Joseph in the mouth of Leviathan

Why, with the consequences of a well -known merged conversation between Producer Prigozhin and businessman Akhmedov, remains not to be sorted out by law, but by concepts

The English philosopher Thomas Hobbes deduced private life and conversations from the sphere of his “Leviathan”. However, can the famous merged conversation of Joseph Prigozhin with Farhad Akhmedov public, if he learned about him a “wide circle of faces”? Signs of an article about “fakes” there are a dozen, that is, it is necessary to excite “in fact” and conduct an examination?

What follows from this for Russian judicial practice, explains Leonid Nikitinsky, candidate of legal sciences and observer of the “New”.

I would like to remind the respected judges of the philosopher Thomas Hobbes, about whom they all passed exams at a legal university. Hobbes developed the theory of a “public agreement”, which implies that people partially abandon their sovereign rights in favor of the state in order to ensure their interests through its means.

And in this sense, all democracy is on Hobbes. However, according to Hobbes, the power of the “sovereign”, established by such an agreement, should be absolute.

Only a real tyrant is able to stop the “war of all against all” - so the philosopher also substantiated the need for authoritarianism.

At the same time, Leviathan Hobbes reigns only in the public sphere. In private life-in his house-fortress-everyone can behave as it pleases and say what he wants. That is, Hobbes, being a real Englishman, rejected totalitarianism when the “sovereign” also controls the private life of people.

The politician Ilya Yashin met at the assembly in a pre -trial detention center with a former driver of one police cone - Sergey Vedel, placed there in the last March - and told his story. Vedel’s phone, who spent his childhood in the city of Buch in the Kyiv region, where his father still lives, was put on wiretapping for surveillance for a high -ranking passenger. But a certain comrade from the FSB overheard the conversation of Vedel with his father, to whom his son said something wrong, and the policeman was tied.

Vedel Daniil Burman’s lawyer clarified that there were three such conversations with different interlocutors, but the investigation united them as if in one, presenting him to the client that had just appeared in the Criminal Code of Article 207.3: “Public distribution of obviously false information about the use of the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation”.

After only a year with a small “Vedel case”, a hearing began in the Perovsky District Court of Moscow, the second meeting was scheduled for Cosmonautics Day on April 12.

Meanwhile, according to Lawyer Street, the Industrial District Court in Izhevsk fined 30 thousand rubles under the article on “discrediting the RF Armed Forces” (Articles 20.3.3 of the Administrative Code of the Russian Federation) a lawyer, who complained of two clients - relatives of the Zekov Udmurt colony. Women were afraid that their relatives could be recruited in the Wagner PMC. During the conversation recorded on the recorder, the lawyer expressed doubt about the “appropriateness of Svo”, and the clients patriotically handed over to the police. The court rejected the defense of the defense of the non -public nature of the legal consultation, considering that "anyone could go into the office."

What would Hobbes say to this? Probably that, just as nine women cannot give birth to one child in a month, and three private conversations do not form one public, and the court in Izhevsk, continuing his own logic, should have entrusted the bodies of inquiry to find “anyone” and interrogate. Otherwise, where is the sign of publicity?

Before moving on to the next case, it is also necessary to remind respected judges about the principle of the uniformity of law enforcement practice, which they were all the more in the course of their legal education.

The well -known conversation of Joseph Prigozhin with Farhad Akhmedov was, of course, a purely private character, but was not only overheard and recorded “anyone”, but also posted to the network, as a result of which he learned about him the widest circle of persons. Maybe this is a fake, but there would be enough signs of Article 207.3 of the Criminal Code for a dozen affairs, so it is necessary to get excited “in fact” and conduct an examination. And if not, then the “case of Vedel” must be terminated, and the decision on the administrative case of the Izhevsk lawyer should be canceled. As, however, many other decisions and sentences in criminal and administrative cases: judicial practice cannot solve the same issue differently.

Let the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation say its word, to whose competence control is attributed to the uniformity of judicial practice. We will proceed from the fact that if not all judges, then the consultants of this court studied well. They must give a scientific conclusion: the compositions of Art. 207.3 Criminal Code and 20.3.3 Administrative Code of the Russian Federation imply direct intent. Such intent should also cover a sign of publicity. So the incidents of Vedel and the Izhevsk lawyer are an excuse for the sophisticated, but with Prigozhin, if you deal, it is necessary not by law, but by concepts.