"It is more terrible to lose not the job, but the face": the heroines of the "Slutsky case" share their impressions
On Wednesday, the State Duma Ethics Commission She didn’t find any violations in the behavior of the deputy Leonid Slutsky, who was accused of harassment by three Russian journalists. The decision of the commission caused outrage of the media (two dozen publications announced a boycott of the State Duma) and criticism from several deputies. We asked Daria Zhuk and Farid Rustamova, who were present at the meeting of the ethics committee, where their request was dealt with, and Ekaterina Kotrikadze to talk about their feelings from this event.
The day before the meeting, we met with Farida [Rustamova] - and finally met - it was important for us to understand the background and formulate our thoughts on this. None of us had any illusions about the commission, but nevertheless I hoped that there would be at least one person in it who would show at least some respect and try to understand what really happened. This did not happen. Obviously, the very concept of "ethics" for the Duma commission of the same name means covering up one's own.
I got the impression that I was present at some amazing performance. If you read the transcript, you wonder - you want to immediately give it to the modern playwright, who would turn it into a script. Raisa Karmazina (MP from United Russia. - Approx. Ed.) grumbled that in her time there was nothing like that and people were different. Irina Rodnina impressed with her memories of how Farida ran down the corridor beyond Slutsky and solicited information, which provoked him(quote from Rodnina: "Do not you think that your somewhat annoying behavior caused some kind of reaction?" - Ed.). This suggests that she herself admits that the harassment could occur, and maybe understands what it was. Otari Arshba (Chairman of the Commission. - Ed.)I asked all members of the commission not to ask which side Slutsky approached and what kind of cheek he kissed. It sounded somehow disparaging, as if the very fact of harassment did not seem to him blatant. Obviously, he and his colleagues on the commission really did not want these details to be published again, and they carefully avoided the word “harassment” itself. Therefore, the entire discussion has been reduced to pronouncing minor details: for example, why we were silent for so long. Although we have repeatedly explained why this happened.
Yaroslav Nilov (LDPR deputy, head of the committee on labor, social policy and veteran affairs. - Editor’s note.) declared that we in vain carried the dirty linen out of the hut. That is, on the one hand, we were told that there was nothing, and on the other, that with this “nothing” it was necessary to immediately go to them.
Shamsail Saraliyev (deputy from United Russia, deputy head of the committee on affairs of nationalities. - Editor’s note.) He said that all this looks like a planned campaign, called representatives of the Western media as enemies and cited as an example the blocking of Kadyrov on Facebook. The whole argument of the commission was reduced to the fact that it was black PR before the presidential election, which in itself seems to me very funny: why did we have to drown Zhirinovsky? But nothing else, they apparently did not come up.
All this was very unpleasant, but during the meeting I was able to distance myself from personal feelings about this and observe what was happening with anthropological interest. Some kind of defense mechanism worked. The commission on ethics in the State Duma exists, obviously, for the same purpose, for which many other commissions and committees: they are simply useless. All that this commission could do was to deprive Slutsky of the right to vote at several meetings and make him apologize in the press. In many countries (one of the most recent cases was in South Korea, where the governor resigned after accusing him of harassment), such scandals now lead to very specific consequences.
Many thanks to colleagues. I would never have thought that in a journalistic environment that is so different, solidarity is possible, that we will be supported by journalists from so different editions. I am very grateful to them and very touched by their reaction.
I think that this is still far from the final, and we have a chance to influence the State Duma. I hope that there will be deputies in parliament who have the courage to be honest people. Two such examples already exist. - Valery Rashkin (MP from the Communist Party of the Russian Federation - Approx. Ed.)and Oksana Pushkina (deputy from United Russia, deputy chairman of the State Duma’s family affairs committee. - Editor’s note.)which, despite its long acquaintance and good relations with Leonid Slutsky, has supported us and is now working on the law on harassment. I hope that there will be other decent deputies who are not afraid to tell the truth (I am sure that most of them know that Slutsky has behaved in this way for many years). In my opinion, it’s much worse not to lose a job, but to lose a face.
A year ago, after Slutsky harassed me, I discussed this with my acquaintances, deputies, and members of the staff of the Duma. My colleagues, who have been working in parliament for many years, said that they were at a loss, that they did not understand how to be in such a situation. The answers of everyone I spoke with boiled down to the fact that looking for protection in the Duma - from the ethics commission, from Volodin, from the Liberal Democratic Party leadership - it’s like playing cards with sharpshooters. They are not something that will not protect, but also add problems. So this option was dropped immediately.
Soon there was an episode about which I know from several of my colleagues and employees of the staff of the Duma. In early June last year, the Duma delegation, which included Leonid Slutsky, went to Serbia. I wasn’t there because foreign journalists are not invited to such trips. But colleagues told me that after the official dinner on that trip, Slutsky, let's say, relaxed well and behaved, to put it mildly, strangely. This happened in front of the staff, and this episode for a long time then was a topic for jokes. At that time, Slutsky, according to my colleagues, also allowed himself indecent behavior towards one of the journalists. When colleagues asked another deputy what was happening and what happened to Slutsky, he replied: "Yes, he just wants to have sex." But, I repeat, I myself was not a witness to this, and I know this only in the retelling.
Since then, my colleagues have asked the staff to accompany them to meetings with Slutsky, because they were afraid of harassment. This is a fact that was known in the Duma even before my story hit the press, but no one took it as an excuse to sound the alarm. That is, the staff, the deputies saw the strange behavior of a colleague, heard complaints from journalists and, in fact, did nothing. Did I have to ask for help from these people?
The State Duma Ethics Commission is, of course, a complete profanation. They do not even have a normal regulation - only those rules that they themselves approved, and those powers that they endowed themselves with. In the Duma, it does not attach any importance. This commission was created simply to ensure that it was, and was used for its intended purpose only when it was necessary to get rid of "uncomfortable" deputies - for example, Ilya Ponomarev(MP from "Fair Russia", in June 2016, was deprived of his mandate, for official reasons - "for the systematic non-fulfillment of their duties, including absenteeism of plenary sessions". - Approx. Ed.). For this convocation, if I am not mistaken, she met twice and did not make any significant decisions. She has not so many powers: for example, she can deprive a deputy of a word in plenary sessions for a month. If you look at how many times Slutsky has been in the plenary sessions, you will see that this is not a problem for him at all.
But it was precisely to this body that the leadership of the Duma urged us to contact us after we talked about harassment. Nevertheless, Dasha and I decided that we would try to get at least some reaction from them. I can not say that I had at least some expectations from this meeting. Although one of the members of the commission told me personally, when I didn’t yet know that we were talking about me, too, that this situation was horrible, that it was necessary to fill my face with it and it would not be a shame to sit out. My colleagues told that they were talking with another member of the commission and he told them that it was a terrible story, but nothing could be done. Probably, I had some hopes for these people, but they were not justified.
I asked the commission to let me come with a lawyer, just to feel more confident. I was refused, although there were no grounds for refusal - after all, the activity of the ethics commission is not regulated by any laws or by-laws. As a result, fourteen deputies turned out to be indoors - both Dasha and I. I was told to be grateful that I was invited at all. "Do not want - do not come." I replied: "No, I guess I will come."
I am very grateful to Oksana Pushkina and Valery Rashkina (MP from the Communist Party. - Approx. Ed.)who expressed dissatisfaction with the decision of the commission. Knowing the specifics of the Duma’s faction, at least United Russia, I understand that such speeches require courage. Without coordination with the leadership, none of the deputies of the faction will even introduce a bill, let alone criticize it. And the fact that Oksana Pushkina intervened in the situation and wants to influence her by law deserves a lot of respect.
Judging by the fact that Turchak says one thing ("Unfortunately, this is not our deputy. We would understand quickly. Everyone determines for himself what it means to behave like a man." - Ed.)and Volodin is different, in United Russia there is no longer a common position. So unexpected turns in this story are still possible. I know, the Duma under the leadership of Volodin and himself in particular, she is very worried, they are very concerned about their image. Whatever they say, this is now the number one issue for them, especially after the media boycott.
Before our story was publicized, I knew about several cases of harassment of deputies to journalists. After the publication, several other journalists and former employees of the Duma’s staff wrote to me, who themselves once became victims of harassment — on business trips, on trips, and so on. Harassment in the State Duma is a very, very common phenomenon.
First of all, I want to say that I admire the heroism of Dasha and Farida, who endured this meeting - it deserves a separate applause. After I read the published transcript, I had a dual impression. On the one hand, this is a monstrous duplicity and an incredible scale of cynicism. On the other hand, the way the colleagues and people in Russia reacted in general struck me deeply.
This story proves that we live in a completely different world. And all these Karelins, who hinted at the fact that all this is a political campaign, who dared to mock the girls and let scabby jokes, all these women, who say that their "no one was trying", although they were beautiful three hundred times - they thought that stuck in the old world, that the system remained the same as it was many years ago. And they suddenly faced with a new reality, where a generation of sober-minded honest people tells them "no." In the new world, there is honor, there is equality, there are laws, and there is the work of a journalist, which does not imply that some man drags you into the office and touches you. This will not happen in the new world.
Cover:paulvelgos - stock.adobe.com