Kommersant has decided to give the floor for an online debate for the two Duma deputies since the opponents have made an Internet discussion a state important matter.
Photo: Dmitry Lekay
| Other Photos |
 |
|
 |
Online Duel
// Duma deputies Vladimir Medinsky vs. Alexander Lebedev
Alexander Lebedev and Vladimir Medinsky have got a lot in common. They are both deputies in the State Duma. Both of them serve as deputy chairs of the Duma’s committees and they both come from the United Russia faction. Mr. Lebedev joined Fair Russia not long ago. The two men hold PhD degrees from Moscow State Institute of International Relations (MGIMO). But still they have found a point of argument. Mr. Medinsky is seeking to recover 100 million rubles damages from Mr. Lebedev for what he considered offensive statements in Mr. Lebedev’s blog and comments on Kommersant’s web-site.
Alexander Lebedev has posted a copy of Mr. Medinsky’s writ in his Live Journal. Vladimir Medinsky refers to Mr. Lebedev’s comment on a June 5 article about gambling industry on Kommersant’s web-site.
The writ contends that Alexander Lebedev has repeatedly assaulted deputy Medinsky’s honor in his blog comments. The writ is accompanied with legally attested screen shots from web pages of Mr. Lebedev’s live journal.
Kommersant has decided to give the floor for an online debate for the two Duma deputies as thanks to the opponents an Internet discussion as a genre has become a state important matter.
The debate was held on Kommersant’s web-site on August 21, from 2 to 4 pm.
Here is the transcript of the Lebedev vs. Medinsky online duel.
August 21, 2007
Kommersant
Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen. Kommersant is setting up an unusual discussion today. We are going to talk to State Duma deputies Alexander Lebedev and Vladimir Medinsky in an online debate. We hope that the deputies will also speak to each other and settle the dispute. My name is Pavel Chernikov. I’m an editor-in-chief of Kommersant’s web-site, and I’m going to moderate the discussion today.
A. Lebedev
Hello Pavel. I’d like to thank Kommersant for giving the floor for this debate. Ruling bureaucracy as well as United Russians (including Moscow Mayor Luzhkov) have so far avoided any duels. That’s why I give Medinsky a plus.
Kommersant
Hello Alexander, thank you for accepting our invitation to take part in the discussion.
A. Lebedev
I greet all visitors of Kommersant’s site except for gentleman Dragmedinsky… Sorry, I mean, Medinsky. I don’t say hello to him. He is not the person to shake hands with.
Can I ask the moderator? Is my vis-à-vis already here? What does he choose? Virtual fire arms or cold steel?
Kommersant
The dispute between the two lawmakers comes to this. Mr. Medinsky filed a suit to defend his honor against what he called offensive entries on Mr. Lebedev’s blog and Kommersant’s web-site where Alexander Lebedev called Vladimir Medinsky “the chief lobbyist of gambling industry in the Duma.” Mr. Medinsky asked the court to order Mr. Lebedev to refute this statement and pay him 100 million rubles in moral damages. The court initiated proceedings to make it Russia’s first trial on blog entries of high-ranking officials.
Kommersant
The vis-à-vis is here and ready to answer :).
Kommersant
Before we start – a few words about the form of the discussion. On this page you’ll be able to see comments by Alexander Lebedev, Vladimir Medinsky and me. Comments of other users will be hidden but the forum’s moderators will see them. So you’re welcome to leave your comments and ask questions which we will forward to the deputies.
We expect the participants to answer your and our questions first before we give them the floor for the debate. I suggest we make one thread of discussion and post comment after comment.
Writing comments and posting them onto the site takes time, so I’d like to ask the participants and our readers to be patient.
A. Lebedev
Let’s go!
Kommersant
I’d like to introduce our guests – Duma deputies Vladimir Medinsky and Alexander Lebedev. Good afternoon gentlemen! Are you ready for the discussion?
A. Lebedev
Sure.
A. Lebedev
Your question, Pavel? Or can I say a few words to start with?
Kommersant.
Absolutely. You are welcome. We are still waiting Vladimir’s reply.
V. Medinsky.
I’d also like to greet distinguished visitors of the web-site of distinguished Kommersant Publishing House.
I’m already here. As is Mr. Lebedev, I hope. I’m here in person but not presented by numerous middling PR people. I still can’t believe that a MGIMO graduate and Parliament deputy Lebedev can say something like Dragmedinsky-Panikovsky [an allusion to a fiction character, Panikovsky, a famous swindler]. I think name calling is for kindergarten.
Let’s get down to business.
Kommersant
Great! Let’s take turns in this discussion – it’s difficult in live discussions, too.
The first question is for Vladimir Medinsky. You say that Mr. Lebedev started making statements on the net which you consider unacceptable a while ago. Why did you decide to go to the court now?
A. Lebedev
Is this what you said?
NTV, Segodnya, April 20, 2006
“The Communist Party voted against curbs on gambling while deputies from the Motherland faction abstained or voted against the restrictions. This gives food to sad thoughts. As a historian, I’d come up with different historical examples such as when Bolsheviks did not shun any sources of financing. But it is very very sad, anyway. I can’t understand why Motherland and Communists feel so much affection towards gambling.”
V. Medinsky
I decided to go to court only when Lebedev’s offensive comments went further than his own “net chat space” and splashed onto Kommersant’s web-site. Yes, he practised his eloquence in his blog before, but it’s Lebedev and his aides’ problems. They’d better watch more stand-up comics – a good source for jokes.
Kommersant
Alexander, have you been doing this “net chat space” for a while?
A. Lebedev
Since last September. I started it much later than Mr. Medinsky had shown his true colors in lobbying the bill to support major gambling business.
Can I get a reply to my question from my opponent?
A. Lebedev
I’d like to add. One more for Medinsky:
Bizness newspaper, August 10, 2006 – one month before I created my LJ
“A well-known opinion: the bill lobbies interests of major gambling business.”
Who said this?
V. Medinsky
Lebedev’s question – I’m still convinced that it was only thanks to the United Russia that we passed restrictions on gambling business. I still can’t understand why Communists and Motherland didn’t support them. I can see why Lebedev personally didn’t support them. He had his project to push through – taking casinos out of Moscow but making no radical changes. He got resentful that the law happened to be based on a draft by United Russia’s Draganov, but not his own draft. That bill is very lax too and needs further toughening. I’ve said it before. What’s more, I came up with amendments. Still, Draganov’s one was better drawn up draft that Lebedev’s. You should work harder, dear colleague instead of playing a victim. Somebody got resentful and went like: “I don’t wanna be your friend no more.”
V. Medinsky
Btw, dear users, unlike my opponent I have no experience of blogging whatsoever, so sorry for typing so slowly. Please, be patient.
V. Medinsky
I didn’t mean to explain the core of Draganov’s draft. It wasn’t me who wrote it. I just joined the initiative after the bill was sent for consideration. But in order to refute all this rubbish spread in the net by Lebedev I’m going to show a comparative table. Draganov’s draft (after the 1st reading) and the President’s adopted bill. So, try to discover 10 differences )))
Colleague Lebedev, why did you choose to pick on Dragmedinsky-Panikovsky? Why don’t you label all 309 Duma deputies “lobbyists”, all those who voted for Draganov’s draft in the first reading – Speaker Gryzlov, Slizka and Morozov? Maybe, the President, too? Why don’t you? Afraid of getting 300 more suits? Then you’ll be running around Moscow courts instead of running in elections.
A. Lebedev
A good one about the suits!
God, can anyone believe that Putin’s bill matches Medinsky’s? The difference between our opinions is taking gambling establishments out of the city (we and the president) and leaving them here (Medinsky).
I suggest my opponent suit Larisa Brycheva, head of the legal department of the president’s administration, who wrote the following to comment the Draganov-Medinsky bill:
“The bill is aimed exclusively to cater needs of major gambling business but not at giving real state guarantees to protect people from negative effects of gambling.”
V. Medinsky
Dear editors! Where’s Lebedev?
A. Lebedev
Seems that our dear friend’s not just a hypocrite but he is a habitual
here’s what happened.
At the March 24, 2006 voting, United Russia presented two bills. One by Dragmedinsky that our dear friend is speaking about, and the other one by Lebedev and Samoshin.
We were suggesting taking out ALL gambling places out of the city. They suggested keeping things as they are, just making gambling clubs bigger. I quote Draganov, already a former deputy (TVTs, 04/20/2006, Sobytiya): “We don’t hide that one of the aims of the bill is to make the business larger.” Medinsky is a co-writer of the bill, that’s why Draganov says “WE”. The session of the economic policy committee which decided to support the 1st or the 2nd bill was attended by one (what a parliament we have!) out of 15 members – Medinsky who voted for his bill by proxy.
March 24, Motherland, Communists, LDPR and three United Russians voted for my and Samoshin's draft – the total of 133 votes. 302 United Russians voted against. They were flabbergasted when Putin supported us last fall toughening the law a bit by introducing a provision on special gambling zones.
Still, this bill doesn’t work in Moscow where guys like Luzhkov are still taking care of gambling places.
You can’t argue with facts! Btw, the conscientious Draganov committed political hara-kiri by leaving the Duma. But Medinsky is still here talking trash. That’s why deputies Samoshin and Lebedev walked on United Russia faction.
Some gentlemen live up to a saying “spit in my eyes, I don’t care.”
I didn’t get an answer for my first question: does Medinsky admit that it was his words on NTV?
V. Medinsky
Seems that our dear friend is not only a hypocrite but also a habitual
Yes, I said that at a session of the Duma. So what?
V. Medinsky?
First, let the users look at a table to compare bills by Draganov and the President. Here’s the link http://www.kommersant.ru/articles/2007/docs/sravnit_tabl.doc
A. Lebedev
That’s swindling!
There’s one big difference. Leaving this trash in cities where people live or take it away from there! Medinsky wanted to leave it there (with certain conditions) while Putin and we were for taking it away.
A. Lebedev
About lawsuits
Medinsky’s threatened me with 309 suits. United Russians are not able to do it even in theory. They would lose anyway.
Here’s my third shot – can I get an answer for a simple question: who said that on NTV?
Kommersant
About lawsuits
Alexander, please don’t shot the deputy dead. Vladimir will answer you in a moment. While he’s typing, tell me why did you take all this to the blog? Why did you think the Internet important in discussing gambling bills??
A. Lebedev
To Pavel
You see it’s a delicate matter. Somebody is trying to twist and turn like snakes in the grass because their backs are pressed against the wall (in vain, though).
The executive power made sure that people had no idea about what’s going on in the Duma. All the more, there are quirky characters her like some typical United Russians.
Also, electronic media sit on the fence while printed media (especially those in Moscow) are mostly under state contract. Thanks to the president, we at least have Kommersant and Vedomosti. Where else can a poor deputy go expect for a live journal?
A. Lebedev
Pavel,
excuse me, can you ask the gentleman to reply to my question about the quotation!
V. Medinsky
Here it is:
1. Lebedev’s bill was strict only on the outside. I gave my opinion about that bill in public as “generally positive” out of politeness – which Mr. Lebedev has always obviously lacked (well, you can’t help it, can you?). But it was ABSOLUTELY NOT LOGICAL.
Why?
a) the number of gambling established was not to be cut,
b) their quality as well as the client’s security were to stay the same,
c) players were to be swindled like before.
The only new thing was that a player had to drive 2 km from the Moscow Ring Road to Solntsevo, for example, which is not a problem for any of them.
Casinos were not to suffer. ONLY budgets of Moscow and St. Petersburg would suffer, because ONLY in these regions the border of the tax receiver overlaps with the border of the city.
The only thing Lebedev wanted was:
a) do some PR to present himself as a die-hard casino opponent
b) do a bad turn to his long-time opponent, Luzhkov, and hand “Moscow taxes” from casinos to Moscow Region.
That’s why the President took Dragonov’s bill as a basis, not Lebedev’s – that’s a pack of lies! – look at the table.
Anyhow, the bill was adopted. Tt works, so let’s stop beating the air, Mr. Lebedev!!!
Better think how to make the enforcement more effective!
In case you are really interested in work, not PR tricks.
Kommersant
Vladimir, Alexander is asking you to answer the question about NTV.
Alexander, do you mind answering my question? What did Duma deputies need blogs for? And to such an extent that there are million ruble suits in courts now.
A. Lebedev
See above
V. Medinsky
Gosh, I answered about NTV long ago. See above. Btw, let’s type in turns, otherwise readers will be confused.
Besides that:
1. I’ve always thought Draganov’s draft was too lax. That’s why I introduced a great number of toughening amendments to it. See http://www.kommersant.ru/articles/2007/docs/popravki_1.doc
2. I think the president’s bill is too lax, too. Two years for casinos to leave cities is too much. Also, the age limit for the access to casinos should raised higher than 18. I was not throwing words around as some are but I came up with amendments and defended them at plenary sessions.
3. I think that the main problem today is HILARIOUSLY LOW TAXATION of casinos. A well-known group of Duma deputies proposed amendments to the tax code. See http://www.kommersant.ru/articles/2007/docs/popravki_2.doc
The amendments are still not adopted. Perhaps, Lebedev may want decide to use his energy on solving a PRACTICAL question instead of dishing the dirt on his colleagues?
A. Lebedev
Repentance.
I can see signs of repentance in Mr. Medinsky’s stance.
I’m more than willing to cut the time for gambling clubs to stay in cities. The issue has been resolved in 38 regions – authorities shut down gambling establishments.
Luzhkov in 2005 referred to gambling places as “outright depravity and moral abnormality.” In 2006, he said taxes from them are paltry. But gambling establishments in the city are sprawling out.
I suggest Medinsky and I send a joint appeal to United Russia’s co-chair of the Supreme Council Luzhkov Yu. M. to close all gambling establishments in Moscow before January 1.
Would you feel okay with that?
V. Medinsky
Repentance
Right after the adoption of the presidential bill I officially called on Chair of United Russia’s Supreme Council Gryzlov to DRAMATICALLY INCREASE tax burden on gambling business. Taxes are is sore spot. You’re welcome to join me here.
As for gambling halls, they must be taken away from Moscow right now. That’s certain.
A. Lebedev
All right he’s bitten it.
Mr. Medinsky has finally admitted his words on NTV.
So now I’ll make a screen shot from this page and take it to a lawyer. 133 suits from deputies who supported Samoshin and my draft are ready – each for 100 million rubles.
The total sum is 13 bln 300 mln rubles.
Pity that Moscow judges get flats from Luzhkov too.
V. Medinsky
I was so amused by Lebedev’s comment that he had “nowhere to go to speak up” except for his blog. First, Lebedev is in top three in terms of quotations among Duma deputies together with Sasha Khinshtein. Why would you complain about having “no floor to speak up on?” He probably uses more educated turns in official media than in his private online laundry. He needs his blog to stick labels and hang out dirty linen. Plus, Lebedev’s crew needs to make money out something.
A. Lebedev
Medinsky probably doesn’t know that Live Journal is a free service.
Second, it’s a lie again. I’m nowhere near any top three with that Khinshtein. First Channel hasn’t given me the air over the past three and a half years. On other channels (except for To the Bar on NTV two years ago), the air time was 15 to 20 minutes. Moscow newspapers in their turn are tearing me to pieces. Yes, I’m not on TVTs either – except for documentaries, New Adventures of Shurik in Russia – all about black PR.
V. Medinsky
You should reprimand your staff. My aides will say that they can get ratings of Duma deputies’ quotations in media every month. A tip from me – the Duma’s press service compiles them monthly.
V. Medinsky
Yes, Lebedev can calculate BILLIONS very quickly… You can see he’s professional in that.
I’ll explain why it was the 100 million. This is an estimated construction cost of one kindergarten – this is what I promise to send money to if the court satisfies my suit. Well, such Great Ships as Lebedev need deep waters. You can’t play name calling all the time.
A. Lebedev
Congratulations, a lie again!
The Moscow government – the mayor and his wife – auctioned and sold out 600 kindergartens in the city. They have long been demolished and developed with elite real estate.
You can write your party leaders about it.
So what about a joint appeal to Luzhkov?
Kommersant
Alexander, don’t you afraid of a bad turn in the court. What if you will really have to build a kindergarten to satisfy a court decision?
A. Lebedev
I’m just about to finish the Children Oncology Center in the 1st Medical Institute in St. Petersburg, the full reconstruction of Chekhov’s museum in Yalta as well as the construction and reconstruction of two churches.
I’m willing to build hospices and kindergartens in Moscow. But who would allow me to? Medinsky has to do with it.
V. Medinsky
About the joint appeal – okay, it’s a deal. Btw, I mentioned it earlier. I suggest you join the motion to raise taxes on gambling establishments.
A. Lebedev
Great!
I’ll send you the appeal to Luzhkov with my signature tomorrow.
I must warn, though, that my signature next to Medinsky will guarantee he’ll get the boot from the United Russia. But we are taking heroic people to Fair Russia. It’s never late to see the light.
V. Medinsky
What lengths Lebedev is ready to go to get me dismissed from United Russia! Even put signatures together. He said earlier he would not shake hands with me.
V. Medinsky
It’s high time for Lebedev to build a kindergarten in Moscow. At least, there will be some use from the mayor candidate.
You know in ancient Rome they had a tradition when a “registered” candidate for the supreme municipal post was to give a present to his home town as an “election deposit” – put up a monument or build public baths… Just think how wonderful our cities would be if such enthusiastic people like Lebedev ran in election more often. It would me much useful than spending on black PR people, deal colleague.
A. Lebedev
I have a feeling that Mr. Medinsky simply has nothing to say, so he talks some rubbish about ancient Rome. As you know the First Rome had an ill fate, this is where Luzkhov, Baturina and Dragmedinsky are leading the Third Rome [Moscow] to.
A. Lebedev
Dear friends, I’m lat for a date with Naomi Campbell – a Medinsky reported about my alleged criminal links with her in his blog.
Kommersant
Gentlemen, I believe we’ve had quite an interesting discussion. I’m informed that the parties are ready to close the debate.
There’s one question from users I can’t but ask, though. After that, Alexander and Vladimir will be welcome to give their closing statements.
I don’t know how to answer this kind of question. But I can’t but ask it. Here it goes: “Can you give at least one argument against an opinion that a public row between deputies Alexander Lebedev and Vladimir Medinsky is not the start of a planned and mutually coordinated propaganda campaign for the next Duma election? Neither of the distinguished deputies is going to stay in their seats, are they? Change my opinion – say you’re not…”
A. Lebedev
You can’t plan this kind of stuff. I will go to the Duma if I defeat Luzhkov in Moscow as the leader of the city list from Fair Russia. Wanna swap places with me?
The issue of taking gambling places out of the city by the end of year is a crucial one in the election campaign.
V. Medinsky
My answer is no. We didn’t agree on that.
You know I’m convinced that lies and libel (from Lebedev) must be punished. I’d like to believe that JUSTICE will take the upper hand in my case.
A. Lebedev
I think I worked good 2 hours to the benefit of Kommersant and LJ users.
Pavel, I suggest Kommersant hold a vote at the end of the duel.
I look forward to your comments. I’m ready to take part in a next round of the dispute but later.
Truly yours,
Alexander Lebedev
Kommersant
Alexander, thank you very much for taking part.
V. Medinsky
So much spite…
You see you even mentioned Baturina [the mayor’s wife]. This is a safe option, bravo Lebedev! Why don’t use say that “Yeltsin Gang to Prison!”
I know it’s in vogue now scolding Moscow’s government.
I do this too when I’m stuck in a traffic jam.
But, God, I’ve finally realized HOW LUCKY MUSCOVITES are that their mayor is Yuri Mikhailovich, not Lebedev.
Long live Luzhkov!
So, shall we give a rest to the users? We’ve been typing for 2 hours. We can continue it in the evening in sms.
A. Lebedev
Last comment
It was Luzhkov who used to yell “Yeltsin Gang to Prison!” in 1999 though he chanted “Yeltsin! Yeltsin!” three years earlier. You’re like two peas in a pod, guys.
What spite are you talking about? I was perfectly polite.
V. Medinsky
While I was writing, Lebedev said goodbye too.
That’s it, then. Thanks to Kommersant.
VM
Kommersant
Thank you very much Alexander Lebedev and Vladimir Medinsky for taking part in the online duel and for this lively discussion. Thanks to our readers who have been tracking the debate. We’ll publish transcript of the discussion to make it available for comments.
Pavel Chernikov
|
|
|
