Russia's Pussy Riot co-founder Nadya Tolokonnikova steps back into a prison cell — this time by choice
LOS ANGELES, June 9 — Nadya Tolokonnikova, the co-founder of the feminist art collective Pussy Riot, is back in a prison cell — but this time, she has gone willingly.
At the Museum of Contemporary Art in Los Angeles, the Russian activist is staging 'Police State' — a two-week piece of performance art aimed at raising awareness about the dangers of authoritarianism and oppression.
Tolokonnikova — who spent nearly two years in a Russian penal colony for performing a protest song against Vladimir Putin in a Moscow church in 2012 — knows a bit about the topic.
Through the installation, which opened Thursday and runs through June 14, she says she hopes to teach visitors about what she believes to be the advent of a new means of control — technology.
While she is in the mock cell, during all museum opening hours, she will eat, use the toilet, sew clothes as she once did in her real cell and create 'soundscapes.' Visitors can observe her through holes in the cell or on security camera footage.
'People don't treat authoritarianism seriously,' Tolokonnikova told AFP.
Seated in a makeshift Russian prison cell, wearing a green tracksuit, the 35-year-old activist says in several countries, the concept of a 'police state' is expanding.
'As someone who lived under authoritarian rule for over 25 years, I know how real it is and how it starts, step by step, on the arrest of one person. You think, 'Well, it's not about me',' she explained.
'And then next thing we know, the entire country is under the military boot.'
Artist Nadya Tolokonnikova, co-founder of Pussy Riot, poses inside a mock prison cell, part of her 10-day durational piece Police State at the Museum of Contemporary Art (MOCA) in Los Angeles June 6, 2025. — AFP pic
'We all have to contribute'
For Tolokonnikova, US President Donald Trump's return to the White House in January has sparked an 'erosion of the system of checks and balances,' which she deemed 'very dangerous.'
She says the artistic community, and society in general, should do more to counter governmental abuses of power, wherever they may occur, and stop 'outsourcing politics and political action.'
'I feel like it's as if there is someone else who's going to save us from everything. That's not what works really. We all have to contribute.'
Some who visited the installation said they agreed with Tolokonnikova that society had become too passive.
'I feel like Americans don't want to believe that we could be in danger of losing our freedoms,' said Jimmie Akin, a graphic designer who said she was worried about the policy changes since Trump took office.
'People need to wake up.'
Visitors look into a mock prison cell to see artist Nadya Tolokonnikova, co-founder of Pussy Riot, in her 10-day durational piece entitled "Police State," at the Museum of Contemporary Art (MOCA) in Los Angeles June 6, 2025. — AFP pic
Sewing machine and Navalny
For 29-year-old Hannah Tyler, 'Police State' was a bit of a shock to the system.
'We're living in a country where we aren't facing the same extreme oppression that she did in Russia, but getting close to it. I felt inspired to take more action than I have been,' Tyler said.
Tolokonnikova's installation has some symbolic features.
She has books and artworks made by Russian, US and Belarusian prisoners, as well as a drawing by the brother of late Russian dissident Alexei Navalny. A sewing machine recalls the manual labour of her incarceration. Words of protest are carved into the walls.
Visitors sit on benches while others look into a mock prison cell to see Russian artist Nadya Tolokonnikova, co-founder of Pussy Riot, in her 10-day durational piece entitled "Police State," at the Museum of Contemporary Art (MOCA) in Los Angeles June 6, 2025. — AFP pic
For Alex Sloane, the museum's associate curator, the installation shows how 'increased surveillance and government overreach' are becoming more and more widespread, and 'freedoms are at risk.'
'We should do all that we can to make sure' that such circumstances are kept at bay, Sloane said. — AFP
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Malay Mail
36 minutes ago
- Malay Mail
Does US law allow Trump to send troops to quell protests?
LOS ANGELES, June 9 — President Donald Trump has deployed National Guard troops to California after two days of protests by hundreds of demonstrators against immigration raids, saying that the protests interfered with federal law enforcement and framing them as a possible 'form of rebellion' against the authority of the US government. California Governor Gavin Newsom on Sunday said he had formally requested that the Trump Administration rescind 'its unlawful deployment of troops in Los Angeles County' and return them to his command. What laws did Trump cite to justify the move? Trump cited Title 10 of the US Code, a federal law that outlines the role of the US Armed Forces, in his June 7 order to call members of the California National Guard into federal service. A provision of Title 10 - Section 12406 - allows the president to deploy National Guard units into federal service if the US is invaded, there is a 'rebellion or danger of rebellion' or the president is 'unable with the regular forces to execute the laws of the United States.' What are National Guard troops allowed to do under the law cited in Trump's order? An 1878 law, the Posse Comitatus Act, generally forbids the US military, including the National Guard, from taking part in civilian law enforcement. Section 12406 does not override that prohibition, but it allows the troops to protect federal agents who are carrying out law enforcement activity and to protect federal property. For example, National Guard troops cannot arrest protesters, but they could protect US Immigration and Customs Enforcement who are carrying out arrests. What are the implications for freedom of speech? The First Amendment of the US Constitution guarantees the right to assembly, freedom of speech and the press. Experts have said that Trump's decision to have US troops respond to protests is an ominous sign for how far the president is willing to go to repress political speech and activity that he disagrees with or that criticizes his administration's policies. A demonstrator holds a US flag across from California Highway Patrol officers. — Reuters pic Is Trump's move susceptible to legal challenges? Four legal experts from both left- and right-leaning advocacy organizations have cast doubt on Trump's use of Title 10 in response to immigration protests calling it inflammatory and reckless, especially without the support of California's Democratic Governor Gavin Newsom, who has said Trump's actions would only escalate tensions. The protests in California do not rise to the level of 'rebellion' and do not prevent the federal government from executing the laws of the United States, experts said. Title 10 also says 'orders for these purposes shall be issued through the governors of the States,' but legal experts said that language might not be an obstacle. Legislative history suggests that those words were likely meant to reflect the norms of how National Guard troops are typically deployed, rather than giving a governor the option to not comply with a president's decision to deploy troops. Could California sue to challenge Trump's move? California could file a lawsuit, arguing that deployment of National Guard troops was not justified by Title 10 because there was no 'rebellion' or threat to law enforcement. A lawsuit might take months to resolve, and the outcome would be uncertain. Because the protests may be over before a lawsuit is resolved, the decision to sue might be more of a political question than a legal one, experts said. A demonstrator strikes a Waymo self-driving car with a skateboard as another burns in the background during a protest against federal immigration sweeps in downtown Los Angeles June 8, 2025. — Reuters pic What other laws could trump invoke to direct the National Guard or other US military troops? Trump could take a more far-reaching step by invoking the Insurrection Act of 1792, which would allow troops to directly participate in civilian law enforcement, for which there is little recent precedent. Casting protests as an 'insurrection' that requires the deployment of troops against US citizens would be riskier legal territory, one legal expert said, in part because mostly peaceful protests and minor incidents aren't the sort of thing that the Insurrection Act were designed to address. The Insurrection Act has been used by past presidents to deploy troops within the US in response to crises like the 1794 Whiskey Rebellion and the rise of the Ku Klux Klan in the immediate aftermath of the American Civil War. The law was last invoked by President George H.W. Bush in 1992, when the governor of California requested military aid to suppress unrest in Los Angeles following the Rodney King trial. But, the last time a president deployed the National Guard in a state without a request from that state's governor was 1965, when President Lyndon Johnson sent troops to protect civil rights demonstrators in Montgomery, Alabama. — Reuters
Free Malaysia Today
2 hours ago
- Free Malaysia Today
Unrest in Los Angeles as troops sent by Trump fan out
At least three self-driving Waymo cars were torched in downtown Los Angeles today. (San Francisco Chronicle/AP pic) LOS ANGELES : Police ordered the public to disperse from downtown Los Angeles after further unrest, with cars torched and security forces firing tear gas at protesters, in the wake of Donald Trump's deployment of national guard troops to America's second-biggest city. Protests in Los Angeles, home to a large Latino population, broke out on Friday, triggered by immigration raids that resulted in dozens of arrests of what authorities say are illegal migrants and gang members. Critics say the US president – who has made clamping down on illegal migration a key pillar of his second term – was deliberately stoking tensions with his deployment of California's national guard, a stand-by military usually controlled by the state governor. Demonstrators told AFP the purpose of the troops did not appear to be to keep order, with one calling it an 'intimidation tactic'. 'You have the national guard with loaded magazines and large guns standing around trying to intimidate Americans from exercising our first amendment rights,' protester Thomas Henning said. California governor Gavin Newsom called Trump's order a 'serious breach of state sovereignty' and demanded the president to rescind the order and 'return control to California'. He also urged protesters to stay peaceful, warning that those who instigate violence will be arrested. 'Don't take Trump's bait,' he said on social media platform X. Authorities declared downtown Los Angeles a place of 'unlawful assembly' by late this evening. Local media showed a heavy police presence blanketing mostly deserted streets in various areas. A few protesters remained scattered, with some lobbing projectiles and fireworks according to local aerial TV coverage. Trump called the protesters 'insurrectionists', and demanded authorities 'ARREST THE PEOPLE IN FACE MASKS, NOW!' 'BRING IN THE TROOPS!!!!' he wrote on his Truth Social platform. At least three self-driving Waymo cars were torched as demonstrators thronged around downtown Los Angeles earlier today, and local law enforcement deployed tear gas and smoke grenades to disperse protesters. An Australian reporter was hit in the leg with a rubber bullet fired by a police officer while on live television. Her employer 9News said she was unharmed. Los Angeles police department (LAPD) officers established containment lines some distance from federal buildings by this afternoon, preventing contact between angry demonstrators and the scores of armed national guardsmen from the 79th infantry brigade combat team who had gathered in helmets and camouflage gear. Law enforcement had arrested at least 56 people over two days and three officers had suffered minor injuries, the LAPD said. Police in San Francisco said today about 60 people had been arrested in similar protests in the northern Californian city. 'Troops everywhere' The national guard is occasionally used in instances of civil unrest. (AP pic) Trump was unrepentant when asked about the use of troops, hinting instead at a more widespread deployment in other parts of the country. 'I think you're going to see some very strong law and order,' he told reporters. Responding to a question about invoking the Insurrection Act – which would allow the military to be used as a domestic police force – Trump said: 'We're looking at troops everywhere. We're not going to let this happen to our country.' US northern command, part of the department of defence responsible for national defence, said 'approximately 500 marines… are in a prepared-to-deploy status should they be necessary to augment and support' the ongoing federal operations. The national guard is frequently used in natural disasters, and occasionally in instances of civil unrest, but almost always with the consent of local authorities. Trump's deployment of the force – the first over the head of a state governor since 1965 at the height of the civil rights movement – was criticised by Democrats, including Kamala Harris. The former vice-president called it 'a dangerous escalation meant to provoke chaos'. Newsom said Trump was 'putting fuel on this fire'. 'Commandeering a state's National Guard without consulting the Governor of that state is illegal and immoral,' he said on X. 'California will be taking him to court.' 'Intimidation' However, Republicans lined up behind Trump to dismiss the pushback. 'I have no concern about that at all,' said house speaker Mike Johnson, accusing Newsom of 'an inability or unwillingness to do what is necessary'. Demonstrator Marshall Goldberg, 78, told AFP that deploying guardsmen made him feel 'so offended'. 'We hate what they've done with the undocumented workers, but this is moving it to another level of taking away the right to protest and the right to just peaceably assemble.' Raids by the immigration and customs enforcement (ICE) agency in other US cities have triggered small protests in recent months, but the Los Angeles unrest is the biggest and most sustained against Trump's immigration policies so far.
Free Malaysia Today
2 hours ago
- Free Malaysia Today
Cops, immigration owe Fahmi Reza an apology, says G25
On Saturday, Fahmi Reza was told he could not leave the country, when he went to KLIA Terminal 2 to take a flight to Singapore. (Bernama pic) PETALING JAYA : The immigration department and Bukit Aman owe graphic artist and activist Fahmi Reza an apology after he was barred from travelling abroad last Saturday, says G25. In a statement today, the group comprising prominent retired civil servants said despite the police's claim that no travel ban had been imposed on Fahmi, the fact remains that he was still denied permission to leave the country. G25 also questioned if there would be some accountability from the authorities after Prime Minister Anwar Ibrahim had called for the deputy inspector-general of police to conduct a full review of Fahmi's travel restrictions, and for the police to clarify the matter further. 'Despite the inspector-general of police admitting there was no actual travel restriction and blaming the incident on 'confusion', neither the police nor the immigration department has apologised or taken responsibility. 'We believe that at the very least, Fahmi is owed a public apology by those responsible,' he said. On Saturday, Fahmi was stopped at KLIA Terminal 2 while trying to board a flight to Singapore to attend a concert. He said an immigration officer allegedly told him the police had denied him clearance to travel overseas and asked him to check with Bukit Aman for further clarification. Inspector-General of Police Razarudin Husain later said the police did not issue a travel ban against Fahmi and the incident was the result of a 'misunderstanding'. Anwar then said he had instructed the police to investigate the matter, and the government supports individual freedom as long as national security and laws are not compromised. G25 noted the latest incident came just nine days after Fahmi was barred from entering Sabah on May 29. 'These repeated restrictions reflect not only an erosion of due process and a growing pattern of arbitrary infringement on constitutionally protected rights, but also risk diminishing Malaysia's standing in the eyes of the international community. 'When such incidents occur with increasing frequency, they become more than isolated lapses. They signal systemic issues that are both concerning and, frankly, embarrassing on the global stage,' the group said.
