi uses football hooligans to beat up other oppositionists and to disrupt opposition protests was common knowledge.
In an interview a few years ago Vasili Yakemenko said “if a group of a few thousand people with physical strength was brought in from Moscow to counter the demonstrators in Kiev, there would be no trace left of the demonstrators.” http://seansrussiablog.org/2005/07/11/natsbol-update/
Clearly you and I have different experiences.
We clearly do, and talking about violence, it was not pro-Russian youth groups but Russian “liberals” that was calling Yeltsin in 1993 to drawn own people and parliament in blood.
So for the “thuggery” level, NBP is far more thuggish than Nashi and the entire NBP’s aesthetics is based on violence.
I think Chervochkin was stomped to death for being a politically obnoxious punk in his hometown, and that people associated with police or pro-Kremlin youth groups may have had a role in the attack.
You just don’t do detail, do you? Even if Limonov’s accusations are right and people from the organized crime fighting unit of the local police were involved in the beating of a member of a (paramilitary) NBP, there is a whole lot of difference between local police, local authorities, Kremlin, federal authorities and pro-Russian youth groups.
I always thought the idea that Nashi uses football hooligans to beat up other oppositionists and to disrupt opposition protests was common knowledge.
Is there a single opposition rally disrupted in a violent way by football hooligans used by Nashi? I vaguely remember some sort of a single scuttle between NBP “security” and unidentified assailants allegedly connected to Nashi. Were there any cases like that?
In an interview a few years ago Vasili Yakemenko said “if a group of a few thousand people with physical strength was brought in from Moscow to counter the demonstrators in Kiev, there would be no trace left of the demonstrators.”
This quote sounds delusionally stupid. Note though that in the same interview he mentions a number of times that Nashi is a non-violent movement, and their actions since this 2005 interview prove that. Could it be that his thinking on preventing coups in neighboring countries had evolved since 2005?
Contrast that quote with the actions of NBP, which in 2005 was involved in “direct action” and “velvet terror” and has a long record of using either direct or implied violence.
BTW, here I find troubling that Lukin, HR represenative, is eager to limit Nashi’s rights to free speech on what sounds like a bureaucratic technicality.
I have noticed quite a while ago, especially conversing with those that live in Russia but also from posts here, how eager some are to embrace a letter of the law while trying to circumvent the spirit of the law.
Sean, having cleared up how you feel about liberals and who you support in Russia, do those views translate to American politics and even other countries? I’m not being a smartass, I really am curious.
But I will note that being for freedom of speech, freedom of association, the rule of law/anti-corruption and free and fair markets is a lot of stuff to be for. Actually, if those things are actually implemented shit tends to get pretty good pretty fast. Not sure what else you want them to be for.
“Contrast that quote with the actions of NBP, which in 2005 was involved in “direct action” and “velvet terror” and has a long record of using either direct or implied violence.”
Velvet terror! I love it! Keep it comin’, my man, keep it comin’…
do those views translate to American politics and even other countries?
I’m not really sure what being a liberal in the US means anymore, in all honesty. For example, I thought Obama was a liberal (i.e. a belief that the problem with capitalism is a question of management), but I’ve heard him called everything from a Marxist, a progressive to a fascist. “Liberal” in the US has become an empty signifier.
In Europe, liberals tend to be conservatives. I don’t follow the politics there enough to say.
Forget Surkov, the national leader has spoken:
Как рассказал “Эху Москвы” один из участников встречи Александр Архангельский, задавший вопрос о том, что власть думает о “нашистах”, устроивших травлю журналиста”, глава правительства ответил “спокойно и откровенно”: Подрабинек нахамил ветеранам, но из этого не следует, что с ним можно так обращаться. По его словам, идеологи “Наших” не всегда действуют разумно, и лично ему то, что он узнал, “не нравится”. “Любая реакция хороша в меру”, – подытожил Путин.
In short: Putin: “Nashi’s ideologists not always act rational/wise. Personally, what i have heard, i don’t like.” To react is good, but only to a certain extent.”
Patriotic wing of UR must be biting their tongues off now. HA!
link to full article with interesting movies: http://www.newsru.com/russia/07oct2009/iski.html#4
Thanks Joera. Good stuff. I wonder if tomorrow we’ll see articles about EU members back peddling on their call for Pamfilova’s ouster.
Wow, who said what? Barosso, Solana? or perhaps Berlusconi?
Just kidding, was a funny thought though…
anyway, same article:
сегодня глава президиума Генсовета ЕР Володин дал понять, что партия готова ограничиться лишь моральным порицанием журналиста.
Volodin: “UR will on morally condemn/blame the journalist”
сегодня глава президиума Генсовета ЕР Володин дал понять, что партия готова ограничиться лишь моральным порицанием журналиста.
Volodin: “UR will only morally condemn/blame the journalist”
Did he spell out what the other options were? Kick him out of the party? Something tells me he is not a UR member.