August 18, 2012
Nadezhda Tolokonnikova's Concluding Statement
Over at Business Insider, a video and partial transcript of the closing statement from one of the defendants in the Pussy Riot blasphemy trial [h/t: Justin Smith]:
On 30th July, the first day of the trial, we presented our response to the accusations. Prior to that we were in prison, in confinement. We can’t do anything there. We can’t make statements. We can’t make films. We don’t have the internet in there. We can’t even give our lawyer a bit of paper because that’s banned too. Our first chance to speak came on 30th July. The document we’d written was read out by defence lawyer Volkov because the court refused outright to let the defendants speak. We called for contact and dialogue rather than conflict and opposition. We reached out a hand to those who, for some reason, assume we are their enemies. In response they laughed at us and spat in our outstretched hands. “You’re disingenuous,” they told us. But they needn’t have bothered. Don’t judge others by your own standards. We were always sincere in what we said, saying exactly what we thought, out of childish naïvety, sure, but we don’t regret anything we said, even on that day. We are reviled but we do not intend to speak evil in return. We are in desperate straits but do not despair. We are persecuted but not forsaken. It’s easy to humiliate and crush people who are open, but when I am weak, then I am strong.
Listen to us rather than to Arkady Mamontov talking about us. Don’t twist and distort everything we say. Let us enter into dialogue and contact with the country, which is ours too, not just Putin’s and the Patriarch’s. Like Solzhenitsyn, I believe that in the end, words will crush concrete. Solzhenitsyn wrote, “the word is more sincere than concrete, so words are not trifles. Once noble people mobilize, their words will crush concrete.”
Posted by Robin Varghese at 05:18 PM | Permalink






















Comments
That's enough to bring a person to tears. What brave souls. I hope they make it out of prison alive.
Posted by: Melody | Aug 18, 2012 10:11:18 PM
To be precise, they were not charged with blasphemy, but with hooliganism. Quite a different charge and not entirely unreasonable. Of course, their prosecution is completely politically-driven and the sentence ridiculously disproportional to the severity of their actions, but let's not blow the case out of proportion. It's objectionable as it is.
Posted by: MP | Aug 18, 2012 10:41:45 PM
Well, I think to be very precise, they were charged with "premeditated hooliganism performed by an organized group of people motivated by religious hatred or hostility".
Posted by: Robin Varghese | Aug 19, 2012 12:50:12 AM
They were protesting the status quo in the temple but with guitars, singing and dancing instead of turning over tables and flailing a whip of cords. In either case a matter of conscience.
Posted by: Jim | Aug 19, 2012 7:24:57 AM
...and courage.
Posted by: Jim | Aug 19, 2012 7:25:50 AM
When honest change comes about, it will be because of people like these. In every sphere of human activity, we need people who have this kind of spirit. I am reminded of Mandela speaking in similar circumstances. Thanks for posting this, 3qd!
Posted by: John Deakins | Aug 19, 2012 11:07:13 AM
These women were prosecuted because they are young women who have rejected the traditional role demanded from them by their society: that they be silent, obedient doormats, workers, and sex objects.
If some young men had done this, there would not have been a prosecution. The (need I mention male-dominated and woman-hating) church would have shooed them out, and that would have been the end of it. We all know how the churches love them some young cute males.
This prosecution is much more about gender than about insulting Putin (who is, after all, a brute and a thug) or insulting the church (which has disgraced itself by its support of Putin). This is about young women "talking back" to men. It's just that simple.
The world needs to support these young women and keep the pressure on. It's not just what they did (singing a song is hooliganism?), it's their gender, it's freedom of expression, it's the right to be creative and to speak your mind.
Everybody who says "they got what they deserved" is motivated by the typical harsh and punitive attitudes towards woman. She asked for it, she got what she deserved. A woman who does anything but stay at home and keep her mouth shut is, in the views of these people, deserving to be punished, raped or imprisoned. Possibly even murdered. That shows just how much hatred and rage there is in this world against women, often coming from women who submitted to their role long ago, and are angry to see young women who say "not me."
Posted by: NABNYC | Aug 19, 2012 2:38:06 PM
Putin is visibly a pathological narcissistic hooligan whose psychosexual confusion makes him see red whenever witnessing successful women acting as women --- such as secretly he’d like to be able to do.
Posted by: Félix E. F. Larocca, MD | Aug 19, 2012 6:39:56 PM
Great video. Thanks, Robin.
Posted by: VM | Aug 20, 2012 8:40:14 AM
" Quite a different charge and not entirely unreasonable."
It is indeed ENTIRELY unreasonable and to think otherwise is to support Putin.
Posted by: Melody | Aug 20, 2012 9:40:03 AM
Okay, Melody, so if my punk band barges into St. Patrick's in NYC and plays a few songs uninvited, that's not any sort of crime whatsoever?
The problem here is the exaggerated sentences, not the idea that this was a crime at all. It should be treated as a misdemeanor, with either probation or a brief fine, maybe a month in jail tops.
Posted by: Anderson | Aug 20, 2012 12:01:00 PM
Anderson: what crime is it that you think was committed? Nobody says they barged in uninvited. Most churches are open to the public. So it's not trespass.
The entire performance lasted 90 seconds, so you can't really say 90 seconds of singing a song rises to the level of disturbing the peace.
No, the only "offense" these young women committed was to express themselves in opposition to the thug Putin and the disgraceful church that backs him. That's not a crime. It's political speech.
Really, you act as if people need "permission" from the state to open their mouths. They don't. They don't need permission from a religious leader to open their mouths inside a church. You've got it all backwards. People are born with the absolute right to speak or sing, to write, to communicate their views. Yes, there are private rules about who speaks and when inside the church, but that's not a criminal law.
The desire to declare communication to be "criminal" simply because the state or a religion does not approve is the essence of a dictatorship and police state. Your thinking is backwards.
Posted by: NABNYC | Aug 20, 2012 4:11:50 PM
It's happening here, too. Just no long prison sentence.
http://sunsara.blogspot.com/
Posted by: Louise Gordon | Aug 20, 2012 4:43:11 PM
Post a comment