A petition to take you to the police
Defending their point of view, we often infringe upon the rights of others. Photo: UNIAN
The Ombudsman Lyudmila Denisova has found violations of human rights on the President’s website.
The new broom on-new sweeps. Fresh Ombudsman Lyudmila Denisova up their sleeves and started to defend in Ukraine, human rights. And then found a real hotbed of discrimination and intolerance. And not somewhere, and on the website of electronic petitions of the President of Ukraine.
The Commissioner for human rights rightly outraged that another proposal to fight the propaganda of homosexuality and defend traditional family values.
“This petition was formulated as an appeal to the President of Ukraine to take measures aimed at stopping “propaganda of homosexuality”, in particular to veto bills that are contrary to the position of the churches on homosexuality and can contribute to the legalization of same-sex partnerships (marriages) or the adoption of children as transgender,” said Denisov.
The Ombudsman Lyudmila Denisova. Photo: Oscar Jansons
It requested the deletion of this petition and all similar. This, of course, no one did, at least when the “KP” in Ukraine” went to a page of petitions, there were a dozen proposals to ban gay pride parades, propaganda of homosexuality and other incitement to discrimination on grounds of sexual orientation.
Moreover, get a grasp of the other requirements of Ukrainians, we were horrified – Yes, there is a field untilled all kinds of violations of rights and freedoms.
“Komsomolskaya Pravda” in Ukraine” decided to help the Ombudsman and has written several petitions, and at the same time asked the Kiev lawyer Ivan Lieberman to comment on them.
“To prohibit the sale of alcohol to people without higher education”. “As a result of the prestige of the knowledge soars to the heavens even in the most ignorant environment,” says the author of the petition. But, according to the lawyer, here there is a clear restriction of human rights.
“To pay not drinking and not Smoking people the “Benefit of sobriety”. The text says – does not make sense to spend money on alcoholism treatment, and it is better to spend them on promotion of sobriety.
– From the legislative point of view, potentially violating the rights and freedoms of such a proposal carries. But for a sober person there are a number of hidden dangers, says Ivan Lieberman. – First of all, with any income, even promote and reward sober lifestyle, you have to pay taxes. And secondly, when funds are charged from one Fund to benefit another – sooner or later, after challenging this law and its abolition, the people receiving the reward, will have all the money back.
About pensioners and corrupt officials
A growing number of petitions on the topic “to prohibit pensioners to vote”, “work after retirement” and especially “to engage in teaching retired”.
– Violation of constitutional rights to voice and choice, – the lawyer considers. And, of course, a violation of the human right to work.
Trying to gain signatures to petition to resume the death penalty. And most of all corruption. All this goes against the Protocol of the European Convention on human rights.
In Ukraine banned the death penalty, in itself, the petition is a violation of the law and the constitutional law on human life, – said the lawyer.
The right to motherhood
Petition on “Introduction of compulsory treatment of drug and alcohol addicts and a prohibition on the ability of birth of their children.” The argument of the author of the text – these people are socially dangerous and give birth only for the purpose of receiving social benefits.
Curiously, Lieberman believes such a petition is potentially correct and having the right to life. But there is no such law and the relevant prescribed standards – it definitely is a violation of women’s right to motherhood.
In contrast, regularly have a petition banning abortion that does not coincide with the prescribed rights women on this subject, the Civil code of Ukraine. And all over the world so many disputes and arguments “for” and “against” that even the lawyer is difficult to comment on.