The first part of the above statement is next to meaningless.
They did make the claim the prosecution didn't make the case against them, that they were "hate crime" motivated. And that they were scarcely at all allowed to defend themselves against that core element of the charge. That element was discussed by way of "expert opinion" brought in by the prosecution to prove that crucial point, but lacked basis in actual facts of evidence. They were convicted to a large extent by "opinion", if it be any "hate crime" charge stuck. As for "hooliganism", what they did falls a bit short of what that sort of law was intended to punish, for they scarcely damaged a thing. Leaving only the less than proven, religious hate crime stuff. The charges brought were a poor fit.
What is up with this other weird tangent? They are somehow supposed to be opposing "hate crime" law? What good would that do them? Bringing up that element is ridiculous. Is that the best you've got?
Try reading what my stated reasons for opposing this prosecution are. I have been extensive enough. Election irregularities are but one part of the larger overall picture. Am I supposed to touch upon every aspect of that larger setting?
Flat, linear descriptions of the type which you have expounded, misidentify more than adequately describe. Hence my continued effort to deny those descriptions to be fair assessment, or the real truth behind the story, the only parts which can matter.
Why persist in trying to tell me what I believe? Like you know better my own mind, than I do?
I guess subtleties, and layers of complexity are over your head. You offer above, more lopsided, woefully limited comprehension -- interestingly enough, favoring the status quo of the State. The very storyline they have been wanting to push. Half-truths designed to mislead (away from the substance of the complaint the protest punks made) leaving Putin's gang apparently more firmly in control.
"Hey, don't look at us, we are the good guys. It's those profane punks who are the real threat to your humanity. Just look at how indecent they are, blah, blah, blah..."
That issue, the emerging Church/State issues, and how such a blend is problematic given the situation in Russia (if not most anywhere), is still much larger than the conviction of Pussy Riot, in and of itself. The trial simply helped underscore those elements particularly and presently Russian.
The Patriarch publicly called for the prosecution. Now he and the church are stuck with the outcome, regardless of how much that may irk some.
The Church is being increasingly linked to the Putin regime. That can be or become a big problem, undermining the mission of the Church, turning the Church into a moral/political arm of the State -- driving many away, making it more difficult to trust the Church, since who in their right mind trusts Putin & his crew? Obama maybe?
Those are the things I "believe", that I've been trying to say. It is not limited to the overly simplistic "just because they also oppose Putin" or oppose and hate the church, etc. That sort of thing is the exact line from the Putin administration. And you are consistent in repeating it.
As far as any "excusing" of these profane punks went, I underlined and explained as honestly as possible, to what extent I did explain their reasons, or as you wish to put it, "excuse".
That admission of what my own words were intended to mean, falls far short of the way which you attempted to characterize, what I allegedly "excused".
Burning, overturned police vehicles? You included such and more in your initial list. That sort of over-reach is simply effort to dismiss the argument of those which you are in disagreement with.
I see right through that sort of half-baked "crap, crap, holy crap", to borrow a phrase from the newly minted convicts.
It's fairly obvious to me you either do not understand what I've been trying to say all along, or are unwilling to contemplate the implications of that which I have expressed.
You are correct we will not agree. Otherwise as a mind reader, you suck.
What is up with this other weird tangent? They are somehow supposed to be opposing "hate crime" law? What good would that do them? Bringing up that element is ridiculous. Is that the best you've got?
By pointing out the PR group's obvious lack of interest in opposing anti-hate crime legislation, here's what I'm getting at: They most likely support anti-hate crime laws. That's the irony in the whole story. Do you know what this PR group has been protesting against? Not just Putin's election and the Orthodox Church. They have been protesting against restrictions on abortion and in favor of "LGBT" issues. They are on the far left politically. Therefore, they most likely support the very kind of law under which they themselves were prosecuted - as long as they themselves aren't the ones being convicted. (If you can find evidence that they oppose such legislation, post it, but I don't want to click on a link to one of the PR websites. I checked one PR website for more information, and it turned out to be pornographic.)
That issue, the emerging Church/State issues, and how such a blend is problematic given the situation in Russia (if not most anywhere), is still much larger than the conviction of Pussy Riot, in and of itself.
Well, here's one point on which we might agree: The conviction of PR is not very important in the grand scheme of things. We're only talking about it because the press is driving the story, and celebrities and other misguided people are supporting the group. Meanwhile, Russian politics is not what people are talking about. And there are many other cases in the world that deserve far more attention than this one.
Burning, overturned police vehicles? You included such and more in your initial list. That sort of over-reach is simply effort to dismiss the argument of those which you are in disagreement with.
I don't see how pointing out their many activities is an overreach. They were prosecuted for the nature of one of those activities.
Speaking of hooligans, btw, someone stole from our car last night. But, hey, maybe whoever did the stealing was just protesting against oil dependency... maybe I should just try to understand their message...
No, nope. We're never going to see eye to eye on this issue. Good day.