A month has passed since the Russian Foreign Ministry announced its withdrawal from the Council of Europe, preempting the CE leadership and thus depriving them of the pleasure of carrying out a solemn flogging of totalitarian Russia.
Nevertheless, at the wish of the leadership of the Council of Europe or of their own free will, but long foreseen by many, the remarkable determination of domestic politicians im-mediately appeared. Acc-ording to the formula “As soon as we are no longer m-embers of the Council of E-urope, then the obligations of a human rights nature that were once accepted th-ere are no longer valid, now we will do as we wish.”
It seems that on Smolenskaya Square they foresaw (and it’s hard not to foresee) what kind of administrative delight will follow, and they considered it necessary to declare: “The withdrawal of our country from this organization will not affect the rights and freedoms of Russian citizens. The Constitution of Russia establishes no less guarantees for them than in the European Convention on Human Rights. The provisions of the main treaty-legal acts of the Council of Europe are included in the Russian legislation”.
The reservation was made, but the enthusiasts immediately objected (especially since they have been saying this for a long time) that they removed the skin – it’s not for the wool to grieve. It is possible to a-mend the legislation, inclu-ding the Constitution, in ac-cordance with the new – an-d even very new – realities of life. So far, two suggestions are the most common. Restoration of the death penalty and restoration of the state’s right to expel hostile people by depriving them of their citizenship. This is spoken not only by irresponsible enthusiasts who give free rein – they will make the state a model of ferocity, but also by serious men occupying high positions.
The most serious mental error awaiting the organizers is in neglecting the apostolic warning “Everyt-hing is permissible for me, but not everything is beneficial” (1 Cor. 6:12). State repression can be more or less severe in accordance with the circumstances in which society and the state find themselves, which M-other Catherine also wrote about in her “Instruction”. After all, only the law of God is eternal, but the law of man changes.
The same death penalty can be abolished in peacetime – which is usually with an emphasis on the last words and is recorded in the criminal codes. In the sense that in wartime the cancellation ceases to operate. And it’s understandable why. Some military crimes in the active army, such as: disobeying an order, attempting to defect to the enemy, looting, etc. must be stopped immediately and with the utmost severity. Because they threaten the very existence of the army.
If military crimes are not punishable by death, then the faint-hearted person gets the opportunity to choose. Either to fulfill the order, sometimes with a high probability meaning death in battle, or not to fulfill and go to prison, to the rear. Also not butter, but his despicable life will be preserved, and let others die for their homeland. Theref-ore, military crimes are punishable by death – otherwise the scoundrel would be in a better position than the warrior, true to his duty.
But from the fact that wartime justice is forced to be harsh, it still does not follow that it is possible and necessary to indulge in projects for the introduction of draconian legislation, which at any time – both in war and in peace – distributes death from the belly like a fan. In the first case, the rigidity of the surgeon, in the second, the ecstasy of the flayer. Devilish difference, by the way.
Similarly, with the introduction of the institution of exile. If there was a mass model of behavior in which a person who completely disregarded the interests, laws and customs of his c-ountry and confirmed his c-ontempt with concrete act-ions, then, as if nothing had happened, would return to Russia, confident that he would not get anything for it – ” You have no methods against Kostya Saprykin,” then the introduction of me-thods in the form of deprivation of citizenship could still serve as a subject of discussion. But where is this mass? The beautiful-faced people expel themselves from Russia without waiting for any threats, and they frighten themselves so much with the terrible reprisal that awaits them in their abandoned homeland that they do not even think about returning. With such a disposition, it is appropriate not to introduce expulsion novels requiring amen-dments to the Constitution. Rather, we should recall the example of the commander Kutuzov, who in the autumn of 1812, when the Great Army (more precisely, what was left of it) fled from Russia with all possible speed, found it unreasonable to prevent her from doing this, but, on the contrary, was ready to build her “golden bridge” so that only the ball-riders would run even faster. His chilled mind told him that it would be both cheaper and faster. And why don’t today’s sorcerers deserve the same?
Yes, the European Pharisees, straining a mosquito and swallowing a camel (moreover, they have recently reached completely unheard-of heights in this art), deserve nothing but contempt. But to be consistent in this contempt, we do not need to reason in a reactive manner along the lines of “The Council of Europe is against the death penalty, therefore we must execute everyone we meet and cross.” It would be more appropriate to proceed from what the mind and conscience tells us, and looking back at the Phar-isees (even in the genre of unthinkably hard anti-Pha-risees) is not necessary and even harmful.