In Russia, you can’t hold a public gathering or protest without a permit. Okay, a lot of places have similar laws. I can understand this even if I don’t agree with it. But according to Vremya Novosti, the local court in Tver district in Moscow set a “precedent which threatens to turn into new accusations that the Russian government is violating civil freedoms.” Not only is holding non-permitted gatherings consider illegal, now it’s also verboten for journalists to cover them. “According to the [court's] ruling, journalists, who enter unsanctioned protests or marches to make their reports are equated with the participants in these protests and violators of the law.” Nice.
The case involves Andrei Stenin, a photo correspondent for RIA Novosti, who was charged with participating in an “unsanctioned protest” in December in front of the Presidential Administration building. If by “participating,” you mean entering the crowd to cover it, then Stepin was participating. He was fined 500 rubles. Granted, it’s a paltry fine, about $20, or basically the cost of two mega-cappuccinos and a piece of cake at the Coffee Bean near Chistye Prudy. But the amount of the fine isn’t the issue. It’s the reason for it. Basically, the government now has the legal means to test the philosophical question: if a protest occurs and it’s not in the news, did it really occur? This is one more verification that the powers that be are the true postmodernists.
But not to worry. In a statement, Vladimir Kolonoltsev, the head of the Moscow branch of the Internal Affairs, said “for law-abiding citizens, who participate in protests, officials of the city police always closely follow and act strictly in accordance with the law.”
Really!? Tell that to Artem Buzenkov a blind kid who found himself treated in “strict accordance with the law.”
However, yesterday’s ruling of the lower court became a precedent only in relation to journalists. But in recent history there are known cases when the police acted far from “carefully following the law” with those citizens who by chance find themselves in an unsanctioned civil action. For example, as Vremya Novosti reported, in December 2008 Artem Buzenkov, a blind student from Podmoskovya came to the capital to go to the theater and exiting onto Triumfal square next to the metro station Mayakovskii found himself in a “Dissident’s March,” which OMON officers actively dispersed. The unsuspecting blind student fell into their earnest hand. He was convicted of participating in an unsanctioned protest and fined 500 rubles. True, the city court interfered and completely exonerated the blind student who didn’t accept his fate and sought the restoration of his good name.
Time will tell if Russian journalists will be so lucky. I suggest they add a white cane to their repertoire.
Protesters should be allowed to gather in public places and non-violently protest. Journalists need to be free to cover such events. Reporting on an event is not inherently the same as participating in it, though some citizen activist journalist types often do both, so can see where there are times it is impossible to differentiate. (I just saw Der Baader Meinhof Komplex – this is nothing new.) Moreover, in this era, with smart phones and twitter and blogs, anyone can claim to be an independent journalist.
I’m not sure I’m opposed to requiring permits for protests either, just for the sake of preparation. But such permits should not be made difficult to obtain.
In addition to requiring permits, sweeping up innocent bystanders in mass arrests is hardly unique either…
What’s next, not allowing universities to talk about social protests in class? Not allowing discussions of social protests online, in emulation of China? Ugh!
Russian legal system is not a precedent system, so court only rules on the specific situation and does not create a precedent. Also court did not rule that journalists can not cover protests, the ruling was much narrower.
At the time of detention Stenin did not have a prove other than the digital camera that he was a journalist and court just agreed with police report that classified him as a participant in the illegal protest.
Note to self: if you’re gonna do a sit-in protest at Wheeler Hall to protect UC budget cuts, make absolutely sure to have a camera with you to prove you’re a journalist when you’re detained for trespassing or terrorism!
Of course, those friggin’ awesome guys who kept getting Nemtsov and gang detained for their individual protests by sneaking up beside them were never actually detained themselves. Good thing they left their cameras at home.
In Russia, Journalist = Protester ; IN MANY OTHER ASIAN NATIONS TOO. Too bad for the weak………….
I heard the liberasts are offered a substitute place to do their so called dissident protests but they refuse and proceed with the mardi gras anyway, for the sake of publicity. They even block roads in central Moscow and we all know how is it with traffic in Moscow. They know that such behaviour will summon OMON who will carry Starushka and Playboy away and that Western journalists will get their story which in turn will activate some funds in Washington D.C.
So it is no wonder the journalists are viewed as suspects.
It seems that this is the typical dynamic for protests pretty much everywhere in the liberal democratic world. The protesters what to protest in a particular place, the cops say no and offer a different location, or place restrictions. The protesters either agree or don’t. I happen to believe that if there isn’t violence at protests–either by the cops or the protesters, the action might as well not have happened. These actions are mostly for publicity because publicity is all many movements have.
I suspect this lack of effectiveness is why so many people now look at the 6,000-10,000 protest in Kaliningrad as some kind of turning point. This idolization of the Kaliningrad protest is pure fetishism in my view. Plus it seems that United Russia might have nipped it in the bud by displaying concern, and thereby reaffirming its power rather than it being shaken. Now UR can claim to its hears the people and responds accordingly. The same way Putin did Pikalevo.
The only way UR will be shaken is if the coalition that organized the protest gets people to respond that this isn’t enough and move to organizing real political action beyond standing in the streets, waving signs and shouting anti-government slogans.
Real movements are built by offering alternatives, not through performances of negation.
The Kaliningrad protests were legitimate and over a very legitimate issue. Heavy import taxes and unemployment in what is effectively a colony depending on imports. It is presented to us by certain types as public disturbance that caught Kremlin off guard. But there already was a protest of comparable size a month before that and both of the protest were organised and allowed by the authorities.
Photographers in the UK only need to be taking photos to be harassed or arrested. They’re all potential terrorists appaparently. The police has come in for much criticizm for abusing their stop and search powers particularly against photographers. The top policemen say that these eagle eyed cops don’t really understand the legislation brought in to combat terrorism or when or how to use it correctly often claiming powers that they do not in fact have. Hence the big protest at Trafalgar Square rin January by photographers: http://boingboing.net/2010/01/22/londoners-mass-photo.html
On the Kaliningrad front, CopyDude (now of StPetersblurb blog fame) did point out the joys of Schengen: http://www.petersblurb.com/?p=801 & http://www.thecopydude.com/the-european-prison/
I guess the EU is happy as long as those BMW’s & Hummers are still being produced there even if it is only assemby of parts and for onwards sale to Russians.