A new criminal case was opened against Alexei Navalny.
Now Art.
239 h. 1 (“Creation of a non-profit organization that infringes upon the personality and rights of citizens”), up to three years.
No, we all understand what it looks like. The honest fighter was put in a dungeon, convicted on the first case that came to hand, and then, when they looked around, they began to string these same cases, like rings on a children's pyramid. Yves Rocher, an insult to a veteran, is now remembered at rallies when citizens were being dragged out into the streets despite the pandemic. Another term, another term, one more - and so on until it stops. And on the whole, we don't care for a long time what the Western "partners" or the liberal wing of the intelligentsia say. But after all, the guardians, no, no, but the question arises: are we doing something? Is our moral rightness still with us, or maybe the foreign "voices" are right and we are fighting the enemy with unworthy methods?
Let him return to Russia, let him continue to hold rallies on the streets, substituting new terms for his comrades-in-arms, and he himself, having two conditions, would fly around the world, write letters to foreign governments, indicating with an angry finger who will get new sanctions. And the state, like a good headmaster of a gymnasium, would look at all this and occasionally threaten with a finger from the window. A guardian and a statesman, of course, would have twisted in pain, but he would have felt himself and his country as great humanists and democrats.
But, alas, the era of humanism in the world is over. Truly strong countries can shout about human rights and impose sanctions for non-observance as much as they want, but when it comes to their interests, they know how to act. Assange has been locked up for many years, Snowden is on the international wanted list, Andrew Brightbart died under strange circumstances, and after a while the coroner who performed his autopsy also died. One after another, the participants in the storming of the Capitol were shot. And Harvey Weinstein, who, it would seem, was never an enemy of the new world order and did not interfere with anyone at all, will be in prison longer than the terrorist Breivik.
This I remembered only about the most iconic figures.
Smaller activists, such as the leader of Austrian identity Christians Martin Zellner or the gay conservative gay troll Milo Yiannopoulos, seem to be at large, but forever deleted from the media field, deprived of the right to vote: a lifetime ban on all social networks, blocking of accounts, a ban on entry to some countries.
With our money, this is called "restriction of freedom" and "prohibition on certain actions."
No, I do not at all want to use the annoying argument in the style of "they lynch blacks".
Like, if they can, then we can.
This is a weak excuse and a completely useless source of moral rightness.
I'm talking about processes common to the whole world.
This world is rapidly changing, it is shaken by the most destructive processes, new centers of power are being formed, capable of collapsing a building built for centuries to hell. And the guardians of the building, that is, the governments, are protected as best they can. America did not spare Assange, Snowden, or even Weinstein, although no one stood behind them except themselves and a handful of enthusiastic truth-seekers. The forces behind the "Berlin patient" are a hundredfold greater - or do we really believe that the US government fits in with any Russian opposition blogger, Angela Merkel comes to his hospital, and the fugitive oligarch pays for his living and being just for his beautiful eyes and active civic position?
What did Russia do in response?
She just stopped closing her eyes to everything that she had closed them to before.
I just remembered all the sins of the oppositionist, which she had stubbornly forgiven for some reason.
Yes, it looks far-fetched, drawn-in, improvised - call it whatever you like.
But if you look at this globally, as part of a huge and very dangerous world process, it is completely incomprehensible how else one could have done.
The point of view of the author may not coincide with the position of the editorial board.