Eight centuries later

Eight hundred years ago, the English King John the Landless put his seal in the great charter of liberties, beautifully named Latin Magna Carta. Thus, the power lost its sacredness - the sovereign remained the sovereign, but recognized as obliged in many cases to obey the law, and not his own interpretation of the will of God. Not absolute power, but limited by some limits. I don’t want to turn it, but I should act in accordance with some rules, keep it within itself. And even take into account the public opinion - the dominant class, at least.

However, the precedent was created even earlier: already in 1100, Henry I adopted a remotely similar document that, however, became a permanent law. The date of birth of the legal state is nevertheless considered June 15, 1215. But does this mean that Russia lagged behind England for eight centuries?

No, 800 years old is still too much. After all, not once and not twice after the historical June, the British monarchs tried to cancel the charter or emasculate its content, turn it into an empty declaration of intentions. (The familiar method, isn't it?) But then the barons again took the next monarch by the throat and forced to swear again to the loyalty of the Great Charter. The struggle continued with varying success until the 17th century, when Charles I tried to return absolutism. It ended, however, this is bad for him: an ax and a plane. The monarchs were taught a visual lesson that they would not forget. The bloody troubles began, the civil war. The Oliver Cromwell who came to power was still a democrat, established a personal dictatorship, showing that not only kings, but “national leaders” can be first -class despots, spitting on any charter and tyrant at the same time on behalf of the people.

Then Cromwell died, restoration occurred. The body of the Lord Protector was taken out of the coffin and symbolically chopped off his head, which for many years then hung the people on a warning on the pole at the Westminster Palace. But the heir to the throne Charles II, taking revenge on his father, mainly collaborated with parliament, searched and found compromises. And only at the end he ruined the necrologist, trying to rule alone. But even then to say: Protestant activists tried to kill him, who did not reasonly suspect him of sympathy for Catholics. Stuarts, both Karls and especially overthrown in 1688, Jacob II Stewart, supposedly for religion, but in fact - for an alliance with Catholic, highly centralized European states. And for the reform of England according to their absolutist model. But it did not work out. The so -called "glorious revolution" of 1688 happened. But the path to the triumph of the principles of the Great Charter was not at all smooth and smooth. For almost five hundred years, the struggle continued.

Probably, two points were especially important in the history of the country. Firstly, by the beginning of the 16th century it was ended with serfdom. And it, although in England it was softer than the Russian one, nevertheless focused public relations, crippled the psyche and divided people into gentlemen and slaves. And then this slavery was then out of more than one generation. But, the British were lucky, no one in the country has made nonsense (Kolkhozes) in the country. And the second, probably related to the first, as well as the tradition of the Great Charter of Frequences. Early established dominance of law, independence of the court. Respect for the law became a strong basis on which democratic institutions were then lined up. However, all this was still supported by the marine, trade character of the state, for which strict observance of contracts became a sacred principle.

So where is Russia? Serfdom was canceled in the middle of the 19th century, and then Alexander II tried to some extent limit the absolute power and introduce elements of the legal state into society, but these reforms were largely turned back to its heirs. Seven hundred years after the signing of the Great Charter in England and almost 250 years after the inglorious rule of Charles I, Nicholas II sincerely believed that he was not responsible for his affairs before people, but only to God, who gave his full order to Russia and its people.

For which they dealt with him no less cruelly than with Charles I, with the difference that the collective Russian "Cromwell" turned out to be many times more bloodthirsty and, having eliminated the monarchy, made his own restoration in the form of state feudalism in the country, he is "real socialism."

Let's count. So, the first liberties came to Russia in the middle of the 19th century, then there were frail attempts to move towards freedom at the beginning of the century XX and in February 1917 and a short period of hopes to restrict arbitrariness at the end of the same century. Another two or three centuries, perhaps, will live, perhaps, before our own "glorious revolution."

However, the British not everything is so pink and cloudless. No matter how strange it is, for the first time in several centuries, the Great Charter today has again become a stone of political stumbling. And even on the significant day itself, on June 15, when the queen and political leaders arrived in the earlymid, to the shore of the Thames, where a great event happened exactly 800 years ago, a whole political scandal erupted. Speaking at the ceremony, Prime Minister David Cameron said that the concept of human rights is "distorted and devalued." That his government will try to return to him the previous meaning in the spirit of the Great Charter.

We are talking about the plans of the conservatives to cancel the law adopted by the Laborists, which incorporated the European Convention on Human Rights in British legislation. In return, Tori promise , another, purely British law will be adopted, giving its own, more narrow interpretation of these rights.

In response, the leaders of the Labor’s opposition, also not embarrassed in expressions, fell upon the prime minister, declaring his position “shameful”. The representative of Amnesty International said that from the words of the prime minister "Barons of the 13th century, turn in their coffins."

Left commentators recalled that Britain, moreover, it was precisely the leaders of the Conservative Party that were the main initiators of the signing in the early 50s of the European Convention for Human Rights and the creation of the European Court of Human Rights. Now the same party can withdraw the country from the Convention and the ECHR, and even, it is possible, from the Council of Europe. In this case, Great Britain will be the second, after Belarus, a European country that is not part of this organ. What example will we give to other states then? - Observers are wondering.

The text of the British law on human rights does not yet exist, but there is no doubt that with all the differences and with all the differences from the provisions of the European Convention, in the main thing he will not move away from the understanding of these rights that are generally accepted in Western countries. The intensity of the political struggle and rhetoric, as usual, exaggerates the acuteness of the problem somewhat.

Meanwhile, the artist and sculptor Hugh Locke, by order of the authorities, made an original monument installed in the earlymide. Around the table are 12 bronze chairs, symbolizing the 39th article of the Great Charter, which approved the right to the jury. On chairs, the artist engraved scenes dedicated to the struggle for human rights. Here are the suffrazhists, and the Australian Aborigines, and the murdered American activist for the equal rights of gay Harvey Milk. And even the plot from modern Russia found a place on one of the chairs. Pussy Riot is immortalized in the free green meadows of the Early Enemis.

Andrey Ostalsky - London political commentator , orientalist

Opinions expressed under the heading "Law" may not reflect the point of view of the editorial office