Traces of betrayal - good health to good people. Legal foundations of journalism 1990 a law was adopted

RADIO SPEECH BY THE DEPUTY CHAIRMAN OF THE COUNCIL OF PEOPLE'S COMMISSARS OF THE USSR AND THE PEOPLE'S COMMISSAR FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS COM. V. M. MOLOTOVA

CITIZENS AND CITIZENS OF THE SOVIET UNION!

The Soviet government and its head, Comrade. Stalin instructed me to make the following statement:

Today, at 4 o'clock in the morning, without presenting any claims to the Soviet Union, without declaring war, German troops attacked our country, attacked our borders in many places and bombed our cities - Zhitomir, Kyiv - from their planes , Sevastopol, Kaunas and some others, and more than two hundred people were killed and wounded. Enemy aircraft raids and artillery shelling were also carried out from Romanian and Finnish territory.

This unheard of attack on our country is a treachery unparalleled in the history of civilized nations. The attack on our country was carried out despite the fact that a non-aggression treaty was concluded between the USSR and Germany and the Soviet government fulfilled all the terms of this treaty in all good faith. The attack on our country was carried out despite the fact that during the entire duration of this treaty the German government could never make a single claim against the USSR regarding the implementation of the treaty. All responsibility for this predatory attack on the Soviet Union falls entirely on the German fascist rulers.

After the attack, the German ambassador in Moscow, Schulenburg, at 5:30 a.m. made me, as the People's Commissar for Foreign Affairs, a statement on behalf of his government that the German government had decided to go to war against the USSR in connection with the concentration of Red Army units in the eastern German border.

In response to this, on behalf of the Soviet government, I stated that until the last minute the German government did not make any claims against the Soviet government, that Germany carried out an attack on the USSR, despite the peace-loving position of the Soviet Union, and that thereby fascist Germany is the attacker side.

On behalf of the government of the Soviet Union, I must also state that at no point did our troops and our aviation allow the border to be violated, and therefore the statement made by Romanian radio this morning that Soviet aviation allegedly fired at Romanian airfields is a complete lie and provocation. The entire today’s declaration by Hitler, who is trying to retroactively concoct incriminating material about the Soviet Union’s non-compliance with the Soviet-German Pact, is the same lie and provocation.

Now that the attack on the Soviet Union has already taken place, the Soviet government has given our troops an order to repulse the bandit attack and expel German troops from the territory of our homeland. This war was imposed on us not by the German people, not by the German workers, peasants and intellectuals, whose suffering we well understand, but by a clique of bloodthirsty fascist rulers of Germany who enslaved the French, Czechs, Poles, Serbs, Norway, Belgium, Denmark, Holland, Greece and other peoples .

The Government of the Soviet Union expresses its unshakable confidence that our valiant army and navy and the brave falcons of Soviet aviation will honorably fulfill their duty to their homeland, to the Soviet people, and will deal a crushing blow to the aggressor.

This is not the first time our people have had to deal with an attacking, arrogant enemy. At one time, our people responded to Napoleon’s campaign in Russia with a Patriotic War and Napoleon was defeated and came to his collapse. The same will happen to the arrogant Hitler, who announced a new campaign against our country. The Red Army and all our people will once again wage a victorious patriotic war for the homeland, for honor, for freedom.

The Government of the Soviet Union expresses its firm confidence that the entire population of our country, all workers, peasants and intellectuals, men and women, will treat their duties and their work with due consciousness. Our entire people must now be united and united as never before. Each of us must demand from ourselves and from others discipline, organization, and dedication worthy of a true Soviet patriot in order to provide all the needs of the Red Army, Navy and Air Force to ensure victory over the enemy.

The government calls on you, citizens of the Soviet Union, to rally your ranks even more closely around our glorious Bolshevik Party, around our Soviet government, around our great leader Comrade. Stalin.

Our cause is just. The enemy will be defeated. Victory will be ours.

On June 12, 1990, the Russian Soviet Federative Socialist Republic (RSFSR) declared its own sovereignty. This happened at the first Congress of People's Deputies of the RSFSR. On this day, the “Declaration on the State Sovereignty of the RSFSR” was adopted. It was with the adoption of this document that the countdown of the new history of Russia began.

Since 1989, the Congress of People's Deputies has been the highest body of state power. Its members were elected for five years. The first meeting of the congress took place on April 8, 1990, but its official opening took place on May 16 in the Grand Kremlin Palace. A total of 1,068 deputies took part in it. 86% of them were members of the CPSU. It was here that on May 29 Boris Yeltsin was elected Chairman of the Supreme Soviet of the RSFSR.

On June 12, the congress adopted the “Declaration of State Sovereignty of the RSFSR.” 907 deputies voted for it, 13 were against it, and 9 abstained. The document spoke of “the determination to create a democratic rule-of-law state within the renewed USSR.”

The Declaration served as the beginning of constitutional reform and declared equal rights for newly formed political parties, public organizations and associations, including informal ones. The document also introduced the principle of separation of legislative, executive and judicial powers. It spoke for the first time about the need to significantly expand the rights of the autonomous republics, regions, districts, and territories within the RSFSR. The declaration was signed by Boris Yeltsin.

Exactly a year later, on this day, presidential elections were held in the country, in which Yeltsin was elected the first president of the RSFSR.

Memoirs of deputies about the adoption of the Declaration

Igor Kucherenko, deputy from the Leningrad City Council:

“The adoption of this document was preceded by very strong debates, both at the congress itself and on the sidelines. And there were fears that the audience would split. And when they voted, it turned out that almost everyone was in favor of this document, and it was adopted without any controversy. The voting itself went off with a bang, and the whole hall stood up and applauded itself,”

Yuri Nesterov, people's deputy, later a deputy from the Yabloko faction:

“I was not an ardent supporter of this idea. Because I was smart enough to understand then that the adoption of this resolution on the state sovereignty of Russia was a very serious step towards ending the existence of the Soviet Union as a single country. I didn’t want it at all then. That is, I was for the independence of the Baltic republics, but I was not for the collapse of everything else that would remain from the USSR after the departure of Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania.”

Vladimir Isakov, people's deputy and chairman of the Chamber of the Council of the Republic of the Supreme Soviet of the RSFSR:

“In general, in its content, the Declaration of State Sovereignty did not go beyond a statement of intention “to be independent and live well.” With one exception - Article 5, which establishes the supremacy of Russian laws over all-Union laws. It was clear to me that this article contained a potential danger of confrontation of laws and destruction of the entire state structure of the federation. Having supported the Declaration as a whole, I voted “against” on this article. More than once or twice later I was reminded of this vote: it turns out that you are not a “democrat” at all.”

Yuri Luchinsky, member of Democratic Russia:

“As a lawyer, I personally voted for this Declaration, with the indirect intention of the possible abolition of the USSR. That is, I knew about the possible cessation of the Soviet Union as a result of these actions and consciously allowed these consequences to occur.”

Even before the adoption of the Declaration of the RSFSR, the Estonian, Lithuanian, Latvian, Azerbaijan, and Georgian SSRs declared their sovereignty. After the RSFSR, a “parade of sovereignties” took place in the country.

The Declarations of the Karelian Autonomous Soviet Socialist Republic were adopted, the sovereignty of the Komi Autonomous Soviet Socialist Republic, the Tatar Autonomous Soviet Socialist Republic, the Udmurt Republic and the Yakut-Sakha Autonomous Soviet Socialist Republic, the Chukotka Autonomous Okrug, the Adyghe Autonomous Okrug, the Buryat Autonomous Soviet Socialist Republic, the Bashkir Autonomous Soviet Socialist Republic, the Kalmyk Autonomous Soviet Socialist Republic, the Mari Autonomous Soviet Socialist Republic, the Chuvash Autonomous Soviet Socialist Republic, the Yamalo-Nenets and Mountainous Autonomous Soviet Socialist Republics was proclaimed. Altai Autonomous Okrug and other regions. At the same time, the question of complete state independence and secession from the RSFSR was not raised. It was proposed to regulate all relations with the federal center by concluding agreements.

This day has become a holiday since 1992. In 1994, Yeltsin issued a decree giving national significance to the day. The holiday is called the Day of Adoption of the Declaration of State Sovereignty of Russia. In 1998, after Yeltsin’s address on central television, June 12 began to be called Russia Day. The holiday officially received a new name only in 2002 after the adoption of the new Labor Code. Since that time, Russia Day began to be celebrated in all regions of the country.

Who can explain how the obvious facts of betrayal passed by everyone:
text from Wikipedia

"By the Resolution of the Presidium of the Supreme Council of the RSFSR dated December 20, 1991, the State Bank of the USSR was abolished and all its assets and liabilities, as well as property on the territory of the RSFSR, were transferred to the Central Bank of the RSFSR (Bank of Russia)."
The body of the RSFSR is abolishing the property of the USSR!! It’s the same as if a person’s left hand wanted to abolish/cut off his head.
Or, for example, how the Yaroslavl region decides to abolish/liquidate the government of the Russian Federation!

Let's look at the document.
There is not a single line in the resolution about the abolition of the State Bank!
There is a phrase " form a commission within 24 hours" And " that part of the property of the State Bank of the USSR. will be handed over... on the basis of an interbank agreement" and instructions " take immediate measures to protect the buildings of the State Bank of the USSR."

And this document is presented to us as a decree on abolition State Bank of the USSR. And you will not find other resolutions. What follows from this? The State Bank of the USSR was not abolished? It turns out that way. Just as after, there were many violations, with the same constitution of the Russian Federation.
The impudence is unheard of, just chutzpah. And one shouldn’t be surprised, it’s clear whose hands it was, Michal Sergeich, under the leadership of a gray eminence in a skirt, managed all the affairs of the USSR. Raisa Maksimovna is clearly a jack of all trades in terms of khutzpah.
In this cunning way, in spite of all the laws, the USSR was destroyed in front of the whole world.

Website of the Bank of Russia today: http://www.cbr.ru/today/?PrtId=gbsssr
On his official website we read story of betrayal : (remember that Gorbachev was already in power at that time)

In July 1987, due to reorganization of the credit system, as a result of which new special banks were formed (Vnesheconombank of the USSR, Promstroibank of the USSR, Zhilsotsbank of the USSR and Sberbank of the USSR), the State Bank began to perform the functions of the main bank of the country. He was entrusted with the development of a consolidated credit plan and plans for the distribution of resources and credit investments across all banks.

In September 1988 there was the fourth Charter was approved State Bank of the USSR, according to which it was the main bank of the country, a single emission center, and organizer of credit and settlement relations in the national economy.

Since March 1989 due to transition of special banks to full economic settlement and self-financing, the State Bank was entrusted with the obligation to communicate to them control figures on the volume of credit resources, the amount of funds raised from the population, the volume of receipts and payments in foreign currency for banking operations.

In January 1990 The Savings Bank of the USSR was transferred to the State Bank.

On July 13, 1990, on the basis of the Russian Republican Bank of the State Bank of the USSR, the State Bank of the RSFSR, reporting to the Supreme Council of the RSFSR, was created.

On December 2, 1990, the Supreme Council of the RSFSR was The Law on the Central Bank of the RSFSR was adopted(Bank of Russia), according to which the Bank of Russia was a legal entity, the main bank of the RSFSR and was accountable to the Supreme Council of the RSFSR. The law defined the functions of the bank in the field of organizing money circulation, monetary regulation, foreign economic activity and regulating the activities of joint-stock and cooperative banks.

In December 1990 Laws “On the State Bank of the USSR” were adopted and “About banks and banking activities.” In accordance with them, the State Bank of the USSR, together with the national banks established at that time on the basis of the republican bank offices, was supposed to create a unified system of central banks based on a common monetary unit (the ruble) and performing the functions of a reserve system.

In June 1991 there was The Charter of the Central Bank of the RSFSR was approved(Bank of Russia), reporting to the Supreme Council of the RSFSR.

The period from July 1990 to December 1991 was the time of confrontation between the Russian State Bank and the State Bank of the USSR.

In November 1991, in connection with the formation of the Commonwealth of Independent States and the abolition of union structures The Supreme Court of the RSFSR declared the Central Bank of the RSFSR the only body on the territory of the RSFSR state monetary and currency regulation of the republic's economy. It was entrusted with the functions of the State Bank of the USSR in issuing and determining the exchange rate of the ruble. The Central Bank of the RSFSR was instructed to take into its full economic jurisdiction and management the material and technical base and other resources of the State Bank of the USSR, the network of its institutions, enterprises and organizations, before January 1, 1992.

December 20, 1991 The State Bank of the USSR was abolished and all its assets and liabilities, as well as property on the territory of the RSFSR, were transferred to the Central Bank of the RSFSR (Bank of Russia).

Note that the main changes in the structure of the State Bank of the USSR, the creation of an alternative Bank of Russia (RSFSR) occurred long before 1991, when the State Emergency Committee took place. Gorbachev and his team, led by Yakovlev, did a lot of preparatory work to change all the structures of the state for its further dismemberment. Everything was ready for Yeltsin’s arrival, although Yeltsin may not have known about it.

So slowly and therefore imperceptibly for us, the State Bank went through all stages of development, the path from an economic, credit organization, currency monopolist, cash executor of the budget, regulator of monetary circulation to the pinnacle of its “career” - planning of lending.
By the 30s of the last century, as a result of the credit reform, the activities of the State Bank finally lost their commercial character, and the main functions of the Soviet-style State Bank were formed - planned farm lending, organization of money circulation and settlements, cash execution of the state budget and implementation of international payments. At the same time, the structure of the credit system was formed, which existed with minor modifications for 55 years.

Since coming to power in 1985, the chief perestroika took bold steps towards a complete restructuring of the entire state power, and its most important part - the monetary system. It was liquidated under him Article 6 of the USSR Constitution. And everyone around, seeing this, could not object to him.
So on March 14, 1990, the law “On the establishment of the post of President of the USSR and introducing amendments and additions to the Constitution of the USSR” was adopted. One of the initiators of the campaign for the abolition of Article 6 of the USSR Constitution was Andrei Dmitrievich Sakharov.
And finally, on March 20, 1991, a law was adopted that abolished the Council of Ministers of the USSR.
So quietly and unnoticed by the bulk of the people, the country, the great Power, was essentially destroyed.

Article 6 of the 1977 Constitution year read: “The leading and guiding force of Soviet society, the core of its political system, state and public organizations is the Communist Party of the Soviet Union. The CPSU exists for the people and serves the people.


What structure now exists for the people and serves the people? Alas, there is no answer. No for the people, everything against the people. Well, you can have something else when the main law of the country includes legal sabotage, as the head of the Investigative Committee of the Russian Federation A.I. Bastrykin said.
And someone will argue that only those “three from Belovezhskaya Pushcha” are traitors? Our main traitor is still awaiting trial.

On June 12, 1990, the USSR Law “On the Press and Other Mass Media” was adopted, and on December 27, 1991, the Russian Federation Law “On the Mass Media” was adopted. USSR law declared freedom of the press, Russian law proclaims freedom of the media as the natural state of the press.

This law establishes definitions that define the conceptual range of mass media.

ssia. This Law is the fundamental normative act in this area; all other legislative acts must be issued in accordance with it. In case of contradictions, priority should be given to the Law “On the Mass Media”.

Its provisions apply, firstly, to mass media established in the Russian Federation and distributed both on the territory of the Russian Federation and abroad; secondly, on mass media created outside the Russian Federation, but distributed on the territory of the Russian Federation. At the same time, as follows from Article 54 of the Law, citizens of the Russian Federation are guaranteed unhindered access to foreign media.

The law enshrines the principle of equality between Russian citizens, on the one hand, and foreign citizens and legal entities, as well as stateless persons, on the other, in relation to the implementation of freedom of the media. At the same time, the law itself and a number of other acts introduce certain exceptions for them.

Thus, Article 7 of the Law establishes that foreigners and stateless persons who do not have a permanent place of residence in the Russian Federation cannot act as founders of mass media in cases where the founder (co-founder) of the mass media is a foreign legal entity or the mass media was created with participation of foreign investments, the registration fee is charged at an increased rate.

The Law “On the Mass Media” reflects the specifics not so much of the mass nature of information, but rather the specifics of its production and distribution, i.e. regulates, first of all, the relationship of specific participants, and does not establish a mass media regime. This is confirmed by even the most cursory review of the articles of the Law.

The main directions of legal regulation of relations in the field of mass media:

ensuring guarantees of freedom of media; organization of media activities; dissemination of mass information;

relations of the media with citizens and organizations;

rights and obligations of a journalist;

interstate cooperation in the field of mass information;

liability for violation of legislation on the media.

Thus, the mass media regime is revealed only through its organizational and legal basis. From the point of view of civil legislation, there is no particular specificity in relation to media participants. This specificity of the media stems not from the responsibility of the participants, but from the publicity of the media. It is on this basis that in the theory of state law the media is considered a political institution, and not because there are founders, distributors, journalists, etc.

2. Legal norms on the protection of the professional activities of a journalist.

The professional activity of a journalist requires the creation of an effective human rights system supported by the state and society, since the phenomenon of abuse of freedom of mass information by individuals and groups, obstruction of the legitimate professional activity of a journalist, forms of economic and other pressure on the media, unfortunately, have become quite widespread . The state guarantees to a journalist, in connection with his professional activities, the protection of his honor, dignity, health, life and property as a person performing a public duty.

Infringement of freedom of the media, including obstruction of the legitimate activities of journalists, as noted in the Federal Law “On the Mass Media,” should entail criminal, administrative, disciplinary or other liability.

The current criminal legislation of the Russian Federation establishes only one crime, in which the journalist is the victim. Article 144 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation provides for liability for obstructing the legitimate professional activities of journalists by forcing them to disseminate or refuse to disseminate information. However, in law enforcement practice, corresponding cases are almost never encountered. “By interfering with the legitimate professional activities of a journalist, the perpetrator infringes on the constitutional rights and freedoms enshrined in Part 5 of Article 29 of the Constitution of the Russian Federation,” “The direct object of the crime is freedom of the press and other media. An additional object is the legitimate rights and interests of a professional journalist.”

The victim of this crime is a journalist, i.e. a person engaged in collecting, editing, creating or preparing materials for the media, associated with them through labor or other contractual relations, or engaged in such activities under their authority. Obstructing the activities of a journalist by using violence or threats against him must be qualified under the combination of Article 144 and Article 111 (Intentional infliction of serious harm to health) or 112 (Intentional infliction of moderate harm to health) of the Criminal Code, depending on the severity of the violence, or Article 119 (Threat murder or causing grievous bodily harm) of the Criminal Code.

Obstructing the activities of a journalist involves, first of all, influencing both the journalist himself and those close to him, with the intention of preventing him from carrying out his legitimate professional activities. Obstruction of legitimate professional activities means deprivation of the opportunity to perform one’s professional duties and exercise the powers granted to one to collect information, as well as the creation of conditions that significantly impede professional activities.

Professional activities are limited only to those areas related to the search or dissemination of information, as well as the performance of other functions of a journalist. Responsibility under Article 144 of the Criminal Code arises only in the event of obstruction of the legitimate professional activities of a journalist. Legal activities are those that do not violate the law, rights and freedoms of others. To resolve the issue of recognizing the activities of a journalist as legal, it is necessary to turn to the legislative acts regulating the activities of journalists and the media in general. Forcing a journalist to disseminate information involves forceful influence on him or his relatives in order to force him to publish certain information against his will. Forcing a journalist to refuse to disseminate information also involves influencing the journalist or people close to him, but with the opposite goal - to force him to refuse to publish information known to him.

In April 1990, the Law “On the Division of Powers between the USSR and the Subjects of the Federation” was adopted, emphasizing the right of a union republic to secede from the USSR, a decision on which can be made in a referendum. The rights of the union republics (foreign policy, economic, etc.) expanded significantly. Functions that were not included in the exhaustive list of the exclusive powers of the Union were presumed to be assigned to the Union republic. The procedure for the withdrawal of a union republic from the USSR was regulated by the Law (April 1990) “On the procedure for resolving issues related to the withdrawal of a union republic from the USSR.” At the same time, the Law “On the Legal Regime of a State of Emergency” was adopted, which established the procedure for introducing a state of emergency, the circle of bodies entitled to do so (the President of the USSR, the Supreme Councils of the USSR and the republics) and emergency powers for the period of introduction of this situation.

The main changes took place in the sphere of “transition”< экономики. В феврале 1990 г. Верховный Совет СССР принял Основы законодательства СССР и союзных республик о зем­ле. Определялось, что «земля является достоянием народов, проживающих на данной территории». Граждане получали право приобретать землю в пожизненное наследуемое владе­ние или в аренду. Подробно регламентировался режим предо­ставления земель физическим и юридическим лицам. Конт­роль за землепользованием возлагался на местные советы.

In March 1990, the Law “On Property in the USSR” was adopted, which listed its three main forms:

“property of citizens”, collective and state. In addition, the existence in the USSR of property of foreign states, international organizations, foreign legal entities and citizens is allowed. Property can be shared or joint (common ownership of several persons) and mixed (joint ownership of Soviet and foreign entities). The forms of ownership of citizens are the property of labor farming, peasant farming and personal subsidiary farming. Forms of collective ownership - ownership of a rental enterprise, cooperative, business company, partnership, joint-stock company, business association, public organization and foundation, religious organization. State property is divided into all-Union, union, autonomous republics, autonomous regions and districts, property of administrative-territorial entities (municipal), state enterprises, labor collectives, and government agencies.

In April 1990, the Law “On the Fundamentals of Economic Relations of the USSR, Union and Autonomous Republics” was adopted, delimiting the powers of the Union and the republics in the sphere of economics and finance. The law enshrined the concept of “all-Union market”, the basis for the formation and functioning of which was recognized as “the independence of enterprises, associations, organizations and individual producers” operating in conditions of equality and competition of all forms of ownership and in the scope of antimonopoly legislation.

In June 1990, the Law “On Enterprises in the USSR” was adopted, aimed at developing the economic independence of the enterprise and economic accounting. The types of enterprises were listed: individual, cooperative, in the form of a joint-stock or other business company or partnership, owned by public or religious organizations. State enterprises were divided into union, republican, regional, district and municipal. It was planned to create joint ventures, leasehold enterprises and small state-owned enterprises. Enterprises could unite into unions, economic associations, and concerns based on industry, territorial and other characteristics. The net profit of enterprises (after paying taxes and other payments to the budget) was at their full disposal. The basis of the enterprise's plans are contracts concluded with consumers; the agreement became the basis of all relations into which the enterprise entered. The company set its own prices for its products.

The state was obliged to provide enterprises, regardless of their form of ownership, with equal legal and economic conditions for business, to promote market development and to use only economic levers in regulation. The enterprise itself bears full property liability for all its actions.

In December 1990, the Supreme Soviet of the USSR adopted the Fundamentals of Legislation on Investment Activities in the USSR, which listed as objects of such activities newly created and modernized fixed assets and working capital, securities, targeted cash deposits, scientific and technical products, intellectual values, property rights, etc. Subjects (investors and participants) can be Soviet and foreign citizens, legal entities, states.

The democratization of social structures was reflected in the content of the new laws “On Public Associations” (October 1990) and “On Trade Unions” (December 1990). The law included political parties, mass movements, trade unions, women's, veterans' organizations, organizations of the disabled, youth and children's, scientific, technical, cultural and educational, physical culture, sports and other voluntary societies, creative unions, fraternities, foundations, associations and other citizens' associations. The law on trade unions, along with the general rights of unions, listed their property rights: as legal entities they “own, use and dispose of property and funds belonging to them by right of ownership”, they can participate in foreign economic activity, create banks, insurance and joint-stock companies, joint commercial ventures, engage in publishing activities, and form various funds.

In the field of criminal law, the legislator's attention was again attracted by speculation: “in connection with the increasing negative phenomena in the consumer market and the use of these circumstances for the purpose of extracting illegal income. during the transition to a market economy." According to the law of the USSR (October 1990), speculation was understood as the purchase of goods for which state retail prices are established in trading enterprises, the sale of goods from warehouses, bases, etc. in violation of established rules, hiding goods from buyers, evading registration. The further development of market relations changed ideas about speculation and its relationship with legal trading activities.

In general, the legislation of the perestroika period laid the legal basis for the radical socio-economic transformations of subsequent years.

Conclusion

The Soviet concept of state power was based on the views of K. Marx, F. Engels and V.I. Lenin, who considered the mechanism of state power as “a working corporation, at the same time legislating and executing laws.” In Russia, the principle of the full power of workers was supposed to be embodied in the form of sovereign and autocratic Councils, in the work of which there is a “merger of management with legislation.” Thus, state power was understood as a single whole; the system of government bodies was to be headed by “sovereign Soviets.”