When the Russian punk band Pussy Riot was sentenced to two years imprisonment for “hooliganism,” the question that I, and much of the free world, asked was: “Why?”
 “Hooliganism,” as defined by Article 213 of the Russian Criminal Code, is “a gross violation of the public order which expresses patent contempt for society, attended by violence against private persons or by the threat of its use, and likewise by the destruction or damage of other people’s property.”

While Pussy Riot’s protest was disruptive and contemptuous, the group did not physically or lyrically threaten violence. Instead, the four women, wearing brightly-colored masks, genuflected, threw their fists in the air, and implored the Virgin Mary to “be a feminist” and “banish Putin.”
A week later, three members of Pussy Riot were arrested. Although Pussy Riot’s crime was victimless, the defendants were held in solitary confinement for five months and placed in a glass cage during proceedings, like violent rapists or murderers.

To me, five months in solitary confinement alone seems like excessive punishment for a “crime” which Americans consider a right. Just as in the U.S. Constitution, the Russian Constitution guarantees freedom of speech and assembly, however, it also prohibits “agitation which arouses national or religious hatred.” In her verdict, Judge Marina Syrova stated, “The actions of the defendants reflected their hatred of religion.”
 Even so, during closing statements, Nadezhda Tolokonnikova, one of the members of Pussy Riot, insisted that the protest was purely political.

So, why are these women being imprisoned?
During sentencing, Judge Syrova outlined three parameters for finding guilt: the choice and timing of the venue, Pussy Riot’s continued performance and resistance to be taken outside by security and cathedral parishioners, and the defendants’ and their accomplices’ conduct after the fact.
While they did resist expulsion, and many churchgoers were offended, the cathedral was essential to Pussy Riot’s message. They wanted to engage Christians in their dissent towards Putin.
Article 2 of the Russian Constitution reads, “Man, his rights, and (his) freedoms shall be the supreme value. The recognition, observance, and protection of human and civil rights and freedoms shall be the obligation of the State.” This article is essentially a rewording of the preamble of our own constitution. It should stand as a mission statement, yet it is one which is not being observed in Pussy Riot’s case.

Since Pussy Riot should enjoy the same freedoms we do, let’s imagine the events through an American lens. If three women marched to the altar of the National Cathedral in Washington and started dancing and screaming, “Obama is Satan,” I feel that there would be no repercussion aside from being led out quietly by priests. Forget the notion of arrests or a trial; judges would laugh the prosecution out of the courtroom.
I am appalled that this perversion of justice is taking place anywhere. I am outraged that it is occurring in a nation which claims to espouse justice, freedom and democracy. The Pussy Riot trial has shown Russia to be a hotbed of bias, repression and tyranny.

Though they refuse to seek official pardon, Pussy Riot’s attorney stated that they would be seeking an appeal. I hope another judge will impart proper justice.