BBC Sherlock Fan Forum - Serving Sherlockians since February 2012 » Chit-chat

221B Baker Street · August 21, 2012 11:56 pm

hepzibah wrote:
Sammy wrote:
Hepzibah, I approve of your icon
Thanks, Sammy. Freedom of speech is one of the most basic of human rights.

Freedom of speech has nothing to do with Pussy Riot's sentencing to jail. One may express himself in all possible ways. But these girls chose not a simple place, they did it in a church. A church is not a street or a square, it is a temple. I am not the faithful one but I do have respect for those who believe in God. And I believe every single well-bread person does the same.
These girls are not blamed for singing anti-Puting song, but for desecration of a temple and insulting the feelings of the faithful.

ancientsgate · August 22, 2012 12:14 am

221B Baker Street wrote:
Freedom of speech has nothing to do with Pussy Riot's sentencing to jail. One may express himself in all possible ways. But these girls chose not a simple place, they did it in a church. A church is not a street or a square, it is a temple. I am not the faithful one but I do have respect for those who believe in God. And I believe every single well-bread person does the same. These girls are not blamed for singing anti-Putin song, but for desecration of a temple and insulting the feelings of the faithful.

Here in the US, we often walk a fine line between being allowed to do our thing and getting flat-out arrested. We have the Constitutional guarantee to peaceably assemble, but one man's idea of peaceable may not be another's. Pretty much, we can march and carry on about issues in public, but only if we're on public land, only if we don't disturb the peace (noise after 11PM, shouting obscenities, obscene images or words on placards, shouting hate epithets, blocking traffic, blocking sidewalks, public drunkenness) and only if we're not making loud slanderous remarks about private citizens. So there is a line.

Here in the US, churches and other places of worship would be considered private property-- the buildings, the parking lots, the land, and so anyone trying to protest there would find the cops called, definitely. And if the protestors/vandals came inside and did property damage or threatened people, etc, there could be really serious charges filed against them, no matter if it was anti-Obama speech or about anything else.

So freedom of speech is very important, but so is freedom from being threatened, interfered with, or put in harm's way by those who are doing the protesting. Our laws have to find that balance between allowing free speech and protecting the privacy and safety of the public.

But I did find the images of the women's court appearances quite disturbing. They were caged, like animals. I realize that's probably just what they do to prisoners in that society, but still, I found it off-putting in the extreme. I guess I was more startled/surprised than anything.

Last edited by ancientsgate (August 22, 2012 12:16 am)

221B Baker Street · August 22, 2012 12:18 am

ancientsgate wrote:
I don't know too much about Pussy Riot and their troubles, but-- I think I heard they got two years in prison? Good grief. But the images I saw on the TV news were disturbing-- three women in a small cage, looking like animals in a zoo. I know their society is not mine, their culture is not mine, etc, but I can't remember the last time I saw human beings locked up like animals like that. Disturbing doesn't even cover it. It made me actually sit there and thank the good Lord all over again for my country and the basic rights I'm afforded.

Those three women are not so poor as you might think. And you didn't see the video of how they were grinning and laughing in everybody's faces while being accused. There was a chance for them to avoid sentencing at all in case they apologize to all the faithful for choosing the wrong place for their protest. But they just smirked.
I think the foreign press puts the situation in the wrong light. It has nothing to do with human rights. Please, don't think that Russia is a country where nobody can say what he thinks. Everybody has a right to do so and he won't be sentenced to prison for that.
The problem in Pussy Riot's case is the place of their protest and their disgusting behavior after all.
We are not as strict as Muslims but we do respect faith.

And these girls already have showed their disgrace before. One of them had sex in a museum while being pregnant, and there were lots of children there at the time. What kind of protest it was? It's just absence of mind and showing off.

221B Baker Street · August 22, 2012 12:28 am

ancientsgate wrote:
Here in the US, churches and other places of worship would be considered private property-- the buildings, the parking lots, the land, and so anyone trying to protest there would find the cops called, definitely. And if the protestors/vandals came inside and did property damage or threatened people, etc, there could be really serious charges filed against them, no matter if it was anti-Obama speech or about anything else.

That's the point. We have the same in Russia. They were doing it in a church. It doesn't matter that they sang anti-Putin song. They did it in a place of worship and hurt feelings of the people who was there at that moment.

ancientsgate · August 22, 2012 1:45 am

221B Baker Street wrote:
those three women are not so poor as you might think. And you didn't see the video of how they were grinning and laughing in everybody's faces while being accused. There was a chance for them to avoid sentencing at all in case they apologize to all the faithful for choosing the wrong place for their protest. But they just smirked. I think the foreign press puts the situation in the wrong light. It has nothing to do with human rights. Please, don't think that Russia is a country where nobody can say what he thinks. Everybody has a right to do so and he won't be sentenced to prison for that.The problem in Pussy Riot's case is the place of their protest and their disgusting behavior after all.We are not as strict as Muslims but we do respect faith.And these girls already have showed their disgrace before. One of them had sex in a museum while being pregnant, and there were lots of children there at the time. What kind of protest it was? It's just absence of mind and showing off.

Yeah, I saw them laughing and smiling in court. Obviously, they have no respect or empathy for others, but I guess that's true for radicals everywhere; here in the US, we have our KKK and crazy "religious" leaders who make their believers drink the Kool-Aid, in more ways than one, so we are certainly not immune. The video I saw of the court scenes were not manipulated, so I don't think we can blame the "foreign press" for what I saw-- three people in a cage, surrounded by court security officers who were facing them, rather than the room at large. In one instance, it was a wood frame and glass panel cage. In the other, the cage was like an animal cage, made of white iron bars. It was those images that disturbed me.

ancientsgate · August 22, 2012 1:50 am

221B Baker Street wrote:
They were doing it in a church. It doesn't matter that they sang anti-Putin song. They did it in a place of worship and hurt feelings of the people who was there at that moment.

They got two years in prison for that? Was there property damage? Were there people who got physically hurt?
Unless there were other charges of which I am unaware, two years for going into a church and protesting something seems a bit severe. ????

221B Baker Street · August 22, 2012 4:22 am

ancientsgate wrote:
221B Baker Street wrote:
They were doing it in a church. It doesn't matter that they sang anti-Putin song. They did it in a place of worship and hurt feelings of the people who was there at that moment.
They got two years in prison for that? Was there property damage? Were there people who got physically hurt?
Unless there were other charges of which I am unaware, two years for going into a church and protesting something seems a bit severe. ????

Should people be physically hurt so that justice come? Don't we take into account moral hurt?
If it happened in a Muslim country I can't even imagine what could happen to those girls (I do not approve of violence though).
Perhaps 2 years are a little bit more that nesessary, but on the whole I do agree with the sentence as it would be a good lesson for these girls and for those who want to repeat such protest in a sacred place.
And yes, a church is not a good place for "protesting something". Especially taking into account that they are not teenagers and take responsibility for their actions.

P.S. I know churches in America are quite different from ours. You may sing merry songs there (I might be wrong but at least I saw it in American films). It is different in Russia, it is stricter, it is our culture and we don't want some people go and defile it just to "protest something".

Last edited by 221B Baker Street (August 22, 2012 4:35 am)

SusiGo · August 22, 2012 6:41 am

It's very interesting to hear your opinion as a Russian, 221B, because we don't get much of this in the new coverage over here. For me the most important question is if they were sentenced because they hurt the religious feelings of other people and desecrated a church or because they protested against Putin. I think in your country it is quite dangerous to criticise Putin and that people in Western countries might regard this sentence as a form of censorship and restriction of the freedom of opinion. If you did such a thing in Germany protesting against Angela Merkel I suppose you would be sentenced because of trespass or something like that but not because you criticised the Chancellor.

221B Baker Street · August 22, 2012 7:04 am

SusiGo wrote:
It's very interesting to hear your opinion as a Russian, 221B, because we don't get much of this in the new coverage over here. For me the most important question is if they were sentenced because they hurt the religious feelings of other people and desecrated a church or because they protested against Putin. I think in your country it is quite dangerous to criticise Putin and that people in Western countries might regard this sentence as a form of censorship and restriction of the freedom of opinion. If you did such a thing in Germany protesting against Angela Merkel I suppose you would be sentenced because of trespass or something like that but not because you criticised the Chancellor.

Putin is being criticized a lot nowadays in Russia, but nobody is sent to prison for that. If everybody making a speech against Putin is sent to prison, half of Russia's population will have been imprisoned now)). But it is not so.
The main reason is that it is not their first attempt to protest in an 'unsuitable' place. When one does something wrong he is warned for the first time, for the second attempt he is given a fine, for the third attempt he is considered to get stricter punishment. I think it is a usual practice in the whole world.
The second reason is, you were right, because "they hurt the religious feelings of other people and desecrated a church".

Last edited by 221B Baker Street (August 22, 2012 7:05 am)

SusiGo · August 22, 2012 7:08 am

Thank you very much for the explanation. Again, it's interesting to hear this from someone actually living in the country.

ancientsgate · August 22, 2012 8:18 am

221B Baker Street wrote:
P.S. I know churches in America are quite different from ours. You may sing merry songs there (I might be wrong but at least I saw it in American films). It is different in Russia, it is stricter, it is our culture and we don't want some people go and defile it just to "protest something".

The US does not have an official state church-- our country was founded in part because people wanted to escape the persecution of the ruling kings and their churches in Europe, back in the 1600s-- but of course that was a long time ago. We have a deep tradition of "do your own thing" (or don't do anything at all )here as regards religion, and it's a right that's protected by law for us.

The 1st amendment of our Constitution reads, in part Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof Therefore we are all free to practice any form of any religion we want, or none at all. No religion/faith/denomination is controlled in any way by the government-- you have probably heard about our dedication to the idea of the separation of church and state.

Merry songs? You have probably seen movies showing mostly southern black congregations, most of whom are made up of Christians who enjoy the music of their traditions. That certainly is a form of worship in our country. But goodness, we have everything here-- Christians of all persuasions, from the loudest, most free, most vocal, most music-filled evangelicals, all the way to the mostly silent, somber, very traditional congregations who sit on their hands and barely speak or move during services. Mormons, Jehovah's Witnesses, Roman Catholics, Greek Orthodox, Russian Orthodox, on and on it goes. My own church is "interdenominational"-- about half of our congregation used to be Catholic. As you can imagine, we're a mixed-up but happy crowd! Hindus, Buddhists, Muslims, Jews, all of the major religions have found a home in our country.

Legally, "churches" here are just buildings, parking lots and land. They are not taxed by the government (centuries of tradition there-- some think they should be taxed, but they are not). They are treated like any other private property by the police and other government officialdom. When it comes to law enforcement, they get no special treatment, but they are afforded the rights of any other private entity. Someone breaking into them and doing harm would not be treated any differently than someone who had broken into a movie theater, an office building, a store, or a private home. Trespassing, threatening others, destroying physical property, killing people, etc, is treated just the same for a church as it would be if the incident had happened in a store or a private home, or if it happened out in the street somewhere.

Back to the US Constitution again, we have the 8th amendment, which reads in part Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted In other words, a judge cannot sentence someone to two years in jail for going into a church and acting crazy, saying crazy stuff, and being a pain in the ass. Not the first time they do it, anyway. If the person shows himself to be a habitual offender and makes a habit of such things, yes, he might eventually find himself with a two year sentence on his hands. But the first time? More probable is having to pay any court costs, coming away with a criminal "record" of the guilty finding, possibly paying a fine, possibly being sentenced to community service (this could be sweeping streets, helping at homeless shelters, working at soup kitchens, cleaning government offices at night, etc), and if any jail time is ordered, it might already have been served while waiting for trial. As I say, only if the person continued doing whatever it was and was found guilty in successive incidents would the punishment level be increased. By the 8th amendment, the punishment must "fit" the crime, in every case.

I believe your laws protect your churches in ways ours are not protected-- ours are treated like any other public entity, while yours have provisions for "hooliganism motivated by religious hatred (Article 213.2 of the Criminal Code)", which is the law that Pussy Riot was found guilty of breaking.

We have so-called hate crime laws, some of which vary somewhat, according to what state the crime was committed in. Those laws exist to protect a person, business, institution, or society as a whole. They are designed to increase the punishment that judges can dole out for various crimes, if the person(s) are found guilty of being motivated by their victim's race, religion, ethnicity, nationality, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, or disability. Beating up someone is against the law, for instance, but if a hate crime can be proven on top of everything else-- perhaps if the victim was attacked only because he was gay or in a wheelchair or a certain race or came from a certain country or practiced a certain religion, then the criminal can get punished more severely. AFAIK, we don't have specific laws that only protect churches or religions or the faithful who attend services-- their protection is lumped in along with others in the hate laws. I could be wrong about this, but not that I've ever heard of.

Thanks for this interesting discussion. I am of course in no way surprised that our thinking about this is kind of different-- our history, laws, traditions, and sensibilities are very different, just because we live on opposite sides of the world! I hope the moderators are not disturbed by this dialogue-- we have both tried to stay respectful, IMO, and I for one have enjoyed learning a bit about Russia's take on the Pussy Riot incident.

Last edited by ancientsgate (August 22, 2012 8:30 am)

221B Baker Street · August 22, 2012 9:06 am

ancientsgate, I see your point. It was very interesting to get to know so many things about churches and how are they treated by people and law in America. Here in Russia we have more sensible perception of religion and everything connected with it. Perhaps it is up to our history where church played very significant role even in political processes. I do believe that you're right saying that every country is unique and things are taken differently by every single person due to the cultural and mentality background .

I also hope our discussion won't get on moderators' nerves. It was a pleasure to me to talk to you too!

221B Baker Street · August 22, 2012 9:11 am

SusiGo wrote:
Thank you very much for the explanation. Again, it's interesting to hear this from someone actually living in the country.

You are always welcome! I believe I have expressed the opinion of the most people in Russia on the above mentioned situation.

ancientsgate · August 22, 2012 9:15 am

221B Baker Street wrote:
ancientsgate, I see your point. It was very interesting to get to know so many things about churches and how are they treated by people and law in America. Here in Russia we have more sensible perception of religion and everything connected with it. Perhaps it is up to our history where church played very significant role even in political processes. I do believe that you're right saying that every country is unique and things are taken differently by every single person due to the cultural and mentality background .
I also hope our discussion won't get on moderators' nerves. It was a pleasure to me to talk to you too!

Our history began with people running away from King and church, lol. So when our founding fathers made up our first laws, they were very careful to keep church over there *points one way* and the government over there *points the other way*. I don't know if that makes us unique in the world or not.

hepzibah · August 22, 2012 10:36 am

Hi Marina
I didn't mean to cause any offense. We will just have to agree to disagree about the issue.

I have been watching a British series on TV, hosted by Jonathan Dimbleby, about Russia and it looks like a beautiful, wonderful place and I would love to visit it one day.

Every country has their issues. I am an Australian and our international profile at the moment is all about Julian Assange. I would love to get hold of him and give him a smack across the back of the head for his ongoing idiocy!

Best wishes
Helen

Davina · August 22, 2012 12:15 pm

This Moderator is fine about the discussion. In fact I deliberately held my counsel to see what would come of it all.

Having studied American history i can appreciate the US point-of-view in this particular case. I have also, however, studied Russian history (inparticular Soviet history) and likewise can see why such activities within a sacred building should be unpopular with and shocking to a majority of Russians.

I have no great religious faith myself but I can see why the protesters deserve some form of punishment however,I also feel that the punishment meted out is excessive.

Freedom of speech is an important human right but there are balances that have to be made. This is true of all the varied countries that we live in. With rights go responsibilities.

I think everyone here has conducted themselves admirably and shown mutual respect.

Finally I quote from the New Testament, 'Let he who is without sin cast the first stone.'

221B Baker Street · August 23, 2012 3:21 am

hepzibah, there is no offense at all. I surely understand that everybody has his/her own opinion, I just expressed my point of view and you expressed yours *giving a flower*.

Davina, I'm glad too that everything was amiable and especially this forum shall be only a pleasure, as we gathered here because of such a wonderful thing, named Ben .

Davina · August 23, 2012 4:55 am

And Martin because he is make of kittens and jam. Oh and Mark because he is made of cake. Oh and Andrew because he is a cutie too.

SusiGo · August 23, 2012 6:08 am

What about poor Greg? What's he made of?

hepzibah · August 23, 2012 6:23 am

Rupert Graves is good at football and has five children...

http://thesherlockfandom.tumblr.com/post/11249672972/tell-us-about-rupert-graves-benedict