Jailed Russian female punk rock member loses parole appeal

0

A member of Russian female punk group Pussy Riot lost her appeal for parole on Wednesday after nearly a year in prison for performing a protest song against President Vladimir Putin in a Moscow cathedral.


Maria Alyokhina's appeal against a previous decision to deny her early release from a two-year jail sentence was rejected by a court in the city of Perm, where she is serving her sentence, about 1,500 km (940 miles) east of Moscow.

Alyokhina, 25, and two other Pussy Riot members were convicted of hooliganism motivated by religious hatred in August for bursting into the Russian Orthodox cathedral and belting out a "punk prayer" asking the Virgin Mary to rid Russia of Putin.

Madonna, Paul McCartney and Adele were among more than 100 musicians to sign a letter calling for their release that was published by Amnesty International on Tuesday.

Written By: Reuters
continue to source article at reuters.com

NO COMMENTS

  1. aroundtown – you seem to know nothing about Russia.

    These women (mostly lead by their husbands) have been serial shock art demonstrators, and their aims are nothing to do with any anti-putin lobby (that barely exists) or anti-church lobby. Rather their typical acts have been to invite journalists into a modern art museum to witness a “performance” (Google “pussy riot sex in a museum” to find a lot of not-office friendly versions of that story – you’ll find no links to it in the mainstream UK press though)

    The Western press has long been manipulated by the PR agencies of ex-patriate Russian Oligarchs, thrown out (or avoiding charges) because they insisted on meddling in politics. It gets pretty much everything on Putin wrong – mostly deliberately. The BBC and the Economist being amongst the worst. Pussy Riot, Litvinenko, Khordokovsky and Georgia being only the best known examples of consistent lieing by the UK and US press. I say this as a basically conservative middle aged man, who happened to need to know about Russia professionally between 13 and 8 years ago. There are plenty of places to get an accurate understanding of Russia from.
    For example: http://www.russiaotherpointsofview.com/

    I have always hoped that this site wouldn’t get sucked into the dumb anti-PR ruse of the rich ex-Russians.

    Pussy Riot is about radical anarchism, not atheism. It certainly does not deserve sympathy or support from a rational site like this.

    • In reply to #2 by MickeyDroy:

      aroundtown – you seem to know nothing about Russia.

      I worked in Russia for a while in the 1990s.

      This is wholly about freedom of expression. I don’t much care what these two young mothers believe in or protest about. I care that they should be free to do so – however inane you personally might find it.

      They have done absolutely nothing which would justify any civilized society depriving their infant children of their mothers for two years.

      • In reply to #15 by Stevehill:

        In reply to #2 by MickeyDroy:

        aroundtown – you seem to know nothing about Russia.

        I worked in Russia for a while in the 1990s.

        This is wholly about freedom of expression. I don’t much care what these two young mothers believe in or protest about. I care that they should be free to do so – howev…

        Quite right. Had a religious group entered one of their concerts and started protesting their music and singing pro Putzin tunes, they would not go away for two years.

    • In reply to #2 by MickeyDroy:

      aroundtown – you seem to know nothing about Russia.

      Typical cultural relativism. Aroundtown, you know nothing about our culture around here in Zaptockondririzia, we have beautiful human sacrifices and we are cannibals and human flesh is better than the best lapin a la ouatever, it goes so well with red wine! In my stupid, American -centered world, no one should go to jail 2 years=24 months=104 weeks=730 days for disrupting a ceremony, atheist, religious or whatever.

  2. I looked up Pussy Riot in Wikipedia. Its actually a very interesting idea, its not really a band in the traditional sense but a collective that “comprises around 12 performers and about 15 people who handle the technical work of shooting and editing their videos, which are posted on the Internet”. In their own words:

    “What we have in common is impudence, politically loaded lyrics, the importance of feminist discourse and a non-standard female image.”

    Its true that at least one of the women in the group has (or had, wasn’t clear to me) a husband who was also a member of the collective and musician but I think its kind of hard to believe that women like this are “mostly lead by their husbands”

    • In reply to #5 by Red Dog:

      I looked up Pussy Riot in Wikipedia. Its actually a very interesting idea, its not really a band in the traditional sense but a collective that “comprises around 12 performers and about 15 people who handle the technical work of shooting and editing their videos, which are posted on the Internet”….
      Well now you should understand that it is a group that seeks to shock rather than one with an anti-Putin or anti-Church or pro-democracy agenda.

      As for your other harmless comment. I seem to remember a large group of people campaigning outside St Pauls, London, recently. None of them seemed to believe it was necessary to invade the Cathedral, let along get up on the alter.

      What I haven’t seen in the Reuters report or anywhere in this thread is a hint that anyone knows actually what Pussy Riot were charged for or where it occurred.

      • In reply to #18 by MickeyDroy:

        As for your other harmless comment. I seem to remember a large group of people campaigning outside St Pauls, London, recently. None of them seemed to believe it was necessary to invade the Cathedral, let along get up on the alter.

        And? What does that prove? That someone else did a protest and did it in a way that you (and I) think was more mature and effective. So what? My point was that the sentence they received was totally out of proportion for the crime they committed (and I agree it was a minor crime, if I was at an atheist meeting or whatever I wouldn’t want people barging in there and disrupting it either, the people in the church have the same rights)

        What I haven’t seen in the Reuters report or anywhere in this thread is a hint that anyone knows actually what Pussy Riot were charged for or where it occurred

        I don’t know the specific charges. If there is something note worthy then why not just tell us where you are going with this? I thought they were charged because they went into a church and started filming a video without permission of the church and in the process disrupted whatever was going on in the church. As I said in an earlier comment, that would a misdemeanor offense in the US, they would do little if any jail time (and by now they would be free and have their own reality TV show).

        • They were charged with hooliganism after their invasion of the cathedral and attempted performance. A fine would seem sufficient.

          In reply to #19 by Red Dog:

          In reply to #18 by MickeyDroy:

          As for your other harmless comment. I seem to remember a large group of people campaigning outside St Pauls, London, recently. None of them seemed to believe it was necessary to invade the Cathedral, let along get up on the alter.

          And? What does that prove? That some…

          • In reply to #20 by Marktony:

            They were charged with hooliganism after their invasion of the cathedral and attempted performance. A fine would seem sufficient.
            Attempted? You mean none of the news sources you read showed the youtube clip?
            one of the many NOT so surprising things about how this story keeps on getting misreported, is that no one seems to know what happened.

            In reply to #19 by Red Dog:

            In reply to #18 by MickeyDroy:

            As for your other harmless comment. I seem to remember a large group of people campaigning outside St Pauls,…

      • In reply to #18 by MickeyDroy:_

        I seem to remember a large group of people campaigning outside St Pauls, London, recently. None of them seemed to believe it was necessary to invade the Cathedral, let along get up on the alter.

        The Occupy protesters would not have been jailed had they done so. Canon Giles Fraser of St Pauls actually resigned his post because he felt it was the job of the church to throw open its doors to them and help them make their point.

        The Pussy Riot protesters were specifically complaining about the almost sinister mutual backscratching going on between Patriarch Kyrill and President Putin, to the point that when Kyrill says jump Putin says how high. And we’ve seen in the last couple of weeks where that leads, with new laws to jail anyone who ‘promotes’ homosexuality in any way. That is not the ‘freedom’ the Russians I worked with were trying to build in the 1990s.

        A cathedral was precisely the right place to protest against the unnatural and intrinsically disordered relationship between these two ageing men.

    • Stafford, can you please try to use another browser? It seems to work for everyone else, not sure what is going on there.

      In reply to #6 by Stafford Gordon:

      MickeyDroy #2:

      Reply button not working.

      Thanks for your input; I’ll follow it up.

      S G

  3. russian orrthodox church now has same relationship to russia’s rulers as it did under the czar hence is outraged by any challenge to it’s authority.The church deals in truth or heresy therefore incapable of absorbing criticism.

  4. In reply to #7 by aroundtown:

    I still feel this band is largely harmless

    Largely harmless? I haven’t seen anything that supports that they are harmful at all unless you think mocking the church and a dictator are harmful. I can see saying that for disrupting the church service they deserved some punishment, but the sentence was insanely extreme, it was what in the US would be a misdemeanor offense, probably no jail time at all, what they did was the same more or less as what US protesters do when they block the street or glitter bomb a celebrity, sending people to hard labor in Siberia for that is not even close to a proportionate response.

  5. RDFRS, for the love of God will one of you fix Stafford’s reply button. I’m begging you.

    Nlib1… someone… anyone

    Send a team out. I’ll pay for it. My credit card details are wending their way to you as I type this.

    Just fix his bloody reply button, please.

    • In reply to #10 by Katy Cordeth:

      RDFRS, for the love of God will one of you fix Stafford’s reply button. I’m begging you.Nlib1… someone… anyone…Send a team out. I’ll pay for it. My credit card details are wending their way to you as I type this.Just fix his bloody reply button, please.

      Hey! It’s working; thanks Katy.

      Actually, I think it’s my old banger of a machine that’s at fault.

      S G

  6. MickeyDroy @ 2

    “aroundtown – you seem to know nothing about Russia. These women (mostly lead by their husbands) have been serial shock art demonstrators, and their aims are nothing to do with any anti-putin lobby (that barely exists)”

    Oh, really? All dead, are they?

    “…or anti-church lobby. Rather their typical acts have been to invite journalists into a modern art museum to witness a “performance” (Google “pussy riot sex in a museum” to find a lot of not-office friendly versions of that story – you’ll find no links to it in the mainstream UK press though)”

    …and your point is?

    “The Western press has long been manipulated by the PR agencies of ex-patriate Russian Oligarchs, thrown out (or avoiding charges) because they insisted on meddling in politics.”

    ‘meddling’ eh? Putin has those who oppose him from beyond the sphere of his control. Surprise! Incidentally, isn’t he a ‘Russian Oligarch’?

    “It gets pretty much everything on Putin wrong – mostly deliberately. The BBC and the Economist being amongst the worst.”

    Please provide references and specify what you mean by ‘wrong’.

    “Pussy Riot, Litvinenko, Khordokovsky and Georgia being only the best known examples of consistent lieing by the UK and US press.”

    Being consistent hardly negates what they say. But we have your word for it that these are lies! Sorry, but on ‘a rational site’, such as this, you need to support this assertion.

    “I say this as a basically conservative middle aged man, who happened to need to know about Russia professionally between 13 and 8 years ago. There are plenty of places to get an accurate understanding of Russia from. For example: http://www.russiaotherpointsofview.com/

    From that site …
    http://www.russiaotherpointsofview.com/2013/05/whats-not-to-like-about-putin.html

    Accurate, of course it is, it says so. No dead journalists commenting there.

    “I have always hoped that this site wouldn’t get sucked into the dumb anti-PR ruse of the rich ex-Russians. Pussy Riot is about radical anarchism, not atheism. It certainly does not deserve sympathy or support from a rational site like this.”

    So, it is ‘rational’ not to sympathise or support Pussy Riot and this is because they are ‘radical anarchists’. I would appreciate hearing your arguments as to why that is not an appropriate response to the rule of Dobby the House Elf, who is still supporting the Syrian dictator with arms, suppressing all internal dissent and demonising political opponents, liquidating those who cannot be silenced in less obvious ways and whose ‘democratic’ credentials to govern have become increasingly ludicrous since the last election. More ludicrous, that is, than Putin’s macho posturings and modest (Google ‘Putin Palaces’) lifestyle upto then. Recent votes in the Russian Duma’s ‘democracy’ has unanimously (by a 444-0 vote, do you not find this suspicious?) passed absurd homophobic legislation and, damningly, he is getting support from the Roman Catholic church…
    (http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/media-howl-as-russia-protects-its-children-from-gay-propaganda/).

    The reason Pussy Riot survive at all, it might be supposed, is through their sophisticated use of the media (better than Putin’s own). Journalists in Russia don’t live that long.

    MickeyDroy @ 18

    “As for your other harmless comment. I seem to remember a large group of people campaigning outside St Pauls, London, recently. None of them seemed to believe it was necessary to invade the Cathedral, let along get up on the alter.”

    Alter is the word. All change. (and they didn’t ‘get up’ on the altar, they stood in front of it… as if that mattered). As a ruler Putin is finding the church ‘useful’ and has co-opted Blasphemy, broadening the definition to take in not just God but Vladimir Putin too. There should be no right ‘not to be offended’ and I second Red Dog @19 and Steve Hill @ 22, Pussy Riot were guilty only of a misdemeanour. A bill was passed after Pussy Riot’s panto in the church to increase their possible sentences before the case was heard. Such efficiency!… when most governments have difficulty finding time to enact even important legislation. Good old Democracy, eh!

    “What I haven’t seen in the Reuters report or anywhere in this thread is a hint that anyone knows actually what Pussy Riot were charged for or where it occurred.”

    and? This is readily available information any who’ve followed their story can access. You digress. Why?

    What I haven’t seen from your comments is any reason to suppose that Putin is anything other than a skilled amoral sociopathic tyrant or that you, sir, are not providing apologetics for him.

      • In reply to #25 by MickeyDroy:

        In reply to #23 by Geoff 21:

        MickeyDroy @ 2

        You have a lot of research to do before you can start believing any of your own ideas.

        Indeed Geoff21, you don’t understand the Russian soul so shut up and study. Start with Lenin, Stalin, Brezhnev, please skip Gorbachev and Yeltsin and don’t come back before you know what you are talking about. MickeyDroy spent many years in Russia, did you?

      • In reply to #25 by MickeyDroy:

        In reply to #23 by Geoff 21:

        MickeyDroy @ 2

        You have a lot of research to do before you can start believing any of your own ideas.

        Teach me then…

        Belief may or may not precede evidence. You have provided none at all, just anecdotal opinion, and the (therefore currently ad hominem) assertions are yours. If you want to condescend to me you will have to climb a lot higher than that.

        Your evasion of engagement, on those points you yourself have raised, I find suggestive of disingenuity. Possibly you are short of time, or energy, or disinclined to tell us pleasant truths about the much-loved Putin. I consider free speech fundamental to civilisation, just as you must, so do tell us about these ‘lies’ and the bit where Putin is not a malicious evil man.

        “Anyone who thinks protesting against the church and state is in anyway liberal, progressive, democratic or positive in anyway whatsoever knows nothing about Russia and its post-revolution history.”

        Ooooh! this is most impressive, about what in particular? and while you are about it, the relevance of this to the discussion is, …exactly what? didn’t quite get that…

        “Putin remains hugely popular in Russia.”

        Let’s get this straight. I don’t care if Putin is as popular as Chateau d’Yquem in Dubai or hypocrisy in the Vatican. His style is probably very much in vogue in the ex-Taliban Swat valley. He is a pitiless dictator who understands how to control the media and you have yet to demonstrate facts to support even one of your contentions…

        You have the floor.

  7. I know that this is a site where most post because of their strong feelings that religion is forcing itself on the masses.
    Russia you need to understand is the reverse – good church – state relations is progress.

    When I first visited Russia in the early 1990s I was shown around the Anti-religious museum in Leningrad. Prior to 1931 and from the mid-1990s it was an orthodox cathedral. I saw the 98m Foucault’s pendulum that hung from the cupola inorder to show that the world rotates and therefore “God does not exist”. There was a great hope then that the changes would lead to a more tolerant approach by the state to the church.

    Anyone (and that seems to be everyone nowadays) that says that says an attack on the Russian church is seen as progress by Russians is either a liar or very badly informed. There are a lot of both. Anyone who thinks that most Russians are bothered by links between Church and State has been badly misinformed. Anyone who thinks protesting against the church and state is in anyway liberal, progressive, democratic or positive in anyway whatsoever knows nothing about Russia and its post-revolution history.
    Putin remains hugely popular in Russia.

    Once you understand the basic situation of Putin and his popularity in Russia, you soon discover that 95% of everything written in the Western press is fundamentally biased and deliberately misleading. Then you pick a story – Litvinenko, Georgia, Pussy Riot, whatever, and follow it in detail with a sceptical approach or reading less mainstream sources in parallel and you will soon find yourself very disillusioned with the press.

    • In reply to #26 by MickeyDroy:

      I know that this is a site where most post because of their strong feelings that religion is forcing itself on the masses.
      Russia you need to understand is the reverse – good church – state relations is progress.

      When I first visited Russia in the early 1990s I was shown around the Anti-religious m…

      If everything you said is true: no one thinks what Pussy Riot did was political or cool and everyone loves the church in Russia and Putin is Thomas Jefferson with no slaves and much better abs. Even if all that was true it doesn’t change the basic fact that putting women in prison for over a year for disrupting a church service is barbaric. It doesn’t matter if everyone hates Pussy Riot in fact that would be even more reason to support them for me, everyone has rights even people who say things no one else wants to hear.

    • In reply to #26 by MickeyDroy:

      I know that this is a site where most post because of their strong feelings that religion is forcing itself on the masses.
      Russia you need to understand is the reverse – good church – state relations is progress.

      Russia’s homophobia law (another inspiration from the unelected Patriarch Kyrill) falls foul of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights in every material respect.

      People are waking up and starting to boycott Russian goods:

      http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/food-and-drink/news/no-equal-rights-no-vodka-nights-gay-clubs-boycott-russian-imports-8735584.html

      Let’s see how popular Putin is once people start losing their jobs.

      • This is idiotic.
        First Russian homophobia is nothing compared to homophobia in most majority muslim countries or indeed many christian countries.

        No one is boycotting goods from islamic countries. And indeed since most exported Russian products are commodities like oil, most people have no clue from which homophobic country comes their oil.

        all you have done is to highlight another example of how anti-Putin PR is sucked up by the masses.
        Meanwhile as you ought to know, the Russian economy is still growing much faster than the west, and jobs are not an issue.

        Again – an intellectual website with incredibly ill-informed posters claiming psuedo-knowledge they don’t have. The anti-Putin brigade have done a fantastic job in making otherwise intelligent people sound like they are arguing for ID.

        Edit – I just realised you have said that Putin will be kicked out following the job losses in the Russian vodka industry not that US gay clubs are no longer stocking Russian vodka. Sounds like a flap of a butterfly wing to me.

        Geoff – don’t get upset with me just because you have been reading crap for the past 10 years. Go find out for yourself.
        Pick any story – as I keep saying – Pussy Riot, Litvinenko, Yukos and Khordokovsky, the “war” with Georgia (or anything about its president, Mikheil Saakashvili) and dig deep, avoiding the western press. You, more than anyone, will be in for surprise.

        In reply to #30 by Stevehill:

        In reply to #26 by MickeyDroy:

        I know that this is a site where most post because of their strong feelings that religion is forcing itself on the masses.
        Russia you need to understand is the reverse – good church – state relations is progress.

        Russia’s homophobia law (another inspiration from the…

        • In reply to #31 by MickeyDroy:

          This is idiotic.
          First Russian homophobia is nothing compared to homophobia in most majority muslim countries or indeed many christian countries.

          You remind me of some of the people I debate with on political sites who support the Iranian government. And my response is the same. I agree there is a lot of disinformation about Putin (as there was also a lot of disinformation about Ahmadinejad). That doesn’t change the basic fact that he had done things that are clearly tyrannical. And how popular he is in Russia is also irrelevant. Its not that unusual for Tyrants to have a lot of support within certain sectors of the population. Again Ahmadinejad was popular in many parts of Iran (I think the more rural parts). George Bush was wildly popular for a while, so was Hitler. The idea that Putin is some misunderstood populist is just laughable.

          • Fine – if you want to say Putin is as bad as George Bush – I have no disagreement.

            He is certainly a populist, and popular. He is certainly misunderstood – many millions of expat Russian oligarch money goes towards that misunderstanding. But it isn’t the misunderstanding that bothers me, it is the falsities promoted to attain it that is my concern.

            In reply to #32 by Red Dog:

            In reply to #31 by MickeyDroy:

            This is idiotic.
            First Russian homophobia is nothing compared to homophobia in most majority muslim countries or indeed many christian countries.

            You remind me of some of the people I debate with on political sites who support the Iranian government. And my response…

          • In reply to #32 by Red Dog:
            .PS – Hitler never won an election. George Bush won one out of two.
            Putin / Medvedev have had an outright majority (ever heard of that) in all 4 presidential elections

          • In reply to #34 by MickeyDroy:

            In reply to #32 by Red Dog:
            .PS – Hitler never won an election. George Bush won one out of two.
            Putin / Medvedev have had an outright majority (ever heard of that) in all 4 presidential elections

            They are still obliged as members of the Council of Europe (since 1996) not to implement laws which offend against the European Convention on Human Rights.

            If they don’t want to subscribe to ECHR values, let them leave the Council of Europe. Before they are thrown out.

          • In reply to #35 by Stevehill:

            In reply to #34 by MickeyDroy:

            They are still obliged as members of the Council of Europe (since 1996) not to implement laws which offend against the European Convention on Human Rights.

            If they don’t want to subscribe to ECHR values, let them leave the Council of Europe. Before they are thrown out.

            If you want to argue that Russia remains well short of Northern Europe – yes I’m sure everyone would agree. Including Putin who is claiming credit for the big anti-corruption campaign underwhich even his own supporters are being charged, found guilty and imprisoned. Not reported in the Western press, but quite real, though everyone would agree there is much much more to do.

            The trouble is the opinions expressed here and in 95% of the Western press are that Russia has barely advanced since the 1990. In fact, given where it was in the 1990s, the advances have been amazing.

            Even the anti-gay initiatives now can be seen as positive. Why were there no anti-gay campaigns in the 1990s? Well surely it wasn’t because Russia was more liberal then – it was because no one dared be seen out as gay in the 1990s. But don’t expect that interpretation to be in your daily newspaper or the BBC.

          • In reply to #34 by MickeyDroy:

            In reply to #32 by Red Dog:
            .PS – Hitler never won an election.

            Geoff is dong a great job of refuting your arguments but I did want to at least acknowledge that I do concede your point here. I agree Putin isn’t as bad as Hitler.

          • In reply to #43 by Red Dog:

            In reply to #34 by MickeyDroy:

            In reply to #32 by Red Dog:
            .PS – Hitler never won an election.

            Geoff is dong a great job of refuting your arguments but I did want to at least acknowledge that I do concede your point here. I agree Putin isn’t as bad as Hitler.

            “dong a great job”

            I’m not told that often nowadays…

            ;o)

            cheers Red Dog!

  8. MickeyDroy @ 31 – “Geoff – don’t get upset with me just because you have been reading crap for the past 10 years. Go find out for yourself. Pick any story – as I keep saying – Pussy Riot, Litvinenko, Yukos and Khordokovsky, the “war” with Georgia (or anything about its president, Mikheil Saakashvili) and dig deep, avoiding the western press. You, more than anyone, will be in for surprise.”

    No.

    That which can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence. The burden of proof lies with the proponent. You need to not just show me what you mean but also demonstrate the veracity of your many value-statements (‘idiotic’, ‘ill-informed’, ‘otherwise intelligent’) regarding those here who oppose your, I must say, rather orthodox Russian views about Putin and the church. Otherwise I have no reason to suppose you a rational being.

    So, prove something…

    Try to;
    Define what you mean before you start.
    Provide independently verifiable sources (a url will do) for the claims you make.
    As much as possible indicate sample sizes and data gathering techniques for opinions transmitted through and reported by you and held by all Russians.
    Explain your sources and their providences, including the funding channels of institutions and organisations.
    Provide positive data contradicting views you describe as erroneous.

    • In reply to #36 by Geoff 21:

      That which can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence. The burden of proof lies with the proponent. You need to not just show me what you mean but also demonstrate the veracity of your many value-statements (‘idiotic’, ‘ill-informed’, ‘otherwise intelligent’) regarding those here who oppose your, I must say, rather orthodox Russian views about Putin and the church. Otherwise I have no reason to suppose you a rational being.

      Well ditto.
      You really are an internet bore.

  9. MickeyDroy #37
    In reply to #36 by Geoff 21:

    "That which can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence. The burden of proof lies with the proponent. You need to not just show me what you mean but also demonstrate the veracity of your many value-statements ('idiotic', 'ill-informed', 'otherwise intelligent') regarding those here who oppose your, I must say, rather orthodox Russian views about Putin and the church. Otherwise I have no reason to suppose you a rational being."
    

    ‘Well ditto.
    You really are an internet bore.’

    The first sentence is a quotation. Google it and, while you are there, pick out for us ‘lies’ that, when the subject came up, Hitchens propagated about Putin.

    The subject is Pussy Riot and their treatment by the Russian state, which we know has been vicious and immoderate.

    Explain to me why it is just that the children of Maria Alyokhina and Nadezhda Tolokonnikova should be made to suffer so heavily for their mothers’ misdemeanour?

    “Even the anti-gay initiatives now can be seen as positive.” (…) “because no one (even) dared be seen out as gay in the 1990s.”

    So legislation to make a high-security closet and push them back in is positive, is it? I disagree and regard your stance as immoral.

    Sorry if this bores you.

    • In reply to #39 by Geoff 21:

      MickeyDroy #37
      In reply to #36 by Geoff 21:
      The subject is Pussy Riot and their treatment by the Russian state, which we know has been vicious and immoderate.

      You have evidence for that? No – you don’t even know who they are or what they did – or why other members of the same group have been released long ago.
      You are the one proponing here. I’m the one saying it is all bullshit without evidence. You don’t even understand the dialog you are entering into.

  10. MickeyDroy #38

    “Even the anti-gay initiatives now can be seen as positive.” (…) “because no one (even) dared be seen out as gay in the 1990s.”

    As in Martin Amis’s ‘Time’s Arrow’; this can only be seen as positive when the flow of time is reversed…

    • In reply to #41 by Geoff 21:

      MickeyDroy #38

      “Even the anti-gay initiatives now can be seen as positive.” (…) “because no one (even) dared be seen out as gay in the 1990s.”

      As in Martin Amis’s ‘Time’s Arrow’; this can only be seen as positive when the flow of time is reversed…

      LOL. And bonus points for the reference to Time’s Arrow, a great little book.

  11. “In reply to #39 by Geoff 21:

    MickeyDroy #37 In reply to #36 by Geoff 21: The subject is Pussy Riot and their treatment by the Russian state, which we know has been vicious and immoderate.
    

    You have evidence for that?”

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pussy_Riot

    seems as good a place as any…

    “No – you don’t even know who they are or what they did – or why other members of the same group have been released long ago. You are the one proponing here. I’m the one saying it is all bullshit without evidence. You don’t even understand the dialog you are entering into.”

    You still don’t quite understand; “who they are or what they do” is What? …that you regard as justifying these sentences?

    Certainly there are nuances to the situation but your ready resort to simple abuse (I’m honoured) and vague assertions based upon undisclosed, presumably moral, criticisms of these two women carries no weight until you say what was so bad about them.

    Let’s see from what altitude we are getting your ethical pespective Moses.

    • In reply to #44 by Geoff 21:

      “In reply to #39 by Geoff 21:
      You have evidence for that?”

      You have evidence for that?”

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pussy_Riot

      seems as good a place as any…

      Well done. Did you look up Soleas? You’ll be getting closer.
      did read about the members of Pussy riot and Voina (means war) and the museum? – the ones that are still under arrest, not the ones that are free?

      A bit more research and you’ll understand why this is not a topic that particularly interests an atheist site, and one that has been grossly represented in the press (and to some extent Wikipedia, thought there are at least factual).

      Like I have been saying, a bit of research and less blind faith in what you read will do you a lot of good.

  12. MickeyDroy
    46

    In reply to #44 by Geoff 21:

    “In reply to #39 by Geoff 21:

    You have evidence for that?”

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pussy_Riot

    seems as good a place as any…

    “Well done. Did you look up Soleas? You’ll be getting closer.”

    Since you think it important… from Wikipedia – ‘The soleas (Greek: σόλιον = Latin: solea meaning “an elevated place”) is an extension of the sanctuary platform in an Eastern Orthodox temple (church building). The soleas projects beyond the iconostasis, forming a narrow walkway running the full length of the iconostasis.[1][2]‘

    You seem to think altars are important and yet expect us to infer from this what that importance, and indeed relevance, is. At the risk of boring you, I repeat my enquiry – ‘from what altitude are we getting your ethical pespective?’ Are you sat on an altar?

    ” did read about the members of Pussy riot and Voina (means war) and the museum? – the ones that are still under arrest, not the ones that are free?”

    Yes. What about it?

    “A bit more research and you’ll understand why this is not a topic that particularly interests an atheist site”

    …and, of course, you would know.

    If you are to achieve any kind of credibility as an apologist for Putin’s demagoguery you should recognise that this site is atheist as one of the necessary consequences of a concern for Reason and Science. In apparent disagreement with you, we also care about justice.

    “, and one that has been grossly represented in the press (and to some extent Wikipedia, thought there are at least factual). Like I have been saying, a bit of research and less blind faith in what you read will do you a lot of good.”

    …well, you seem to specialise in ‘blind faith’… (evidence – remember?)

    It’s not going to work; trying to reverse the burden of proof. You have had many opportunities to respond to clear questions with specific facts and rational argument, and failed. Did they teach you nothing in Russia about freedom of expression and rational debate Your Eminence?

  13. BTW a little more research.
    There is no new law proposed against homosexuality in Russia – there is only an amendment against propaganda for under aged homosexual sex.
    And the vodka they are boycotting in the US turns out to be Latvian, not Russian.

    Now call me a liar if you like, but check out your own news services first.

Leave a Reply