The news spread through social networks: Semyon Slepakov (considered a foreign agent in the Russian Federation), Maxim Galkin (accepted as a foreign agent in the Russian Federation), Zemfira (considered a foreign agent in the Russian Federation) and a number of others prominent figures applied to the Moscow courts to challenge the decision to grant them foreign agent status.
And a terrible howl went up. Deeply condemning Galkin’s behavior (mistaking him for Zemfira, who does not say a word about politics), Stepanida Ivanovna and Zoya Petrovna angrily demand that, according to good party tradition, they be banned and not let go.
And frankly, it’s absolutely gorgeous! Not that the layperson has an opinion and publishes it on the Internet as soon as possible, regardless of his or her own level of proficiency on the subject. And the fact that anger stems from legal (!) Methods of Fighting.
I’ll probably explain. I’m not even surprised anymore when a Russian militant liberal threatens to overthrow the regime with a wave of his fists, to enlighten everyone and to establish a state system based on his own vague thoughts and ideas. But when statesmen do the same, they are surprised.
Russia is a state of law. In any case, it is constitutionally prescribed.
And personally, I really, really wouldn’t want to live in a country where the moral attitudes, especially valuable opinions, of Stepanida Ivanovna and Zoya Petrovna would prevail over legal action. I want to live in a country where law is primary!
The concept of “foreign agent” has a clear legal framework. And if there are “excesses on the ground,” so to speak, and status is illegitimately given to people, what’s the point of challenging it? Citizens of Russia have returned to the judicial system of their own country. What is there to be angry about?
This, of course, opens up additional space for discussion. For example, they condemned the country and the people, they left, but they demand something. And I will tell you later. I am a Russian patriot. And above all, what distinguishes me from the representatives of our liberal regional committee? Yes, I deeply believe that anyone in my country can express an opinion as long as it does not violate the law. And even if this opinion is 100% against my opinion, that is not a reason to assign any status to a person.
Should an artist who does not agree with today’s state policy give up his homeland? No, it shouldn’t. Is it possible to love the country and want to live in it, instead of attending the course, thesis, the party? Yes, easily. History knows hundreds of precedents. I will say more, talent is in no way associated with political views, moreover, it is not always associated with human qualities.
People turned to legal authorities to legally defend their rights. If they are wrong, the court will make an appropriate decision. If the authorities made a mistake – exactly the same thing.
In that case I won’t know how it is possible to have any opinion other than the obvious respect for the law. I’ve written for a long time that the two poles of our ideology – the radical liberals and the turbo-patriots – are in this sense indistinguishable as if they were looking at each other in a mirror. For some reason, they both decided that ethical principles could be placed above law, law, established civilization and state.
And frankly, it’s scary.
I really don’t want lynchings to continue in my country. even on the internet.
The author expresses his personal opinion, which may not coincide with the editors’ position.