| A controversial presidential bill on combating
extremism was pushed through the State Duma by On June 6 the Duma
resolutely voted in favour of a law to counter
extremism in the first reading. The law was passed despite its
clearly
draft" nature and the views of some parties that this law
could be used
to put pressure on parties and social movements. The political
situation
in Russia was seen to demand it.
The president's annual address to parliament this April represented
the
first time that the issue of countering such an aspect of contemporary
youth culture as the radically xenophobic skinhead movement had
been
raised at the highest level. Within a month, the law was ready
and was
submitted to the Duma under the "presidential" stamp.
This stamp actually
means one thing: that the law had been drawn up by the Presidential
Administration. However, this magic word exerts considerable influence
on
Duma deputies and senators, and such laws are almost always passed.
Many deputies (both left and right) were indignant that the law
had been
modified from its focus on extremists to a law against parties
and social
movements. During the debate, Duma deputies reminded presidential
representative Alexander Kotenkov 24 times of the need to define
precisely the "flexible" concept of extremism by the
second reading.
At present, in the current version of the law, "hindering
the legal
activity of federal and local authorities" is interpreted
as extremism.
The Communists offered extremely strong resistance to this. They
cited
possible examples of a broad interpretation of such a law: "What
if
people strike for a pay rise, and then we and the trade unions
join them
- what will follow? Shall our party be shut down then?"
The paragraph establishing the bodies that can issue warnings
to
organizations, or submit evidence in favour of banning a party
to courts,
was challenged; as besides the judiciary, the prosecutor's office,
and
the Interior Ministry (optional), there was also the phrase "other
bodies". However, Kotenkov clarified that this referred to
the courts -
only the courts would have the power to ban an organization from
operating, and not the Justice Ministry. Neither the
methods nor the terms were specified in the section on suspending
a
movement's operation. Vadim Bulavinov of the People's Deputy faction
expressed concern about legislative measures to avoid abuse of
power by
the authorities when banning organizations.
The Union of RIght-Wing Forces deputy leader Boris Nadezhdin
pointed out
to his colleagues another clause of the bill, which didn't escape
his
lawyer's eye: the elimination of all organizations assisting a
banned
party or movement.
In his opinion, this means "the bank where an extremist
organization has
its account, a company which leases office space to it, or media
outlets
which provide broadcasting time or print space" could be
prohibited.
During the debate, some perplexed deputies kept saying:
"So it seems we are to pass a law against ourselves?"
Sergei Popov of the Yabloko faction, a lawyer from St. Petersburg,
was
the only one to note that the law is not as indispensable as it
seems, as
its basic standards are already set out in the Criminal Code and
the
Criminal-Procedural Code. However, for some reason they are not
applied.
Nevertheless, the factions voted in favour of the law, as they
perceived
some positive aspects: "the problems have been defined for
the first
time", "the lack of an integral law until now",
"the law is designed to
warn, rather than suppress extremism." Eventually, the lower
house was
convinced: and 271 deputies voted in favour of the bill (a minimum
of 226
was required).
The Communists and Agrarians voted against: there was also a
split in
the ranks of the right. The centrist factions didn't hesitate.
Vladislav
Reznik, a member of the Unity faction, said: "No time should
be spent on
discussions about rising fascism; it is high time to use power."
| 