Liberty under threat in Russia

19.06.2004 - By ANDREW OSBORN

The day the Soviet flag rattled down the Kremlin flagpole for the last time was supposed to be the day when Russians won what they had been deprived of for more than 70 years: freedom.

But, 13 years later, freedom, if human rights activists are to be believed, is once again under attack and Russia's government is once again embracing authoritarianism.

This week has seen two court cases, one involving artistic and religious freedom, and the other an onslaught on the freedom to take part in politics and criticise the Kremlin.

Modern art often shocks, but its creators are not usually thrown into jail, particularly in self-proclaimed democracies. But in Vladimir Putin's Russia, wannabe artists must tread carefully.

This week two museum workers and an artist went on trial in Moscow for inciting religious hatred. The main defendant in the case could face up to five years in prison if found guilty, be fined up to 500,000 roubles ($27,100) and be banned from holding a position of responsibility for a further five years.

His crime: staging an exhibition of modern art which focused on Jesus Christ and the increasingly powerful Russian Orthodox Church.

The exhibition, Ostorojno religiya! (Beware religion!), shocked and angered the church's followers (who technically account for almost two-thirds of Russia's 144 million population) when it opened in January last year. It was provocative and uncompromising.

One piece, a poster by a Russian-born American artist called Alexander Kosolapov, had an image of Jesus in a doctored Coca-Cola advertisement poster with the legend "This is my blood". Another, by an artist called Alina Gurevich, featured a church made from vodka bottles in an overt dig at the tax exemption the church used to benefit from when it came to selling alcohol.

A piece by an artist called Alisa Zrazhevskaya gave a controversial twist to the traditional Russian religious symbol of an icon. In fairground style, the artist removed the saint's head, hands and Bible and invited the public to put their own head and hands through the holes. Inscribed on the installation was the word "vipers".

The exhibition included the work of 40 artists and was held in Moscow's Andrei Sakharov museum, an institution that was founded to champion human rights and promote democracy as espoused by its namesake, the late Soviet dissident and Nobel peace prize-winner.

Supposed to stimulate debate about religion and fanaticism, it quickly whipped up a storm of protest. Six Orthodox followers used paint and their fists to damage many of the installations. Two of the men later stood trial for vandalism, but were acquitted and hailed as heroes by the Church.

Then the tables were turned. The lower house of parliament passed a resolution urging the authorities to investigate whether the exhibition itself had incited religious hatred and to "take the necessary measures".

A special commission found that was the effect of the art. The Russian prosecutor's office swiftly drew up charges. Three people were charged - Yuri Samodurov, head of the museum, a museum employee called Ludmila Vasilovskaya, and one of the offending artists, a painter called Anna Mikhailchuk.

MPs have said that artists need to learn that there are limits to freedom of expression and Church leaders have denounced the exhibition as "an insult". Human rights groups have claimed, however, that the case is a throwback to Soviet times, when the state banned certain forms of art and bulldozed exhibitions it didn't like.

"This court case, this absurd and highly shameful court case launched against the organisers of the exhibition, is a demand for a return to censorship," said Ludmila Alexeyeva, chairwoman of the Moscow Helsinki Group.

"This trial, for the first time since the Soviet era, is a trial of ideology," said Lev Ponomarov, head of the All Russian Movement for Human Rights.

"The state is on the side of the Orthodox radicals, who are hooligans. It is very important that we win this case," Samodurov said. He is pleading innocent, along with his co-accused, and has made it clear that he finds the charges preposterous.

"If what the Church believes to be blasphemy is seen as a crime in a secular state, it means that this is a political trial. I realised it [religion] was a contentious topic, but I thought we could discuss it openly." The exhibition, he added, was not anti-religion.

Banned under Communism, the Orthodox Church has enjoyed a quiet renaissance since the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991 under its septuagenarian leader, Patriarch Alexy II.

It enjoys the backing of Putin and his wife, Ludmila, and many of its ultra-conservative views about rival religions and moral values are supported by nationalist politicians.

For many, however, the trial is merely the latest example of the government manipulating the Russian legal system to curtail people's freedom.

On Tuesday the trial of Russia's richest man, Mikhail Khodorkovsky, got under way in Moscow. It was immediately adjourned to allow a member of the defence team to recover from surgery. But defence lawyers describe proceedings as a show trial and say their client will be convicted. Human rights activists say that freedom will once again be under attack.

In this case, it is the freedom to dabble in politics, something Khodorkovsky decided to do with the US$15 billion ($24 billion) he is estimated to have amassed through often dubious means in the post-Soviet meltdown.

The former head of Yukos, Russia's largest domestic oil producer, stands accused of tax evasion and embezzlement of US$1 billion ($1.6 billion). The prosecution has hinted he may even be implicated in a murder conspiracy.

The Kremlin insists there is nothing political about the case but human rights groups have thrown themselves behind his cause, even though few ordinary Russians (who fared badly in the 1990s when he was making his fortune) sympathise.

"For our country this case is symbolic," Alexeyeva said.

She argued that Putin was using the courts and his unassailable position to roll back hard-won freedoms and that Khodorkovsky's prosecution was part of a much bigger pattern.

A new law to radically restrict public meetings and political protests is a case in point, she adds, as is a draft plan on restricting and controlling use of the internet.

"This tendency is not new. It appeared during the shooting on the Russian parliament and the disbanding of the Supreme Soviet. But during the Yeltsin years it was not systematic, since with Yeltsin nothing was systematic. With Putin, however, everything is a system and everything is moving towards eliminating our civil rights and liberties," she said.

Human rights activists say the warning signs are everywhere. They cite the sacking of a prominent television presenter who was felt to be overly critical of the Kremlin; the draconian sentencing this year of a researcher, Igor Sutyagin, to 15 years in jail for spying; and a decision this month by the Supreme Court to overturn the acquittal of another alleged spy.

"The Khodorkovsky case should be considered against the larger background of Russian reality which is constantly changing. And the direction of that change is making us worry about where Russia is going," said Anna Neistat, director of the Russian branch of Human Rights Watch.

The billionaire's case is unlikely to be straightforward; the indictment against him runs to 800 pages. The stakes for Khodorkovsky, 40, could not be higher. If found guilty, he could face 10 years in a labour camp. He is also expected to be forced to surrender shares in Yukos, opening the door to some form of state intervention in the oil firm.

Nor are Khodorkovsky's sins unique; all the barons who flourished in Russia in the 1990s used the same tricks and still do. Stephen O'Sullivan, head of research at the United Financial Group, says two other oil companies - Chelsea owner Roman Abramovich's Sibneft, and TNK, a joint venture with BP - use the same tax avoidance techniques as Yukos.

"This [prosecution] seems to be very selective. None of the other people who used the same tax minimisation schemes have been targeted," he said.

Khodorkovsky's real sin was betrayal. When Putin came to power in 2000 he allegedly struck a deal with the country's super-rich: you stay out of politics and I'll keep my nose out of your businesses. But Khodorkovsky paid no heed. Instead he poured money into opposition parties, and a newspaper hinted he had presidential ambitions and might sell off part of his oil empire to ExxonMobil, a move that would hand control of Russia's natural resources to a foreign firm.

The other oligarchs, who made their fortunes by exploiting their contacts and the country's natural resources in a legally grey fashion, will be watching his trial closely as the sands of Russian history shift yet again.