Words Will Break Cement (15 page)

“Did you try to stop them physically? Did you try to use your hands or body to shield the sanctuary?”

“I had tried to do it at the first gate, but they closed it in front of me. I tried to grab them, tried not to let them in, but one of them slipped away, she waved me off, she was sly.”

“Please tell me, after this group of girls stepped onto the soleas, onto the pulpit, how did events develop and what was the reaction of other people present in the cathedral?” The judge continued calmly and with great care to steer her nervous witness.

“At the first moment my inner reaction was, ‘What are they planning to do next?’ . . . The most frightening and unpleasant part of the situation was feeling, yes, that I was being held still by the Lord and I cannot raise my foot and take even a single step . . . The most frightening thing would be if, God forbid, they try to force their way into the sanctuary—well, then I wouldn’t just stand there! Let me explain something to you. The Lord’s gate, the gate to the Kingdom of the Lord, is the actual gate to the sanctuary. When a cathedral is built, the sanctuary is blessed first, along with everything inside it. In fact this is the place of Christ’s presence. And as far as we Orthodox Christians are concerned, Christ has risen . . . Moreover, at that moment the sanctuary housed a nail with which Christ had been nailed to the cross. And when people come to the cathedral, I tell them about this with special trepidation, I tell them that this is God’s trace on this earth. This very nail was used to nail the demigod who is everything and everyone for us Orthodox believers. So this was another relic. Plus there was the Lord’s robe, which had been given to us by a member of the Muslim faith. He had acquired it in his battles way back when and then he gave it to us in the seventeenth century, when the Romanov dynasty ascended to the throne.”

The defense appeared to be in a stupor while Sokologorskaya continued to cite random episodes of Russian history, returning periodically to the unremitting heartache caused by Pussy Riot’s action. Finally, when the victim seemed to run out of breath, the judge asked her to return to the story of what happened in the cathedral on February 21. Sokologorskaya looked confused.

“What were they wearing?” asked the prosecutor. “Was their clothing the sort that would be permissible in church?”

Sokologorskaya responded by telling the court the group apparently had a leader and she thought it was Tolokonnikova.

“The clothing that remained on them—how would you describe it?” The judge would not abandon her efforts to get the testimony she needed. “Was it modest, vulgar, permissible in a church?”

“The clothing they had on was not permissible for being in a church. It was vulgar. One of the unidentified persons even had a bare shoulder. I quickly thought, ‘Oh my God, make it so they don’t strip!’”

“Please tell us what they did then,” asked the judge.

“They began to don masks with slits for the eyes and mouth. I was caused further anxiety by the fact that a guitar was being taken out.”

“A regular guitar?”

“No no no, not a regular guitar. It was an electric guitar.”

“Were they standing still?”

“They began bodily movements and those shouts.”

“Please describe their bodily movements.”

“I am not going to look for a description now. As far as I am concerned, these were devilish jerkings.”

“Were they jumping and skipping?” asked the judge.

“They were jumping and skipping and making arm movements with their hands in fists. They raised their legs so high that you could practically see everything below the waist. Doing this in front of the sanctuary, at the Lord’s gate, at the pulpit, this sort of jumping—how can anyone say this was just a small ethical transgression? And I felt like they were showing off to one another, to see who can raise her leg higher.”

“Please tell us, were these actions accompanied by shouts of any sort that were of an offensive and sacrilegious nature with regards to the Orthodox faith, Jesus Christ, the Virgin Mary, the Russian Orthodox Church, and Russian saints?”

“That was their whole nature. It was offensive. There was no other nature to them.”

“Please tell us, did the actions of the defendants and of unidentified persons cause moral damage to you?”

“They caused huge moral damage to me. The pain will not go away.”

“In your opinion, did their video clip offend the feelings and souls of believers? Did it provoke them to retaliate in kind, and did it, as well, provoke those who are not Orthodox believers to view the Orthodox negatively?”

By Russian law, a witness or a victim of an alleged crime can testify only to the facts; witness opinions must be disallowed when offered and must never be solicited. But those who testified as witnesses against Soviet dissidents were often asked to render their opinions on the anti-Soviet nature of actions or materials attributed to defendants—and their opinions, scripted by the KGB, often made it into the wording of the courts’ verdicts.

“It did both,” Sokologorskaya obliged, adding that the impact was exacerbated by timing: it had been the week before Lent.

“And if we abstract ourselves from what happened in the cathedral, in your opinion, would this kind of behavior be acceptable from a moral standpoint in any other public space, or are these immoral acts of hooliganism?” the judge asked the candle lady.

“Naturally and without a doubt, this kind of behavior would be unacceptable anywhere. From my point of view, it is simply immoral.”

At length the judge, having preempted the role of the prosecution, invited the defense to cross-examine the witness.

“You said you heard what the participants said, but you cannot repeat it because of your religious convictions,” said Mark Feigin. “Is this correct?”

“Yes.”

“In that case, I am going to read out several phrases myself and you’ll tell me whether you heard them. Did you hear them sing ‘Mother of God, chase Putin out’?”

“No.”

“All right. Did they say, ‘Mother of God, become a feminist’?”

“It’s all mixed up with the video clip now. You know, I don’t remember.”

“Did they mention Patriarch Kirill’s last name?”

“I was standing there and praying as hard as I could so I wouldn’t hear these words. I definitely heard the word ‘patriarch.’ And we only have the one patriarch.”

“You said you were praying. When you pray, do you hear what other people are saying to you? Do you take in information, wholly or in part?”

“I didn’t say that and I won’t. I want to say that praying normally and praying in that setting are different things. It was enough that I heard the word ‘patriarch.’ I’m not going to tell you which grammatical case it was used in.”

“So you can’t say what you heard exactly?”

“No.”

“So you didn’t hear anything!”

“Sure I didn’t!”

“You keep asking the victim the same question,” said the judge. “She’s already answered. I’m disallowing it.”

“You mean the court doesn’t need to know what the victim heard?” asked Volkova.

“I said, I’m disallowing the question!” the judge squealed.

“Tell me then what kind of moral suffering you experienced when you heard their show,” said Feigin.

“I am disallowing the question!” the judge screamed again. “The victim already answered it. You should have been paying attention.”

“I didn’t get an answer.”

“But everyone else did,” said the judge.

“All right. Who told you that the young women you saw at the Cathedral of Christ the Savior and the women in the clip you watched were the same people? They were wearing balaclavas.”

“I can put two and two together,” said Sokologorskaya. “I’m not the stupidest person there is.”

“You said the defendants performed bodily movements that you called ‘devilish jerkings.’ Could you explain what devilish jerkings are?”

“I am disallowing the question.”

“Why?” Volkova stood up again. “Is the court curtailing our rights?”

“No one is curtailing anything,” said the judge.

“The victim’s statement is part of the record,” insisted Volkova. “We would like to know what ‘devilish jerkings’ are. How does the victim know how the devil jerks? Has she seen the devil?”

“I demand respect for the victim,” said the judge. “I am reprimanding you.”

“We would like to know why the court is disallowing our questions. On what basis?”

“Continue the cross-examination,” said the judge.

The lawyers had run out of questions. The defendants themselves stepped in.

“We stand accused of publicly expressing hatred and enmity toward Orthodox believers,” said Maria. “I want to understand the difference between a personal insult and the public expression of hatred for believers.”

“I said that what happened in the Cathedral of Christ the Savior was a personal insult for everyone who came there with deep pain,” responded Sokologorskaya. “Your behavior showed that you want publicity, that’s all.”

“Do you believe a personal insult of that sort is a crime punishable by law?” asked Kat.

“I am disallowing the question,” said the judge.

“Was my clothing inappropriate for being in a church?” asked Kat.

“You had on the longest dress, and your shoulders were covered,” admitted Sokologorskaya. “But you had bright stripes and a mask.”

“I am aware that the cathedral’s internal rules dictate that women should cover their heads,” said Volkova, “but I don’t know that they say women can’t wear masks. Do they say that?”

“I am disallowing the question,” said the judge, visibly angry. “Stop this mockery!”

“What mockery? I insist that if this is part of the charges, then we need to see the rules that forbid it.”

“Continue with the cross-examination.”

Kat rose again. “I would like to know what you heard me say, if I said anything.”

“You are lucky that you were detained by security right away and didn’t have time to say anything!”

“Oh my God,” said Nikolai Polozov.

“So did Samutsevich say anything or not?” asked Volkova.

“At first they were all saying stuff and then I don’t remember,” said the victim.

“Why do you think that if I break the cathedral’s internal rules of behavior, that means I do it out of hatred and enmity toward believers?” Kat insisted. “What makes you say that?”

“I am disallowing the question!” said the judge.

“Still, I would like to know what you heard me say, if you think I was expressing hatred toward believers.”

“You are trying to force me to say bad words and curse words. I’m not going to do it.”

“By law they cannot be said in court,” added the judge.

“But unprintable words and ‘bad words’ are two different things,” said Volkova. “If we don’t know what she said, we cannot tell whether the charges are warranted.”

“The victim has already informed us that her religious convictions preclude her from saying these words,” said the judge. “She has that right. I have disallowed the question. Continue the cross-examination.”

“I have no more questions until I get answers to the ones I already asked,” said Kat.

“Is it only the defendants who are not allowed to be in the cathedral dressed like this?” asked Volkova. “Considering that the parts of the body that women tend to cover—they had those covered. And their dresses were below the knee.”

“But that is why they tried to raise their legs as high as possible—because their skirts weren’t short enough. Plus I’d like to note that the length of the dress is not the only criterion of appropriateness.”

“Not short enough?” Volkova said. “With all due respect to the court, I studied logic in college, and the responses we are getting today seem to me entirely unconnected to the questions. I want to know all the criteria of appropriateness, and I would also like to understand if other women, women who are not on trial today, are allowed to enter the Cathedral of Christ the Savior wearing a brightly colored dress. I am wearing a dress right now, and it has flowers on it. Would I be able to enter a church in it?”

“Now that you mention it, your dress is kind of like that color.” The brownness of Volkova’s dress notwithstanding, the exchange had already exceeded the limits of absurdity.

“You are being asked to define the criteria of appropriate dress,” said Polozov.

“I want to hear you address the length of every individual dress,” said Volkova. “You are not answering our questions.”

“Appropriateness of dress is determined by a set of criteria, including length and extent of exposure. I noticed that Alyokhina’s dress was a bit long as well, and this must be why she was trying to raise her legs so high.”

“Any other questions?” asked the judge.

The defense huddled for a minute.

“We have no more questions,” said Feigin, “because our clients require a break.”

“You have given them no food or water since five in the morning,” added Volkova.

“By international law, this constitutes torture,” said Polozov.

The journalists present scribbled furiously; this was the first quotable quote from the defense all afternoon. The judge called a break.

C
ALLING IT “TORTURE”
was not an overstatement. They had been up at five; on days when they had hearings, inmates had to be dressed and ready before breakfast because the order to report to the door could come at any point in the morning. Some days, the call came before breakfast and this meant they got none. Once out of the building, they were placed in a prisoner transport equipped with what they called “glasses”—vertical enclosures about three feet square and five feet three inches high (that is, high enough for Kat and Maria but not for Nadya to stand up straight) that served to isolate them from one another. There were stools in the glasses to sit on, uncomfortably. Nadya, Maria, and Kat had food with them, if you could call it that, a plastic box that contained several packets of soup, tea bags, some crackers, and several plastic cups. During breaks, they could ask the marshals for hot water—and they did, and they ate the soups, but the soups turned out to be absurdly salty and they wanted to ask for water, but, mindful of the fact that the marshals did not always heed their requests to be taken to the bathroom, they thought better of it. So in the afternoon, they were dehydrated and still hungry.