Skillful selection

Political prisoners - the pain of society, visible to its temporary well -being. Many people recognize this and try to fight political repression with all their means available to them. Rarely, someone will condemn such an activity except for some frostbitten citizen who considers hard labor to be useful for future writers.

The power of the existence of political prisoners Rada. In a strategic sense, it is a threat to society, a method of terror. In tactical - a way to distract public forces from the reconstruction of the system. The authorities quite transparently hints: "We plant, and you save and do not think about anything else. Want to pull out someone-go to concessions. Let's talk, talk." In fact, political prisoners are hostages in power in its struggle against the opposition.

The authorities of the authorities are picked up on the fly. The theme of political prisoners can be armed for a significant campaign in the Kremlin and a conversation with a thief who stole the president’s mandate in the elections. The topic of liberation of political prisoners can skillfully replace the requirement of dismantling the political system.

And the topic of political prisoners can be covered as a shield, protecting your party or Chekist past. This method is proven. It was successfully used by the foreman of perestroika, the deceased Alexander Yakovlev. At one time, he headed the Presidential Commission on the rehabilitation of victims of political repression, but at the same time he never expressed repentance in his participation in the organization of the trial of Andrei Sinyavsky and Julius Daniel in 1966. Another "democratic" activist - Major General Oleg Kalugin, who took part in the organization of the murder of the murder of the Bulgarian dissident Georgy Markov in 1978, turned out to be matching him.

Nowadays, the theme of the political prisoners successfully hide behind the KGB retired, Colonel Gennady Gudkov and Lieutenant General Alexei Kondaurov. One dragged dissidents for interrogations and conducted searches at their house, the other caught the distributors of anti -Soviet leaflets and letters. Now both publicly protect the political prisoners, "forgetting" at least express regrets about their Chekist past. This is normal for them: then there were some times, now others.

Other times have come for human rights defenders. Under totalitarian regime, human rights activists considered political prisoners all who were convicted of political reasons for non -violent activities. "International Amnesty" defined them as prisoners of conscience. Ideology did not matter. Among the Politzes were people of different beliefs - liberals, nationalists, socialists, religious people, even "true communists." Their right to have their own beliefs was considered significant and to distribute them freely. The Fund for Assistance to Political Personal Personally helped everyone equally. Public defense was, of course, different, and this depended on many reasons, but at least no one refused the status of the political prisoner.

Is it a matter of today! The last surge of the discussion is associated with the list of political prisoners compiled by the "memorial". He demonstrates strange engagement and inconsistency. This is not about the fact that among the defendants in the list, people accused of murder, fraud, the spread of drugs and violence. In the end, they could do their actions for political reasons or their affairs could be falsified. It’s not even about the fact that among the political prisoners for some reason were people who are at large. In the end, the term "prisoners" can be understood by grammar expandfully. But what are the criteria by which some got into this list, but others do not?

Among the criteria mentioned by the "memorial" in the list of political prisoners, there are completely amazing ones. For example, "the application of the content of detention, which is dispensed to a sane act." This criterion fell or fall, I think, at least half of all Russian prisoners, that is, about half a million people. And under the criterion, "violation of the right to a fair trial" falls on all without exception by Russia. Who did not violate the right to a fair trial in Russian courts? Show such a person - we will bring his case to the Guinness Book of Records!

Thank God, among criteria is such as criminal prosecution "solely in connection with the non -violent exercise of the right to freedom of obtaining and disseminating information." This, so to speak, is a crystal pure criterion. If this was also practice! After all, this must be possessed by a painful fantasy and a completely perverted human rights consciousness in order to put on a list of political prisoners who stormed private property, but at the same time leave “overboard” Boris Stomakhin, who is now judged for writing texts in a newspaper that goes out of a circulation of a couple of hundreds of copies. Of course, ecologists enjoy international support, and Stomakhin is ardent Russophobe, and he has been one or two supporters here. But what is the case with human rights activists? Is their care to delve into ideological differences? Or maybe they are no longer very and human rights activists, but are quite politically engaged?

In the polemic, which unfolded on the Internet, the listers of the list appeal to European experience and resolutions of PACE. Just like our authorities, constantly referring, that there they have in the West is also worse. But, firstly, most often this is not true, and secondly, this is not an argument at all. The West has its own mistakes, and there are persecutions for statements of their opinion, for example, according to the laws on responsibility for the denial of the Holocaust. Do not follow precisely bad examples.

It seems that the current domestic human rights activists are trying to fit into some system for the most reliability-a little into the state, a little in the international one. In the absence of one’s own conviction, this is a completely understandable path. And political prisoners and for them become not a pain of society, but a means of manipulating.