The recent judgment from the European Court of Human Rights in the case of Shtkaturov v Russia is groundbeaking for a number of reasons. For the time being, I thought it would be interesting to flag out the reasons why Mr. Shtukaturov lost his legal capacity (for good), was placed under guardianship (for good), and was institutionalised in a psychiatric hospital (indefinitely). Here is the relevant quotation from the medical report that was the basis for the decision to deprive him of all his rights
On 12 November 2004 an expert team from [Sankt Petersburg] Hospital no. 6 examined the applicant and his medical records. The report prepared by the expert team may be summarised as follows. After graduating from the school the applicant worked for a short time as an interpreter. However, some time later he became aggressive, unsympathetic and secluded, and prone to empty philosophizing. He abandoned his job, started attending religious meetings and visiting Buddhist shrines, lost most of his friends, neglected his personal hygiene and became very negative towards his relatives. He suffered from anorexia and was hospitalised in this respect.
The lessons from poor Mr.Shtukaturov's case are obvious - always act happy, wash your teeth every morning, go to church, get a boring job, and you're safe.
Un blog bilingv despre drepturile omului in Romania si in Europa/A bilingual blog about human rights in Romania and Europe
Pages
▼
Saturday, 29 March 2008
Monday, 3 March 2008
Way to Go (Casus belli part II)
And there is actually something you can do about it.
Take for example Solidaritatea pentru Constiinta (Solidarity for Conscience), a wonderful non-governmental organisation which is taking on the Church + the Government with limited manpower and very limited funding. They are basically doing it out of and based on exclusively their conviction. Their actions include initiating legal proceedings, organising public protests, engaging the bad guys in public debate etc. Their most important achievements so far are the successful litigation campaign aiming to eliminate religious icons from schools and stalling the megalomaniac People's Cathedral project for more years. They are a great example of public engagement (others would say 'exagerated activism:)that turns a previously discrete issue on its head into a major issue of public contention.
Second, you can follow the example of my friend Theo Alexandridis, a lawyer who is confronting an even more entrenched adversary in Greece. Recently he won a case against Greece at the European Court of Human Rights concerning the obligation in that country to take a religious oath upon admission into the Bar Association. The Court held that Greece was in breach of Article 9 of the Convention concerning freedom of religion on account of the fact that by taking the oath, Theo was obliged to reveal his religious conviction. As a result, Greece will most likely have to cancel the religious oath altogether.
The tenor of this message is that as long as you give a damn about the world you live in it is worth/possible to put up a fight.
Take for example Solidaritatea pentru Constiinta (Solidarity for Conscience), a wonderful non-governmental organisation which is taking on the Church + the Government with limited manpower and very limited funding. They are basically doing it out of and based on exclusively their conviction. Their actions include initiating legal proceedings, organising public protests, engaging the bad guys in public debate etc. Their most important achievements so far are the successful litigation campaign aiming to eliminate religious icons from schools and stalling the megalomaniac People's Cathedral project for more years. They are a great example of public engagement (others would say 'exagerated activism:)that turns a previously discrete issue on its head into a major issue of public contention.
Second, you can follow the example of my friend Theo Alexandridis, a lawyer who is confronting an even more entrenched adversary in Greece. Recently he won a case against Greece at the European Court of Human Rights concerning the obligation in that country to take a religious oath upon admission into the Bar Association. The Court held that Greece was in breach of Article 9 of the Convention concerning freedom of religion on account of the fact that by taking the oath, Theo was obliged to reveal his religious conviction. As a result, Greece will most likely have to cancel the religious oath altogether.
The tenor of this message is that as long as you give a damn about the world you live in it is worth/possible to put up a fight.