Кто владеет информацией,
владеет миром
Rating

About the Value of Truth and Harm of Lies

About the Value of Truth and Harm of Lies
Dmitry Vorobievsky 15.12.2009

In connection with approach of next anniversary of "national acceptance" of present Russian "Constitution" (December, 12th) I bring to readers' attention reduced variant of my article on this theme. However, it was written far not today. Though its topicality, in my opinion, completely remains. Now - after the most frank transformation into a farce or clownery of all Russian "elections"< "parliament", "the Constitutional Court", etc - this topicality, in my opinion, became even more obvious...

 

Many years passed since in "Sedition" printed by samizdat and in a number of larger newspapers there was my article about falsification of "national" acceptance of "Constitution" in 1993 - "Boycott Which Was Not Noticed" (it can be found easily in the Internet).

Despite a large quantity of obvious (and easily enough checked) facts confirming rectitude of this article, today almost complete "taboo" is imposed everywhere on the given theme. At that there are bases to assume that it is caused not only by various displays of "cancelled" censorship but also by "self-censorship" of journalists and politicians convinced, probably, that wide promulgation of truth about this All-Russia falsification will lead almost to a doomsday.

By the way, judging by the facts, this truth is well-known practically to all who got interested in the given question a little bit seriously. Speaking about present "democratic Constitution" is possible to recollect that during two years since May, 1994 (i.e. 3-4 months after the publication of my aforementioned article "Boycott Which Was Not Noticed") full faking-up of acceptance of the "Constitution" was quite often publicly mentioned by many known politicians and journalists with different views from Rutsky and Zyuganov to Javlinsky and V.Vyzhutovich (one of leading journalists of the newspaper of "Izvestia" who further passed in semi-official "Russian Newspaper") - by the way, practically the same figures as in my article were mentioned.

However, they only mentioned it without trying to cancel the "results" of forged "constitutional referendum" and "elections" passed together with it. Today for some reason even such mentions is almost not audible. It's more or less clear with Rutsky and Zyuganov in my opinion: one received from authority possibility to be the governor for some years and other got the post of, so to say, "minister of opposition". The motives of silence (and sometimes even conscious lie in glory of present "Constitution") of many figures considering themselves democrats are not absolutely clear to me: it's not clear how they think to defend democracy if before their very eyes its basic tools - elections and referenda - fare rankly and regularly forged in the All-Russia scale, as well as in regions. (Certainly, looking at Moscow similar "elections" with "referenda" are organised in ancestral lands by many local nomenclature "leaders".)

Apparently, this silence could be explained basically by fear of, so to say, "public instability" and also by still remaining illusions about democratic character and liberal views of Yeltsin's "constitution". By the way, the word "constitution" I quote not only for the reason of its being faked-up but also because its maintenance couldn't be called constitution but a huge senseless set of phrases directly contradicting each other which authority can easily interpret in complete conformity with formula: "Law is a pole, it comes off, where you turn to".

For example, it's hardly possible to combine being in sound mind remarkable statements that "nobody should be exposed to violence" (art. 21, art. 2) and "everyone has the right to freedom and personal immunity" (art. 22, art. 1) with article 59 fixing compulsory military service (added with "alternative" national service). In my opinion, someone should have gone crazy, if he thinks that violent compulsion of innocent people to military (or any other) service is not "exposing to violence" but is triumph of "freedom and personal immunity".

Among such, contradicting each other articles there is one which authorities can use (and quite often use) to reduce to absolute zero remedial block of "Constitution" (which many supporters are still proud of). I mean article 55, clause 3 which speaks: "Rights and freedom of a person and citizen can be restricted by the federal law only to the extend which is necessary in view of protection of bases of the constitutional system, morals, health, rights and legitimate interests of other persons, maintenance of defence of the country and safety of the state".

If to reject demagogical phraseology, it is possible to express the meaning of this point like this: the authorities can publish monstrous laws absolutely ignoring all human rights, referring thus that these laws are supposedly published with a view of protection of "safety of the state", "maintenance of defence of the country" or, for example, "morals"... This point, by the way, appeared at trying a case about the Chechen slaughter in the "Constitutions Court" which this high "Court" considered quite lawful, i.e. obviously, rather "moral".

This point appears in other cases, I personally was convinced once. (I received the answer from "Constitutional Court" which uses this clause to justify larceny of my insured letters sent by the prisoner who addressed our organisation for help, they did not reach destination and were withdrawn by administration of Relyoshinsky "penal colony"). So one given clause of the 55th article is enough not to consider present "Constitution" as a guarantee of any human rights.

However, it is possible more or less successfully to try to use in the remedial purposes its separate articles - for example, with a view of protection against recruitment or against reprisals connected with three times "cancelled" residential registration - but with same or even with bigger success it was possible to use with the same purposes corresponding articles of the former ("Soviet" with its numerous amendments) constitution. In its days, by the way, contrary to the present time there was some progress seen in the sphere of human rights (for example, legislative cancellation of a residential registration and MLC system). Attempt to launch the Chechen war was also a failure. I think that tragicomic performances of numerous "elections" with the roles distributed between the nomenclature in advance, with songs and dances paid by boxes of dollars stolen from "electorate", with direct and frank jugglings of the "results" would be impossible without that "constitutional reform" carried out in 1993 with the help of violence (October's slaughter in Moscow) and lie (December's "constitutional referendum")...

Hardly probable that something fair can arise on such "base". In my opinion, it's already clear that without wide promulgation of absolute truth about this stinking "base" and without corresponding conclusions our country awaits at the best - either more and more disgusting mockery of democracy, or the same mockery of monarchy and in the worst - the All-Russia civil war or frank fascism. For the majority of people, in my opinion, in any case two things only will be guaranteed - poverty and lawlessness.

 

Читайте также:
In other::
Search:
News