“It Will Hurt – Say It”: Latvia's Social Experiments in Real Time 0 6

Well, because it’s impossible to imagine that this will happen. It’s like shooting yourself in the foot. And? Well, there it is.

From January 1 in all stores in Latvia

In my opinion, there is no ambiguity – these are the very "yellow stars." All printed materials in Latvia have a reduced tax rate of 5% because they carry good and eternal values. And Russian-language materials will not have it. Because they carry... Putin? War? Death? Shakespeare, translated into Russian, uh, also carries Putin? Rainis, by the way, does too.

I was sure that the amendment would be rejected. They would show that we are not as you have imagined. Perhaps, under the guise of a loud renunciation, they would push through something less absurd. But no. From January 1 in all stores. And no one even blinked.

Today the whole world is mired in human rights protection. It should have broken down already, but it’s still holding on. It balances on the edge of protecting the rights of victims of violence and protecting the rights of perpetrators against victims of violence. Today even feminists are suing transgender individuals for devaluing the right to call themselves women. And suddenly, little Latvia takes it upon itself to call a quarter of a billion people on earth a declassed element with a straight face. No one intervened. The law comes into effect on January 1. Publishers are writing: "Guys, buy now. It will be more expensive next year."

Who is calling for Putin? Fans of Rainis in Brusov's translation, or the "prohibitors"? The eternal question: who is the propagandist – the bearer of bad news, or the newsmaker?

The Voice of the People

Right now our parliament is seriously discussing the possibility of revoking citizenship and deporting disloyal residents of the country. No, they didn’t come up with it themselves. It’s all by the will of the people. An initiative was announced on the portal Manabalss.lv, the people voted, and here it is – the Saeima is considering it. Everything is very democratic.

But there’s a nuance. Several points that for some reason remain unmentioned by most information sources.

• The initiative was created on the portal 3.5 years ago. It took exactly that long to gather 10,000 votes – the threshold after which the "voice of the people" is submitted for consideration to the Saeima.

• Over these three plus years, there have been several other initiatives on the same platform that surpassed the 10,000 threshold but did NOT make it to consideration by the higher authority.

• The author of the initiative is the creator of the platform Manabalss.lv, Imants Breidaks. A concerned individual. Who, by the way, receives 150,000 euros a year from the state to maintain this very platform. Well, and for himself. Isn’t that lovely?

Just coincidences, probably.

What are the results? In the first reading, 67 people voted for the initiative. 16 against. Two abstained. That is, the cumulative three-year opinion of less than 1% of the population of Latvia supported 67% of the parliamentarians. What a fortunate coincidence. Arguing about it is, in principle, pointless.

Let’s at least try to figure out: what were they voting for? For the revocation of citizenship and deportation of the disloyal.

Disloyal to whom? Deportation to where? We’re talking about Russians again, right? After all, they don’t think to check how ready a Syrian kebab seller or a Lebanese food delivery person is to disregard Sharia laws in favor of European values? Or will they? Or won’t we return them?

And that’s fine with the delivery people: I often encounter disloyal Latvians. By the way, they are much easier to spot than Russians. Unlike the Russian-speaking dissatisfied, the titular people feel entitled to speak without lowering their voices. Well, for now, they do. Either they don’t know about the new initiative yet, or they still believe, not without reason, in the motto "why us?" Or do they believe without reason?

What is "Disloyalty"

It’s a good question. Dialectical. Is disloyalty criticism of the government? Complaints about a poor harvest? Discontent with climatic conditions? Support for the policies of other countries? Let’s stop on the last point in more detail. Okay: I understand that praising Russia is not allowed. But can we praise Israel? And what about Palestine? How will opinions regarding the rather harsh measures of the German police against pro-Palestinian rallies be assessed? What about the Lithuanian protests against the increasing influence of the government on the media? Does this relate to my loyalty to Latvia, or "of course not"? And if not, then why does Russia have it?...

In my September article, I wrote the same words: I’m tired of being ironic, ambiguously hinting, and maintaining a satirical tone. Let’s stop joking and encouraging ourselves with Zadornov’s "well, they’re so dumb." Over the past few years, I have increasingly felt that in Latvia, Russian TV channels were banned so that local residents would not know where the ruling powers draw their inspiration from.

If a Friend is Not an Enemy, But – Are They Really a Friend?

For many years I have spoken and continue to speak about the need to resist and be outraged. Not even to achieve something – today such a prize is almost nowhere to be found. But to slow down the system of oppression. The main goal of all global protests is to show the reaction to "trial balloons." And if thousands come out in defense of the Istanbul Convention, that is society’s response to the authorities that society does not agree. When ten people come out in defense of teachers, that is also a signal: society doesn’t care. We define and mark the boundaries of what is permissible.

Those who set them are guided by our behavior: if we do not protest against new flags, the flags are moved closer. "It will hurt – say it."

And we are "not hurting." We are not sold – we buy from hand, we are not told – we find sources, they close – we bypass from the flank, they prohibit – we take secretly. We are essentially stealing. We are breaking the law. Independently nurturing a sense of guilt within ourselves – for the future, in case we get caught. They push us out the door, and we go out the window, yes. Not even considering the possibility of saying that this is our door, open it.

We are not invincible. We are flexible. Like a rubber boy. We do not resist violence, but find ways to take less of it, accepting it as an inevitability. We bypass one law – they come up with the next, more complicated one. We find a way to bypass it too. We do not live for ourselves, but on a quest against those who make it worse. Our rights have been exchanged for room to maneuver. Who exchanged them? – We did. It’s very upsetting, but such a deal is always made with mutual consent.

It’s pointless today to say "if only we had..." When the ship has run aground, you should not curse the captain, but patch the hole. Today, those who do not like that their neighbor has been decided to be imprisoned can be called "disloyal," for example. That is criticism of the authorities. You can remain silent. You can support – just in case. What if he really is? You can even turn him in. After all: even if you are absolutely sure that your neighbor is not an enemy of the people, are you sure enough that he does not consider you an enemy? And if he does, then he is unlikely to be a friend, right?

Are You Sure You’re Not Crazy?

In the 1970s, the world of mental health was shaken and significantly destabilized by the Rosenhan experiment. In January 1973, an article titled "On Being Sane in Insane Places" was published in the journal Science. Its author, psychologist David Rosenhan, described how he and seven other healthy individuals voluntarily approached various psychiatric hospitals, presenting doctors with a bunch of symptoms characteristic of the mentally ill. All the test subjects were diagnosed with schizophrenia and manic psychosis.

Upon entering the clinic, the group of activists abruptly ceased to act crazy and began to convince specialists that they were all right. The specialists grunted, saying "everyone says that" and continued treatment. After three weeks, all the fakers were discharged with a diagnosis of "schizophrenia in remission."

After the details of the experiment were made public, the psychiatric world literally went insane. Psychiatrists screamed that it was a setup, that it couldn’t happen, and that let’s do it again, but honestly. Rosenhan said he didn’t care at all, and that right now he was ready to send a new batch of pseudo-psychos into all the city clinics. The clinics said "aha!" and prepared.

Over the next three months, the clinics diligently searched for fakers. The result impressed everyone: of the 193 admitted, 41 were identified as impostors and sent home. It seemed like a happy ending. If it weren’t for the fact that in the concluding part of the experiment, the researcher revealed that he had not sent any impostors at all. You released the real patients.

Instead of PS

Honestly, I really want an orange cloak, Buddhist calmness, and a profound conclusion. There isn’t one.

Declaring a witch hunt is not a tricky task. The question is what those who find themselves with guns will do. "The suslik is a very attentive and cautious creature. Sometimes it comes out onto the road, stands upright, and looks to see if a snake is crawling nearby, if a wolf is running, if an eagle is flying. The most attentive ones get hit by a bumper in the face."

Take care of your head. And keep your distance.

**Alexey Stetyukha, journalist, blogger.