That is not the end yet
Luo Baogen from China sells his house at a high price, and Ukrainian youth was threatened with criminal liability
When informing the readers about a peaceful rally of a few thousands FC Dynamo Kyiv fans, who merely demanded proper investigation in the murder case against Dmytro and Serhii Pavlychenkos, The Day has told two stories about the right to private property with different endings. One of them was Ukrainian, and the other Chinese. The Ukrainian story was about an ordinary Kyiv family, who were basically deprived of their own residency downtown for the benefit of a Dutch company. Let us remind that back in 2010, according to the ruling by judge Serhii Zubkov of the Kyiv Shevchenko District Court, Pavlychenkos’ apartment was partially demolished, which made it unsuitable for living. That is when Dmytro Pavlychenko gathered press conferences and publicly accused the judge of making an unjust decision. In March 2011, the abovementioned judge was brutally murdered in the elevator of his own house. The investigation identified the Pavlychenkos as the main suspects, since they had an undeniable motive: revenge. Soon the father was sentenced to life imprisonment, and the son – to 13 years of confinement.
The second story, which happened in China, is also related to the inviolability of private property. In Zhejiang province, the owner of a five-storied building Luo Baogen refused to sell his property, even despite the fact that it hindered the construction of a highway, which was supposed to pass right through the spot where the house stood. After accepting Baogen’s stand, the province authorities started building a road of national significance… around his house.
As it became known recently, these were not the endings of the two stories. Their continuation demonstrates the hugeness of the gap between China (even given all its official communist rhetoric) and the “civilized” Ukraine in the context of value of the right to private property. The blog drugoi.livejournal.com informs that on December 1, after another negotiation with local officials, Luo Baogen agreed to have his house demolished (see the photo). Of course, he received a reimbursement of 260,000 yuans (41,782 dollars). The Baogen family’s house was demolished, and the highway was completed. This is a civilized decision in settling a problem situation.
What ending will the Ukrainian story have? According to STB TV channel, the appellate hearing of the Pavlychenkos case will take place on December 14.
However (perhaps with a view to eliminate the very possibility of holding crowded rallies of radically-minded citizens, who strive to defend not only the Pavlychenkos, but also themselves, their own right to a fair process and private property), the Board of Judges of Ukraine issued a formal address to the participants of the action “Freedom to Pavlychenkos,” in which it REMINDED (sic!) that they “pressurize the court.” And mind you that in Ukraine this is criminal offence.
“Conducting a mass rally aimed at bringing the court to passing a desired judgment is nothing but an attempt to pressurize the court,” says the statement of the Board of Judges, posted on the official website “The judiciary of Ukraine.” “According to Article 126 of the Constitution, influence on judges in any way is prohibited and entails legal liability.” However, it looks like it was decided to take more measures to settle the Pavlychenkos case than the direct order. These days, one of the rally ringleaders Taras Kuzmenko said on Channel 5 that the Ukrainian law-enforcement bodies had started gathering information about the participants of the rally. “Our action was official. We submitted a proper application, and it was agreed with the law-enforcement bodies. It was not a spontaneous outburst,” he said. “Today we know that certain power structures gather information about participants. There has been no further action so far.”
The Pavlychenkos case sent ripples across international media, becoming a symbol of lawlessness in Ukraine. Human rights advocates are increasingly oftener citing young Ukrainians’ wish to defend themselves (rather than the possibility of the Pavlychenkos’ illegal conviction) as the reason for the massive social outburst. In fact, the Pavlychenkos are just an illustration, one of the examples of Ukraine’s “misfiring” justice and a sad lack of protection for the right to private property.
In his November greetings to Xi Jinping on occasion of his election Secretary General of the Chinese Communist Party Central Committee, the leader of Ukrainian Communists Petro Symonenko said: “The Communist Party of China, under Xi Jinping’s wise leadership, will lead the friendly Chinese nation to even higher social and economic positions and will again demonstrate to the entire world the level of progress and development, which can be achieved on the path of socialism.” Sadly, speaking of China’s “socialist development,” the Ukrainian “leader” and other influential politicians forget about the main thing: in the Celestial Empire the right to private property and the laws of capitalism are honored as sacred.
