The Pussy Riot trial will go down in the history of injustices as the Oscar Wilde trial of the 21^st century. Against the evil powers that be, the Moscow artists acknowledged their inspirers, fellow outcasts: Socrates (this connection to the martyr of philosophy has been noticed by David Remnick in The New Yorker), early feminist, transgender George Sand, and banished by Stalin, carnival researcher, Mikhail Bakhtin. Pussy Riot performs human rights. These women artists attack authoritarianism, misogyny, homophobia In their punk prayer, they protested Putin, the system, discrimination against the second sex, and as they sang, “gay pride exiled in chains to Siberia.” And still many hate them — and because of that they hate them. Why? In Eastern Europe the political class is anti-woman, anti-minority, anti-secular, because our countries have transitioned from false Communism to false Christianity: women, minorities, gays, artists to hell!

A formidable oppositionist movement is gaining strength: the supporters of Pussy Riot who don’t want prejudices to rule their life, demonstrations and shows of solidarity in the region and glocally, indignation of PEN Russia, PEN International, rock stars and the media, petitions (spearheaded in Poland’s leading broadsheet Gazeta Wyborcza by art critic Dorota Jarecka and signed by filmmakers Andrzej Wajda and Agnieszka Holland, curator Anda Rottenberg, Ethical Art professor Krzysztof Wodiczko ). Slovenian and cosmopolitan Slavoj Zizek wrote a letter to Pussy Riot with his characteristic wit: “It may sound crazy, but although I am an atheist, you are in my prayers.”

The brutal sentence on Pussy Riot encapsulates — beyond the headlines — the predicament which women face in Eastern Europe. Women curators in Hungary have been fired, and the world-renowned New School philosopher, Agnes Heller, has also been subject to a witch-hunt. Female artists and cultural operators in Poland have been humiliated. These prejudices are a major stumbling block in the democratic transition — in fact, phobias are destroying our societies. In Russia, women rebels are being killed: countless Chechen women, the human rights activist Galina Starovoytova, the journalist Anna Politkovskaya and the conceptual artist Anna Alchuk. When Alchuk was on trial for her art exhibit at the Sakharov Center, crowds surrounding the Taganka Court chanted “Go to Israel!”

During their trial, Pussy Riot sat locked in a cage that was originally built for Mikhail Khodorkovsky, now incarcerated in a penal colony. Anti-Semitism permeated accusations again him. The prejudices against Pussy Riot bring back to life the anti-Jewish anti-intelligentsia bias from the Soviet times. Conceptual artist “Kabakov had to endure not only the difficulties faced by all Soviet citizens, but the additional burdens of living in a society hostile to Jews,” wrote Susan Tumarkin Goodman of the Jewish Museum. Pussy Riot makes the silent deconstructive style of Ilya Kabakov not only rude, but carnivalesque, Bakhtinian, bad!

Pussy Riot performed against Putin and about “the Lord’s shit” and “Mary the feminist.” I admire their all-women and queered activism, esthetics and ethics in opposition to the Russian system, to consumerism, to the unjust world order. To fight for our freedom from tyranny-misogyny-art-phobia, Pussy Riot forms a civil society badly in need of swear words, shock tactics and punk prayer. Their viscerally performative power is sophisticated and draws on philosophy and literature: from Montaigne to Judith Butler to Zizek. They sing wryly, not forgetting Derrida’s title Spectres de Marx, “Specters of Zizek washed away in the toilets.”

Pussy Riot continues the Bakhtinian tradition of holy folly and combines it with the explosiveness of punk. Esthetics for them is ethics, following in the footsteps of Dostoevsky and Brodsky and Szymborska (who recalled the equation in her Nobel Prize ceremony). Theirs is a Bakhtinian and a Kristevan madcap, topsy-turvy and humanitarian ethics: an ethics of human rights. Pussy Riot combines feminist and queer art as postulated in Seeing Differently by Amelia Jones. Iconographically and ideologically, the collective reminds me of women’s and LGBT visibility campaigns. Theirs is a socially engaged art as activism, which I’ve described as a new dissident civil society against the “moral majority.”

The women of Pussy Riot are the undesirables of our region: they incarnate nonconformity, protest against autocracy, sexual otherness. At the cathedral, they sang of the predicament of women in Russia, of the forbidden gay prides (Moscow courts have just forbidden queer pride parades for a hundred years!).

Maria Alyokhina told the judge during her closing statement: “I am not afraid of you and I am not afraid of the thinly veneered deceit of your verdict at this ‘so-called’ trial.” Nadia Tolokonnikova thinks subversively in the spirit of Socrates and Montaigne. Katya Samutsevich supports LGBT: “She has called particular attention to the plight of LGBT people in Russia, where official discrimination against so-called ‘sexual minorities’ is growing.” In a song released during the trial, Pussy Riot satirize a botoxed Putin and invite him to marry Belarus’s dictator Alexander Lukashenko. Same sex marriage for the tyrants.

In Eastern Europe, we’re not only anti-women, anti-minority and anti-secular: we are also anti-art. The women of Pussy Riot are performance artists. And as we know, artists always make trouble. That’s why they have been condemned for disrupting the public order. Homophobia, misogyny and xenophobia are countered by art. The women of Pussy Riot join many other women artists. Together they are dissidents and engaged performative actors in the public sphere, fighting a very tough and significant battle. Pawel Leszkowicz has called this art Women’s Revolt, “new art in the new state.” He tells a story of censored works created after 1989.

In Poland: the art of Alicja Zebrowska, Katarzyna Kozyra, Dorota Nieznalska and Zofia Kulik shows the religious and political pressure imposed on the body in the post-communist Poland of illegal abortion, vulnerability of women to unemployment and generally economic exclusions, sex business and phallocentrism. The artists expose and subvert the visual politics of patriarchy and the structure of gender norms. For her installation Passion which consists of a hanging metal cross with photographs of male genitalia and a video of the suffering face of an exercising body builder, a powerful study of masochistic masculinity, Dorota Nieznalska was sued and sentenced.

Nieznalska’s feminist intervention through the radical gesture highlighting the sex of Christ is at the same time a reference to Leo Steinberg’s study Sexuality of Christ in Renaissance Art and its Modern Oblivion. Drawing on traditional religious representations, Steinberg brings to light the exposing of the penis of Jesus. Steinberg argues that the motif of ostentatio genitalium and the sexuality of Jesus is akin to displaying the wounds after the Passion, as it foregrounds the human aspect of Christ, his incarnation.

The League of Polish Families members attacked Nieznalska verbally and physically at the Gdansk gallery where her installation was being exhibited. In July 2003, a Gdansk court found Nieznalska guilty of “offending religious feelings.” It sentenced her to half a year of “restriction of freedom” (she was specifically banned from leaving the country) and ordered her to do work for a Catholic charity and pay all trial expenses. For a long time national venues refused to show her work, but Agata Jakubowska curated her one-woman show Submission and Pawel Leszkowicz featured her sadomasochist works in the exhibitions Love and Democracy and GK Collection. Currently Nieznalska supports the convicted women of Pussy Riot in the Gazeta Wyborcza’s appeal for them.

Because of the censorship imposed on art and on women and minority rights, a second revolution must happen in Poland. The first one in the 1980s, under the banner of Solidarity, was conducted in the name of the free nation and the collapse of communism. The group identity of Poles stands behind it. A second revolution, equally peaceful, should happen in the name of the freedom of women and minorities rights, opposing the danger of fundamentalism.

Abortion is illegal in Poland and calls to restrict the reproductive rights of women resonate throughout the region. A number of cultural and economic constraints are also still in place against women. This anti-art, anti-women domination underscores how post-Communist ultra nationalism blended with religion turned into an instrument of power.

Feudal serfdom survived in Russia and Poland until the 1860s: seniority, humiliations, civic sadomasochism are still intact. The revolt of 1989 was more of a restoration of the status quo ante,  of pre-Communist inequality. The transition taking place in post-Communist countries has now turned ultra-nationalist, as the majority discourse dehumanizes “Others.” The body politic privileges sexual sameness and a one-and-only model of the human: heterosexist, jingoist, fundamentalist. There are “so many devious ways of refusing the claims of humanity,” argues Martha C. Nussbaum. In her book From Disgust to Humanity Sexual Orientation & Constitutional Law Nussbaum is also one of the rare western observers to note the homophobia here. She comments perceptively: “Poland, by contrast [to the rest of the EU] still has a great deal of intense antigay feeling, as does Russia.”

The women artists intervene provocatively and shamelessly in the public sphere. Their brouhahas have a serious political message, are ludic, but not ludicrous, dignified, albeit breaking decorum, impertinent and pertinent alike. Pussy Riot neglects neither transgression nor sublimation – for they cure society, heal the ills of us all. The divine represents alterity itself, the most other otherness, and has nothing to do with national identity. Whereas in Poland or Russia the altar joins the throne in an officially holy but, in fact, unholy alliance, it is Pussy Riot who reclaim Mary-Miriam, Maryam (as she is called in the Koran).

Our anti-woman, anti-queer, anti-art prejudices have condemned and punished Pussy Riot. We’ve all sentenced Pussy Riot to the gulag. But Pussy Riot is triumphing now over tyranny, over hatred. Pussy Riot’s Socratic Apology in court is a new beginning. Eastern Europe needs this renewal – desperately.

Ms. Lyudmila Alexeyeva, legendary dissident in charge of the human rights NGO the Moscow Helsinki group told Reuters on the Pussy Riot trial: “As in most politically motivated cases, this court is not in line with the law, common sense or mercy.” Professor Piotr Piotrowski who has postmodernized art history in Eastern Europe wrote in Gazeta Wyborcza: “We must protest this repressive politics; we must defend human rights and freedom of expression everywhere where these values are threatened. Solidarity with the prosecute women artists is our moral obligation.”

It is our duty to demand immediate freedom for Pussy Riot and for all other prisoners of conscience throughout the world. It is our duty to intensify solidarity with all persecuted artists.

What of Akin? What sense should we make of the fervid controversy surrounding Missouri Senate Candidate and Congressman Todd Akin’s musings on abortion? What do the howls of protest say about the Republican Party: true-believers and cynical consultants?

As Akin’s moment is apparently over (though he might yet become the distinguished gentleman from Missouri), his remarks require reprise. Interviewed on St. Louis television, Congressman Akin was asked about his opposition to most abortions, even after rape. The congressman replied,“It seems to me, from what I understand from doctors, that’s really rare. If it’s a legitimate rape, the female body has ways to try to shut that whole thing down. But let’s assume that maybe that didn’t work or something: I think there should be some punishment, but the punishment ought to be of the rapist, and not attacking the child.”

Akin’s unscripted remark produced a firestorm of protest, first, not surprisingly, from Democrats and then, more surprisingly, from Republican politicians and consultants who concluded that Akin could no longer defeat vulnerable incumbent Democrat Claire McCaskill.

Politics must be understood through context, not through truth. Congressman Akin, labeled a “Tea Party favorite” (a term that deserves unpacking) had just defeated two Missouri Republicans considered more “electable.” The party establishment was suspicious of this true believer. A replacement might make the seat “more winnable.” In social psychological terms, Akin did not have what Edwin Hollander spoke of as “idiosyncrasy credits,” allowing a do-over for a rabid gaffe. Akin lacked capital in the Grand Old Party’s favor bank. Soon after the remarks were publicized, Republican leaders, as well as former Republican senators from Missouri, called for Akin to quit. Rush Limbaugh suggested that Akin should look into his heart and do the right thing. Todd Akin was crucified by his allies, betrayed by his peeps.

But what of his remarks? The controversy centered on three claims: 1) some rapes are “legitimate,” 2) women rarely get pregnant through forcible rape, and 3) if a woman becomes pregnant, the unborn child should not be punished.

The most controversial, but the least substantial, is the first. Legitimate rape. The phrase chills. Can any rape be legitimate? Still, my readers are also talkers. Teachers ramble on with only a few scraps of notes before us: no presidential teleprompter. We create texts as we speak, hoping that we don’t get it too wrong. Congressman Akin got it too wrong, but perhaps in a way that each of us can sympathize. We have all stuck our foot in it. We search for the right word and when it can’t be found, we use a word that we pray is unnoticed.

Congressman Akin meant “forcible rape.” Does anyone doubt it? “Forcible rape” is a term of art, but one that distinguishes between violent rape and what is termed statutory rape (some statutory rape is forcible; some is consensual). The term blurs the line between stranger rape and acquaintanceship rape, both of which involve force. Implicitly, Akin suggests that what the public labels rape are distinct crimes that occasionally overlap (states characterize the crimes in legal terms as various degrees of sexual assault). The demand to “take back the night” through demonstrations and rallies recognizes that at the fearful core of the crime of rape is stranger danger, even if so-called “date rape” is more common.

Statutory rape – what might be labeled, following Akin, illegitimate rape – is a crime based on collective attitudes towards age. States differ in the age limits of statutory rape. “Children” could once wed at age twelve, and these crimes are based on our collective estimation of what children are capable of and what they can consent to. Puberty was once the marker of the right to marry. Today these laws make sense, even while, when consensual, they reflect a different category of acts from forcible rape.

Todd Akin erred in referring to “legitimate rape,” we give him that, but he did so in the attempt to distinguish violent rape (and, perhaps, stranger rape) from other acts under the same category. The goal of the “forcible” terminology, of course, is to narrow the instances of rape for which abortion is permitted.

The second issue is whether a woman who is forcibly raped is likely to become pregnant. Akin did not aver that such pregnancies could not happen, only that they were rare. This is a long-standing belief in the pro-life community. If he is wrong, he is not a fabulist, but a reporter of the fables of others. As I heard the statement, I wondered, “Is this true?” Might extreme trauma prevent pregnancy? As Joel Best argues in Damn Lies and Statistics, what we know depends upon what information we choose to collect, how we collect it, and from whom. We need to have a critical stance to all statistics we are fed.

Women who are raped can and do become pregnant. But statistics are conflicting. Estimates of pregnancies resulting from rape – extrapolation from surveys – range from as low as 200 to 3000 to over 30,000 in the United States each year. But Akin also claimed that stress or trauma prevents pregnancy. Again research appears mixed. Some research finds that rape victims are less likely to get pregnant than those engaged in consensual sexual activity; other studies suggest that rape victims are more likely to become pregnant; still other studies find that pregnancy rates are identical. I am not a biologist, haven’t examined the details of the study procedures and the populations involved. Surely some research is more credible than others. In my reading, there is some consensus in the fertility literature that extreme life stress decreases the likelihood of pregnancy, although this may involve long-term stress, rather than sudden trauma.

The third claim is neither a misstatement nor a factoid. It is a value. This pro-life perspective suggests that even if a woman gets pregnant after rape, she has a moral responsibility. The child should not be the second victim of the crime of rape. I do not find the claim persuasive, but it is one that I understand. If a fetus is a human life, deliberate abortion constitutes murder. And we recognize that the perpetration of one crime does not justify a second. The victim of sexual harassment does not have the right to castrate the harasser, and certainly not the harasser’s child. I find the logic of trauma more compelling, but this is not a wild and fanciful argument, but one of misplaced compassion.

Putting aside the gaffe and the controversial science, this value is the center of the Akin controversy. It is here that cynicism resides. This value led Republican Party mandarins to attempt to abort the Akin campaign. Yet, this same value is to be found in the 2012 Republican platform for all to read.

Todd Akin has been condemned for the sin of sincerity, a true representative of a false party. He claimed a belief that is ideologically central, but one that elites believe should be conveyed with a wink, a sop to the unsophisticated. This election is not to be fought over dead babies.

In the dark days of segregation, Strom Thurmond used to filibuster about States Rights and Southern traditions. His South Carolina colleague Olin Johnston, as explicitly a racist as there was in the Senate, cynically remarked of Thurmond’s crusade: “There is no use talking to Strom. He really believes that shit.” Todd Akin is a Republican problem because he believes his shit too well.