Topic: Punk Group Pussy Riot Case
- Pussy Riot Convict Declares Hunger Strike
- Court Denies Pussy Riot Member Parole
- Jailed Pussy Riot Member Files for Parole - Radio
- Pussy Riot Appeal Rejected by Moscow Court Panel
- Migration Officials Disrupt Pussy Riot Play in Moscow
MOSCOW, May 23 (RIA Novosti) – Ex-Beatle Paul McCartney has written letters to Russian authorities in support of two members of Russian punk group Pussy Riot, who were jailed last August on offical charges of hooliganism motivated by religious hatred, his website says.
The famous musician has asked the Russian officials to consider release on parole for Maria Alyokhina and Nadezhda Tolokonnikova, who are serving two-year sentences for performing a "punk-prayer" against President Vladimir Putin in the Christ the Savior Cathedral in central Moscow in February 2012.
“In the great tradition of fair-mindedness which the Russian people (many of whom are my friends) are famous for, I believe that you granting this request would send a very positive message to all the people who have followed this case,” McCartney wrote in a letter regarding Alyokhina.
"I have had a long relationship with the Russian people, and, with this in mind, I am making the following request in a spirit of friendship for my many Russian acquaintances who, like me, believe in treating people - all people, with compassion and kindness,” he wrote in a letter regarding Tolokonnikova.
Alyokhina, 24, declared a hunger strike on Wednesday after a regional court denied her access to her parole appeal hearing, while Tolokonnikova, 23, was denied parole by a court in Russia's republic of Mordovia in April.
In October 2012, the Moscow City Court changed a two-year prison sentence for the third jailed Pussy Riot member, Yekaterina Samutsevich, to a suspended term and released her immediately, based on her new attorneys' arguments that she was seized by security guards prior to reaching the altar and was therefore prevented from carrying out the offense.
The Pussy Riot case has attracted unprecedented media attention and international criticism, which the Russian Foreign Ministry dismissed as "groundless," saying the band's act had nothing to do with artistic performance but was "insulting to millions of Orthodox [Christian] believers." The band said their performance was not aimed at insulting believers' feelings.
Add to blog
You may place this material on your blog by copying the link.
- rochefortfrancoisbla bla bla...03:07, 23/05/2013This guy is an idiot. It only means he supports what the group was singing and so on. Both the group and Paul are part of the same show.
- moistTeam Mephistopheles at it again...09:03, 23/05/2013...protecting their own vermin
- Mikhail1228Goodbye Paul16:32, 23/05/2013I am an Orthodox Christian and an American. Pussy Riot's act inside the cathedral was an act of religious hatred towards my faith.
I will no longer listen to any music with Paul McCartney whether its Beatles, Wings or solo. Goodbye Paul!
- LocoIvanThanks, 'moist'...18:04, 23/05/2013your benchmark admission validates the statements that YOU are an Unclean Soul; in addition, since you are such a deviant and take the true assertions I make as flattery, it validates them once again.
Number Nine would be proud.
- tec123It has been all planed before Russia must pay a price as the last Secretary of state said23:49, 23/05/2013Dear all do not worry it is expected and more is to come until Russia gives up Syria, from the human rights hypocrites, NGO’s the foreign agents, arresting of Russian citizens aboard, from the EU and many more the media war on Russia is just heating up but this time we all hope that Russia will stand up and protect its interest aboard and not fall prey to the red carpet and fine champagne reception only to be stabbed in the back time after time. Oh let’s not forget that as they said and have been saying Russia’s military is a rusting junk.
Mr. Putin, don’t be fooled for one minute that the West has Russia's interest in their minds. They are trying to showing sweet face now but remember their aim is simple; Russia must be taken down one day now it is soft power setting up the kill. Syria must go they don’t care of Russia’s interest, next Iran then the war will come to your door steps so you must stop it from reaching home and Syria is the junction where you must stop it.
This is why they wanted a weak President to rule Russia so that they can control him, all countries has its faults and troubles such is life, they said that Russia is so corrupted, but Wall Street stole billions in the last financial scam that plunge the world into crisis and that is not corruption but miss-management.
- tec123Chipping away at Russia.07:33, 24/05/2013Mr. Putin should know that it is Russia standing and credibility as a powerful military country is at stake here. If Putin caves in to the Western powers then it will be the end of the CSTO because the other member’s countries are watching closely Russia stand on Syria if Russia sells out then there is no reason for them to stay in this military bloc CSTO they may see no other alternative but to join NATO this would bring NATO much closer to Russia border or who knows act within Russia itself.
The US is trying to oust maneuver Russia here on Syria by putting pressure on Russia arms sales to Syria, it would also means that the West and NATO has a free hand from here, on world affairs they can topple any government they do not like and do not have to worry about Russia doing anything because it is useless to think of Russia.
This is why all this talk of chemical weapons and massacres are been level against the Syria government, should Russia cave in to the West then this would give the West leverage in all dealings to reach a political deal on the US terms.
Russia international reputation is at stake here this is why Russia has to defend their interest in Syria even if it means coming to the Syria defense militarily.
Image Galleries: Russia Celebrates Navy Day
Infographics: World War I, 1914-1918
The Brest-Litovsk peace treaty that ended Russia’s part in the war has been the subject of heated debate from the moment it was signed in March 1918. To this day, scholars offer differing interpretations of the circumstances that led to the treaty and its domestic and foreign policy importance.