“Blessed Virgin, Drive Out Putin”: The Free Pussy Riot Movement

By Chamonix Adams Porter

August 31, 2012

On February 21, five members of the anonymous Russian punk feminist band Pussy Riot performed a “punk prayer” at the altar of Christ the Savior Cathedral in Moscow. The women, wearing short dresses and their signature brightly colored balaclavas, were escorted out of the church after less than a minute of singing charged political lyrics (“Mother of God, Blessed Virgin, Drive out Putin!”). Their subsequent imprisonment has sparked a global debate about political imprisonment, freedom of speech, and the limits of democracy in Russia.

In the days following the performance, the Russian Orthodox Church initiated a criminal case against Pussy Riot with charges of “hooliganism.” On March 3, Putin was re-elected in a highly controversial election, with widespread allegations of fraud. On the same day, two alleged band members, Maria Alyokhina and Nadezhda Tolokonnikova, were imprisoned. Both immediately went on hunger strike and exercised their constitutional right to silence. Despite a Russian law that limits incarceration on suspicion to 48 hours, the women remained in custody. Pre-trial appeals of this violation were rejected.

On March 15, Ekaterina Samutsevic, another member of the band who was originally a witness for the case, was also arrested on the basis of suspicion. Soon after, Alyokhina and Nadezhda were formally charged with hooliganism. On March 19, the defense reported that the accused were under illegal 24-hour video surveillance. Both Alyokhina and Nadezhda, who are mothers of young children, were threatened with loss of parental rights.

By March 20, Judge Elena Ivanova had extended the pre-trial incarceration of the suspects to July 24. On July 30, the trial began, with the defendants pleading not guilty to hooliganism. Reuters reported that defense lawyer Mark Feigin said that the court rejected a list of 34 individuals that he wanted to call as witnesses, including Putin and Patriarch Kirill, the head of the Russian Orthodox Church. Eventually, the defense was allowed only three witnesses, although all of the prosecution’s witness calls were approved.  According to Mother Jones, the defense was allowed no eyewitnesses of the punk prayer, although the prosecution was.

According to The Guardian, one of the defense lawyers, Violetta Volkova stated that the defendants “had been woken up at 5am and kept in a tiny room for hours without breakfast before being taken to court.” She was quoted saying, “our clients are not being allowed to eat or sleep adequately.” The Moscow Times reported that this prompted the judge to interrupt the trial and allow the defendants to eat and sleep.

On August 2, during a visit to London, Putin said that while he thought there was “nothing good” in Pussy Riot’s protest, “I don’t think that they should be judged so harshly for this […] I hope the court will come out with the right descision, a well-founded one.”  Nikolai Polozov, a defense lawyer for Pussy Riot, responded, “this is a gesture towards the West, towards the consumers of Russian energy resources and [Putin’s] business partners… given the significance of such signals, we can expect some softening of the prosecution’s position.” The World Socialist Website commented that the statements of Western politicians, many of who hold their own political prisoners (notably Breanna Manning in the United States), is hypocritical—that in fact “Western leaders are expressing their discontent with Russia’s domestic and foreign policy and trying to put pressure on the regime.”

On August 7, defense lawyer Mark Feygin gave what The Guardian described as “an impassioned speech,” saying that “Russia has no rule of law. Russia has no justice system. Nothing has changed from Soviet times.” He said that a guilty verdict would “definitely tear up relations between society and government.” In their closing statements, the band members compared themselves to Soviet-era dissidents. Alyokhina stated, “No one will take my inner freedom away.” On August 17, Judge Syrova sentenced the three defendants to two years in prison.

The trials and the verdict have sparked protest from around the world. High-profile human rights organizations including Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch have called for the release of the band members. Celebrities from Yoko Ono to Madonna, Peter Gabriel to Patti Smith, have spoken out on behalf of the musicians. Thousands of protestors around the world donned balaclavas and took to the streets. Even the US State Department issued a brief statement on the sentencing, which in its entirety reads, “The United States is concerned about both the verdict and the disproportionate sentences handed down by a Moscow court in the case against the members of the band Pussy Riot and the negative impact on freedom of expression in Russia. We urge Russian authorities to review this case and ensure that the right to freedom of expression is upheld.”

The political imprisonment of Pussy Riot, and the global attention that the event has received, is representative of many of the complexities of modern global feminism and political protest. In some ways, it is highly encouraging to see political movements that have a clear central feminist drive. The group’s anti-Putin stance is clearly linked to their feminism, and that this is held central helps to bring discussions of feminism into more mainstream political debates.

Many feminist sources have hailed the case as the second coming of the 1990s Riot Grrrl movement. The New York Times reported that, of course, Pussy Riot has gained such intense global attention because their tactics are palatable to western audiences. The article speaks somewhat derisively of the easy catchphrases and costumes of Pussy Riot, seeming to suggest that their carefully calculated marketability somehow makes them less of a serious force, while in fact it shows that the group is politically savvy. Their aim, at root, was visibility, and they have most certainly achieved it. A New Republic article noted, rightly, the infantalization of the women in the media. It notes that The New York Times called the women “diminutive, girlish defendants.” It goes on to argue that “The women of Pussy Riot can and should be defended on many grounds, but their dress sizes and cuteness are not among them.”

Beyond the New York Times article, though, there are places for criticism of the popularity of the case. While the Riot Grrrl movement was and is a key site of empowerment for many women, it was almost exclusively a space for white, rich, cisgender women. Any celebration of “the return of Riot Grrrl,” then, would do well to remember that the movement was never perfect. Though Pussy Riot is not in and of itself racist, cissexist, or classist, the feminist movement has been much more vocal about this case than about others that do not carry the same privileges as the band. Further, the construct of “political prisoners” obscures the political forces that surround the incarceration of “common criminals.” This often leads to narratives that blame incarcerated people around the world, largely men of color, for their own imprisonment. Feminists ought to work to frame the Pussy Riot case within a larger critique of the racist prison system, rather than simply the injustice of one Russian court. The Pussy Riot trial is important; nevertheless, its renown is the result of a rather racist, cissexist, and classist media and feminist movement.

The Pussy Riot trial is deeply troubling in that it shows that political suppression is alive and well. The global outcry that it has sparked, though, is an exciting moment for feminists. A constant critique of the mainstream media sources that seek to diminish the political strength of Pussy Riot, as well as the feminist sources that do not adequately analyze the ways in which white supremacy and the fashionable adoption of Riot Grrrl aesthetics have given the band their global voice are constantly necessary. Even so, Pussy Riot marks an important moment in feminist struggles for political freedom.

Chamonix Adamis Porter is a sophomore in Yale College. She is an associate editor for Broad Recognition.