Translated material
"Fool Lex ..." and glasses for Dali
What do repeated criminal cases mean those who have already been convicted of political reasons
Photo: Artem Geodakyan / TASS
We will also have to repeat ourselves here, but the “law enforcement agencies” continue to tighten the nuts, new repressive practices arise, including “catch up and add” for those who are convicted only for words. What to expect next? - the readers ask.
The answer depends on how much we ourselves want to look, looked by those who were convicted, and those who detained, judged and adopted the laws that made it possible. If you still think of a person as a rational being, each of us weighs our benefits and risks, but they can be considered both in the nearby and in a slightly more distant future.
Investigators and judges, obviously, are only interested in tomorrow, and those whom they haunt, console themselves with the prospect of several years that they take - according to their rational conclusions - the current regime.
From this point of view, a typical period of 7–7.5 years for the “fakes about the Armed Forces” already looks to some extent conditional. Young people usually have a more distant horizon: they can get a political mortgage, and in the elderly it, of course, is shorter.
There are those who do not weigh neither near nor distant risks, but simply cannot help but speak out-, apparently, the majority of those who are serving a sentence for words belong to this category. They are, strictly in Kant, moral people who are following their categorical imperative - and he is unconditional. Such a statement from the heart is also possible in support of its - for example, from the police, but among the current judges, deputies of the Duma or senators there are hardly such people for whom a moral imperative can outweigh a rational calculation.
However, they also need to somehow get along with themselves, and the categorical imperative is “a priori”, that is, in a sense, he is innate,-
Therefore, judges and other persons who make decisions about violence (and perhaps even to a greater extent) - they use the design of the so -called legalism as an alibi: Dura Lex Sed Lex (the law is harsh, but this is the law).
The farther, the “legalism” requires large tolerances, but from this point of view, the repeated terms still look “legal”. After all, Alexei Gorinov said something about his cellmates in the Vladimir pre-trial detention center? And Azat Miftakhov did not comment on the television program in the colony? Witnesses who “caused moral suffering” will be found, that is, there are ready -made “legal facts”.
In the case of Vladimir Kara-Murza*, who refuses to put a “foreign agent” dick to the messages distributed under his name, and witnesses do not need-there is a formal composition. The last case of Navalny is a little dignly - as it became clear after the detention of his lawyers on October 13, it arose not so much in the logic of revenge and intimidation, but in a rational field:
Having recognized Navalny by the creator of an extremist organization, the “bodies” got the opportunity to pursue anyone who worked with him in one way or another.
Well, in relation to such “extremists by negligence” - again, “Fool Lex ...”.
Legalism allows you to leave not only the moral, but also the legal measurement of the “cases” by brackets. In his flat space, arguments about the proportionality of punishment, saving repression, equality of subjects, the inability to punish twice for the same, finally, that the laws themselves, supported (not to say “accepted”) the so -called legislator contradict the constitutions and do not at all fall into any gates - do not work.
Therefore, we, too, camber from our legal skate and look at the situation from a political point of view. Then the “law enforcement” system (in the broadest sense, including not only the courts and the police, but also the “legislator” that adopt convenient for them will appear ... in the form of media. Using the classification of Marshall Maklyuen, unlike horizontal (network, fast), this is “vertical” media, installed as if forever. Actually, this is the message that it broadcasts: "It will always be so." You thought that rational arguments can be changed? It won't work. This should become a universal and unconditional (eternal) reflex:
How many times will you receive a new term (at best - a fine), it will only depend on you, so put your moral imperative in your ass (as we did, but you are not better).
The feeling of the addressees of the Message is close to the one that the older people remember in the mid-80s of the last century in the USSR. But we also have experience of inevitability further.
The situation looks mothballed only in the near future. Those who are betting on “Eternity” are actually not seeing their nose further. Those who think rationally have spare “glasses for the Dali”, but out of fear of the future or in the hope that the continuation will take place outside their physical life, they prefer not to use them.
However, if the “media policeman”, the specialty of which the RANEPA has just declared, will study for four or five years, then by the time they receive diplomas, will be considered a crime?