Pussy Riot!

A Punk Prayer for Freedom

Pussy Riot

• Publisher: The Feminist Press at CUNY
• Year: 2012
• ISBN:
  9781558618336
• Topic: Medien & darstellende Kunst
• Subtopic: Punkmusik

Letters from prison, songs, poems, and courtroom statements, plus tributes to the Russian punk band that shook the world. On February 21, 2012, five members of a Russian feminist punk collective Pussy Riot staged a performance in the Cathedral of Christ the Savior in Moscow. Dressed in brightly colored tights and balaclavas, they performed their "Punk Prayer" asking the Virgin Mary to drive out Russian president Vladimir Putin from the church. After just forty seconds, they were chased out by security. Once a retooled video of the events circulated on YouTube (edited to seem much longer than the actual performance), the state was riled into action. Three members of the collective, Maria Alyokhina, Nadezhda Tolokonnikova, and Yekaterina Samutsevich, known as Masha, Nadya, and Katya, were arrested and charged with felony hooliganism motivated by religious hatred, an offense carrying a sentence of up to seven years. As their trial unfolded, these young women became global feminist icons, garnering the attention and support of activists and artists around the world, including Madonna, Paul McCartney, and Sting, as well as contributors to this book: Yoko Ono, Johanna Fateman, Karen Finley, Justin Vivian Bond, Eileen Myles, and JD Samson. The Internet exploded with petitions, music videos, and calls to action, and as the guilty verdict was anticipated, Pussy Riot responded with articulate, unwavering courtroom statements, calling for freedom of expression, an end to economic and gender oppression, and a separation of church and state. They were sentenced to two years in prison, and inspired a global movement. Collected here are the words that roused the world.

Closing Courtroom Statement by Nadya

By and large, the three members of Pussy Riot are not the ones on trial here. If we were, this event would hardly be so significant. This is a trial of the entire political system of the Russian Federation, which, to its great misfortune, enjoys showing the state’s cruelty toward the individual, and its indifference toward human honor and dignity, repeating all of the worst moments of Russian history. To my deep regret, this poor excuse for a judicial process approaches Stalin’s troikas. We too have only an interrogator, a judge, and a prosecutor. Furthermore, this repressive act is based on political orders from above that completely dictate the words, deeds, and decisions of these three judicial figures.

What was behind our performance at the Cathedral of Christ the Savior and the subsequent trial? Nothing other than the autocratic political system. Pussy Riot’s performances can either be called dissident art, or political action that engages art forms. Either way, our performances are a kind of civic activity amidst the repressions of a corporate political system that directs its power against basic human rights, and civil and political liberties. The young people who have been flayed by the systematic eradication of freedoms perpetrated during the aughts have now risen against the state. We were searching for real sincerity and simplicity, and we found these qualities in the yurodstvo [the holy foolishness] of punk.

Passion, total honesty, and naïveté are superior to the hypocrisy, mendacity, and false modesty that are used to disguise crime. The so-called leading figures of our state stand in the cathedral with righteous faces on, but, through their cunning, their sin is greater than our own. We put on political punk performances in response to a government that is rife with rigidity, reticence, and caste-like hierarchical structures. It is so clearly invested in serving only narrow corporate interests, it makes us sick just to breathe Russian air. We categorically oppose the following, and this forces us to act and live politically: The use of coercive and forceful methods for regulating social processes, a situation in which the most important political institutions are the disciplinary structures of the state; the security agencies (the army, police, and secret services), and their corresponding means of ensuring political “stability” (prisons, pre-emptive detention, all the mechanisms of strict control over the citizenry); forcibly imposed civic passivity among the majority of the population; the complete dominance of the executive branch over the legislative and judicial branches.

Moreover, we are deeply frustrated by the scandalous dearth of political culture, which comes as the result of fear and is kept down through the conscious efforts of the government and its servants (Patriarch Kirill: “Orthodox Christians do not attend rallies”), and by the scandalous weakness of horizontal ties within our society. We do not like that the state so easily manipulates public opinion by means of its strict control over the majority of media outlets (a particularly vivid example of this manipulation is the unprecedentedly insolent and distorted campaign against Pussy Riot appearing in practically every Russian media outlet).

Despite the fact that we find ourselves in an essentially authoritarian situation, living under authoritarian rule, I see this system crumbling in the face of three members of Pussy Riot. What the system anticipated did not occur. Russia does not condemn us, and with each passing day, more and more people believe in us and believe that we should be free, and not behind bars. I see this in the people I meet. I meet people who work for the system, who work in its institutions; I see people who are incarcerated. Every day I meet our supporters who wish us luck and, above all, freedom. They say what we did was justified. More and more people tell us that although they earlier had doubts about whether we had the right to do what we did, with each passing day, more and more people tell us that time has shown that our political gesture was correct—that we opened the wounds of this political system, and struck directly at the hornet’s nest, so they came after us, but we. . . .

These people try to relieve our suffering as much they can, and we are very grateful to them. We are also grateful to everyone who speaks out in support of us on the outside. There are many supporters, and I know it. I know that a great number of Orthodox Christians speak out on our behalf, the ones who gather near the court in particular. They pray for us; they pray for the imprisoned members of Pussy Riot. We’ve seen the little booklets the Orthodox hand out that contain prayers for the imprisoned. This fact alone demonstrates that there is no single, unified group of Orthodox believers, as the prosecutor would like to insist. Such a unified group does not exist. Today, more and more believers have come to the defense of Pussy Riot. They don’t think that what we did warrants a five-month term in a pretrial detention center, let alone the three years in prison the prosecutor has called for.

Every day, more people come to understand that if the system is attacking with such vehemence the three young women who performed in the Cathedral of Christ the Savior for forty seconds, it only means that this system fears the truth, sincerity, and straightforwardness we represent. We have never used cunning during these proceedings. Meanwhile, our opponents are too often cunning, and people sense this. Indeed, the truth has an ontological, existential superiority over deception, and this is even described in the Bible, particularly in the Old Testament. The paths of truth always triumph over the paths of cunning, guile, and deception. Every day, truth grows more victorious, despite the fact that we remain behind bars and will probably be here for a long time.

Yesterday, Madonna performed in Moscow with “Pussy Riot” written on her back. More and more people see that we are held here illegally and on false pretenses. This amazes me. I am amazed that truth really does triumph over deception. Despite the fact that we are physically here, we are freer than everyone sitting across from us on the side of the prosecution. We can say anything we want and we do say everything we want. The prosecution can only say what they are permitted to say by political censorship. They can’t say “punk prayer,” “Virgin Mary, Put Putin Away,” they can’t utter a single line of our punk prayer that deals with the political system.

Perhaps they think that it would be good to put us in prison because we speak out against Putin and his regime. They don’t say so because they aren’t allowed to. Their mouths are sewn shut. Unfortunately, they are only here as dummies. But I hope they realize this and ultimately pursue the path of freedom, truth, and sincerity, because this path is superior to the path of complete stagnation, false modesty, and hypocrisy. Stagnation and the search for truth are always at odds, and in this case, in the course of this trial, we see on the one side people who attempt to know the truth, and on the other side people who are trying to fetter those people.

A human being is a creature who is always in error, never perfect. She quests for wisdom, but cannot possess it; this is why philosophy was born. This is why the philosopher is the one who loves wisdom and yearns for it, but does not yet possess it. This is what ultimately calls a human being to action, to think and live in a certain way. It was our search for truth that led us to the Cathedral of Christ the Savior. I think that Christianity, as I understood it while studying the Old and especially the New Testament, supports the search for truth and a constant overcoming of oneself, the overcoming of what you were earlier. It was not in vain that when Christ was among the prostitutes, he said that those who falter should be helped: “I forgive them,” he said. I do not see this spirit in our trial, which takes place under the banner of Christianity. Instead, it seems to me that the prosecution is trampling on religion.

The lawyers for the [official] “injured parties” are abandoning them—that is how I interpret it. Two days ago, [one of the lawyers of the injured parties] Alexei Taratukhin made a speech in which he insisted that under no circumstances should anyone assume that the lawyer agrees with the parties he represents. In other words, the lawyer finds himself in an ethically uncomfortable position and does not want to stand for the people who seek to imprison Pussy Riot. I don’t know why they want to put us in prison. Maybe they have the right to, but I want to emphasize that their lawyer himself seems to be ashamed. Perhaps he was affected by the people shouting, “Executioners! Shame on you!” I want to point out that truth and goodness always triumph over deception and malice. It also seems to me that the prosecution attorneys are being influenced by some higher power, because time after time, they slip up and call us “the injured party.” Almost all of the lawyers have accidentally said this, and even prosecution attorney Larisa Pavlova, who is very negatively disposed toward us, nonetheless appears to be moved by some higher power when she refers to us as “the injured party.” She does not say this about those she represents, but only about us.

I don’t want to label anyone. It seems to me that there are no winners, losers, victims, or defendants here. We all simply need to reach each other, connect, and establish a dialogue in order to seek out the truth together. Together, we can be philosophers and seek wisdom, instead of stigmatizing people and labeling them. That is the last thing a person should do. Christ condemned it. With this trial, the system is abusing us. Who would have thought that man and the state he rules could, again and again, perpetrate absolutely unmotivated evil? Who could have imagined that history, especially Stalin’s still-recent Great Terror, could fail to teach us anything? The medieval Inquisition methods that reign in the law enforcement and judicial systems of our country, the Russian Federation, are enough to make you weep. But from the moment of our arrest, we have stopped weeping. We have lost our ability to cry. We shouted desperately at our punk concerts. With all our might, we decried the lawlessness of the authorities, the governing bodies. But now, our voices have been taken away. They were taken from us on March 3, 2012, when we were arrested. The following day, our voices and our votes were stolen from among the millions at the so-called elections.

During the entire trial, some people have refused to hear us. Hearing us would mean being receptive to what we are saying, to be thoughtful, to strive toward wisdom, to be philosophers. I believe that every person should aspire to this, and not only those who have studied in some philosophy department. A formal education means nothing, although prosecution attorney Pavlova attempts constantly to reproach us for our lack of education. We believe the most important thing is to strive, to strive toward knowledge and understanding. This is what a person can achieve independently, outside the walls of an educational institution. Regalia and advanced scholarly degrees mean nothing. A person can possess a great deal of knowledge, but not act as a human being. Pythagoras said that extensive knowledge does not breed wisdom. Unfortunately, we are here to affirm that. We are here only as decorations, inanimate elements, mere bodies that have been delivered into the courtroom. Our motions—after many days of requests, negotiations, and struggles—are given no consideration, they are always denied. Unfortunately for us and for our country, the court hears a prosecutor who constantly distorts our words and statements with impunity, neutering them. The foundational adversarial principle of the legal system is openly and demonstrably violated.

On July 30, the first day of the trial, we presented our reaction to the prosecutors’ indictments. At that time, the court categorically refused us the right to speak, and our written texts were read aloud by our defense lawyer, Violetta Volkova. For us, this was the first opportunity we had to express ourselves after five months of incarceration. Until then we had been incarcerated, confined; we can’t do anything from there, we can’t write appeals, we can’t film what is happening around us, we have no Internet, our lawyer can’t even bring us papers because even that is forbidden. On July 30, we spoke openly for the first time; we called for making contact and facilitating dialogue, not for battle or confrontation. We reached our hands out to the people who, for some reason, consider us their enemies, and they spat into our open hands. “You are not sincere,” they told us. Too bad. Do not judge us according to your own behavior. We spoke sincerely, as we always do. We said what we thought. We were unbelievably childlike, naive in our truth, but nonetheless we are not sorry for our words, and this includes our words on that day. And having been maligned ourselves, we do not want to malign others in response. We are in desperate circumstances, but we do not despair. We are persecuted, but we have not been abandoned. It is easy to degrade and destroy people who are so open, but “when I am weak, then I am strong.”

Listen to our words and not to what [pro-Putin television journalist] Arkady Mamontov says about us. Do not distort and falsify what we say. Allow us to enter into a dialogue, into contact with this country, which is ours also, and not only the land of Putin and the patriarch. Just like Solzhenitsyn, I believe that in the end the word will break through the cement. Solzhenitsyn wrote, “Thus, the word is more essential than cement. Thus, the word is not a small nothing. In this manner, noble people begin to grow, and their word will break cement.”

Katya, Masha, and I may be in prison, but I do not consider us defeated. Just as the dissidents were not defeated; although they disappeared into mental institutions and prisons, they still pronounced their verdict upon the regime. The art of creating the image of an epoch does not know any winners or losers. It was the same with the OBERIU poets, who remained artists until the end, inexplicable and incomprehensible. Purged in 1937, Alexander Vvedensky wrote, “The incomprehensible pleases us, the inexplicable is our friend.” According to the official death certificate, Aleksandr Vvedensky died on December 20, 1941. No one knows the cause of death. It could have been dysentery on the train on the way to the camps; it could have been the bullet of a guard. It occurred somewhere on the railroad between Voronezh and Kazan.

Pussy Riot are Vvedensky’s students and heirs. His principle of the bad rhyme is dear to us. He wrote, “Occasionally, I think of two different rhymes, a good one and a bad one, and I always choose the bad one because it is always the right one.”

“The inexplicable is our friend”: the highbrow and refined works of the OBERIU poets and their search for thought on the edge of meaning were finally embodied when they paid for their art with their lives, which were taken by the senseless and inexplicable Great Terror. Paying with their lives, these poets unintentionally proved that irrationality and senselessness were at the core of their era. Thus, the artistic became historical fact. The price of participation in the creation of history is immeasurably great for the individual. But the essence of human existence lies precisely in this participation. To be a beggar, and yet to enrich others. To have nothing, but to possess all. One considers the OBERIU dissidents dead, but they are alive. They are punished, but they do not die.

Do you remember why young Dostoyevsky was sentenced to death? His entire guilt lay in the fact that he was fascinated by socialist theories, and during meetings of freethinkers and friends—who met on Fridays in the apartment of [Mikhail] Petrashevsky—he discussed the writings of [Joseph] Fourier and George Sand. On one of the last Fridays, he read [Vissarion] Belinsky’s letter to [Nikolai] Gogol aloud, a letter that was filled, according to the court that tried Dostoevsky (listen!),“with impudent statements against the Orthodox Church and the state government.” After all the preparations for execution and “ten agonizing, infinitely terrifying minutes awaiting death” (Dostoyevsky), it was announced that the sentence was changed to four years of hard labor in Siberia, followed by military service.

Socrates was accused of corrupting youth with his philosophical discussions and refusing to accept the Athenian gods. He had a living connection with the divine voice, and he was not, as he insisted many times, by any account an enemy of the gods. But what did that matter when Socrates irritated the influential citizens of his city with his critical, dialectical thought, free of prejudice? Socrates was sentenced to death and, having refused to escape Athens (as his students proposed), he courageously emptied a cup of hemlock and died. Have you forgotten under what circumstances Stephen, the disciple of the Apostles, concluded his earthly life? “Then they secretly induced men to say, ‘We have heard him speak blasphemous words against Moses and against God.’ And they stirred up the people, the elders and the scribes, and they came up to him and dragged him away and brought him before the Council. They put forward false witnesses who said, ‘This man incessantly speaks against this holy place and the Law.’” [Acts 6:11-13] H...