Slashdot stories can be listened to in audio form via an RSS feed, as read by our own robotic overlord.

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Censorship Government Puzzle Games (Games) Politics

Gary Kasparov Arrested Over Political Fight 427

Posted by Zonk
from the more-active-than-chess dept.
geddes writes "World chess champion turned opposition leader Gary Kasparov was arrested this morning while leading an march through Moscow in opposition to Russian President Vladamir Putin. Kasporov is a leader of the 'Other Russia' coalition which has been banned by the government from appearing on TV, and had been denied a marching permit. From the New York Times: 'Essentially barred from access to television, members of Other Russia have embraced street protests as the only platform to voice their opposition ahead of parliamentary elections in December and presidential elections next March. Early this month, Mr. Kasyanov's and Mr. Kasparov's Web sites were blocked, though it was unclear by whom.' Kasparov was later released from detention, though he was still fined for participating in the event."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Gary Kasparov Arrested Over Political Fight

Comments Filter:
  • by LaughingCoder (914424) on Saturday April 14, 2007 @06:29PM (#18736065)

    Early this month, Mr. Kasyanov's and Mr. Kasparov's Web sites were blocked, though it was unclear by whom.' Kasparov was later released from detention, though he was still fined for participating in the event."
    So now it's Kasparaov's move.
    • by mobby_6kl (668092) on Saturday April 14, 2007 @06:36PM (#18736131)
      My guess is he might use the Queen's Gambit, but with those ruskies you never know. Plus, Pootin just might also overreact [imageshack.us] to moves like that.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Saturday April 14, 2007 @06:31PM (#18736081)
    Castled by the police.

    Get it? Eh? Because the prison cell is like... Oh gosh.
  • So... (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Rakishi (759894)
    Is there another side to this story? IS there a valid reason for the TV ban? Is it even a TV ban? And so on.

    I have long ago learned that slashdot stories and summaries have enough bias in them to drown half the world in so thats why I'm asking.
    • by Atzanteol (99067)

      IS there a valid reason for the TV ban?

      Can you actually think of any reasons that *would* be valid? I know I can't...

    • Part of the story is the other participants in the opposition movement. Despite his apparent popularity in the West, Kasparov's participation alone probably would not have caused the permits to be denied.

      A gallery of news photos [lenta.ru] from the event may help to understand the story better. I am not going to try explaining the backgrounds of all the opposition groups, but one of them is called "national-bolsheviks" and even a quick glance [lenta.ru] at their symbols [lenta.ru] may suggest that the West would not want the leaders of th

      • by shutdown -p now (807394) on Sunday April 15, 2007 @11:32AM (#18741999) Journal

        A gallery of news photos from the event may help to understand the story better. I am not going to try explaining the backgrounds of all the opposition groups, but one of them is called "national-bolsheviks" and even a quick glance at their symbols may suggest that the West would not want the leaders of this movement to rule in Russia. Some "national-bolshevik" events have turned violent in the past, so the Russian Federal and Moscow City governments may have a legitimate security concern when considering the location and type of these events.
        You conveniently forget to note that National Bolsheviks are only one party in the present anti-Putin coalition [theotherrussia.ru], which includes pretty much everyone from the USSR-nostalgic communists to liberal democrats dreaming of Westenized Russia. What more, there is nothing "bolshevik" and very little "nationalist" in the present-day NBP - after its leader Eduard Limonov has backed the liberal opposition in the days of the Khodorkovsky affair, the hard-liners left the party. As it is, it's essentially a unitarian / democratic socialist party.

        In this case, the authorities actually did allow the opposition meeting on one of squares in Moscow, but not the preceding march starting from a different square. So there was no total ban, but the opposition did not get everything they wanted. The response of Western governments to the anti-globalization marches may be a reasonable analogy.
        Absolutely not. The response is not to the marshes themselves, but to the vandalism that occurs during them. There was none in this case - it was a peaceful demonstration beaten up by police forces (including special units) and the army. The whole thing about them being allowed to meet but not marsh, while officially true, turned out to be bullshit as well - young men who looked like potential participants were picked by the police right as they left the metro, before they could even reach the square where they could, presumably, legitimately protest. A few people who came to join the march from other cities were detained right at the rairoad stations as they arrived.

        You might want to watch the video - a report [youtube.com] on a Russian TV station (as far as I know, the only one that even mentioned the whole thing). It's more telling than the pictures, even if you can't understand Russian. Here's another one [youtube.com] (not normally available in Russia), though that one is hardly impartial. Still worth watching for the pictures, though. Also, here [livejournal.com] are a few more photos, made by a participant, that show just how many forces were involved in quelling this. Note the army trucks with people in the uniform inside on the photo with McDonalds.

  • by sodas (513553) on Saturday April 14, 2007 @06:33PM (#18736099)
    In Soviet Russia... Uhm... Wait a minute here.
  • by apathy maybe (922212) on Saturday April 14, 2007 @06:34PM (#18736103) Homepage Journal
    but that doesn't excuse it. It was apparently about AUD50 (from the ABC [abc.net.au].

    Anyway, this is just another example of how legitimate protests are squashed by authorities. If Putin and Co continue to suppress the opposition, I wonder if Mr Berezovsky will carry out his threat to have a "Russian [bbc.co.uk] Revolution" [guardian.co.uk]?

    Meh, and you wonder why some of the old people want the Soviet Union back.
    • Meh, and you wonder why some of the old people want the Soviet Union back.

      It might bring some good Tom Clancy novels.
    • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

      "this is just another example of how legitimate protests are squashed by authorities. "

      The US is only one or two steps behind in this. I've seen protesters that wanted to be infront of the UN herded into "first amendment zones" six blocks away out of sight of TV cameras and delegates. Things like flash-mobbing don't work because the cops have double agents in most politically active organizations. So how are the common people supposed to be heard, about a specific issue?

      " I wonder if Mr Berezovsky wil
      • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

        by heinousjay (683506)
        Since the protesters are typically a vocal minority whose tactics include property destruction and disrupting the lives of people who don't agree, I say turn the hoses on em.

        I say this as a former victim of a job in downtown DC, so I know what it's like to get caught in the whirlwind. There's nothing peaceful about some hippie flinging a brick through the Starbucks where you're trying to get a coffee because he doesn't like milk.
  • by hey! (33014) on Saturday April 14, 2007 @06:40PM (#18736173) Homepage Journal
    their political system may be awful mess, but it goddamn cool that being a chess champion there makes you a national hero too big for the government to mess with lightly.
    • by Nethead (1563)
      Yeah, just think how long Deep Blue would be locked up by the NSA marching against Bush&Co.
      • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

        by Brandybuck (704397)
        Reality to the Reality-Based Community: You don't get arrested in the US for peacefully marching against Bush.
        • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

          by kharchenko (303729)
          You will get arrested if you don't have a permit. It's a great excuse authorities anywhere can leverage. Remember "freedom cage [google.com]" - a designated protest zone at last GOP convention? Guess what happened when you tried to gather outside of the designated zone?
        • by jtcm (452335) on Sunday April 15, 2007 @03:29AM (#18739495)

          You don't get arrested in the US for peacefully marching against Bush.

          Actually, you might get arrested [aclu.org] for peacefully protesting against Bush.

          From the link:

          • Kalamazoo, Michigan - ... When the protester refused to enter the protest zone, but insisted on standing where other people had been allowed to gather, he was arrested. ...
          • St. Louis, Missouri - ... Two protesters carrying signs critical of the President's policy on Iraq were ordered into a "protest zone" approximately one-quarter mile away, a location completely out of sight of the building. When the protesters refused, they were arrested. ...
          • Neville Island, Pennsylvania - ... But when retired steelworker Bill Neel refused to enter the protest zone and insisted on being allowed to stand where the President's supporters were standing, he was arrested for disorderly conduct and detained until the President had departed. ...
          • Columbia, South Carolina - ... When Bursey insisted on being allowed to remain where other members of the public stood, he was arrested on state and federal criminal charges. ...
  • Just about anywhere in the world when you are denied a permit for a march or other assembly and do it anyway, you get arrested.

    In the US this has happened with KKK and Nazi groups. I suspect it would happen to a Young Repuplicans march if they were (a) denied a permit and (b) marched anyway.
    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by apathy maybe (922212)
      In lots of places, even if you are denied a permit, you are still allowed to protest. And if you don't do anything besides not move on when told to ... Well you can't be legally arrested. (I believe this is the case in all of Australia, but at least NSW and Tasmania.)

      That doesn't stop you being arrested however. Charged. Forced to fly across the country to one court date. Forced to get a lawyer. Get charged with other charges because the cops are trying to blackmail you into pleading guilty to a "les
  • by shaitand (626655) on Saturday April 14, 2007 @06:47PM (#18736225) Journal
    We like to think we have freedom of speech and a peaceful protest like this wouldn't be broken up here. That is false. In Russia they require permits and his permit was denied. He and some other protesters were arrested for marching without a permit.

    Most don't know that here in the US you are required to have a permit also, just as they did in Russia they can refuse to grant your permit will try to silence your protest and just happened in Russia. If you March anyway you WILL be arrested for trying to exercise your free speech.
    • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

      by Paradise Pete (33184)
      Most don't know that here in the US you are required to have a permit also

      Sure, but "We don't like what you have to say" is not, by itself, sufficient grounds to deny one.

      • by Abcd1234 (188840)
        Sure, but "We don't like what you have to say" is not, by itself, sufficient grounds to deny one.

        Yes, I'm sure that's technically the case... as I'm sure that's technically the case in Russia, too.
    • Yeah, but we're different! It's not like the United States ever [wikipedia.org] tried to punish a world renowned chess grand master for doing something the government disagreed with politically.
    • I know, I was working in a data center that was surrounded by the Seattle WTO events.

      Really officer: I'm not a radical longhair, I'm a UNIX longhair!
    • I always thought that this practice violated the Right of Assembly part of the Constitution.

      I feel the same about Free Speech Zones...
    • there was a huge protest against a G8 meeting in florida (around '02 i think).

      they had flawless preparation, including all permits.

      the pro-globalist heavyweights who controlled the area simply had cops trample them anyway, declaring them "anarchist agitators" to the media, which loyally parroted their excuse to the rest of the nation, quickly burying any potential public outrage at the new police state of florida.
    • by pipingguy (566974) *
      in the US you are required to have a permit also

      This is because demonstrators like to disrupt traffic (which nobody enjoys) and rock-throwing nutbars tend to gravitate to this type of thing.

      Are you saying that large groups should be able to wander around pissing everyone else off? Should the cops just eff off and go find "real criminals"?
    • You may be required to apply for a permit to protest in the U.S., and there is no guarantee that you will get one from a given municipality. Often you will have to agree to stay inside a "First Amendment Zone" [wikipedia.org] set up as a chain link fenced-in area in some place where nobody sees you except homeless people who can't vote.

      The zoning is not applied evenly across the political spectrum; pro-government activists are allowed to line streets along motorcades. [amconmag.com]
    • If you March anyway you WILL be arrested for trying to exercise your free speech.

      You'll be arrested for marching without a permit, stopping traffic (a criminal offense), loitering on government land, breaking windows, torching cars, other vandalism, assaulting police officers and each other, and littering. Pretending that your demonstration is legitimate doesn't allow you to commit criminal and civic offenses, though many protesters like to pretend otherwise. "We're angry that our hand-outs aren't big eno

      • people like you need to move to china or iran where "those damned people who want rights" will be put in their place.

        honestly, IMHO you can go get violently soddomized for your blanket, trollish comments.

        the vast majority of protests are perfectly civil until cops come in and instigate violence.

        i have plenty of access to videos of cops throwing the first blow, then running around beating people in attempts to confiscate their cameras and prevent the documentation of their fascist behavior.
    • by spike2131 (468840)
      Yeah, but here we have Free Speech Zones. If you go to a Free Speech Zone, you can say anything you want. How cool is that?
    • by fm6 (162816)

      We like to think we have freedom of speech and a peaceful protest like this wouldn't be broken up here. That is false. In Russia they require permits and his permit was denied. He and some other protesters were arrested for marching without a permit.

      I think you'll find that it's a lot harder to get a permit to hold an anti-government protest march in Russia than it is here. You'll also find that what the government gets away with calling "an anti-government protest march" is whole lot broader in Russia than here.

      It's not that we're that much friendlier to dissent than Russia (though we are). It's simply that there are more safeguards here. Somewhat eroded [epic.org], alas, but still better than Russia's.

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Brandybuck (704397)
      If you March anyway you WILL be arrested for trying to exercise your free speech.

      You won't be arrested for your free speech, you will be arrested for blocking traffic, and/or blocking access to buldings. You're free to peacefully march along public access pedestrian sidewalks and in public access parks, so long as you don't restrict others rights to do the same, and don't violate any loitering ordinances.

      In short, you may need permits for certain deeds, but never for words.
      • and by "blocking access to buildings" and "violating loitering laws" they mean merely standing there and passively voicing your opinion.

        never mind the guy standing next to your group in the suit with the briefcase eating his bagel who was left alone while violating those same loitering laws.
  • Unsurprising (Score:3, Insightful)

    by vertigoCiel (1070374) on Saturday April 14, 2007 @06:50PM (#18736239)
    Putin has Russia locked down almost as tight as Stalin. Only, instead of killing people, he just chases them out of the country, or locks them up. Remember how one political dissident's lawyer recieved death threats, and fled to Amsterdam? Yeah, guess who ordered the death threats. Hint: It's not Yeltsin. He owns most of the TV and media outlets - he can clean up his mess by making it a non story. I wish Kasparov was only the first example of Putin's ironhold grip on political discussion.
    • You, sir, have no idea what you are talking about. Putin is a hardliner and his measures to stifle the free press rightly deserve criticism, but this is nothing like it was during Stalin's regime. Stalin killed 20 million Russians and was a paranoid maniac. Putin is not even running for re-election.
    • Re:Unsurprising (Score:5, Informative)

      by vishbar (862440) on Saturday April 14, 2007 @08:06PM (#18736917)

      Only, instead of killing people, he just chases them out of the country, or locks them up.

      Errrrr....do you know who Anna Politkovskaya [wikipedia.org], Ivan Safronov [wikipedia.org], or Alexander Litvinenko [wikipedia.org] are?

      Putin kills. Maybe not as much as Stalin, but if you are a "big fish" against Putin...expect retaliation.

  • by mincognito (839071) on Saturday April 14, 2007 @06:51PM (#18736243)
    kasparov blames team of ibm scientists for masterminding his capture.
  • That's it! (Score:2, Interesting)

    by iamacat (583406)
    I recently got US citizenship and was debating on what to do with by Russian passport. But, I have no desire to be in any way associated with a dictatorship. I guess I will be returning it shortly, with a note describing why.
    • How about you just return it politely, comrade?
      • by iamacat (583406)
        Why should I be polite to someone who voluntarily represents a repressive regime?
    • by schon (31600) on Saturday April 14, 2007 @07:32PM (#18736631)

      I have no desire to be in any way associated with a dictatorship.
      I thought you just said you got a US citizenship?

      (Go ahead and mod me down - prove Republicans have no sense of humor.) :)
      • by iamacat (583406)
        Go ahead and mod me down - prove Republicans have no sense of humor

        Well, they don't have a dictatorship for sure, although Republicans+Democrats do constitute a ROWM (Rich old white male) aristocracy. Aristocracy is better than dictatorship, because majority of any group is not insane and can oust total nutcases or keep their power in check. Care to suggest a country that combines democracy, freedom (to disagree with majority), compassion (helping decent people get over hard times), responsibility (global w
    • by zoftie (195518)
      You can start doing business with russia, having dual citizaship is wild card in some sorts of jobs.
  • Francis Fukuyama was wrong. So wrong.

    Liberal Democracy isn't the only ideology still remaining after the fall of the Soviet system. Neo-Facism and the cult of the leader in Russia. The One Party State in China. Theocracies in the Middle East. Tin Pot dictators ruling their roosts all across the third world. Even the "liberated" countries of eastern europe are falling back into authoritarianism.

    And faced with this, what are liberal democratic societies doing? They're evolving into not-so-liberal democracies with human rights taking second place to "security" and profit. Once again, the US leads the way and the rest of the western world follows. I'd like to be more optimistic, but somedays I truely feel that the great democratic experiment is doomed to be a slow and ignominious failure.

    Apathy is not the cause of democracy's downfall. The sad reality is that a great many people simply to not agree with our free society, with our rule of law or with our casteless social structure. These people are your friends, your neighbours and coworkers, and secretly they support presidents like Putin, and laws that ban street rallies and protests. They're simply waiting for the time when it becomes acceptable to voice those opinions once more. That time may be closer than you think.
  • by csmithers (675151) on Saturday April 14, 2007 @08:03PM (#18736897)
    Vladimir Putin has enjoyed almost rock star like popularity in Russia for his nearly 2 terms now. In fact, several years ago, there was a chart topping single called "Someone like Putin" that was the rage throughout the country (someone that won't leave me, etc, etc). It seems to me that if someone comes along to challenge him, it will take someone of equal or greater popularity to pull it off (someone like Kasparov). Also, I don't really know why, but Russians (at least in Russia), seem to crave a heavy handed goverment, and Putin is more than willing to give it to them. Unfortunately, we really don't understand this phenomenon in the west.
    • by zoftie (195518)
      I am half canadian, half russian and I sort of know what the heavy handedness is. Its just like that, and you have to live in it to see it. You can't really understand it. Either you know it or you don't :-) Its like going to mars. Being oxygen breathing animal you can't breathe whatever there is there. It think thats is very much like it. Same way I cringe when I see russianisms from russian immigrants here. They have hard time adapting.
      I think it comes from unadulterated honesty, something is avoided in w
  • by Catbeller (118204) on Sunday April 15, 2007 @01:07AM (#18738827) Homepage
    The U.S. has been at war with the socialist bogeyman since Marx published. I don't need to say too much how much the Gilded Age wealthy used their newspapers and their government influence to convince people that labor laws = unions = communism = anarchy = slavery = the end of the world. Those men were the among the worst slavers in history. They should have felt right at home.

    After the Revolution in Russia, the entire myth building machine went into batshit insane mode. We spend untold trillions of dollars and who knows how many billions of hours of people's lives fighting the Commie Devil. Certainly millions were slaughtered -- we killed a million alone in Vietnam. Now we have the Terrorist Menace, and they are sticking us for trillions more and killing hundreds of thousands in the name of security, and even invoke the democracy meme again, tho it really doesn't apply. The last of the Commie war is still being fought against a dirt poor Cuba which would be a damned sight less poor if we hadn't embargoed it for half a century.

    Russia wasn't the almighty military enemy the commie warriors said it was. The story of how the Pentagon and the CIA were pummeled into line, despite evidence they knew about that said they were far weaker and poorer than the civilian warriors demanded they see it, still remains to be told. It's a story Americans will not listen to. We had our first Iraq over sixty years ago.

    Soooo. Soviet Union fell, turned into a hell on earth controlled by crime syndicates. We were fine with that! At least we can do business with the guy who cuts a prostitute up for holding back. So Putin has golden plumbing *on his airplane*. That's capitalism, by definition better than anything.

    Now we have a fascist state rising from the criminal state. We're still okay with that. Putin has a good soul, Bush saw it in his eyes. A little polonium and a few reporters with their brains splattered in front of their homes is just the stuff of hard politics. Cheney probably smirks when he hears about that.

    They could strip people to the bone with boiling oil, and we'd STILL think they were better than them commies. As a matter of fact, they ARE boiling people's skin off with vats of oil. We don't care.

    Vonnegut said that what we see today is the rise to power of psychopathic personalities. People like them because they are decisive. But, they are decisive because they don't care about the repercussions of their decisions. Putin is strong, and Russians like strong men, as Hendrick Smith wrote. I'd like to point out that PP leaders also require a large population of PPs who don't care either. Without masses of people with no moral sense, PPs can't keep power.

    As long as unions are illegal and we can do business with someone, we don't fuck with them. Rule by kleptocrats. I'd rather have a socialist neighbor who spends all their money on health care and full employment than a hypermilitary power ruled by psychopaths. But we're so fixated on our century and a half of war (on the behalf of the very wealthy who created the war in fear of change in their power) on commies, unions and suchlike that we will support a thousand mirrorshaded mass murderers who will sell us bananas at near cost than a socialist who wants to spread the wealth. The mountain of bodies we have dedicated to the god of money must be a thousand feet tall.

    Russia's core problem with "freedom" and "democracy" was that they were Russians. What they do to the weak is part of their culture, not about Marxism. communism was our bogeyman, not theirs, as we see clearly now. They have a fascist soul, and it doesn't matter how the paychecks are cut -- it's about power. But we loves us some businessmen. We don't want democracy, we want money, we want gas pipelines, we want cheap labor. We are looking straight into the face of pure evil and laughing as it beats the democrats in the streets of Russia. Fuck those losers, they were blocking traffic. Party on.
    • The very fact that Franco rose to power and established his fascist government at the very same time the neighboring countries were liberated is a huge indicator that fascism wasn't that much of a problem for the western governments/elites than the threat of a social revolution posed.

      While after Europe was rid of the plague of German fascism the socialists/workers in Spain struggled against their own fascist dictator, who was backed by the usual suspects (i.e. a bigger part of the military and the old 'e

We don't know who it was that discovered water, but we're pretty sure that it wasn't a fish. -- Marshall McLuhan

Working...