Pussy Riot Arrested for Singing a Song

Noah Groves

Pussy Riot is an all-female Russian feminist punk rock band who in February 2012 stormed into a Russian church to sing their song ‘Punk Prayer’ protesting the re-election of Russian president Vladimir Putin. Three of the band members were caught and over several months their trial concluded with a sentence of two years in prison for each of the girls.

The Orthodox Church systems in Russia had a lot to do with the case and were very outspoken; the judge of the trial stated that Pussy Riot had committed hooliganism motivated by religious hatred. However in the Russian criminal code, article 213 it states that to be guilty of hooliganism you have to have put public in danger, which Pussy Riot had not. There is also no mention of religious feelings. Russian lawyers have stated the charge of hooliganism is a clear legal error. The Russian Orthodox Church stated “The women’s action slapped Christians in the face” and also said that God had already punished them by taking away their common sense. The judge also stated that Pussy Riot offended Orthodox opinions and were wearing “Clothing Inappropriate for Church” and that they were “deliberately provocative.”

Although the bands sentence included religious hatred, three other members of the band spoke in an interview that suggested otherwise. The band, who wore bright balaclavas during their act to disguise their identities, described playing in Pussy Riot as being like a superhero and explained that the main idea of their cause was against the political regime in Russia. One of the band members spoke   “the main concept was to appeal to the virgin because it is considered that the virgin is the protector of Russia and that is why it was a prayer to the virgin, she would kick out Putin to protect the political system.” The band was protesting against Putin and pointing out the Churches support of him. During the trial it was said the girls acted as if freedom of expression was on trial rather than them, Analyst James Nixy of the Royal institute for international affairs stated that the Pussy Riot case is proof that the Russian government will continue to try and silence political dissent and that while there is freedom of speech in Russia, when it comes down to the political aspect there is chaos. Nixy states that there are limits to freedom of expression in Russia, the band did apologise to the church saying they were trying to express their own opinions.

Although I do think that Pussy Riot should have some consequences for their actions, the final verdict was far too harsh.  Possibly a warning or a fine would have been adequate rather than two years in prison. The case seemed to be skewed and the trial was not completely accurate. The church had an involvement which was unnecessary and the band explained why they were playing the song in the church, the constant abuse from the church could have added to their sentence time. The hooliganism side of the verdict was incorrect and the band was accused of something that possibly didn’t fit their situation, as stated above, a clear legal error. The political side of the freedom of speech most likely added to the bands sentence time and if they were singing about something completely different they may not have received any jail time. The supposed Freedom of speech has been violated by the Russian court. Pussy Riot’s actions were simply an expression of opinions and with the churches involvement and the politics in Russia they have received a sentence witch I think is unfair considering the evidence that they were charged wrongfully and were just speaking out to the public.

Bibliography:

Talley, R (2012) ‘Pussy Riot Convicted of the Wrong Charge’ [online] Available from: http://www.examiner.com/article/pussy-riot-convicted-of-the-wrong-charge?cid=PROD-redesign-right-next [accessed: 3^rd September 2012]

PBS News (2012) ‘Jailhouse Rock: Russian Court Gives Punk Band Pussy Riot Two Years in Prison’ [online] Available from: http://www.pbHYPERLINK “http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/world/july-dec12/pussyriot_08-17.html”sHYPERLINK “http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/world/july-dec12/pussyriot_08-17.html”.org/newshour/bb/world/july-dec12/pussyriot_08-17.html [accessed 3^rd September 2012]

The World (2012) ‘Members of Russian Punk Band Pussy Riot Plead ‘Not Guilty’ in Moscow trial’ [online] Available from: http://www.theworld.org/2012/07/pussy-riot-plead-not-guilty/  [accessed 3^rd September 2012]

Syed, R (2012) ‘Analysts See Freedom of Speech in Russia Slowly Eroding’ [online] Available from: http://www.voanews.com/content/analysts_see_freedom_of_speech_in_russia_slowly_eroding/1490461.html [accessed 3rd September 2012]

Lipman, M (2012) ‘The Pussy Riot Verdict’ [online] Available from: http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/newsdesk/2012/08/the-pussy-riot-verdict.html [accessed 3^rd September]

There has recently been much speculation surrounding Lance Armstrong and his history with drug charges. This move follows Lance’s most recent announcement where he stated he would no longer pursue arbitration in a hope to clear himself of the doping charges he has been facing since 1999.

It is difficult to determine the truth when looking at this issue.

Lance Armstrong has been dealing with claims of his cheating and that he had an unfair advantage in winning his 7 Tour de France titles since 1999. The USADA (United States Anti-Doping Agency) have continually alleged that Lance has been an active participant in blood doping, or blood boosting in which an athlete injects them with oxygenated blood in an attempt to enhance athletic performance. Lance is expected to lose his seven Tour de France titles, all medals and prizes he has earned from August 1^st, 1999 to present and also stands to lose his Olympic bronze medal that he won in Sydney 2000.  When Lance announced that he would no longer seek to clear himself of the drug charges the USADA were quick to accept it as an admission of guilt and proceed with the charges. The USADA claims to have sufficient evidence to support their allegations. In June, the agency announced that it had 10 previous Armstrong teammates who were prepared to back up the allegations made against Lance. The anti-doping agency state that Armstrong is being sanctioned for a whole range of different doping charges, these include the use of blood transfusions, EPO and testosterone and masking agents. He was also sanctioned for trafficking the drug as well as administering it to other athletes and covering up the violations.

 

This situation has left me undecided on whether or not Lance is guilty or innocent. After fighting such serious allegations as Lance has for 14 years and getting nowhere, anyone would be sick and tired and beginning to lose faith.  On the other hand, Lance has put in so much effort and time to get to where he is now and achieve what he has achieved. The mental and physical preparation Lance has done, years of training and practice and having 7 Tour de France titles under his belt with additional prizes and medals would seem like a great incentive to keep fighting and attain these rewards. It seems to me that that any athlete that is seen to be very talented and successful throughout their career is up for speculation and a possible drug-cheat. The media portray these athletes as ‘superhuman’ and suggest this ability can only be the result of performance enhancing drugs rather than hard work and persistence. The media and agencies continue to pester athletes until they are forced to give in like in Lance Armstrong’s case. I do believe that Lance has been a victim of a witch-hunt as this chase to prove Armstrong’s guilt has been going on for quite some time.  When Lance was first suspected of blood doping, there was not suitable or reliable technology to test and either prove or disprove his case.

 

In the days following Lance’s announcement  the Lance Armstrong Live strong foundation was showered with donations and messages of support. Donations to his foundation grew by almost 25 times after Lance announced he would no longer contest the charges. Throughout his career, Lance has been known as a hero after overcoming Testicular cancer and going on to win seven gruelling Tour de France titles. Lance battled with cancer for a year which began in his testicle and spread to his lungs, abdomen and brain. After surgery Lance was told he had less than a 40% survival rate.  This could have ever so easily made Lance ineligible to compete and not allow him to race so why would he then go on to possibly risk his chances of competing and participate in blood doping and be found to be a drug cheat.   For this reason it is hard to imagine why Lance would endanger his career like this just for the raised possibility of winning from blood doping.

 

Lance is recognised by many as a sporting hero, he portrays qualities that we value and admire. He is an icon for many. Whilst these allegations have been made, nothing has yet been proved. If Lance is found to be guilty of drug usage he will not only be stripped of extrinsic rewards, but respect and honour as well.

There is no success in winning dishonourably.

 

Bibliography

 

 Hersh, Phillip  2012, ‘USADA strips Lance Armstrong of Tour de France titles’, viewed 5th, September 2012, <http://www.heraldsun.com.au/sport/more-sport/lance-armstrong-accepts-usada-drug-charges/story-e6frfglf-1226457338370http://www.>.

 

 The Lance Armstrong testicular cancer story’  2012, Learn About Cancer, viewed 5th, September 2012, <http://www.cancer.org/Cancer/TesticularCancer/DetailedGuide/testicular-cancer-treating-lance-armstrong-storyhttp://www.>.

 

 NYDailyNews.com  2012, ‘Duped by a dope’, viewed 5th, September 2012, <http://articles.nydailynews.com/2012-08-25/news/33389627_1_tour-de-france-titles-armstrong-teammates-testicles-and-spreadhttp://www.>.

 

 Sydney Morning Herald  2012, ‘Armstrong’s legacy: Guilty but sponsors stay’, viewed 5th, September 2012, <http://www.stuff.co.nz/sport/other-sports/7558171/Armstrongs-legacy-Guilty-to-some-but-sponsors-stayhttp://www.>.

 

 UNGOED-THOMAS , JON  2012, ‘Lance Armstrong ‘given drugs in lunch bag’, claims teammate Tyler Hamilton ‘, viewed 5th, September 2012, <http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/world/lance-armstrong-given-drugs-in-lunch-bag-claims-teammate-tyler-hamilton/story-fnb64oi6-1226463333134http://www.>.

 

 

                                      Julian Assange

Julian Assange is an Australian activist who has also been engaged in publishing and journalism. He is best known for founding Wikileaks, which has earned him many supporters as well as many enemies. The United States of America in particular, disapprove of him because of highly confidential information that was revealed by Assange regarding military operations in Afghanistan and Iraq as well as secret conversations and documents recorded on the day of 9/11.  The Australian Government, including Prime Minister Julia Gillard has shown little support for Assange because they fear it could ruin the strong relationship they have with the US. Assange has also been trying to avoid extradition on allegations of sexual abuse in Sweden since December 2010. Despite all of this, Assange still has his supporters. He continues to make speeches, explaining his reasons for leaking confidential information on Wikileaks and to gain supporters, from the Ecuadorian embassy situated in the U.K, the country from which he has received asylum.

 

I think that Assange has been trying to give people information and to make things that happen inside the government more transparent. His actions were very risky and not something many people would be prepared to do but he obviously wanted to get the facts of certain events out to the wider world and many people don’t have a problem with that. I don’t have a problem with a lot of the information he put on Wikileaks. I can see how some people in the government have a problem with it, but a lot of the information he published on Wikileaks should have been released to the public anyway. For example the CIA reports and certain documents from 9/11 came under intense media scrutiny, and were therefore already in the public arena. Wikileaks was mainly created to publish news leaks based on their ethical, historical and political significance. This is what the website is about in my opinion and the main reason that people and governments don’t like him is that they were trying to cover up things that shouldn’t have been covered up and so they are annoyed that the information got released. In 2010 Wikileaks released a story about the U.S trying to bomb Yemen (with consent from Yemen’s military). This sparked anger in America because this information was not supposed to be known by the public but I think it’s something that people should have known about anyway. There was another case where Hillary Clinton ordered U.S diplomats to spy on UN officials and to gather personal information from them. This was seen by some as a violation of personal privacy, but I think it was leaked appropriately. Australia, China, Germany, Thailand and the U.S.A have all condemned the Wikileaks site and particular information which has been put on the site. I think Assange has had good ethical reasons for everything he has put on Wikileaks. He has given people a different reality and this can be the basis from where the public can form an opinion. Most of it has to do with the fact that he wants the world to be more politically open. I agree with his ideas because I believe in giving people information so they can have an opinion, rather than keeping everything behind closed doors. However the US are not going to give up the hunt easily and perhaps Assange didn’t think of the consequences that would arise after posting such confidential details from inside the U.S government on his site. The way certain Americans are talking about him you’d think he was behind the 9/11 attacks. In December, 2010, Republican Mike Huckabee called for Assange to be executed and an American political commentator by the name of Bob Beckel said on his show that Assange should be shot. Overall, I think Assange has been unfairly treated by people from many nationalities but in particular the Americans, which has led to him being stuck in the Ecuadorian embassy in the U.K because he has a useful role to play in exposing, for public scrutiny, many of the decisions made by governments. Governments don’t generally enjoy intense media and public scrutiny over their decisions but I think it’s important for the sake of everyone having a say into issues which could affect him. This is why I am agreeing with what Assange has done, because it is encouraging governments to tell the public what they’re doing rather than keeping them in the dark over issues which could be of personal significance.

Biblography

http://articles.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/2012-08-23/interviews/33341601_1_ecuadoran-embassy-julian-assange-ecuadorian-embassy

 

http://justice4assange.com/Fair-Trial-for-Julian-Assange.html#TAC

 

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/aug/23/women-against-rape-julian-assange

 

http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/a/julian_p_assange/index.html

 

http://justice4assange.com/US-Extradition.html