How to invent and make incredible laws in Russia and abroad.
British Parliament. AFP Photo
In the history of Russia, as well as other countries, there are laws, the wording of which plunged citizens into astonishment. There are websites with entire catalogs of currently valid regulatory acts, and many of them have not been applied for decades and even centuries. However, they are not canceled for various reasons.
The existence of a part of these laws is explained by archaism – they were simply forgotten after many years, but modern technologies allowed spreading knowledge about them. The other part is single judicial precedents. Being applied in a particular case, about the circumstances of which very few people remember, these decisions began to apply to all similar situations. There are also laws enacted for the sake of the political situation.
Such documents serve as a kind of monument to the fantasy of lawmakers, which to this day amazes citizens of many countries. Considered several outstanding cases.
Is it possible to throw moose out of an airplane
On many sites , both English-speaking and Russian-language , among the “wacky US laws” is mentioned the prohibition in Alaska to throw moose out of airplanes, but there is little explanation for why they made such a decision.
The Alaska Department of Hunting and Fishing (ADFG) has really establishedstrict rules for those who like to get wild animals in the state. In particular, during the hunt it is forbidden to use a helicopter and a walkie-talkie (except when rescuing those in distress). However, despite the bulk of these rules (144 pages), there is nothing about the cases of dropping of elks or their carcasses.
In addition, Alaska has a number of laws that are designed to help in the fight against poaching. In particular, it is forbidden in the state to drink moose with alcohol, as well as watch them from the plane. The funny case with airplanes, in fact, has no relation to the “elk laws”, and was caused by completely different circumstances.
Until 2009, the Elk Dung Festival was held in the town of Talkitna, Alaska , anevent that was included in the list of the 10 Most Strange Festivals of the World. The main event in it was a lottery for which residents collected moose droppings, covered it with icing and put numbers on it. Then the cargo was packed in a bag, lifted in a balloon or helicopter and dropped in the park on a previously prepared target. The litter that was closest to the center of the target, won.
The festival attracted the attention of the radical environmental organization People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA), which understood the name Moose Dropping too literally and decided that Elk dropping moose from a helicopter in Talkitne.
PETA sent an angry letter to the city, which the authorities took as a joke. They sent an answer to the environmentalists assuring that during the lottery no moose was hurt. However, animal advocates did not stop at this and again demanded that Talkitna ban the inhuman, in their opinion, treatment of animals. Then the city replied that the moose used in the lottery were specially trained and generally enjoyed the festival, in addition, each of them was assigned a veterinarian.
At the end of the strange correspondence, the residents took a stuffed moose from the hotel lobby, fastened protective pillows to it, took a picture and sent it to PETA. This finally infuriated the zoodefenders and they went to court. There the situation finally cleared up. The authorities admitted that it was impossible to dump moose from an airplane, but the residents of Talkitna did not intend to do so.
Talkeetna is known not only in this extravagant event, but also the fact that the honorary mayor of the city since 1997 was a cat.
Is it possible to kill the Scots
The UK periodically conducts an audit of its voluminous legislation, during which a special commission publishes “the most ridiculous laws”, which still have their effect. Since 1965, several thousand outdated decrees, statutes and acts have been repealed, but the British tradition still allows them to exist.
The source of references to most of these laws is the book “Strange laws of old England.” One of these concerns the right to kill a Scotsman in York, providedthat he is armed with a bow and arrows. Often he is mentioned in conjunction with the law, which prescribed to hang any Welshman found in Chester after sunset.
As for the Scots, there is no mention of the right to murder inside the city walls in the database of UK laws. In response to a request, the Municipal Council of York in 2012 reported that the last reported case took place several centuries ago, so now it is rather a local legend than a law in force.
Regarding the Welsh, the Council of Chester at one time gave an explanation that we are talking about the events of 1403, when Heinrich, the Prince of Wales during the uprising ordered that all Welsh and Welsh supporters be driven out of the city. No one could enter the city before sunrise or stay in it after sunset under the threat of beheading.
Thus, this right was an indication to the city authorities, given in wartime, and more like a curfew. Although there are no records that the order of Heinrich was subsequently canceled, this did not prevent the citizens of Chester in 1408 from electing a Welsh mayor. It is known about him that the head of the city was not tried to be arrested or executed.
Is it possible to blow up a nuclear bomb in the city
Among other meaningless laws that exist in the United States, an act is often referred to , according to which the detonation of a nuclear device within the city limits results in a $ 500 fine. It is introduced in the statutes of the cities of Chicago and Chico (California) and, unlike the moose stories in Talkitne and the Welsh in Chester, this prohibition has a serious and sad basis.
In the early 1960s, mines were built north of Chico to accommodate intercontinental ballistic missiles Titan-1. The rocket platform was part of the 851st strategic missile squadron of the United States Air Force, and all the time it was being built, local residents protested against it.
A month after commissioning , a major accident occurred at the site , during which accumulated gas exploded in the mine due to problems with the ventilation system. According to the authorities, radiation leakage did not occur, however, this accident was one of the largest at US nuclear facilities. Noises in the press were avoided due to the fact that at the same time a successful flight of the American astronaut Scott Carpenter took place around the Earth, as all media outlets wrote about.
Just two weeks later, an explosion at another mine had already caused the death of one worker. This time, the publicity could not be avoided. Notes on the incident can still be found in the published archives of newspapers of the time.
The Ministry of Defense, against the background of mass demonstrations by participants in the movement against nuclear weapons, was forced to close the program, and the cities enacted a decree on a total ban in response to the disasters as a form of protest.
Statutes Chico and Chicago provide that the city declared a zone completely free from nuclear weapons and include a ban not only on the test, which was told in the catalog United States with laws, but also on any research at all.
[perfectpullquote align=”full” bordertop=”false” cite=”” link=”” color=”” class=”” size=””]No one is allowed to design, produce, deploy, use, maintain or store in the city nuclear weapons, nuclear weapons components, nuclear weapons delivery systems or components of a nuclear weapons delivery system.[/perfectpullquote]
Charter Chico, paragraph 9.60.030, Charter of Chicago, paragraph 1-16-020
The articles themselves do not specify the size of the sanction, but it follows from the sections concerning violations of the constitution in general. The bully will have to pay a fine – $ 500 in Chico and one thousand dollars in Chicago, or spend 30 days in prison. Such an insignificant amount is due to the fact that the ban is set by the city authorities at its level, and not introduced by federal law.
Is it possible to understand
Sometimes laws are formulated in such a way that it is difficult to evaluate their content, since it is not always possible to understand what they are talking about. One of these laws has even been entered into the Guinness Book of Records of the 1988 edition of the special ruble “The most incomprehensible law.”
[perfectpullquote align=”full” bordertop=”false” cite=”” link=”” color=”” class=”” size=””]In the (non-ground) nut law (as opposed to peanuts), the word “nuts” refers to such nuts, unlike the peanuts in this amendment. The law does not consider non-ground nuts (as opposed to peanuts) for the reason that these nuts are non-ground.[/perfectpullquote]
Explanation of the Supreme Court of Scotland to the Law on Nuts (non-ground)
In Russia, too, there are several examples of laws with not the most successful formulations. For example, the federal law No. 482-FZ, which amended another law, On Insolvency (Bankruptcy), contains many unreadable paragraphs.
[perfectpullquote align=”full” bordertop=”false” cite=”” link=”” color=”” class=”” size=””]Until July 1, 2015, the provisions of clause 2.1 of Article 7 and clause 4 of Article 37 of the Federal Law of October 26, 2002 N 127-ФЗ “On Insolvency (Bankruptcy)” (as amended by this Federal Law) regarding the mandatory prior publication of the notice of intent to contact an application for declaring the debtor bankrupt by including it in the Unified Federal Register of information on the facts of the activities of legal entities, the applicant has the right to apply for declaring the debtor bankrupt, subject to prior calendar days prior to such treatment, notice in writing to the debtor and all creditors known to the applicant of the intention to apply for a bankruptcy.[/perfectpullquote]
Clause 3 of Article 4 of Federal Law No. 482-FZ of December 29, 2014
What not to do in the temple (and not only there)
Laws protecting followers of a particular religion from blasphemy exist in many countries, and Russia is among them. In May 2017, the Irish Police conducted an inspection against actor Stephen Fry on a blasphemy complaint. The case was closed in the absence of the injured party.
A significant drawback of Russian law, which allows a number of lawyers to call it meaningless, is the use of incomprehensible formulations in it.
Adopted in 2013, the law amended the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation. The amendments introduced such a concept as “insulting religious feelings of believers.” Starting with the scandalous verdict of the Pussy Riot group and ending with the case of Ruslan Sokolovsky, the court saw seven episodes for which indictments were made.
In Russian law, even before the introduction of criminal law, there was administrative responsibility, which, however, was specified in detail. The offender under article 5.26 of the Administrative Code faces punishment for “publicly desecrating religious or liturgical literature or objects of religious veneration.”
The criminal article, on the contrary, was distinguished by the fact that it is almost impossible to identify the victim. This is due to the vagueness of the wording and the lack of the necessary legal categories in the current legislation. In particular, the law does not disclose the term “believers”, and who can be considered as such under the criminal law of Russia.
The peculiarity of the law in the fact that he does not name a prerequisite faithful observance of religious rites, visiting places of worship and the observance of other formal evidence of belonging to a religion. Under such conditions, any group of citizens will be entitled to call themselves believers and make a statement about insulting religious feelings.
In a criminal case, it is impossible to determine whether a believer is in compliance with the requirements of his religion (and how correctly), whether he always carries attributes, attends worship services, and so on. Moreover, the presence of faith as an inner conviction cannot be documented, for example, by issuing a certificate to a person.
A number of Russian lawyers have repeatedly noted that Article 148 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation does not comply with the rules of logic and legal engineering, since it consists of evaluative categories not explained by the legislator, but it is still valid.
What can not be promoted (and why)
According to many critics, the example of a poorly formulated thought of a national legislator is the “law banning the propaganda of homosexuality”. In 2013, he introduced into the Code of Administrative Offenses responsibility for promoting non-traditional sexual relations among minors.
Without touching upon the content of the prohibitions laid down in Article 6.21, the lawyers noted that its key concepts, namely “non-traditional sexual relations”, are not defined by law in any way.
The head of the Presidential Human Rights Council, Mikhail Fedotov, stated that there is “an absolute lack of logic” in the law and compared it with the ban “to be left-handed or black”.
In addition, a number of experts have questioned the unambiguous understanding of the concepts embodied in the CAO. For example, according topsychotherapist Dmitry Isaev, from a medical and psychological point of view, the phrase “propaganda of homosexuality and transgenderness” is meaningless.
The Center for Strategic Research, together with experts from Garant, has already stated in its report the position that the reason for the poor quality of laws lies in the haste with which they are developed and adopted. Offices in a hurry are preparing bills to report on the implementation of presidential orders.
In turn, insufficiently developed bills are introduced into the State Duma, which quickly become laws: they are often adopted on first reading in one day, and from one to seven days are allotted for introducing amendments. In fact, there is no stage of discussion at which it would be possible to identify and eliminate the shortcomings of the draft laws.
What not to write on the Internet (and not only)
The article about insulting the feelings of believers is not the only one in the Penal Code that caused criticism of vague wording. Another example of the extremely unsuccessfully expressed thought of legislators is Article 282 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, which is called “Incitement of hatred or hostility, as well as humiliation of human dignity”.
Practicing lawyers noted that, unlike its title, the article assumes responsibility for “actions aimed at inciting hatred or hostility.” What can be understood by such actions has been formally defined in regulatory acts for a long time, and only the decision of the Plenum of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation has eliminated this gap. However, this did not solve the other problems of the article.
One of the highly controversial formulations in the article is the mention of a “social group”. Since this definition is not fixed in any way by normative, in practice, there were often mixed cases that caused a public outcry.
In 2009, journalist Irek Murtazin was convicted for inciting hatred towards the social group “Others”, with which he contrasted the group “We”. At the same time, the category “Others” was made up of “people holding responsible positions in the structures of executive and legislative power”.
In January 2011, the press service of the Kirov Regional Committee of the Communist Party of the Russian Federation announced the initiation of a criminal case for inciting hatred to the social group “State Duma deputies, except for the Communist Party faction.”
Activists and human rights activists have repeatedly tried to appeal the wording of the criminal article in the Constitutional Court, however, in 2010, he ruled that “the norm of uncertainty does not contain and by itself cannot be considered as violating constitutional rights.”
The broad interpretation of Article 282 has led to curious precedents in Russian judicial practice. In September 2009, the Rostov Regional Court recognizedextremist literature of the Taganrog organization of Jehovah’s Witnesses, in which, in accordance with the expert’s opinion, the “opponent of Orthodoxy L. Tolstoy” was quoted. The court considered this to undermine respect for the Russian Orthodox Church and confiscated publications.
Another vivid example of a subjective understanding of this provision of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation was the case of Evgeny Kort, who in November 2016 was convicted of reposting pictures on VKontakte. According tomany lawyers, article 282 is “legal nonsense,” since it does not clearly stipulate who and what can be punished and, therefore, is legally untenable.
In the history of Russia, as well as other countries, there are laws, the wording of which plunged citizens into astonishment. There are websites with entire catalogs of currently valid regulatory acts, and many of them have not been applied for decades and even centuries. However, they are not canceled for various reasons.
The existence of a part of these laws is explained by archaism – they were simply forgotten after many years, but modern technologies allowed spreading knowledge about them. The other part is single judicial precedents. Being applied in a particular case, about the circumstances of which very few people remember, these decisions began to apply to all similar situations. There are also laws enacted for the sake of the political situation.
Such documents serve as a kind of monument to the fantasy of lawmakers, which to this day amazes citizens of many countries. Considered several outstanding cases.
Is it possible to throw moose out of an airplane
On many sites , both English-speaking and Russian-language , among the “wacky US laws” is mentioned the prohibition in Alaska to throw moose out of airplanes, but there is little explanation for why they made such a decision.
The Alaska Department of Hunting and Fishing (ADFG) has really establishedstrict rules for those who like to get wild animals in the state. In particular, during the hunt it is forbidden to use a helicopter and a walkie-talkie (except when rescuing those in distress). However, despite the bulk of these rules (144 pages), there is nothing about the cases of dropping of elks or their carcasses.
In addition, Alaska has a number of laws that are designed to help in the fight against poaching. In particular, it is forbidden in the state to drink moose with alcohol, as well as watch them from the plane. The funny case with airplanes, in fact, has no relation to the “elk laws”, and was caused by completely different circumstances.
Until 2009, the Elk Dung Festival was held in the town of Talkitna, Alaska , anevent that was included in the list of the 10 Most Strange Festivals of the World. The main event in it was a lottery for which residents collected moose droppings, covered it with icing and put numbers on it. Then the cargo was packed in a bag, lifted in a balloon or helicopter and dropped in the park on a previously prepared target. The litter that was closest to the center of the target, won.
The festival attracted the attention of the radical environmental organization People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA), which understood the name Moose Dropping too literally and decided that Elk dropping moose from a helicopter in Talkitne.
PETA sent an angry letter to the city, which the authorities took as a joke. They sent an answer to the environmentalists assuring that during the lottery no moose was hurt. However, animal advocates did not stop at this and again demanded that Talkitna ban the inhuman, in their opinion, treatment of animals. Then the city replied that the moose used in the lottery were specially trained and generally enjoyed the festival, in addition, each of them was assigned a veterinarian.
At the end of the strange correspondence, the residents took a stuffed moose from the hotel lobby, fastened protective pillows to it, took a picture and sent it to PETA. This finally infuriated the zoodefenders and they went to court. There the situation finally cleared up. The authorities admitted that it was impossible to dump moose from an airplane, but the residents of Talkitna did not intend to do so.
Talkeetna is known not only in this extravagant event, but also the fact that the honorary mayor of the city since 1997 was a cat.
Is it possible to kill the Scots
The UK periodically conducts an audit of its voluminous legislation, during which a special commission publishes “the most ridiculous laws”, which still have their effect. Since 1965, several thousand outdated decrees, statutes and acts have been repealed, but the British tradition still allows them to exist.
The source of references to most of these laws is the book “Strange laws of old England.” One of these concerns the right to kill a Scotsman in York, providedthat he is armed with a bow and arrows. Often he is mentioned in conjunction with the law, which prescribed to hang any Welshman found in Chester after sunset.
As for the Scots, there is no mention of the right to murder inside the city walls in the database of UK laws. In response to a request, the Municipal Council of York in 2012 reported that the last reported case took place several centuries ago, so now it is rather a local legend than a law in force.
Regarding the Welsh, the Council of Chester at one time gave an explanation that we are talking about the events of 1403, when Heinrich, the Prince of Wales during the uprising ordered that all Welsh and Welsh supporters be driven out of the city. No one could enter the city before sunrise or stay in it after sunset under the threat of beheading.
Thus, this right was an indication to the city authorities, given in wartime, and more like a curfew. Although there are no records that the order of Heinrich was subsequently canceled, this did not prevent the citizens of Chester in 1408 from electing a Welsh mayor. It is known about him that the head of the city was not tried to be arrested or executed.
Is it possible to blow up a nuclear bomb in the city
Among other meaningless laws that exist in the United States, an act is often referred to , according to which the detonation of a nuclear device within the city limits results in a $ 500 fine. It is introduced in the statutes of the cities of Chicago and Chico (California) and, unlike the moose stories in Talkitne and the Welsh in Chester, this prohibition has a serious and sad basis.
In the early 1960s, mines were built north of Chico to accommodate intercontinental ballistic missiles Titan-1. The rocket platform was part of the 851st strategic missile squadron of the United States Air Force, and all the time it was being built, local residents protested against it.
A month after commissioning , a major accident occurred at the site , during which accumulated gas exploded in the mine due to problems with the ventilation system. According to the authorities, radiation leakage did not occur, however, this accident was one of the largest at US nuclear facilities. Noises in the press were avoided due to the fact that at the same time a successful flight of the American astronaut Scott Carpenter took place around the Earth, as all media outlets wrote about.
Just two weeks later, an explosion at another mine had already caused the death of one worker. This time, the publicity could not be avoided. Notes on the incident can still be found in the published archives of newspapers of the time.
The Ministry of Defense, against the background of mass demonstrations by participants in the movement against nuclear weapons, was forced to close the program, and the cities enacted a decree on a total ban in response to the disasters as a form of protest.
Statutes Chico and Chicago provide that the city declared a zone completely free from nuclear weapons and include a ban not only on the test, which was told in the catalog United States with laws, but also on any research at all.
The articles themselves do not specify the size of the sanction, but it follows from the sections concerning violations of the constitution in general. The bully will have to pay a fine – $ 500 in Chico and one thousand dollars in Chicago, or spend 30 days in prison. Such an insignificant amount is due to the fact that the ban is set by the city authorities at its level, and not introduced by federal law.
Is it possible to understand
Sometimes laws are formulated in such a way that it is difficult to evaluate their content, since it is not always possible to understand what they are talking about. One of these laws has even been entered into the Guinness Book of Records of the 1988 edition of the special ruble “The most incomprehensible law.”
In Russia, too, there are several examples of laws with not the most successful formulations. For example, the federal law No. 482-FZ, which amended another law, On Insolvency (Bankruptcy), contains many unreadable paragraphs.
What not to do in the temple (and not only there)
Laws protecting followers of a particular religion from blasphemy exist in many countries, and Russia is among them. In May 2017, the Irish Police conducted an inspection against actor Stephen Fry on a blasphemy complaint. The case was closed in the absence of the injured party.
A significant drawback of Russian law, which allows a number of lawyers to call it meaningless, is the use of incomprehensible formulations in it.
Adopted in 2013, the law amended the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation. The amendments introduced such a concept as “insulting religious feelings of believers.” Starting with the scandalous verdict of the Pussy Riot group and ending with the case of Ruslan Sokolovsky, the court saw seven episodes for which indictments were made.
In Russian law, even before the introduction of criminal law, there was administrative responsibility, which, however, was specified in detail. The offender under article 5.26 of the Administrative Code faces punishment for “publicly desecrating religious or liturgical literature or objects of religious veneration.”
The criminal article, on the contrary, was distinguished by the fact that it is almost impossible to identify the victim. This is due to the vagueness of the wording and the lack of the necessary legal categories in the current legislation. In particular, the law does not disclose the term “believers”, and who can be considered as such under the criminal law of Russia.
The peculiarity of the law in the fact that he does not name a prerequisite faithful observance of religious rites, visiting places of worship and the observance of other formal evidence of belonging to a religion. Under such conditions, any group of citizens will be entitled to call themselves believers and make a statement about insulting religious feelings.
In a criminal case, it is impossible to determine whether a believer is in compliance with the requirements of his religion (and how correctly), whether he always carries attributes, attends worship services, and so on. Moreover, the presence of faith as an inner conviction cannot be documented, for example, by issuing a certificate to a person.
A number of Russian lawyers have repeatedly noted that Article 148 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation does not comply with the rules of logic and legal engineering, since it consists of evaluative categories not explained by the legislator, but it is still valid.
What can not be promoted (and why)
According to many critics, the example of a poorly formulated thought of a national legislator is the “law banning the propaganda of homosexuality”. In 2013, he introduced into the Code of Administrative Offenses responsibility for promoting non-traditional sexual relations among minors.
Without touching upon the content of the prohibitions laid down in Article 6.21, the lawyers noted that its key concepts, namely “non-traditional sexual relations”, are not defined by law in any way.
The head of the Presidential Human Rights Council, Mikhail Fedotov, stated that there is “an absolute lack of logic” in the law and compared it with the ban “to be left-handed or black”.
In addition, a number of experts have questioned the unambiguous understanding of the concepts embodied in the CAO. For example, according topsychotherapist Dmitry Isaev, from a medical and psychological point of view, the phrase “propaganda of homosexuality and transgenderness” is meaningless.
The Center for Strategic Research, together with experts from Garant, has already stated in its report the position that the reason for the poor quality of laws lies in the haste with which they are developed and adopted. Offices in a hurry are preparing bills to report on the implementation of presidential orders.
In turn, insufficiently developed bills are introduced into the State Duma, which quickly become laws: they are often adopted on first reading in one day, and from one to seven days are allotted for introducing amendments. In fact, there is no stage of discussion at which it would be possible to identify and eliminate the shortcomings of the draft laws.
What not to write on the Internet (and not only)
The article about insulting the feelings of believers is not the only one in the Penal Code that caused criticism of vague wording. Another example of the extremely unsuccessfully expressed thought of legislators is Article 282 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, which is called “Incitement of hatred or hostility, as well as humiliation of human dignity”.
Practicing lawyers noted that, unlike its title, the article assumes responsibility for “actions aimed at inciting hatred or hostility.” What can be understood by such actions has been formally defined in regulatory acts for a long time, and only the decision of the Plenum of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation has eliminated this gap. However, this did not solve the other problems of the article.
One of the highly controversial formulations in the article is the mention of a “social group”. Since this definition is not fixed in any way by normative, in practice, there were often mixed cases that caused a public outcry.
In 2009, journalist Irek Murtazin was convicted for inciting hatred towards the social group “Others”, with which he contrasted the group “We”. At the same time, the category “Others” was made up of “people holding responsible positions in the structures of executive and legislative power”.
In January 2011, the press service of the Kirov Regional Committee of the Communist Party of the Russian Federation announced the initiation of a criminal case for inciting hatred to the social group “State Duma deputies, except for the Communist Party faction.”
Activists and human rights activists have repeatedly tried to appeal the wording of the criminal article in the Constitutional Court, however, in 2010, he ruled that “the norm of uncertainty does not contain and by itself cannot be considered as violating constitutional rights.”
The broad interpretation of Article 282 has led to curious precedents in Russian judicial practice. In September 2009, the Rostov Regional Court recognizedextremist literature of the Taganrog organization of Jehovah’s Witnesses, in which, in accordance with the expert’s opinion, the “opponent of Orthodoxy L. Tolstoy” was quoted. The court considered this to undermine respect for the Russian Orthodox Church and confiscated publications.
Another vivid example of a subjective understanding of this provision of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation was the case of Evgeny Kort, who in November 2016 was convicted of reposting pictures on VKontakte. According tomany lawyers, article 282 is “legal nonsense,” since it does not clearly stipulate who and what can be punished and, therefore, is legally untenable.