A Good Judge
By Anton Orekh
November 27, 2012
Yezhednevny Zhurnal

“…We have many more of them – remember them” – these are lyrics from a song about good people. And it seems these days there actually is reason to remember such good people.

It was Natalia Pereverzeva who unexpectedly uttered these words about our home country at a recent and utterly banal beauty pageant. As it turned out, the words were her own; composed without the advice of any talent agent. And indeed, what young talent agent would advise a beautiful pageant hopeful to write about poor, pillaged Russia? You do not build a career with lyrics like that. But while Natalia did not win the competition, she instead left with something much more valuable than a prop-room tiara.

In St. Petersburg, we find among our ranks another such good person – local Judge Vitaly Barkovsky, who was chosen to preside over a truly idiotic, comical and by all accounts shameful lawsuit. I am, of course, referring to the suit brought by the “gentlemen” of the so-called Union of Russian Citizens against pop-music star Madonna. While one might accuse the union representatives of “intellectual deficiencies,” they nonetheless filed quite a brazen lawsuit, all the more relevant since it dealt with the so-called “struggle against homosexuals.” In St. Petersburg, this struggle is indeed mainstream; it is the official ideology in the house of the “governor-goon.”

The hearing was scheduled and rescheduled numerous times, due to the explainable truancy of the “defendant.” In the pop-star’s absence, the plaintiffs maintained their arrogance and smugness as best they could, and though only one of the ten present had actually attended the concert in question, they priced their incomprehensible moral outrage and collective suffering at 333 million rubles ($10.7 million). After the investigation began, the union even expanded their charges of “propagandizing homosexual love” to also include “undermining the Russian demographic” and “compromising Russia’s defense capacity.”

Judge Barkovsky could easily have encouraged this kind of nonsense. He could have requested a whole new set of hearings or further examinations. He could have called witnesses, giving the stage and a circus spotlight to a whole new group of contemptible idiots. In this way, Judge Barkovsky could have easily shown the powers that be what a helpful and diligent defender he was of the rubbish passing for Petersburg law.

But Barkovsky unexpectedly turned out to be a different kind of judge. Oddly enough, he turned out to be a judge of the levelheaded variety. He turned out to be the type of judge who would dare make the only truly logical ruling, even within the confines of illogical laws. The court was adjourned after only a single hearing, but due process was not constrained by the rigid truism that “rubbish is always rubbish.” Barkovsky’s well-developed sense of humor shined through and he did not deny himself the pleasure of mocking the “citizens” from the Union filing the lawsuit.

Thanks to Judge Barkovsky, the case hearing turned out to be a thrilling, captivating, and brilliantly hilarious affair. Highlighting that many see phallic symbols even in everyday kielbasa, that the embrace and passionate kiss shared by sailors in Petersburg on Navy Day each year did not seem to bother any of the plaintiffs, and that none among the union representatives could produce any chart that defined moral suffering by level of intensity, Barkovsky not only denied the plaintiffs the satisfaction of a victory, he actually fined them! And what a fantastic sum – 22 thousand, 22 rubbles and 22 kopeks ($710.39), and 16 thousand rubbles and 16 kopeks ($51.62)! A great judge! Well done!

Of course, this was not some heroic deed. And the case in question is not equal in scope to, say, the Yukos affair. But it would have been so much easier for Judge Barkovsky to rule in the style of thousands of his peers across the country, handing down a ridiculous sentence that contradicted all common sense, logic, factual evidence, and legal norms. These judges, Barkovsky’s peers, are not afraid to be spat upon and cursed. They do not fear mockery. In order to please their superiors, they are prepared to do almost anything. Barkovsky, however, was not prepared to follow suit. What is more, and I must reiterate this, Barkovsky did not simply quietly throw out the case. He took pleasure in making the hearing a spectacle to the greatest degree possible, and for Petersburg, this is an especially notable demonstration.

Translation by theotherrussia.org.

12:45 Good morning and welcome to RAPSI’s live broadcast of the drama brewing in St. Petersburg between nine of the city’s most avid anti-gay activists and American pop diva Madonna. With you this morning are Ingrid Burke and Vladimir Yaduta.

…

12:59 There’s space in the courtroom for 6 people. Maybe 7 if we get really cozy. This is going to be interesting, maybe less of a battle than an all-out-war. Some extra benches and chairs were brought into the courtroom which is the size of a walk-in closet.

…

13:22 Actually, there’s no Madonna in the courtroom, but neither the claimants, nor those on the defendant’s side have any objections. It’s still unknown whether Madonna was served with the claim form.

…

13:53 Meanwhile, the aggrieved party is lamenting that Madonna’s violations threaten to unhinge Russian social order. From his words, a public, thoroughly planned performance affected the childbearing rates as Russia’s youth after Madonna’s words will be more interested in filth than family building. The country’s going to loose its defense capacity as a result.

…

14:54 One of the guys on the defense side of the table is laughing and shaking his head.

14:58 Darya Dedova, who represents the plaintiffs, takes the floor. She says the aggrieved party is upset by the refusal to launch a criminal case over the Madonna’s show law infringements. It’s incredible to equal the traditional sexual relations to lesbian relations and sodomy, Dedova says. She stresses that children in the West become a neuter gender.

15:06 Dedova is deeply concerned that the defendants feel absolutely calm about their impunity. She is confident the defendants should bear all the responsibility for the rights for social order abuse.

…

15:34 Another aggrieved party representative complains about the poor conditions in Europe, especially in those countries where same-sex marriage is legalized. He blames ‘such as Madonna’ for that.

15:39 The judge asks the aggrieved parties if they are concerned with the Oliver Stone film about Alexander Makedonsky because of some scenes deemed defying.

15:43 One of the aggrieved party representatives says that Madonna was more provocative. He seems to be totally confused and says it’s time to change the Constitution. He feels uncomfortable about the fact that international agreemnets prevail over national law.

15:48 The judge asks Dedova if she ever attended the gay pride parades. She got confused and then replied that she is not against the homosexuality as itself.

15:53 Irina Gizatulina, another aggrieved party representative, is now testifying. She says that it’s very important for the government to protect society from gay propaganda. Her underaged brother accidentally watched Madonna’s show in some social networks.

15:58 Vitaly Orlovsky, another aggrieved party representative, says that the defendants’ actions affect the traditional families and lead to divorces. The judge has been getting increasingly sassy with the aggrieved parties. He is curious why the claim is lodged against Madonna alone.

16:05 The judge is asking for a statistical analysis of the number of divorces caused by homosexuality vs. those caused by alcoholism. Orlovsky replies that medical evidence shows there’re at about 0.01% gays among men.

…

16:41 Wikipedia entry on LGBT community and its symbols is among the evidence. The claimants’ representative notes that quite a lot of people attended the show with rainbow flags showing their support to LGBT community.

16:48 The defendant’s side wonders if Wikipedia might be considered a reliable source of information. One of the defense attorneys questions the legitimacy of Wikipedia as a source. , based on its open source nature.

…

17:07 The aggrieved parties are now showing a news article on the show and a photo depicting a topless white cartoon man making out with a topless black cartoon man. Daria Dedova is upset that putting man-on-man cartoon action next to that of woman-on-man makes gay seem normal.

17:13 The judge is puzzled. Why doesn’t it bother you when men hug while celebrating Navy Day, the judge asks.

…

17:35 Another dispute breaks out between the parties. Dedova turns out to be an activist of the public organization standing for the city of Volgograd to be renamed to Stalingrad. Defense side counsel advises Dedova to go even further and to change the photos of Stalin with the photos of Hitler.

Read the full transcript on RAPSI’s website here.