The Russian President Dmitry Medvedev has signed the amended law “On Changing the Federal Legislation on the Federal Security Service” and the Code of Administrative Offenses. Both documents were approved in the final, third reading by both the State Duma and the Federal Council. Both are scandalous by their nature and have caused numerous protests. Civil rights activists had asked the president not to sign them, i.e., veto them.
Significantly, the bill was drafted by the FSB itself and introduced in the parliament by the Russian government. It enables the secret police officials to issue a “formal warning” to those who may promote a crime via their actions. That is, an individual who has not yet committed any offense, and may never commit it, yet still receives a warning. According to the law, only actions or inactivity resulting in offense are punishable. People were only persecuted for thinking in totalitarian states. Those who do not remember the way it was in the workers and peasants’ state, “where man could breathe so freely,” may read George Orwell’s 1984.
Oppositionists and civil rights advocates have stated more than once that this bill gives the regime a free hand in fighting the dissenters. The secret police were trying to convince the public that it will not result in trouble. “This is a purely preventive measure aimed at warning an individual against a possible commitment of crimes in future,” maintained Yurii Gorbunov, deputy director of the FSB. Sticking to this logic, everyone should be warned. Who knows what may occur to an individual, what they write in personal letters, say at dinner, or imply in a joke? Sometimes words are nearly as good as actions — but where are the clear-cut and lawful criteria to prove that something said or written contains a threat of an act of terrorism or promotes it? What if the Big Brother is wrong and the “lofty thoughts” present no danger — and yet, an individual is already blacklisted?
The “formal warning” has to be delivered to a citizen within five days after the security bodies pass a relevant decision. The bill also provides sanctions for disobeying a lawful order or request by a FSB officer, as well as for preventing them to carry out their duties, ranging from fines to administrative arrest for up to 15 days.
Before the second reading, provisions on the publishing of texts of reports and official warnings in the media had been removed from the text of the draft. There had been a strong desire to brand the regime’s enemies and condemn them in public. However, it was decided that it would be too much for the time being.
Vladimir Vasiliev, head of the State Duma Committee on Security, explained that “Warnings and invitations to a preventive conversation will either be sent by registered mail, or handed in personally. And should a citizen prefer not to come to a preventive conversation, no measures will be taken against them.”
Words, words... Just dare ignore the summons. The secret police will not summon people for no good reason. If you don’t turn up, it means that you are guilty. Should you come to a heartfelt conversation, you will have to prove that you are clean.
Igor Trunov, head of the Moscow Bar Association, remarks that “we are a police state as it is: the number of law enforcement officers per capita is 5 or 6 times bigger than in any civilized countries. And now add to it the expansion of the FSB powers and coercive means! We still remember that the FSB is the direct successor of the KGB, and this decision only confirms our apprehension. Medvedev says that we are pursuing a legal policy aiming at the creation of lawful state and democracy via the liberalization of criminal legislation and the reforms of the law enforcement bodies. Instead, they went and reinforced the FSB.”
Normally any steps by law enforcement bodies must be substantiated by serious grounds. First and foremost, after relevant action is taken, in conformity with the legal procedure. However, the bill signed by the president does not even mention that. This is an instant of
a grave violation, and the lawyer Medvedev turns a blind eye to it.
According to the text of the bill, a warning is issued for “actions which cause reasons and create conditions for committing crimes.” Such a definition is open to various interpretations. Any police operative can use his own discretion while deciding if those “reasons and conditions” will ever emerge, depending on his current mood or weather. Following the text literally, one can expect that even the president or prime minister can be issued a warning or summoned for a preventive conversation. What if at a certain moment a vigilant FSB officer thinks that they, via their actions or speeches, promote the “rise of reasons” for terrorism in the North Caucasus, or maybe in other regions? In any case, it is time to seriously examine the words and actions of Chechnya’s President Ramzan Kadyrov and those of his ilk.
But first and foremost, the “reasons and conditions” apply to journalists. “Certain mass media” were directly mentioned in the authors’ explanatory note to the draft, listing such signs of extremism in the press as “lack of faith in the ability of state to protect its citizens,” alongside with the “propagation of individualism and violence.” Say, the media write about violence aimed at the participants of a protest action — it will mean that they do not believe in the ability of state to ensure the security and peace to its citizens. So, journalists and editors can expect a warning any day now.
Generally, one can only feel sheer amazement at the ability of the Russian law enforcement bodies to invent their own bicycles and outdo the rest of the world at that. In the USA, there is a notion of preliminary examination. We emphasize that it is examination, not a warning, and only in the course of an investigation. Otherwise, “my house is my castle,” and keep your hands off me. The German law enforcement system does not know of such a concept as warning altogether. In case of an investigation being held, the law enforcement bodies act according to the judicial procedure. If there is no investigation, there is nothing to discuss whatsoever. In France, the police do conduct offense preventive measures, but only among minors. And, finally, in Great Britain they issue a police warning instead of sending the case to court. But this is a legal form of punishment for a minor offense, with a relevant entry made in the police report and in the offender’s personal record.
Recently the Presidium of the Russian government passed a draft which requires a three months’ examination (instead of one) of applications for a foreign passport from individuals who are, or used to be, involved in matters of state secrets. And this happens in the times of computers, electronic databases, and other technical breakthroughs. One may think that there are millions of Russians who have access to military and state secrets, and a month is definitely not enough...
And what if a citizen has nothing to do with secrets? Why should it take an entire month to check his records? By the way, the same is true of our law enforcement bodies as well. Where and in what archives do they look for the citizens’ criminal records? If a person has access, why should he or she be checked again? In all probability, it is not state secrets that are at the core, but rather additional key factors for controlling Russian citizens. The competent bodies know how to use them — the more so that in case of a refusal, there is no one a citizen can complain to.
President Medvedev tends to play with liberal maxims more and more frequently. At a meeting with the Minister of Justice Aleksandr Konovalov, he suggested reducing the number of reasons for applying arrest as a preventive measure in case of accusation of criminal offense. “We have passed a decision on economic crimes, but there are lots of other minor offenses when there is absolutely no ground for sending the person behind the bars.” This is the most horrible scenario for the Russian police. How can it be that a person does not go to prison? This is unheard of in the great and mighty Russia.
Therefore, counter-measures are being feverishly designed. The situation is becoming even more unstable due to the growing activities of the NGOs. The town of Khimki near Moscow became a battlefield for the police and local environmentalists. Outbreaks of confrontation appear everywhere, including the northern capital. Suffice it to recall the struggle against the construction of Okhta-Center in Saint Petersburg.
In most cases, the public fail to defend their rights, yet the tendency to actively opposing lawlessness is being shaped in the country, which puts the lawless officials at risk. It really unnerves them, as well as their close associates from the law enforcement bodies. Medvedev cannot confront the official bureaucratic apparatus by definition, so he has to alternate his liberal speeches with effective legal harshness.
In this country, we are still not prepared to pass a similar bill. Yet the most ardent law enforcement officers have already tried to summon journalists for preventive conversations. An outburst of protests made them give up this barefaced violation of the law, yet the precedent has taken place. In any case, we have enough enthusiasts here, eager to implement the advanced foreign know-how. The semblance of improvement in our relations with Russia should not result in the borrowing of those practices. Big Brother’s long arm is the last thing we need here. We know what can follow – and we do not want to go through it again.
