Sentenced to 18 days jail per second of singing

Trok says:

08:33am | 23/08/12

Gary.. your brother Carl Cox would be so ashamed…

- tork
Dad Blog

Gary Cox says:

01:18pm | 23/08/12

Is Carl on the same side as Macca and Madonna? Right that’s it he’s not invited to Christmas lunch this year.

Chris L says:

08:27am | 23/08/12

Two years gaol for a song criticising the government?! If we followed such procedures here half the Punchers would get life!

morrgo says:

09:07am | 23/08/12

@Screaming Silence: What distilled wisdom in one short sentence.

Sure, and they should count themselves lucky, just ask Anna Politkovskaya.  Except you can’t, since Putin’s hoons shot her dead in her house.

Ted says:

09:23am | 23/08/12

@Chris L: The charges were for desecrating a place of worship. If a punk band tried to perform in a Mosque during the middle of a service, what do you think their sentence would be?

AJ of Here says:

10:19am | 23/08/12

Immediate death, Ted. And don’t bother with the courts. There won’t be enough left of them to prosecute.

j-dub says:

11:35am | 23/08/12

Places of worship can kiss my arse.

Chris L says:

11:50am | 23/08/12

@Ted - I wasn’t aware they didn’t have church permission to perform there.

Screaming Silence says:

11:54am | 23/08/12

morrogo

Where you there?  Did they say Putin sent them or is there a lot of assumptions going on here?

Just as I thought.

iMitchy says:

11:54am | 23/08/12

Chris L,

Refreshingly accurate grammar. Thank you. Even the government uses the spelling “jail” now. When did we get so lost? I was taught this stuff in kindergarten…

AJ of Here says:

12:08pm | 23/08/12

What a lovely and telling comment from the atheist j-dub. Typical of a group who are as religiously zealous in attacking religions as other religions are.

Pfft! Atheist, religious zealots. Same faith based arrogant and condescending crapstains.

Tim the Toolman says:

12:49pm | 23/08/12

“Pfft! Atheist, religious zealots. Same faith based arrogant and condescending crapstains.”

Please at least learn what you’re talking about before frothing at the mouth.  That way, something sensible may have a chance of escaping from between the flying spittle…

AJ of Here says:

02:09pm | 23/08/12

Oh really? Are you saying that you believe the atheists when they claim that they are not about religion, yet they bang on about their religion all the time? Seriously, you actually believe that there is a difference between an atheist saying that God does not exist and a Christian saying that the Hindu gods do not exist? Really?

Methinks that I am not the one who needs to think about what he is saying, Mr Tool.

JackTD says:

02:35pm | 23/08/12

“Pfft! Atheist, religious zealots. Same faith based arrogant and condescending crapstains.”

AJ of Here,

At least you’re better than them all right? Because that comment wasn’t arrogant and condescending…

JackTD says:

02:58pm | 23/08/12

Oh AJ.

How are the athiestic beliefs a religion?

If merely beliefs qualify a religion, then what about your beliefs that athiests and religious people all suck?

Does that make you a religion? You’d certainly be more arrogant and strong-headed than the majority of them…

AJ of Here says:

03:03pm | 23/08/12

Of course it is, Jack. That is the point.

Isn’t it funny how that certain groups are arrogant and condescending to all who do not subscribe to their brand of madness, but then get all butthurty when the same is done to them?

Let me reiterate in a more polite term, because apparently someone got all butthurty when they are called on their arrogant and condescending manner: There are two differences between the beliefs of atheists and religionists. The first is the number of gods being worshipped (from zero to umpteenth multitudes). Each believe that the other’s beliefs are fairytales and each believe that the other should be pilloried for their beliefs. Neither is tolerant at all, and given half a chance, both would want their beliefs enshrined in law.

The other difference is the degree of rabidness (rabidity?) between the two groups. There is often a significant proportion of religionists who are more than content to be left alone to do their thing, and another significant number who are religionist only in name. Athiests, on the other hand, proudly claim their hatred of religionists as a badge of honour, and by their own definition, cannot leave others the hell alone. It is their reason for being. In this, atheists display the same kind of intolerance, hatred and vitriol that is shown by RABID religionists, many of whom even their own co-religionists dislike.

Clear and polite enough for you, Mr Butthurty?

JackTD says:

03:20pm | 23/08/12

AJ,

I’m sure all of athiests you encountered in your first-year-uni philosphy class were very similar to those you have described, but the reality is that that is a gross generalisation.

As an athiest myself, I don’t call for the abolishment of religion, or for those of religious leaning themselves to adhere to my set of beliefs, merely for the seperation of church and state, which I think is like lobbying for any other political viewpoint.

Stop being so close-minded, you’re really just embarrassing yourself here.

The irony surrounding your entire argument is simply too much.

Al B says:

09:27am | 23/08/12

I support them whether their punk is up to ‘standard’ or not ...russia’s music and general artistic scene is pretty backward. These girls are pushing some uncomfortable ideas and images out there in russia and good on them for it. While the view from the west is that its a good test for russia and putin ...Both failed…more importantly they are a first wave of artistic for the former socialist totalitarian country itself. Bring on the next, maybe the punk or whatever else will be better. And forget Madonna, would love to see Peaches tour there haha.

Scotchfinger says:

10:03am | 23/08/12

I’m not surprised Trent Reznor offers his music for free. And Dave Grohl - Kurt would be turning in his grave if he heard the hair-metal you churn out. You learned nothing from your master, Nothing.

egg says:

02:45pm | 23/08/12

@Scotchfinger, you mean because Trent Reznor is smart enough to cut out the middle man and let people pay him directly for his music? Yeah, I’m not surprised either. He is awesome, after all.

And Kurt Cobain was not Dave Grohl’s master, he was depressed musician who made some music and then killed himself. Nobody owes Kurt anything, least of all the people he left behind. Dave Grohl can make whatever music he likes.

Scotchfinger says:

03:19pm | 23/08/12

hmm egg, to be conciliatory I will find something nice to say about:

Trent: he made misogyny and sexual violence acceptable, even desirable. Yay!
Dave G: when he stops singing (or talking) and just plays drums, he is awesome.

Matchofbris says:

09:01am | 23/08/12

Hahaha, I can’t help but chuckle at that. What did she say?

Scotchfinger says:

10:24am | 23/08/12

Chris L, the sex worker industry is struggling as it is without calls for issue of free vouchers. Your right to protest is acknowledged, but I suggest you reconsider the issue.

Chris L says:

12:01pm | 23/08/12

Just a once off riot couldn’t hurt.

I didn’t get any reply to my post, but I thought it was worth sharing.

marley says:

09:18am | 23/08/12

Not a big supporter of free speech, then?  The issue isn’t whether their music is good, or whether their opinions are pro or anti-social, but whether they should be punished for uttering them.

Andy of Sydney says:

10:25am | 23/08/12

They have the right to free speech but not without the permission of the owners of the property they are in. Free speech does not give you the right to FORCE others to condone or support or publish what you say.

These idiots committed sacrilege on church grounds deliberately. Cry me a river that they get punished. They should have done it in the proper place: a public street or park or something similar.

marley says:

09:27am | 23/08/12

@mahrat - they were jailed for religiously motivated “hooliganism.”  So far as I’m aware, the Church wasn’t pursuing charges against them, so it’s really a matter of the State going after them for their anti-Putin stance.

The thing is, in Russia, the Orthodox Church has always walked hand in hand with the government (except during the communist era).  The tsars used the Church as an instrument to keep the peasants subservient, and the Church went along because it enjoyed the protection and favour of the tsars.  Stalin took a different approach, doing his best to eliminate the Church, at least until he needed it during the Great Patriotic War.  Putin is more or less resurrecting the old relationship, and the Church is going along because it is once again enjoying the benefits of proximity to the secular powers.  I think this whole incident needs to be seen in that light.

Al B says:

09:31am | 23/08/12

Well it goes beyond private property trespass, only have to look at the trial and views expressed there to see that. They were more offended due to the type of property. Houses of whatever sky fairy should have no more protection than others. They were protesting against a religion ...artistically ...and they have very little other outlet there to do so. Religion in russia is part of a broader persecution of queer folks especially.

Scotchfinger says:

09:37am | 23/08/12

‘I’m all for the diminishment of religion in culture’. Are you alerting others as to what is acceptable or not in your own eyes? I’m sure the Russian Orthodox would be fascinated by your views, carefully researched and pondered over as they are. Culture sprang ex nihilo into the world? The Russian idea of statehood is preferable in your eyes, to the eastern Christian orthodoxy? What a mature and original stance! Some deep thinkers on the Punch…

Red Duck says:

09:58am | 23/08/12

Mahrat, they have actually been jailed for Hooligansim offically and 2 years is the minimum sentence they could have received.

Red Duck says:

09:59am | 23/08/12

Mahrat, they have actually been jailed for Hooligansim offically and 2 years is the minimum sentence they could have received.

kitteh says:

12:47pm | 23/08/12

I seem to remember a certain level of outrage over the defilement of Australian war graves. Clearly, the location in which you air your political grievances - whether it is held sacred for religious or other grounds - matters.

Tim the Toolman says:

12:53pm | 23/08/12

“The Russian idea of statehood is preferable in your eyes, to the eastern Christian orthodoxy? “

It does not need to be either/or.  It is possible for a majority secular nation to have a better quality of living than anything a theocracy or the bastardised hybrid that Russia and a few others favour, has ever been able to offer.

marley says:

02:00pm | 23/08/12

@kietteh - there’s a difference between offensive speech and vandalism.  So far as I’m aware, the Pussy girls didn’t do any actual damage to the church.

Scotchfinger says:

02:03pm | 23/08/12

Tim the Toolman, who said anything about a theocracy? I’m talking about the right of the Russian Christian Orthodox church to be valued as an important part of the lives of hundreds of thousands of people. And Russia is successful despite, not because of, its communist bent over the past century.

Tim the Toolman says:

02:26pm | 23/08/12

” I’m talking about the right of the Russian Christian Orthodox church to be valued as an important part of the lives of hundreds of thousands of people”

Yes, well, we could argue about whether any institution has the right to poison the communal well of knowledge, but, that would be quite a long discussion.  I’d rather have that conversation over a beer with you than the Internet

Scotchfinger says:

03:10pm | 23/08/12

Drinks on the house (i.e. the Punch picks up the tab)?

Tim the Toolman says:

04:36pm | 23/08/12

Sounds good   Emma Jane, feel free to send your corporate AMEX details to Scotch!

colin says:

12:30pm | 23/08/12

@MarkS 11:25am | 23/08/12
“At least half the posters here do not deserve the freedom we have. You disgust me…”

Interesting take on here, especially considering you just dissed me on the “How do you say that” article by saying to me, “Still upset at all the vile people you are forced to share the world with dear (?)”

Double standards much..?

Tim says:

12:08pm | 23/08/12

Actually no it doesn’t.
This is exactly the same as the hate speech issues and they were trespassing on Church property and condemning the church for supporting a politician.
The punishment is ridiculous but I still don’t agree with what they did.

Brizben says:

01:39pm | 23/08/12

The church was trespassing on the rights of the people.

Go to Russia and yell Pu-liar at the president and see what freedom of speech really means.

marley says:

02:04pm | 23/08/12

Actually, I think it shows up the left wingers as well - the ones who think that free speech should be limited so as not to offend any race, gender or minority group. 

Sorry, but people ought to be able to express ideas that are repugnant or distasteful or unpopular, that challenge society and authority, that offend and dismay. Short of actual incitement to violence, speech out to be unconstrained.  Otherwise, how can it be “free?”

AdamC says:

02:37pm | 23/08/12

Marley is entirely correct. I have no problem with Pussy Riot holding and expressing their views. However, that is not all they did in this case. You can certainly argue that the band’s punishment for what seem to be the Russian equivalent of trespass-type offences is unreasonable and politically motivated. However, you cannot argue that Pussy Riot are true prisoners of conscience.

Brizben says:

05:06pm | 23/08/12

Some people always seem to have a hair to split.

Lets face it, a lot of ignorant racists hide behind “freedom of speech” when they are cornered. In my experience a lot of racists are just people trying to be as rude, obnoxious and insulting as possible. The racist think they are clever but the rest of us just see them as aholes.

The silence from societies like the IPA on a true freedom of speech in Russia issue speaks volumes.

marley says:

07:48pm | 23/08/12

@Brizben - back off.  I’m neither ignorant nor racist, and I deeply resent the implication that I might be.  I’m a free speech advocate, and I have a serious problem with the stance of some on the left that being “rude, obnoxious and insulting” is sufficient reason to deny free speech.

Sure, you can form an opinion about people who utter racist comments - that’s entirely your right.  Shutting them up is not.

Tim the Toolman says:

12:56pm | 23/08/12

“in the name of atheism “

Please provide one piece of evidence where Lenin stated his actions were in the name of Atheism.  You know, the kind of statement that religious martyrs are so fond of saying right before/after they kill a woman for being raped.

Nick from Adelaide says:

01:17pm | 23/08/12

It was never “in the name of Atheism” Andre, that strawman has been burnt many times. But dont let me stop you from “bearing false witness” I think thats frowned upon in religious terms.

andre says:

03:24pm | 23/08/12

for the educatio of uneducated Tim and Nick

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marxist?Leninist_atheism

Tim the Toolman says:

05:15pm | 23/08/12

Ctrl-F and “atheism” or “atheist”.  Not a single result on that page.  You might want to try again, and preferably with a respectable historical resource, rather than wikipedia.  Were it a central tenant under which he did what he did, you would expect it to show up at least once on there, no?

Andy of Sydney says:

02:42pm | 23/08/12

Yes. Rosa Parks should be punished as the law demands. We can sympathise with her and use her case to change the law, but we should NOT ignore the law. It sets a dangerous precedence to the point that attempted murder and piracy gets ignored by the law because they were done under the banner of “it is right”. As it is now.

Remember that just because someone is right doesn’t mean they should not be punished. If the law states that she is to be punished, then she should be punished. You want to do something good, change the law so that what they did is legal. Then they would not be punished IF they do it LATER.

The law is not about what is right. It never was. It is a set of rules that the given society is expected to follow. To conflate the two is to muddy the waters and engage in a charade of smoke and mirrors, which is the main and only skill of leftards with a pet cause.