On the Internet you can find polar assessments of the activities of the Commissioner under the President of the Russian Federation for the Rights of the Child Pavel Astakhov. At the beginning of his career, a sharp negative was going towards him from the Orthodox patriotic public - they say, they put him to us the Western "juvenile" to introduce. However, over the past two years, the estimated accents have changed.
- Pavel Alekseevich, what is your attitude towards Western juvenile technologies that the EU leadership, which has advanced significantly in recent years in the destruction of the traditional family, does not cease to impose on us?
- In my opinion, the dominant in the state’s relations with the family should be equality of all before the law and equally attentive, friendly attitude towards both the child and his parents. Western juvenile primacy of the rights of the child, the presumption of parental guilt is not for Russia.
This shift occurred later than the Convention on the Rights of the Child. And even in the additional protocols that flow from the Convention, there is no such bias. Classical international law does not allow an imbalance leading to destruction.
- Then where do these imbalances come from, so clearly manifested, for example, in EU law-enforcement practice? Who creates these gaps?
- In some European "subsoil" there was a doctrine that as progress progresses, the importance of the family for the child decreases. In particular - for his education. They say that it can educate the state, society, and other people. This imbalance and formed the basis of the notorious juvenile technology.
How do these concepts arise? I can give you an example, I specifically dealt with this. Some kind of “expert research” was conducted in Finland, and a poll was conducted in parallel, both in Finland and in Russia. The results were published on the website of the Ministry of Health and Social Protection of the Republic of Finland. The text of the document, called the "concept", indicated that children are oppressed in Russia, the child’s right to immunity is violated, Russian parents often use corporal punishment, and most importantly, the state encourages it. When I discovered this document, I protested to the Finnish ministry about the publication of false information. But the concept has already “gone into action”, on its basis, bylaws were issued, instructions — and the juvenile machine began to turn.
Then I asked my then Finnish colleague, Maria Kays Aul, a question: “Where did you get this information from?” I suggested that she open the Russian criminal code and find the article itself for beatings, torturing children. She answers: and our experts took to the streets of St. Petersburg and interrogated passers-by. And they confirmed that you can beat children and for that there will be nothing. I suggested to her in response to interviewing the visitors of bars in Turku whether they should beat their wives and, based on the information received, begin to protect Finnish women.
In Norway, in the middle of the 2000s, there was such a lawsuit: children, previously withdrawn from their families, united and filed a lawsuit against the state, and won several million euros. Norwegians do not like to talk about this process, and after it, of course, adjusted the system so that such claims became unpromising.
And in neighboring Finland, in 2008, the law “On the child's welfare” was passed, on the basis of which imaginable and unthinkable claims are made to biological parents and mass withdrawals begin. First of all, Russian-speaking and simply foreign families fall under these repressions.
The Polish Ambassador to Russia offered me: "Pavel Alekseevich, let us fight together for the rights of our families in Finland." I ask him: "Do you have any problems?". It turns out that they are the same, we just loudly defend our own, and the Poles in the "rating" of children’s withdrawal immediately follow us.
- We will now protect Polish children?
- Russia can protect all children - and Finnish too. Maria Kaisa Aula, already mentioned above, at the beginning of my work, when I took a tough stance on the rights of Russian-speaking families and children in Finland, took an implacable position and criticized me in every way.
I went to Helsinki then and participated in the Rantala affair: the child was then returned, but then they had to flee to Russia.
But recently, Maria Kaisa Aula herself resigned, in fact, could not bear the juvenile terror that had unfolded in her homeland. By the way, such excesses, as in Finland, are condemned at the UN level.
- Europe has widely launched an unprecedented campaign to dismantle the traditional family, replacing the concepts of “father” and “mother” with “parent 1” and “parent 2”, legalizing homosexual marriages with the possibility of adopting children by them ...
“Without even touching on the spiritual aspect of these monstrous metamorphoses, I will say as a lawyer: experiments with“ new forms of the family ”go beyond the limits of classical Roman law. And this is a disaster.
2,5 for thousands of years there was the legal concept of the family as "the union of a man and a woman, united voluntarily on the basis of divine and human rights". Why are they now beginning to reshape such fundamental legal concepts? This is a snowball, sweeping away all the laws and norms of the human community.
“Today, children and families should actually be protected in two directions: on the one hand, from violence and cruel treatment, which does not decrease in our society as a result of its savagery, and on the other, from juvenile anti-family terror and corruption imposed from the West. How to keep the right balance between these two directions? Is the concept of “lesser evil” appropriate here?
- I believe that the key concept here is “balance”. Right, like any design, is also based on the right balance. Society has indeed become cruel, and there is too much violence in it.
Here is one simple but terrible figure: every year over the past four years, more than a hundred mothers are brought to justice for the murder of a newborn.
And these are only proven cases. The number of child victims of violence gradually decreases, but still lies within 80 - 83 thousands. This is a lot. At the same time, new forms of violence appear - more cynical, cruel and unmotivated. Of course, there can be no “lesser evil” here: the arbitrariness in the seizure of children and the invasion of the family for negligible reasons is an absolute evil. But no less evil is the inaction of the state in case of intra-family cruel abuse of a child, leaving him in a helpless state, failure of the parents to fulfill their elementary duties. How to define the border here?
Sometimes people ask: how to distinguish educational slaps of a child from beatings? There is a Criminal Code in which this border is clearly defined. Why invent some new criteria, instructions - just read the law and do not lose your conscience and human compassion!
Today we correct ourselves. The amendments to the family code say that even a person convicted of a crime against his child can be corrected and become a normal father or mother for him. Of course, we are not talking about such crimes as pedophilia.
But when the guardianship bodies fix the final stage of degradation of parents leading an asocial way of life and actually no longer caring for their child, one wonders, where did the society look before? Why did not lead the work, did not warn, in the end, did not help, if necessary, and financially?
In my practice, there are many cases where caring, conscientious people, including employees of guardianship bodies, are included in advance in such “stories», Help, try to prevent the removal of the child. And there are the necessary tools and mechanisms for such assistance. In the Kursk and Belgorod regions, in Tyumen, public councils dealing with such families are successfully operating. One needs to be cured of alcohol addiction, the other needs to be employed, and the third one is to help improve living conditions. In most cases, the drama of family destruction can be prevented.
- At the end of last year, the State Duma rejected in the second reading the government bill “On social patronage”, according to which the guardianship could immediately take the child from the family on the basis of the act issued by them, if they decide that the child is in a socially dangerous position or in conditions his normal development and education. " At the same time, the State Duma adopted a similar law “On the Basis of Social Services for the Population”, which comes into force from the 2015 year. Its adoption also caused a wave of criticism. The parent community believes that this law still gives the right to social organizations to freely interfere in family matters. What is the conflict here in your opinion?
- I was definitely against the first law "On social patronage", although some colleagues, I will not call them, convinced me that it should be urgently supported and accepted. He de facto gave the decision of issues related to children in "difficult" families, to the arbitrariness of officials. The next bill is still different: it has a delicate attitude towards the family, if it is possible to somehow help it from the state. By the way, the analogue of this law has been in effect for 10 for years in Tyumen and the parents do not complain there, do not rally. But in some ways I share the position of those who criticize the draft law “On the Basics of Social Services for the Population”: today it contains too general formulations; and the government is required to clearly state the algorithm for implementing its provisions. The key position, which is interpreted unequivocally, is the “voluntary consent of the family” to work with its guardianship bodies.
- Is it possible to formulate the law in such a way that its execution does not depend at all on the moral qualities of the performers?
- Well, thank God, the robot robots are still far away, therefore, one way or another, we will be confronted with the personal qualities of the officials. Over the past decades, we have grown a generation that the concept of “law” perceives somehow differently, not to mention the moral basis. This imposes additional responsibility on the writers. Do not underestimate the role of the prosecutor's office, as a supervisory authority for the implementation of laws. I am in constant contact with the prosecutors on the "children's" line. This, by the way, is one of the few departments that has retained the backbone of professionals since Soviet times. That is why we recruited the staff of “children's” authorized representatives in the regions in many ways from former prosecutors - they are more disciplined, they understand the letter and the spirit of the laws.
In the end, to protect their rights there is still a court. Our common misfortune, as a society, is that we often underestimate the possibilities of judicial struggle for our rights. Our man is often afraid of the court, afraid of the law. There is an ancient phrase "the right loves the unhistorical."
- The State Duma Committee on Family, Women and Children proposes to adopt an amendment to the bill, on which the guardianship authorities must collect evidence and written testimony of witnesses before going to a decision on seizure, go to court with them. How do you feel about this?
- This offer is not new. I personally spoke with him at the end of 2010. Indeed, now the question is very strange. A child was taken away from you, and before the court decision you actually became the accused: you cannot get the help of a lawyer. I suggested that after three days the documents on the removal of the child were on the table with the judge, so that the prosecutor and the lawyer must participate in the case. But it also happens this way: in the document on seizure there is the signature of the mother, who was pressured - or you sign it, or you won't see the child anymore. With the participation of a lawyer such situations can be identified or prevented.
- The parent community has long insisted on the urgent need to change the family code, whose provisions are too vague. What exactly needs to be changed in this code in your opinion?
- Many of the provisions in it are hopelessly outdated, because the code was adopted in 1994 year. He is already changing. There are many provisions related to foreign adoption, the attitude to which we, in many respects, revised. I personally, since 2010, being in this position, have been opposed to foreign adoption, as a wide practice, moreover, without any agreements with guarantees of the “receiving party.”
How could the state of 20 for years give up their children to foreigners without contracts? I can not understand this. It was convenient only for a dark business on children.
By the way, the chairman of the State Duma Committee on Family, Women and Children Elena Borisovna Mizulina is an ardent supporter of changing the current family code, which she calls “Bolshevik”. And in many ways I agree with her.
- Pavel Alekseevich, could you help us understand the controversial complex of international agreements concerning child and family policies that were signed by the Russian authorities? Are there any obligations that legally impose our national legislation?
- If we talk about laws that are binding in the Russian Federation, in accordance with Article 15 of the Constitution of the Russian Federation, all documents adopted under international treaties ratified by the authorities of the Russian Federation take precedence over national laws. At the same time, the first paragraph of this article states: "Laws and other legal acts adopted in the Russian Federation must not contradict the Constitution of the Russian Federation." But I can say that today there are no such international obligations that would be in direct contradiction and would prevent us from executing national laws. There are conventions that have been signed but not ratified. For example, the Hague Convention on Intercountry Adoption, to which there are really too many questions. But it does not apply in Russia.
If we take the latest conventions signed and ratified by us, in particular, “On the sexual exploitation of children”, then I will undertake to assert: despite the abundant criticism that accompanied its adoption, the concept does not conflict with national legislation. Yes, there, besides unconditionally fair ones, there are chapters that can be interpreted ambiguously. Any such convention is formulated in three international languages: English, French and Russian. As a lawyer, I can say: you need to look at the source, as quite substantial differences often arise in the translation. But these discrepancies are still not the “monsters” that, at times, our society takes out of the individual chapters of the conventions.
Occam's razor is needed here: do not multiply entities. I know for sure that before signing a similar document in the Foreign Ministry of the Russian Federation they carry out a rigorous analysis of each of his "letters" and possible discrepancies in terms of protecting the interests of our country. After that, the text of the conventions goes through multi-stage coordination at all levels, including the Presidential Administration. The convention itself is accompanied by a mass of additional documents: protocols, recommendations, etc. Here in these explanations often lies the very "devil in the details." But these additions, in contrast to the text of the convention itself, are no longer binding, this is only a point of view on the “spirit” of the law. We may have it differently.
We are in constant dialogue with international organizations on children's issues, the UN Committee on the Rights of the Child. By the way, at the end of last year, at the 65 session of this committee, the official Russian delegation, along with your humble servant, presented two reports for the first time in ten years. There, the speakers presented alternative reports to ours, various speakers from the Russian Federation: from the Memorial Society to the LGBT community. Not a single country has had so many alternative reports!
- And after that, the UN “child advocates” proposed that Russia introduce juvenile justice, “sexual education” in 2014, and lift the ban on child propaganda among gey ...
- The UN Committee will not be "substituted" and it will be strictly required of us to introduce "sex questions" and other Western "charms". They only "recommend." But I am more concerned about the other side of the issue. Being initially a firm opponent of both the first, and the second, and the third of the listed points of the western "recommendations", I faced a gigantic resistance inside the country. It came from a part of the expert community, public organizations and even representatives of the authorities ...
- This is the notorious lobby of the liberal "collapse" within the country?
- Together, these people really create a lobby. Whether organized or not is another matter. But seeing with my own eyes such a branched force, once again you wonder: is it worth signing this or that convention today, taking into account how it can be interpreted in practice by these influential circles? Therefore, special attention should be paid to those practical recommendations and methods that, on the basis of international agreements, will be issued by officials in relevant ministries, for example, in the Ministry of Education.
- What do you think of against the background of such exponential “care” of Western countries about the rights and health of children, discussed and partly the legalization of pedophilia and incest as “sexual orientations” already adopted by a number of parliaments of these countries?
- Communicating with Western parliamentarians and experts, I don’t see from their side any real concern for our children, all the time some kind of endless “requirements”, “recommendations”. I often have a question: yes, what right do you have for me to read and, in my face, to Russia moral moral notions, when it happens with children in your countries?
When the Deputy Secretary General of the Council of Europe from the podium in full seriousness says that all the children of the world should be like Harry Potter, then, apart from bewilderment and a wry smile, this does not cause anything. It can be stated that in Europe, according to some tacit doctrine, there is a cultural unification, blurring national differences, leading to leveling, convergence into nothing. They would very much like to extend this process to Russia. And since we do not wish to unify, this causes irritation.
- Many have already noted the correlation between the spread of pedophilia, on the one hand, and juvenile terror, on the other. That is, it seems like a "juvenile" appeals to protect a child from violence, and at the same time is a tool for delivering children to the so-called "families" of perverts - including pedophiles. And vice versa. In your opinion, were these “swings” thought out?
- I myself am an opponent of any excesses and convincing. Here I stated, for example, the existence of a pedophile lobby in Russia - and it started! As a result, the fight against pedophiles sometimes reaches the grotesque. I am not a supporter of conspiracy theories, but for me it is obvious that all this is connected. For starters, connected at the level of the expert community that feeds on it.
Today we have people who constantly perform on public-political talk shows as ardent opponents of the "pernicious spirit of the West." But I remember very well how one of these “opponents” in the middle of 90's was in favor of legalizing child pornography in Russia — freedom, they say, demands.
And I understand very well why, after I actively supported the adoption of “the law of Dima Yakovlev”, against “sexual interrogation” at school - I immediately “send my regards” on the other hand: “but let's see how you dissertation wrote.
It seems to me the most important, as I have already said, to keep the balance in the “children's issue” in the struggle “against” and the struggle “for”, because any imbalance plays into the hands of people and the forces of “bad will”. Even blindly following the letter of the law without regard to the consequences can lead to trouble. As lawyers of ancient Rome joked: "Long the whole world perish, and long live justice."
- To what extent, according to your observations, is pedophilic, blue and other lobbies strong in Russia?
- It is not so much as well organized. In addition to unifying goals, they have rather large opportunities in the means and channels of influence. It's true.
According to my observations, these adepts of disintegration have strong ties with people who identify themselves with the world of art and with representatives of power structures. And they certainly have extensive contacts and support of like-minded foreigners.
Our main weapons I consider education: both within the country and abroad. We should not make excuses, but speak clearly and clearly about our values, which are understandable to the majority of mankind. Do not hesitate to publicly proclaim “common” truths: what is good and what is evil.
- Do you think there are many people in the Western world who are ready to actively resist the destruction of traditional values and in this sense to unite with the position of Russia?
- I am absolutely sure that those are the absolute majority.
What we are trying to present in the new form of the family today is not viable. There is no main feature of the family - self-reproduction.
Remember, in the Western world, there were noisy about the prospects for human cloning. Now they are silent - extracorporeal conception, surrogate motherhood has been raised on the shield. But whatever you invent, nothing will come of it - the family will remain a family, like a thousand and ten thousand years ago: a man, a woman, and children born to them. The “minority revolution”, which the whole world is trying to impose, is contrary to the basic principle of democracy - the rule of the majority.
- When you first started your ombudsman’s activities, a wave of criticism from Orthodox patriots fell on you. Your name is directly linked, in particular, with the promotion of Western juvenile technology. For four years, the situation has changed. You are a welcome guest on the forums of the Orthodox parental community and, conversely, pro-Western liberals “sharpen their teeth”, periodically sending in their resignation. What is at the core of this metamorphosis?
- I think that the initial protests related not so much to me as to the position of commissioner, who came to us from the West, recommended by the UN Committee. Indeed, many of my Western colleagues take a completely different position from my position. But in Russia, as it happens, a metamorphosis has occurred with the “external” institution of a junior student. My task as authorized by the president is to fully support the position of the head of state, and to comply with it. So I try to conform, which causes discontent among well-known circles, who in recent years have more and more disliked the position of Putin himself.
I have one boss - the president of Russia, and there is still God, before whom everyone will have to answer for their business. I, as an Orthodox man, am staying with them.
It is impossible for me to impose something on the “side”, although I have already tried to attribute some phrases, plans, distorted the meaning of my words. But on every mouth, as they say, you will not throw a handkerchief. And we have a lot of such “mouths”. But I do not play with gamblers!