The final statement
‘It is unacceptable to prosecute for art’.
It is unacceptable to persecute for art. An artistic expression can be interpreted and understood in many different ways, even if it is conveyed in the simplest and clearest form. There will always be those who misinterpret it. And if someone is inclined to take offense, they may do so—even for no apparent reason. I didn’t have an intention to offend anybody with my poem. Perhaps someone wanted to be offended—in order to unjustly punish a person with views and opinions different from their own.
But just as for art, it is unacceptable to persecute for an opinion, even if it is public. Unfortunately, in modern Russia, this does happen. And so, with all due respect, I fear that the verdict will be guilty—despite the fact that I am completely innocent.
I would also like to draw your attention to the fact that the video evidence clearly shows I did not call on anyone to ignore draft notices, refuse to sign anything, or anything of the sort.
I’d also like to emphasize that all statements made or texts read during the readings are the sole responsibility of the person who said or read them. The Mayakovsky Readings have no official platform or organizers—they are a longstanding city tradition dating back to the mid-20th century, and have never required them. Anyone is free to step up and say whatever comes to mind. That’s how it has always been, as far back as I can remember.
Moreover, with regard to Article 280, note four, I would like to draw your attention to the fact that this article is very new: At the time of our detention, it had existed for no more than three months, and there was no established legal practice related to it.
As new laws prohibiting certain forms of expression appeared, I always adjusted my rhetoric accordingly. When the law on ‘discrediting’ [the armed forces] was introduced and the first person was convicted for saying ‘No to war,’ I stopped saying ‘No to war’—even though I still don’t understand how that constitutes discreditation. When Article 207—the law on ‘fake news’ [about the armed forces]—came into effect, I stopped sharing any information not confirmed by the Russian Ministry of Defense. If I knew that certain things—even if said for myself, but spoken publicly—could lead to imprisonment, I stayed silent… Or rather, I didn’t stay silent. Knowing how easily the prosecution throws around labels like “organized group,” I probably would have just stepped away from the person saying such things. I would have been tormented by guilt, overwhelmed by anxiety—but I would have stayed silent.
I’m not a hero, and going to prison for my beliefs was never part of my plan. I’m a poet—and not an entirely emotionally stable person. I even have a diagnosis: generalized anxiety disorder, or, as it was called at the Serbsky Institute, mixed personality disorder. Not that any of that prevents me from being put on trial.
I would like to ask you—if, for any reason, you are unable to deliver a not-guilty verdict (though I must emphasize that I am absolutely innocent)—to consider limiting the sentence to a suspended one. I’m afraid that neither my physical nor mental health would withstand a long prison sentence. And the very possibility of ending up behind bars again—the threat of being forcibly separated from my loved ones—would serve as a strong enough deterrent against speaking out on any sensitive topics in the future.
My beliefs will not change—just as they didn’t change under pressure, just as they wouldn’t change even if I were given a real prison sentence, or even under the threat of death. That’s simply not how it works. But I can guarantee you this: I will no longer express those beliefs publicly.
Your Honor, let me go home.
Tverskoy district court, Moscow, Russia
27 December 2023
Source: Zona.media (translated from Russian)
More information about the case: Memorial
Photo: SOTA.
Share on social media:
