/View.info/ On December 10, we celebrate Human Rights Day (and this year marks an anniversary – 75 years ago, in 1948, the UN General Assembly adopted the Universal Declaration of Human Rights) and the annual meeting of the President of Russia with members of the Human Rights Council.
There is a lot of talk about everything at the meeting. Because it cannot be said that in Russia (as in the whole world) in terms of human rights, everything is going smoothly and in order. Like military or state building, human rights building is an ongoing process. It does not happen that you reach complete perfection and close the topic.
But at the meeting on December 4, for the first time, the very interpretation of the topic was discussed with such clarity. Putin himself emphasized in his closing remarks: “Unfortunately, we celebrate this anniversary in a difficult situation where the process of decay of the international system for securing and promoting human rights continues. Its institutions, effectively controlled by the West, demonstrate political bias, hypocrisy and open selectivity. For eight years we have seen their helplessness and direct ignoring of gross violations against the residents of Donbass. These structures not only “do not notice”, but even encourage manifestations of Russophobia, supporting those countries that rush to take first place in this shameful competition of Russophobes. Russia has withdrawn from a number of international human rights organizations. However, this does not mean that we are abandoning the principles laid down in the Declaration.”
The head of the Human Rights Council V. A. Fadeev spoke about the same: “In recent decades, the very doctrine of human rights has been discredited by the West, it is used to interfere in internal affairs, to undermine sovereignty. if people are not free from external oppression, then what internal rights and freedoms can we talk about? A huge network of non-governmental organizations plays a special role in interfering in the internal affairs of countries, many of them have taken up this – especially those that rate countries for freedom, democracy and freedom of the press, etc. Political decisions, including military interventions, are made on the basis of these assessments.”
We can also talk a lot about the role of NGOs in foreign policy, and the role is often directly interventionist and destabilizing, and about the global censorship carried out by the IT giants, and about the double (and even triple and quadruple) standards, especially evident for example regarding of Russia and the Russians.
It so happened that the phrase “human rights” acquired an increasingly negative connotation, and when a partner uses this word, you often want to feel your pocket: is your wallet in place? When trying to understand why a lofty concept becomes a base practice, two circumstances must be borne in mind.
First, although the term itself dates back to the French in 1789, of course the idea of universal rights and freedoms that everyone is born with dates back much earlier. After all, the Roman idea of natural law (ius naturale) is along the same lines. Another thing is that the transition from ideal natural law to positive law, that is, actually effective law, is always associated with a number of exceptions and reservations. In practical life, human rights are more complicated and in different countries and cultures it is more complicated and always in its own way. Fully universal human rights are more of a dream. This is confirmed by the practice of 1789, when it appeared that Jacobean beheading did not appear to be contrary to human rights. And even today, in an extremely protective of human rights Europe, things are not quite right with the right to freely profess one’s faith.
Second, as it happens in our country, questions about the interpretation of these concepts were left to the enlightened West for whole decades. Surely he wouldn’t lie about human rights. However, it turned out that he was lying – and quite a lot.
The original idea that every man has the right freely to live by the labor of his own hands and to pray to God according to his faith has turned into a mocking dictatorship of minorities and the promotion of such atrocities that the erstwhile dreamers of human rights even they could not think and take preventive measures accordingly.
Therefore, peoples and countries that do not belong to the mainstream of human rights – who earlier, who later – came to the need to live in their own way, and not according to foreign manuals. To define the nature of human rights policy for themselves. Few people object to them as such. Unless really rabid progressives (and – here’s the paradox – now practicing mainly in the West) want the destruction of traditional religions, the family and the previous social order in general. While the Chinese, the Persians, the Africans, the Arabs, their background is moderation itself.
And in Russia, the change in thinking about human rights today is evident in favor of socio-economic rights, which have been quite forgotten recently.
The subject of human rights in Russian – why not? It will certainly be better than according to Soros’ recipes.
Translation: V. Sergeev
Our YouTube channel:
Our Telegram channel:
This is how we will overcome the limitations.
Share on your profiles, with friends, in groups and on pages.
#Russia #conducts #import #substitution #human #rights
