Russian MPs back harsher anti-blasphemy law

[klr]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-22090308

Russian MPs have given initial approval to an anti-blasphemy law with tougher jail terms or fines for anyone found guilty of offending religious feelings.

The bill was drafted last year after the punk band Pussy Riot performed a protest song against President Vladimir Putin in Moscow's main cathedral.

Two Pussy Riot members are now serving prison terms in remote penal colonies.

The bill says blasphemy could incur up to three years in jail or a fine of up to 300,000 roubles ($9,700;£6,300).

'Historical inheritance'

Russian commentators say the bill appears to have strong backing from Mr Putin. It was passed by the Duma - Russia's lower house - in a first reading on Tuesday.

To become law it has to pass two more readings in the Duma, then a vote in the upper house - the Federation Council - and get a final sign-off by Mr Putin. The entire parliament is dominated by Mr Putin's supporters.

The text refers to offences against religions that are "an integral part of Russia's historical inheritance" - implying that it covers Christianity, Islam, Judaism and Buddhism.

Last August two Pussy Riot performers - Maria Alyokhina and Nadezhda Tolokonnikova - were sentenced to two years each in jail for "hooliganism motivated by religious hatred" over their obscenity-laced "punk prayer" against Mr Putin.

The sentences provoked widespread international condemnation.

Human rights activists and some critics of the new anti-blasphemy bill in the Duma say its wording is too vague and could lead to unjustified prosecutions.

Yuri Sinelshchikov, a Communist MP and former prosecutor, warned that it could provoke "an outburst of combative atheism, in its most aggressive form, and enmity between believers and non-believers".

Some human rights activists warned that "insults to believers" might include the teaching of Darwin's theory of evolution or the Big Bang theory about the universe.

A co-author of the bill, Yaroslav Nilov of the nationalist Liberal Democrats (LDPR), insisted that the text would be amended before the next Duma votes.

[Thinking Aloud]

Let's just move all the non-religious (and sane) people to the Republic of Rationalia, and be done with the rest of the world.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Let's just move all the non-religious (and sane) people to the Republic of Rationalia, and be done with the rest of the world.

How about Thinkingaloudistan?

[JimC]

Power-hungry elitist styles of government and established religions are natural allies...

[orpheus]

Human rights activists and some critics of the new anti-blasphemy bill in the Duma say its wording is too vague and could lead to unjustified prosecutions.

This is the part that worries me. It implies that there could be such a thing as a justified prosecution. Human rights activists should know better than to agree that any prosecutions could be justified. They're not protesting the law itself. In essence, they're agreeing that prosecuting someone who doesn't break the law is unjustified, but that the law itself is okay. They're agreeing that it's justified to prosecute those who blaspheme.

[Robert_S]

Human rights activists and some critics of the new anti-blasphemy bill in the Duma say its wording is too vague and could lead to unjustified prosecutions.

This is the part that worries me. It implies that there could be such a thing as a justified prosecution. Human rights activists should know better than to agree that any prosecutions could be justified. They're not protesting the law itself. In essence, they're agreeing that prosecuting someone who doesn't break the law is unjustified, but that the law itself is okay. They're agreeing that it's justified to prosecute those who blaspheme.

Ya gotta respect the cultural sensitivities.

[JimC]

Human rights activists and some critics of the new anti-blasphemy bill in the Duma say its wording is too vague and could lead to unjustified prosecutions.

This is the part that worries me. It implies that there could be such a thing as a justified prosecution. Human rights activists should know better than to agree that any prosecutions could be justified. They're not protesting the law itself. In essence, they're agreeing that prosecuting someone who doesn't break the law is unjustified, but that the law itself is okay. They're agreeing that it's justified to prosecute those who blaspheme.

Good point, but the political realities there may be that tightening the wording is simply the best they can do...