– Y.A. Afanasenko, T.G. Chernova –
Abstract
The article analyses the “March 8 Principles” presented by several international organizations as a set of legal provisions decriminalizing behaviors related to sex, drug use, sexual and reproductive health, HIV transmission, homelessness, and poverty. The Malthusian idea of the necessity of population reduction takes on seemingly civilized forms through these principles (“debauchery disguised as lawful practices”), where the law is no exception. However, while in the traditional context “licentious living,” like marriage, promotes population growth with an emphasis on the chastity of the lower classes, in neo-Malthusianism, debauchery is normalized and indeed leads to a reduction in population numbers. The aim of the article is to identify the principles that reduce the human being as a social subject to an organism as a biological object. The research subject includes the conditions of dehumanization reflected in the content of the “March 8 Principles”: the destruction of the family institution; cultural, family-role, gender and sexual identities; labour identities; legalization of drugs, pedophilia, prostitution and begging as forms of commercial activity; and the annihilation of culture. The methodological basis of the study is dialectical materialism.
Keywords: Malthusianism, neo-Malthusianism, “March 8 Principles,” dehumanization
Funding: Initiative-based work.
For citation: Afanasenko, Y.A., Chernova, T.G. “Expansion of Human Rights and Freedoms or Dehumanization?” Philosophy, History, Culture, 2024, No. 5, pp. 54-61, DOI: 10.24158/fik.2024.5.7.
The modern period in the development of human civilization is characterized by fundamental changes: industrial countries are transitioning to a new stage of development, globalization and localization processes are becoming everyday realities, the ecological crisis is escalating, competition for diminishing energy and raw material resources is intensifying and the threat of a new world war looms large. All these phenomena require philosophical reflection due to their scale and universality. Today, there is a particularly urgent need for a deep understanding of the essence of humanity and society, as well as the most general laws of their development, without which it is impossible to grasp the profound trends of evolution.
On one hand, a defining feature of the modern era, as we see it, is the comprehensive development of human beings and their essential capacities. This is facilitated by the creation of advanced high-tech systems, where productivity growth primarily depends on the individual qualities of people, especially their capacity for labour. On the other hand, the policies of Western countries do not aim at cultivating a new type of person (a member of the global society) as a harmonious, spiritually rich individual endowed with the essential collective capacities of humanity. Instead, “mass culture” with its cult of violence, sex and cruelty is propagated by all possible means, replacing “reason with instincts, love with sex, and human beings with neo-savages…” (Kessidi, 2004: 46).
Policies that prioritize satisfying base, rather than creative and constructive, human needs ultimately lead to degradation. They distract people from addressing critical social issues and focus their attention on gender problems, which are presented as some of the most significant aspects of human life, justifying them as essential for individual freedom. This, on the one hand, contradicts the realities of the present day, which demand the preparation of a sufficient number of people capable of managing complex systems of production. On the other hand, the emergence of these systems has caused significant shifts in the social structure of Western society, especially within the working class. Traditional industries are disappearing, leading to the displacement of a vast number of workers who were previously employed in them. People who were once the main productive force of society now find themselves unable to apply their skills and are considered superfluous. They must either be supported through social programs, given opportunities to acquire education aligned with the demands of modern production or policies must be implemented to reduce their numbers.
The ruling class of Western society is preoccupied with the idea of reducing the population, not only within their own countries but globally. This is driven by the understanding that the trajectory of underdeveloped countries “following the path once taken by developed nations to achieve prosperity is no longer feasible today. Given the depletion of natural resources and an increasingly unfavorable ecological situation, such a path would lead to disaster” (Belkin & Storozhenko, 1995: 32). This position has resulted in the abandonment of aid to developing countries and the prohibition of “catch-up development” policies that were implemented until the 1970s. This essentially divides humanity into an elite group (“the golden billion”) and everyone else. One of the legal instruments aimed at reducing the population is the “March 8 Principles” of the United Nations.[1] These principles are not only designed to transform the existing paradigm of human rights protection but also seek to dismantle the centuries-old humanist content of legal traditions, creating chaos in human relationships and desocializing individuals.
In our view, the “March 8 Principles” are part of a neo-Malthusian project aimed at reducing the population through moral corruption, the cultivation of vices and the reduction of social essence to biological instincts. This involves the destruction of the moral and legal foundations of societal and individual life by creating corresponding conditions in reality.
According to T. Malthus, one solution for limiting birth rates, alongside exhausting labour, wars, epidemics and famine, is moral restraint or the virtue of abstinence: “This duty is clear and accessible to everyone: it boils down to not bringing children into the world unless you have the means to feed and raise them” (Malthus, 2023: 96). Moral restraints also apply to the upper classes, particularly regarding women seeking marriage out of fear of remaining spinsters, and who, once married, burden the country with children without bringing happiness to anyone. As Malthus stated: “Such marriages, in the view of those with a somewhat developed sense of morality, appear as nothing other than debauchery clothed in lawful forms” (Malthus, 2023: 105).
The neo-Malthusian project differs from its predecessor by eliminating not only moral but also legal constraints, a process significantly driven by gender agendas advocating for diversity of genders and their equality. While classical neo-Malthusianism focussed on limiting the number of children in marriage or avoiding them altogether, its radical variant pushes for the sexualization of children and the acceptance of intimate relations with minors. The sociologist G. Kuby comments on this issue: “In pursuing its goals, the UN and the EU collaborate with an international network of interested political forces, billionaire foundations, major media outlets and global non-governmental organizations such as the International Planned Parenthood Federation and ILGA, the homosexual umbrella organization. They aim to impose feminist and homosexual agendas on every nation worldwide through policies of gender mainstreaming and LGBT rights… We are indeed facing a global ‘anthropological revolution,’ as described by Pope Benedict XVI, one that strikes at the very roots of human existence. This revolution has five political key points, including the elimination of fatherhood and motherhood; deprivation of the material basis of the family; legalization of abortion; homosexual ‘marriage,’ including adoption of children and artificial reproduction (surrogacy); and sexualization through mandatory comprehensive sex education.”[2]
The neglect of social and economic aspects of human reproduction, the focus on its biological domain and the development of NBIC convergence (such as artificial wombs or genetic editing) threaten to obliterate humanity as the primary productive force in society. Humans, who generate not only the conditions for their existence and the goods necessary for life but also themselves, risk being reduced to mere biological entities. The philosophical problem arising from this is anthropological in nature. Legally, it involves the devaluation of national legislative frameworks and criminal law as outlined in the mentioned documents. This problem lies in the intentional reduction of humans to biological beings by cultivating sexual needs regardless of gender, age or other identities (not referring to libido but to mortido — the “death instinct”). Furthermore, humans are no longer perceived as social, symbolic or moral entities, as the value of family, social norms and traditions is discredited.
T. Malthus’ ideas profoundly influenced not only the political and legal spheres (e.g., the 1800 “Census Act,”[3] the “Poor Laws”[4] and the “Corn Laws”[5]) but also efforts to reduce population growth: “The scholar also supported the introduction of the protectionist ‘Corn Laws,’ which restricted imports and led to a significant increase in food prices for the population. These restrictions lasted from 1815 to 1846 and were only repealed after the Great Irish Famine, which caused the death of more than a million people.”[6] This link between ideas, their influence on political life, and their impact on society must be emphasized, as the “March 8 Principles” advocate not only for the decriminalization of criminal behaviour but also for the legalization of criminal and immoral actions. Here, deviation is understood broadly as a departure from both legislative and moral norms.
Let us turn to the history and content of this document. In March 2023, the International Commission of Jurists (comprising 60 judges and legal experts from various regions worldwide), acting under the auspices of the United Nations, published a document outlining principles intended to guide judges, human rights defenders, legal practitioners, prosecutors and administrative authorities globally. The full title of the document is “The 8 March Principles for a Human Rights-Based Approach to Criminal Law Proscribing Conduct Associated with Sex, Reproduction, Drug Use, HIV, Homelessness and Poverty.”[7] The legal experts listed as supporters of the document represent countries such as Jordan, South Korea, Kyrgyzstan, France, Brazil, Egypt, the USA, Switzerland, Uganda, Nepal, India, Israel, Russia, Japan, the Netherlands, Norway, Pakistan, New Zealand, Great Britain, Zimbabwe and others.
The document emphasizes the protection of human rights in situations where “criminal laws negatively affect behaviours related to sex, reproduction, HIV, drug use, homelessness and poverty.”[8] The core issue, according to the authors, lies in the misuse of criminal law, which leads to alienation, inequality, discrimination, stigmatization and marginalization of certain behaviours among individuals and groups — an outcome that they argue should not occur. This issue has been addressed for many years by the UN Secretary-General, the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, global and regional human rights mechanisms, national courts, legislative bodies, national human rights institutions and civil society.[9]
Since criminal law is broadly perceived as punitive, the document advocates for the decriminalization of several actions in line with its principles. Specifically, “behaviours related to sex, reproduction, drug use, HIV, homelessness and poverty” are identified for decriminalization.[10] Principles 14 through 21 emphasize that “no one should be held criminally liable” where there is “mutual” and “voluntary consent” or “free and informed decision-making.”[11] Below are examples of deviant behaviors that, according to the document, should not be criminalized and which, in the future, may be protected by law: Contraception, abortion, alcohol and drug use during pregnancy; Pedophilia (indirectly mentioned in Principle 16); Premarital, extramarital, same-sex and opposite-sex consensual sexual relationships; Intimate relations with transgender and non-binary individuals; Exchanging sexual services in public spaces and organizing such activities (infrastructure creation); Gender expression (including forms that deviate from societal norms) and the development of sexual orientation; Non-disclosure of HIV status and its unintentional transmission; Purchasing, possession or cultivation of drugs for personal use (including by minors and pregnant individuals) and the dissemination of drug-related information; Begging, sleeping, cooking and eating, washing clothes, bathing, urinating and defecating in public spaces, among other activities. In other words, the document advocates the decriminalization of abortions and activities associated with the “black market” of the reproductive sector, as well as pedophilia, prostitution, drug use and breaches of public order (such as “petty hooliganism”). Furthermore, begging and “sex work” are treated as forms of economic activity, suggesting a significant marginalization of these terms.
If we turn to the humanist meanings of the ancient philosophical tradition, we see not just the cultivation of vicious or sinful, irrational behaviour, but also the destruction of the foundational “cultural code” of Western civilization. This includes Plato’s distinction between good and pleasure, Epicurean enjoyment understood as the good — freedom from bodily suffering and mental turmoil, rather than indulgence in sensuality and debauchery — and Aristotle’s contrast between higher and lower pleasures. According to the philosopher’s logic, a person who prioritizes the latter is excluded from the framework of state existence, family, laws, moral values and norms. Such a transformation can only be carried out deliberately, artificially reducing people to the semblance of sick animals, imbued with anti-Christian meanings (according to F. Nietzsche), sexually obsessed (per S. Freud), and inferior in natural instinctive organization even to animals (per A. Gehlen). All that is required is to create the necessary conditions, moulding reality to the desired image of a degraded human being who can then be treated unlawfully and immorally — that is, inhumanely and unnaturally, in the spirit of Machiavellianism.
Let us examine the principles themselves from the perspective of the conditions needed, using legal tools, to ensure that a person ceases to be or is unable to become a social subject: a thinking, moral individual receptive to beauty and capable of self-reproduction. These are seven principles closely aligned with the Malthusian idea of population reduction.
First, it is necessary to create conditions that destroy the institution of the family. How this can be achieved is detailed in Principles 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19 and 20. The core theme uniting these provisions is individualism as an overriding value, with a focus on sensual, sexual and narcotic pleasures; the destruction of family and role-based identity; the principle of voluntary consent in sexual practices regardless of gender, marital status or age; the legalization of criminal behaviour (e.g., sex with children); and the transformation of the institutions of law and morality into simulacra, mere imitations of their original meanings.
Let us focus on Principle 14: Sexual and Reproductive Health and Rights.
To dismantle the institution of the family, two approaches are emphasized:
On one hand, behaviours that prevent the development of maternal identity or actively destroy it are legalized. These include contraception (including emergency contraception), abortion (potentially at various stages), alcohol and drug use during pregnancy (leading to fetal disabilities), maternal HIV infection and its transmission to the fetus, and pregnancy loss.
On the other hand, the institution of guardianship is promoted as an alternative to the family, assuming the parental role of raising and caring for children. Indirectly linked to this is the legalization of pedophilia and the destruction of a child’s identity through sexualization and granting children sexual rights. While terms such as “pedophilia” and “child sexualization” are absent from the document, the underlying concepts are present. A quote from the document reads: “Parents, guardians, caregivers or other individuals who enable or assist children or persons under their care, including persons with disabilities, to exercise their sexual and reproductive rights — such as by providing access to sexual and reproductive health services, goods or information — cannot be held criminally liable unless they employ coercion, force, fraud or fail to ensure the free and informed decision-making of the child or person in their care.”[12]
This means that children, as well as persons under guardianship, including individuals with disabilities, are granted sexual and reproductive rights, while parents, guardians and caregivers are granted rights to facilitate the realization of those rights.
It is important to clarify that sexual relationships with children bear no resemblance to the ethics of Greek love for youths (which was always contextual), as discussed by Homer, Plato and Plutarch. Unlike the Greek tradition, which emphasized education, the cultivation of masculine virtues, personal and civic morality, and the elder’s responsibility for the younger, this involves the corruption of children, including those who have not reached sexual maturity. In Hellenic culture, such behaviour was condemned, extremely rare and never associated with conduct befitting a man.
Principle 15 addresses abortion, continuing the legalization of this procedure and offering a new interpretation. Specifically, it asserts that legislation cannot prohibit abortions or the provision of related services, such as access to medications that terminate pregnancy. Furthermore, the bioethical dilemma surrounding abortion is entirely dismissed, as abortion is no longer defined as murder.
Principle 16 focusses on consensual sexual behavior and legalizes all sexual practices regardless of gender or marital status, provided the principle of mutual consent is observed. The document states: “Same-sex as well as different-sex consensual sexual relationships, or consensual sexual relationships with transgender, non-binary people and others of varying genders or outside of marriage — whether premarital or extramarital — can never be criminalized.”[13]
This principle of mutual consent is also extended to children, undermining national legislation and, by extension, state sovereignty. Regarding the age of consent for sexual relations, the document states: “As for the application of criminal law, any established minimum age for consensual sexual activity must be applied in a non-discriminatory manner… Moreover, sexual behaviour involving persons below the domestically established minimum age of consent to sex may be consensual in fact, even if not in law. In this context, the application of criminal law must reflect the rights and capacity of persons under 18 years of age to make decisions regarding consensual sexual relationships and their right to be heard on matters concerning them.”[14]
Principle 17 — Sex Work: This principle legalizes a new form of “employment” for adults: prostitution and the infrastructure associated with it. Additionally, sex in public places is deemed lawful. The document states: “The exchange of sexual services between consenting adults for money, goods or services, and engaging with another person regarding [these exchanges] — whether in public or private — cannot be criminalized.”[15]
Considering that Principle 16 addresses consensual sexual behaviour, including involving minors, there is a potential risk of minors being drawn into prostitution under so-called “legal” grounds, provided the principle of mutual consent is upheld.
Principle 18 — Sexual Orientation, Gender Identity and Gender Expression: This principle promotes the development of a fluid gender identity in children (“sexual education”) that, in modern Western traditions, is equated with biological sex. It encourages experimentation with gender (“gender transition”) and forms of self-expression that may not align with societal expectations or norms but must be protected by law. The document states: “Actions aimed at assisting others in exploring, developing and/or affirming their sexual orientation or gender identity.”[16]
Principle 19 — HIV: This principle addresses non-disclosure of HIV status or the fact of contact with an infected individual. It also advocates for the decriminalization of HIV transmission if it occurs unintentionally.
Principle 20 — Drug Use: This principle legalizes the possession, purchase or cultivation of drugs for personal use, effectively legitimizing the drug trade and framing the use, production and distribution of narcotic substances as a behaviour protected by law. Furthermore, drug use is correlated with medical services. The scope extends not only to adults but also to children, as the principle specifies: “Including individuals under the age of 18 or during pregnancy, drugs may be possessed, purchased, cultivated, owned or distributed, as well as associated equipment, goods and information for personal use.”
The document also permits activities aimed at harm reduction related to drug use, stating: “The distribution of safe drug-use kits, sterile needles and syringes, naloxone, as well as the provision and oversight of safe consumption sites; or the seeking, obtaining or sharing of information about medical services for people who use drugs, including equipment, goods and facilities.”[17]
We have previously discussed the conditions undermining the institution of the family through the distortion of maternal and child identities and the destruction of male identity in the context of the legalization of pedophilia. Now, let us turn to conditions that erode culture and the cultural identity of individuals — conditions that disrupt the generation and reproduction of meaning through dialogical, rather than conflictual, communicative practices. Additionally, we will analyse the simulacrum of labour activity and the identity it creates. These conditions are outlined in Principle 21, which addresses activities related to sustaining life in public spaces and behaviours associated with homelessness and poverty.
A striking aspect of this principle is that homelessness and poverty are not framed as social problems requiring resolution through state-level political, legal, economic and social mechanisms. Instead, according to the authors of the document, they become problems only when society refuses to recognize them as a form of inclusion — a manifestation of social diversity that holds value for society as a whole. In this conceptual framework, homelessness and poverty are treated as limitations akin to those associated with health conditions. They should not stigmatize homeless or impoverished individuals; rather, such individuals should be granted rights enabling them to participate in social life within the scope of their existing limitations.
According to the document, “no one shall be held criminally liable for engaging in economic activities such as begging, panhandling, vending, peddling or other ‘informal commercial activities involving items that are not contraband,’ nor for ‘engaging in life-sustaining activities in public spaces, such as sleeping, eating, preparing food, washing clothes, sitting or performing hygiene-related actions, including washing, urinating and defecating.’ This also applies to cases based on employment or lack of livelihood, specific ‘economic or social status, including lack of a permanent address or home,’ or the fact that ‘they are practically homeless.’”[18]
The document thus introduces a completely “new” interpretation of economic activity and the rights homeless and impoverished individuals should have. Begging is redefined as informal commercial activity, and the homeless and impoverished are seemingly turned into businesspeople with equal rights to participate in the economic sphere. It is immediately clear, however, that this has no connection to economics or law as traditionally understood. In this framework, individuals cease to be the primary productive force, fulfilling their need to work and developing their abilities through it. They are no longer creators of material and spiritual values. There is no mention of developing production, harnessing the forces of nature, transforming them or applying scientific knowledge to improve the situation of the homeless and impoverished. Instead, what is being legalized are actions that, under the law, could be classified as administrative offences related to the disruption of public order or, fundamentally, the breakdown of the social contract between society and the state in the Hobbesian sense.
Unsurprisingly, the state is framed in the document as a threat to human rights. The authors argue that the state demonstrates “a growing tendency towards overcriminalization,” citing examples such as the criminalization of drug use or “sex work,” which they claim contradicts international human rights standards. The document states: “Criminal law is one of the harshest tools available to the state to exert control over people… As such, it should be a measure of last resort, yet globally, there is a growing tendency towards overcriminalization.”[19] Moreover, international law is prioritized over domestic law, regardless of its “culturally specific, traditional or communal values, religious beliefs or protections against perceived threats to the rights and reputations of others, national security, public order, public health…”[20] This approach effectively devalues national criminal law, which, for example, in Russia considers the organization of prostitution a criminal offence (Article 241 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation[21]) and strips states of their legal sovereignty in favour of a supranational structure.
In this context, it is notable that the document outlines areas where the protection of human rights will be addressed in the future, which also undermine statehood not only in the realm of law but beyond. These areas include: apostasy, blasphemy, absenteeism, defamation, slander, propaganda, public order violations, idleness, vagrancy, immorality, public indecency, same-sex marriage, promotion of homosexuality, obscenity and sexual expressions, certain types of pornography, non-exploitative surrogacy, specific harmful practices, migration-related violations, provision of humanitarian aid, acts of solidarity and certain forms of civil disobedience.[22]
It appears that the implementation of the “March 8 Principles,” a document primarily intended for practical application, may involve the use of a “managed chaos” strategy, destabilizing public life. This could occur through the transformation of legal systems in UN member states — abolishing national criminal laws, decriminalizing criminal behaviour, and legalizing criminal and immoral actions. Additionally, it could involve spreading false axiological priorities (such as the overemphasis of individualism and individual rights as ultimate values) and eroding the cultural and national foundations of societies (e.g., the destruction of the family institution). Under the guise of caring for humanity, protecting the rights of minorities, genders, the homeless, drug addicts and potentially pedophiles in the future, processes of dehumanization and desocialization are underway. These processes cultivate base instincts in individuals, reducing their essence to that of a biologically driven entity — a “neo-savage,” stripped of the ability to perform vital social functions or to serve as a society’s primary productive and creative force.
In an era requiring advanced scientific and technological development, which demands professionalism and a strong work ethic, the “March 8 Principles” become part of a strategy not only aimed at degrading the essential capacities of individuals but also at altering the nature of relations of production. This strategy serves, on the one hand, to maintain the dominant position of the ruling class and, on the other, to reduce the population that was, until recently, essential to production.
The neo-Malthusian ideology of a “licentious life,” embedded in the “March 8 Principles,” halts the biological and social reproduction of surplus individuals from the lower classes through various means. These include introducing legal terms such as “voluntary consent” and “free and informed decision-making” in the context of granting children sexual rights and mothers the right to consume alcohol and drugs during pregnancy, thereby undermining family and role-based identities. It also involves the legalization of drug addiction and income-generating activities like begging and sex work.
The outcome of such initiatives could be the destruction of national legislation as a whole and, consequently, a threat to statehood, erosion of trust in governing authorities, the derationalization of social life, the fomenting of internal societal conflicts, and the dismantling of the family institution and intergenerational connections. On a global scale, this represents yet another challenge to the preservation of the human image — both in its philosophical and religious, as well as scientific, understanding.
(Yana Aleksandrovna Afanasenko and Tatyana Gennadievna Chernova are Candidates of Philosophical Sciences, Associate Professors and Lecturers at the Perm State National Research University, in Perm, Russia)
References
Belkin, V.D. & Storozhenko, V. P. (1995) Ot vyzhivaniya k ustoichivomu razvitiyu [From survival to sustainable development]. Svobodnaya mysl’. (5), 32-41. (In Russian)
Kessidi, F.K. (2004) Globalizatsiya, funktsional’naya asimmetriya mozga i problema integratsii kul’tur [Globalization, functional asymmetry of the brain and the problem of cultural integration]. Filosofiya i obshchestvo. (1), 45-52. (In Russian)
Malthus, T. (2023) Opyt zakona o narodonaselenii [The experience of the law on population]. Moscow. 256 р. (In Russian)
Notes
[1] The 8 March Principles for a Human Rights-Based Approach to Criminal Law Proscribing Conduct Associated with Sex, Reproduction, Drug Use, HIV, Homelessness, and Poverty [Electronic Resource] // ICJ. URL: https://icj2.wpenginepowered.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/03/8-March-Principles-Report_final_print-version.pdf (accessed: 14.05.2024).
[2] Genderism — A New Ideology for Destroying Families [Electronic Resource] // Ivan Chai. Family Policy Information Portal. URL: https://clck.ru/3Aevhz (accessed: 14.05.2024).
[3] 1800 Population Act [Electronic Resource] // UK Parliament. URL: https://clck.ru/3AexcK (accessed: 14.05.2024).
[4] 1834 Poor Law [Electronic Resource] // The National Archives. URL: https://clck.ru/3AewBp (accessed: 14.05.2024).
[5] File: 1815 Corn Law, An Act to Amend the Laws Now in Force for Regulating the Importation of Corn [Electronic Resource] // Wikipedia. URL: https://clck.ru/3AewF3 (accessed: 14.05.2024).
[6] Resources Are Insufficient for Everyone, so Only the Worthy Should Reproduce: What Lies Behind Malthusian Ideas [Electronic Resource] // Perito. URL: https://perito.media/posts/resursov-ne-khvatit-na-vsekh-poetomu-ploditsya-dolzhny-dostoinye-chto-stoit-za-ideyami-maltuzianstva (accessed: 14.05.2024).
[7] The 8 March Principles for a Human Rights-Based Approach to Criminal Law Proscribing Conduct Associated with Sex, Reproduction, Drug Use, HIV, Homelessness, and Poverty…
[8] New UN Document: Morality and Ethics Are Completely Nullified [Electronic Resource] // Redko-da-metko.py. URL: https://clck.ru/3AewKP (accessed: 14.05.2024).
[9] Ibid.
[10] Ibid.
[11] Ibid.
[12] Ibid.
[13] Ibid.
[14] Ibid.
[15] Ibid.
[16] Ibid.
[17] Ibid.
[18] Ibid.
[19] New Legal Principles Launched on International Women’s Day to Advance Decriminalization Efforts [Electronic Resource] // UNAIDS. URL: https://clck.ru/3AewY4 (accessed: 14.05.2024).
[20] New UN Document: Morality and Ethics Are Completely Nullified …
[21] Criminal Code of the Russian Federation of 13.06.1996 No. 63-FZ (as amended on 06.04.2024) [Electronic Resource]. Access via the ConsultantPlus legal information system.
[22] New UN Document: Morality and Ethics Are Completely Nullified.