Even Communists, fascists, radical nationalists, and other detractors of civil liberties become furious and refer to human rights, when the authorities forbid their public actions for any reason. Human rights activists and the liberals speak of the protection of human rights as part of their ideology and program documents. International legislation and the Russian Constitution also confirm the right of citizens to the public peaceful expression of their views.

This is in theory, but in practice, public and political organizations stand to the side when their enemies intend to conduct public actions, the content of which seems scandalous to them.

Last Saturday on Pushkinskaya, area religious youth from the "Georgiyevts" movement issued a call to passer-by not to celebrate Halloween, and in the beginning of autumn they demanded that no one go to the Madonna concert in Moscow. In May of this year, nationalist and religious organizations demanded that the gay parade in Moscow be forbidden, and even the leaders of "Yabloko" called it "provocative". It is a strange desire - not to so much to assert one’s own correctness and carry out one’s own actions, but to demand the prohibition of strangers’ rights and actions.

Two weeks ago, 27 people, among whom were well-known human rights activists, policymakers and journalists, addressed the mayor of Moscow with the request that he forbid the "Russian March".

People who seek to protect human rights are strangely entangled in issues of political predilections and civil liberties. Politicians can refuse to hear the point of view of the enemy, but, for human rights activists, it is not possible to refuse them the right to voice their point of view. Democracy is strong precisely because of the right to publicly bring everyone’s views to society. Even if they are a disparagement of democracy. Even if they are nationalistic delirium. Society must make the final choice, not the authorities, and not by violations of the laws of political and public organizations.

The present case is a violation of the law. Indeed, even according to our waning laws concerning meetings and demonstrations, the authorities cannot refuse to allow a procession. And permits are not required. The authorities must only be informed, and perhaps a route must be coordinated.

Yes, to hear "Russia - for the Russians!" and to see hands raised in Fascist greeting is unpleasant. But if we want to live in a society which values the pluralism of opinions, then we must accept this. Not nationalism, but the right of people to voice wild views, as well as the right to defend antifascist actions and legal political activity.

The only lawful outcome of the "Russian March" situation was to allow it. But if in the course of the action the law was clearly disrupted by calls to violence or racist propaganda such actions should immediately be suppressed The law gives city authorities and the police this right.

It is very likely that it is precisely this right that authorities do not want to use. Considering their closeness to the radical nationalists, it is easier to violate the law and forbid the march, than to use the law against people and organizations who are ideologically close to them. At the same time, by forbidding the procession, the authorities further alienate the extremist movement, provoking reciprocal disturbances of the law - collisions with the police, street disorder, vandalism and violence. Observance of the law would be the best resolution, and the best way to protect public peace.

However, the authorities value only their own peace and not tolerance, rights, and the pluralism of opinions. For them such things are from another world.

Is it possible to expect tolerance from the authorities, if it does not exist in society? Even human rights activists, in approaching the mayor, do not understand that freedom belongs to all: to the right and to the left, to those who believe and to atheists, to heterosexuals and to homosexuals, to the bad and to the good - to the citizens. Equal rights mean equal responsibility. This is the advantage of freedom in a rule-of-law state. As long as the law is not broken, no one has the right to limit freedom. Because freedom given not to all but only to certain people is only privilege, and rights used selectively are only a variety of arbitrariness.


Also published in "Novaya Izvestia" 3.11.2006