Extremist behind WhatsApp too. Lawyer describes how Russia abuses laws

You can also listen to the interview in the audio version.

Russia’s increasingly strict laws, ostensibly aimed at countering extremism and terrorism, actually target the opposition in particular and, critics say, overlook real threats. Such as, for example, the murderous attack in the Crocus concert hall, which was claimed by the Islamic State.

“It is not inherently bad to have a law that prevents extremism. But if this law is misused, it becomes a really powerful tool in the hands of the government. And this is what we observe in Russia,” says Lauren McCarthy, a lawyer from the University of Massachusetts Amherst who focuses on Russian legislation, in an interview for Seznam Zpravna.

What are the main changes to Russia’s repressive laws since the start of the war in Ukraine two years ago?

They changed in two ways. The first is the introduction of new laws that prohibit and criminalize any anti-war speech. So there is a law that was introduced about eight days after the start of the war criminalizing knowingly spreading false information about the Russian military. And this is punished quite severely, such cases resulted in high fines, but also up to eight years in prison.

Russia has a specific code of administrative offences, which are punishable by fines, but not punishable by imprisonment. There, a new law was introduced that fines essentially discrediting the Russian military. There are a number of things under that, such as banning calls for sanctions against Russia and the like.

Another thing is that the Russian government is increasingly using other laws that have been in force for a long time and for which they have introduced stricter penalties. And the Extremism Act sort of falls into that category. It is not inherently wrong to have a law that prevents extremism. But if this law is misused, it becomes a really powerful tool in the hands of the government. And that’s what happened.

Repression in Russia

A lot of things that are perceived as anti-war or anything that is perceived as opposition has now turned into a sign of extremism. And extremism is largely seen as anything that could disrupt the running of government. But this can be really dangerous for Russia as a result.

So the main changes are the abuse of laws that have a reasonable purpose and the implementation of new laws that are specifically designed to suppress anti-war beliefs.

Who are the repressions mainly aimed at?

One thing the regime has done very well is crack down on the opposition. The example of the application of the law on extremism to Navalny and his organization is telling – anyone who participated in the activities could face accusations of extremism. It would be enough to share their work and it would be threatening.

There are separate sections within extremism legislation that can cover and criminalize all of these activities. And so it was possible to see a very clear focus on the political opposition.

But the second and much more insidious thing is his focus on ordinary people, to whom he makes it clear that no one is safe.

At the beginning of the war, there was a case where students reported a teacher for speaking out against the invasion. She then received a rather high sentence, a five-year probation, but mainly she could not teach. The authorities made it impossible for her to continue her normal life. At the same time, he was a completely ordinary person, not even from Moscow or St. Petersburg.

Similar cases then appeared regularly. The demonstrative prosecution of ordinary people doing seemingly ordinary things that the two of us wouldn’t necessarily consider problematic. Be it social media posts, video sharing or even a WhatsApp message. Standing on the street with a protest sign has always been dangerous, but now people really have to watch themselves even in private.

As a result, you don’t even have to put everyone in jail for the effect of these laws to manifest. People become more afraid and prefer to leave all these activities alone. I think we’re seeing that in Russia right now.

Why is it so easy to abuse these laws? Is it just that vague definition?

Yes, I think that is exactly the case. One of the things that repressive and authoritarian legal systems do very effectively is have laws that are very specific but also very vague.

And so, for example, you have anti-war laws very specifically that people cannot say anything about war if it contradicts the official interpretation. But the way the legislation is written is very vague and many things can fit under it.

So what is knowingly spreading false information about the military? How do you define it? What is discrediting the military? How do you define it? The legislation itself doesn’t say that, so it’s up to the police and judges to figure out how to apply the law themselves. At the same time, they also need to make sure they are doing it right so that the appeals court doesn’t give it back to them later.

How Russia is taking action against critics of the regime

“I admit guilt: I failed to convince enough people of how great a danger the current Kremlin regime is to the world,” Russian dissident Vladimir Kara-Murza said in his closing speech. Then they sentenced him to 25 years in prison.

“My case is political. Therefore, I do not think of myself as someone who is on trial for committing a crime. For me, admitting guilt is the same as a teacher admitting that he is a teacher, or a doctor admitting that he is a doctor.” These words were heard in the closing speech of 41-year-old Russian opposition politician Lilia Chanysheva before the district court in Ufa, eastern Russia. A woman who headed the staff of the Naval anti-corruption fund was sentenced to seven years and six months in prison for inciting extremism and creating an extremist organization.

And so they have to solve it on the go and in the field. For example, in the case of the discredit law, repression is used for anything you can think of. Just take yellow and blue, it doesn’t matter if it’s intentional. There are a lot of things that can end up sending you to court for defamation because the definition is very vague. This also applies to extremism laws.

When you look at legal definitions like that, one of the things that the Russian legal system has done very effectively in its authoritarian version is to create a way in which all the actors in that system are able to do what they need to do without going against the by right.

However, Russia has been abusing the anti-extremism law for a long time. So we can go back to 2014, when the war in Ukraine started with the annexation of Crimea. At that time, this law was also used against people who criticized the war and the seizure of Crimea.

How many people were affected by such repression? Can you tell how the number of accusations has changed over time?

I do not know the exact statistics, moreover it is very difficult to determine according to which key the individual cases are divided. However, a study by the Project was published, which shows that Putin is more repressive than his predecessors in the Soviet Union.

But one of the things that is interesting is that, for example, the law of disparagement is used less and less over time. It was widely used immediately after its adoption at the beginning of the war, but after two years its implementation really decreased. And there are probably a number of explanations for that, but one of them is that it’s working properly and people are being more careful and censoring themselves.

I think there are different incentives for using other laws, for example on extremism. If you’re a law enforcement officer and you find or solve a case of extremism, that’s a big deal. This is something that can get you a promotion. And so there’s a lot of incentive to find extremism where it doesn’t exist. Moreover, the law is so vague that you can simply call many things extremism.

Does the regime have anywhere else to go with tightening the law? What’s on the table now?

Every time I think I can’t go any further, something is found. But as far as the laws regarding criticism of the regime are concerned, I don’t expect them to be completely tightened. Even now, the laws are so vague that anything can fit under them.

However, the area where the laws are being tightened a lot concerns mobilization and conscription. It is much harder to desert or avoid service altogether. So the development of legislation is evident mainly in those areas that will allow the regime to continue the war.

Penalties for existing laws may also increase. It doesn’t have to be just prison or fines, the regime can also freeze the accused’s assets, so you can’t withdraw money from the bank, for example. If, for example, you get on the list of terrorists and extremists, it is almost impossible to live a normal life, it is such a civil death. It is impossible to find a job, to withdraw enough money from the bank, you are limited to everything.

As a result, even this tightening mainly serves to discourage people from opposing the war or the regime.

What makes the situation even more complicated is that if you are against the war in Russia today, you can be tried under any of those laws. They overlap a lot, which generally shouldn’t happen. There should be specific legislation for specific actions. As a result, a situation has arisen where people all over the country commit the same things, but are judged differently, some get a fine, some go to jail, and some get nothing at all.

So I guess you never know what exactly you will be judged on. And of course, Russian lawyers would tell you that this is not the case and the laws have precise dividing lines, but when you look at their actual implementation, the line between them is really very hard to define. You can go from being a critic of war to an extremist quite easily. It all depends on which authorities you come into contact with.