Contract with the precinct:

A couple of days ago, as a result of a completely ordinary Moscow neighbor-park-free-duoras, the district policeman demanded that I proceed to the department with him. In incredibly surprised at my refusal, he threatened me with a punishment for "disobedience to the police officer." When I, already waving the Code of Criminal Procedure, demanded that the policeman explain on what grounds he is going to detain me, this young man said: "Based on the Constitution. We have the Basic Law. The human rights are recorded there. And I are on the basis of human rights." To the department. I understand perfectly well that this policeman meant. He wanted to say: "We have it so started. We say to someone" we will follow the department " - and everyone is following." In other words, between the police and potential delayed, that is, everyone else, there is a social contract that is stronger and most important than any written law. That is why the reaction to the Babitsky case on both sides - from the side of the press and from the authorities - was quite similar: the jaw sagging in shock. We are in shock that they did this. They are shocked by our reaction. Indeed, who would have thought that between journalists, obediently or even with zeal, illuminating the "anti-terrorist operation", and there is some condenser from the enemy voice, there is a shopping solidarity? If they knew, they would have prepared, and would have done without the unflappable absurdity of Yastrzhembsky and the bleating Manilov about the "lost sheep". They did not prepare because they are used to counting on a social contract.

A couple of days ago, as a result of a completely ordinary Moscow neighbor-park-free-duoras, the district policeman demanded that I proceed to the department with him. In incredibly surprised at my refusal, he threatened me with a punishment for "disobedience to the police officer." When I, already waving the Code of Criminal Procedure, demanded that the policeman explain on what grounds he is going to detain me, this young man said: "Based on the Constitution. We have the Basic Law. The human rights are recorded there. And I are on the basis of human rights." To the department.

I understand perfectly well that this policeman meant. He wanted to say: "We have it so started. We say to someone" we will follow the department " - and everyone is following." In other words, between the police and potential delayed, that is, everyone else, there is a social contract that is stronger and most important than any written law.

That is why the reaction to the Babitsky case on both sides - from the side of the press and from the authorities - was quite similar: the jaw sagging in shock. We are in shock that they did this. They are shocked by our reaction. Indeed, who would have thought that between journalists, obediently or even with zeal, illuminating the "anti-terrorist operation", and there is some condenser from the enemy voice, there is a shopping solidarity? If they knew, they would have prepared, and would have done without the unflappable absurdity of Yastrzhembsky and the bleating Manilov about the "lost sheep". They did not prepare because they are used to counting on a social contract.