The threshold of a conversation about insults and consequences of a person can be one case in life. Let's start with a literal transfer of a curious dialogue.
- Tatyana! Why did you break the door of Shura's neighbor?
"Why did she call me a fool?"
"So you have a certificate from a psychiatrist!"
- Well, what, I did not show it to her, - grinning the girl of a large build with a simple, but cunning expression.
Tatyana, definitely, has acted incorrectly inforce of their ignorance. And meanwhile, there is an article in the legislation for insulting a person! She should write an application to the court and get decent compensation from her grandmother, who, although she does not have an appropriate certificate, but does not differ in development from Tatyana, does not even have a sense of tact.
After all, there is an insult to the person, article130. Some may question the correctness of my assumption that a girl with a certificate can expect to win in court. It seems that it turns out that the woman Shura simply "called things by their proper names"?
But no, my dear!Even the drunken man in the sobering-up station workers do not have the right to call "alcoholic" or "drunk", and by the rules are obliged to apply to him strictly by name and patronymic. Every citizen of Russia is responsible for insulting a person, and it does not matter whether he is drunk or lagging behind in mental development.
By the way, if you recall the story with whichthis article began, we can emphasize one more feature of the legislative article on insults. Even telling the truth, but expressing it in an indecent manner, a person commits a crime. And especially offensive is an insult, which is applied with an indication of any physical deficiencies of man.
Another thing is that to prove an insult to the person(Article 130) is very difficult - not always the law in full force works in our country. Therefore, the percentage of people who are offended hourly is extremely small, and they decide to go to court. And even less is the percentage of those who win the dispute ... After all, in the course of the trial, irrefutable evidence of the crime is necessary, and it is extremely difficult to provide the plaintiff to the court.
Personally, Article 130 recognizes an insult to a person asinflicted personally, and expressed to another person. And if a third person can still testify about the composition of the crime in court, then the personal meeting can quite pass confidentially. How can you prove the insult of a person in this case?
A crime is also considered committed ifinsults are applied over the phone, on the Internet, in writing: scraps, telegrams, letters, drawings or even symbols or with the participation of the media. Insulting an individual, article 130 considers a crime and a wordless one, when a person who degrades human dignity uses improper gestures or actions. Insulting actions are spit in the direction of a person, ripping off his clothes, pouring liquids. Practically such actions can not inflict real harm to human health, but the fact of humiliation of dignity here is obvious.
You should respect yourself and not allow any insults in your address. And if it does happen, then all efforts should be made to punish the offender with dignity.
An example of correct behavior can servea story that happened in one state farm even under Soviet rule. A young zootechnician went into the accounts department with some complaints about the calculation of wages.
Glavbukh, accustomed to her "unclean" business to createwith impunity, drove the visitor away in anger. And even in her rustic habit, she had the imprudence to look out the door and shout after her: "Blue chicken!".
A young woman calmly asked"Are there blue hens? And why did she say that about me? ". And she was pleased to explain that the blue hen - it's thin, in the village these are not very quoted. The village woman should be strong and strong, and to stop the horse, and, if necessary, replace it in the furrow.
The girl shook her head and immediately wroteapplication to the court, which asked to sign the present. Not all, of course, agreed, but a couple of witnesses were found. The question is: why did the zootechnician become interested in the people watching the ugly scene about what the phrase "blue hen" means? Yes, then, to get attention! And to enable everyone to understand that the chief accountant wanted to insult the zootechnician.
As a result, the girl received a decentcompensation from the insult, he was demoted. And most importantly, this is the fact that from that moment on, no one has attempted to speak out to the visitors in a rude manner.
