Russian MPs back huge fines for protest violations
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-18336097The lower house of Russia's parliament, the Duma, has approved a controversial bill which sharply increases fines for violations of laws on public rallies.
The bill boosts fines from the current 5,000 rubles (£99; $152) to 300,000 roubles for participants and up 600,000 roubles for officials.
Opposition lawmakers had unsuccessfully tried to delay the vote by submitting nearly 400 amendments.
Critics have accused the ruling pro-Kremlin party of destroying freedoms.
The bill is now expected to be debated in the upper house on Wednesday.
It will then require President Vladimir Putin signature, and could become law before a planned anti-government street protest in Moscow next week.
With the pro-Kremlin United Russia party enjoying a majority in the parliament, there is little doubt the legislation will be adopted, the BBC's Steve Rosenberg in the Russian capital reports.
About 20 activists protesting outside the parliament were detained by police.
'Draconian' bill The bill was adopted after more than 11 hours of heated discussions in the Duma by a 241-147 vote.
The legislation also restricts where public protests can be held and what form they can take, including the ban on covering faces by participants.
Gennady Gudkov, an MP with the opposition Just Russia party, described the bill as "draconian", saying it reflected the Kremlin's "fear of people".
"It is the path toward civil war, it is the path towards massive repression and we all know how that ends: in blood, poverty and revolution," Mr Gudkov said.
Human rights activists have said that the bill violates Russia's constitution on the right to free assembly.
Mr Putin has recently publicly expressed his support for the bill.
"We must shield our people from radical actions," the president said.
Russia has seen a number of huge anti-government protests following parliamentary elections in December, which the opposition says were rigged. The authorities deny the claim.
Unauthorised spontaneous protests have been held since Mr Putin's inauguration as president for the third time on 7 May, and demonstrators have clashed with police.
Why is this news?
You do realise that we in the West have some of the most draconian laws in place when it comes to holding protests right?
Try to protest march on Capital Hill/White House, Australian Parliament House, Westminster, Greek Parliament ect. Out comes the riot police no questions asked and skulls cracked..................if you don't have a permit. And even if you do we will have mounted police breaking up the protesters into smaller groups and still cracking skulls.
Oh Drama Queen there have been protests at the White House for decades with no skulls cracked by stormtroopers on horseback. And have yet to hear of an arrested Protestor in the USA who actually goes to Prison, much less Jail for longer than 3 days.Originally Posted by Violet Fashion by Mindy
Meh, the maximum you can get in France for a unauthorized manifestation is 7 years of jail time and a 100 000 € fine (4 MILLIONS rubles).
Being in an unauthorized protest is 1 year of jail time and a 15 000 € fine (roughly 600 000 rubles so the same as the guys organizing them in Russia), it's 3 years and 45 000 € (1.8 Millions rubles) if you're masked. Simply calling for it is 6 month and 7 500€ (300 000 rubles).
Plus usually you're trialed under "comparution immédiate" express procedure, busted in the morning, judged in the afternoon, no defense possible (if you don't choose it you risk doing actual jail time). It's rare for a judge to give you jail time (even suspended time) though, unless that's the tenth time you got caught, but a heavy fine is common.
And no protest will ever be allowed nowhere near the Parliament, the Senate, the Presidency any important gov or even municipal building.
If you fought with the cops you can very easily end up doing time, since not only violence to an unauthorized protest is punished heavier but the cops systematically press charge for assault and resisting arrest.
So yeah so far the Russians laws are more lenient than the French ones.
But France is hardly a good example roughly 1 out of every 8 cops is a full time crowd control specialist, it's hard to find another country with 2 different corps of L.E.O. specialized in riot control.
And one of them had a full fledged armored unit until a couple of years ago (with riot control APC, that's common, but also with light tanks armed with 90mm buckshot shells. That how far riot control was planed in France).
I am personally worried about the rights of the Russian people under the current government.
So, get off your butt go to Russia and organize a Douglas Fur revolution or something
This law seems to be a "scary fairytale" - it's briefly approved by Duma but them will be vetoed by the president. Putin is shown as the civil rights defender, all are happy.
I don't think so. Previous law was extremely weak (don't know what word to choose here). Even if person organizes protest and calls for riot, and people were hurt as a result, then maximum he can get is 1000 rub fine ($30) and 15 days of arrest.
So current changes are good, except some vague points.
Rather bad decision.
I guess now there will be much more violence. Coz when you are arrested and later you'll be need to pay 1 000 rur is one thing, but when it's 40 000 rur many youngers would try to beat the cop and runaway.
To be good it should strikes directly to the organizers and those who provoke riots.
Don't worry.
Why? People deserve the governement they have, globally. Russians get what they deserve, too. If Russians are content with the current regime, that is what they get. It is nobody else's business as long as it doesn't cause problems abroads.
your words must be forged in platinum and put on the wall of every government official in the world
I guess you don't read things you post. That has nothing to do with not allowing protests. It's basically saying don't disrupt Congress while it's in session and don't disrupted property where the Secret Service is guarding someone.
The definition is broad enough to be considered...‘(1) the term ‘restricted buildings or grounds’ means any posted, cordoned off, or otherwise restricted area—
‘‘(A) of the White House or its grounds, or the Vice
President’s official residence or its grounds;
‘‘(B) of a building or grounds where the President or
other person protected by the Secret Service is or will
be temporarily visiting; or
‘‘(C) of a building or grounds so restricted in conjunction with an event designated as a special event of national
significance; and
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote