A 25-year-old singer identified as Eduard Charlot has become the focus of attention from members of the Forty Sorokov movement, who are calling for the removal of his Russian citizenship. This development was reported by the Telegram channel Mash, which has tracked a series of provocative actions attributed to Charlot and his supporters.
Observers note that Charlot recently produced a controversial image in which he appears to display a photograph of Patriarch Kirill attached to a cross, alongside a military ID, and in the same scene, he is shown burning a passport. Supporters of the movement argue that such displays constitute an affront to religious symbols and to the state, prompting calls for punitive measures including the revocation of his passport and charges related to insulting the beliefs of believers and disrespecting state emblems.
The singer reportedly deleted the disputed posts after they sparked criticism online. Prior to this incident, Charlot had relocated to Armenia, where he was believed to be seeking distance from the controversy in Russia, though the posts in question had already circulated widely on social media and other channels.
In the period leading up to these events, Charlot had released content that challenged the Russian government. One public video featured a performance in which he sang a song addressing the president and then publicly tore the portrait of the head of state. The public organization People’s Call brought attention to that video and submitted a formal request to the head of the Russian Interior Ministry to review the singer’s actions, asking for official oversight of the matter.
According to statements from Charlot’s father, there was a disapproval of the video that depicted the burning of a Russian passport. These developments were reported as part of a broader pattern in which Charlot has used provocative imagery to express dissent, prompting responses from activist groups and government officials alike.
Officials and commentators have indicated that Charlot’s actions are part of a wider dialogue about national symbols, freedom of expression, and the responsibilities that accompany public influence. The situation has also drawn attention to how activist organizations frame accountability for perceived offenses against faith and state symbols, and how authorities handle cases that blend cultural, political, and personal dimensions.
Over the past year and a half, Charlot has issued multiple statements regarding his stance and intentions, some of which have been characterized as expressing contempt for certain state actions. Critics have argued that provocative performances can escalate tensions, while supporters claim they are a legitimate form of artistic and political expression. The evolving dialogue continues to attract scrutiny from media outlets, human rights groups, and the public at large, with no clear consensus yet reached on the appropriate legal and ethical boundaries for performers who engage in politically charged symbolism.
As this case unfolds, observers in Canada and the United States are watching closely how similar cases are treated in different jurisdictions, especially regarding citizenship and the display of sensitive symbols in artistic works. The discussion highlights broader questions about how governments balance protecting national symbols with safeguarding freedom of expression, a balance that remains a focal point in many democratic societies today. Attributions: Mash Telegram channel provided initial coverage of the claims, while subsequent reporting drew on statements from activist groups and family members involved in the case.