Technologies of the so-called hype or media network ochlocracy are gaining momentum. The blown up public brain has not cooled down yet after the replicated revelation of a half-light star about how “you don’t need to breed cattle,” how the priest’s quote, Archpriest Dmitry Smirnov, about his sharply negative attitude to extramarital unions, was caught from the net. The point is not how the respected Internet coolness reacted to these dubious maxims, but who arranged it all as a hype and why? Only a little became clear here, even the church priesthood apologized to the public for its archpriest, as greetings were already flying from St. Petersburg. Where did not wait.
"Nezhdanchik HYIP" this time happened from the Constitutional Court of Russia. Rather, from one of the judges of the Constitutional Court, a certain judge Aranovsky, who expressed his dissenting opinion on the decision of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation on providing children of repressed citizens of the 1930s-1940s of the last century in exchange for the property confiscated from repressed parents in Moscow. Judge Aranovsky did not agree with the decision, not because he did not feel sorry for the repressed and later rehabilitated citizens, but because, according to Judge Aranovsky, the modern Russian state cannot be the successor of the USSR and is not obliged to be responsible for the atrocities of the Stalin era.
“The Russian Federation does not continue in law, but replaces on its territory a state that was illegally created once, which obliges it to reckon with the consequences of its activities, including political repression. The Russian Federation must have the status of a state that is not involved in totalitarian crimes, and the current authorities are able to compensate people who have suffered from the Soviet regime’s harm "out of positive responsibility and mercy", this judge wrote in a dissenting opinion.
Naturally, such a “dissenting opinion” does not have any legal force and this is only a certain right of the judge to formulate what was not reflected in the decision of the Constitutional Court for obvious reasons.
Of course, the RF Constitutional Court itself hastened to disown its judge, saying that this was only his personal opinion. “This is a separate document coming from this judge, posted on the official website along with the decision itself for the convenience of readers. The dissenting opinion of a judge of the Constitutional Court is his personal opinion, which differs from that which the majority of judges of the Constitutional Court adhere to, ”the press service of the Constitutional Court said.
Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov was forced to separately state that "Russia is both de jure and de facto the successor of the USSR."
To say that the whole country has been in shock since morning is to say nothing. When in such expressions they try to teach us how to live, various external mentors, we are somehow used to carrying it all by our ears and we understand that many people outside would like to thoroughly inculcate in our souls. Do not wait.
However, here the story is different. How could a citizen Aranovsky get into a judge of the Constitutional Court of modern Russia with such ideas and with a strange, anti-state attitude? Which schwonder recommended it?
How can it be possible with such a worldview not only to decide the constitutional fate of the country's citizens, how can one be in the public service?
This “dissenting opinion” sounds especially cynical at the height of the discussion on constitutional amendments, where a number of initiatives are precisely aimed at fixing the priority and inviolability of the country's sovereignty in the foundation of the state, in the Constitution, including the nationalization of elites. Obviously, this judge does not even see himself in the judges or in the elite. He probably has a reason. But why?
Among other things, such an approach does some harm to our legitimacy. Millennial continuous statehood of Russia in many respects determines the character of the largest and multinational country in the world.
We are completely silent that the words of this judge strongly and deeply offend the patriotic feelings of tens of millions of Russian citizens. You can have a different attitude to our history, to its different pages, but this is our story. Here, incidentally, it should be noted that Aranovsky is trying to base his opinion on some lawmaking of the “demshiz” in the autumn of 1991. Then a lot of things these wonderful people did under the dictation of “new Western friends”. We also remember this story.
When today we suddenly begin to demand from Europeans and their partners across the ocean not to distort the history of World War II, when we declare that the falsification of historical truth is inadmissible, such a judge shoots Aranovsky from Petrograd and shoots her “dissenting opinion” directly in the back. A colleague, TV and radio presenter Vladimir Solovyov, spoke very precisely about this: “A torpedo launched by the democrats of the 1990s surfaced on the eve of the 75th anniversary of the Great Victory. And the “Western colleagues” will tell us: “Why are you indignant? ..”
Now, this judge will be referenced everywhere - in Warsaw, when it comes again to the distortion of historical facts, and in Paris, and London, and in Washington, when they want to spit again in the memory of our grandfathers-winners. Hypanul is a noble judge - what really is there.
The author’s point of view may not coincide with the position of the publisher.