Several Arguments on Restrictions on the Rights and Freedoms of Citizens in Pandemic Emergencies

The restriction of rights and freedoms is objectively inevitable. However, the criteria for making appropriate decisions at the level of federal legislation, although established in the norm of Article 55 of the Constitution of the Russian Federation, are very diverse and require different technologies and boundaries. Among them, such grounds as the interests of protecting morality and health need the most fine-tuning. The circumstances of the coronavirus pandemic confirmed this, being the prerequisites for the introduction of a package of restrictions and prohibitions along with positive measures to support citizens in a difficult life situation. A significant part of the protective measures is based on a clear justification. However, some of them, both at the federal and especially at the regional level, including law enforcement practice, are justly criticized in legal doctrine, political science and sociology. The greatest concentration of criticism should be directed at restrictions and prohibitions for the elderly. In fact, the requirements of strict self-isolation have led to the emergence of a new type of discriminated minorities. Moreover, the results of sociological research indicate the undesirability and harmfulness (albeit relative) of an excessive paternalistic approach to the problems of older people, which reduces their potential for resistance to age. The orientation towards self-assessment of one’s strength and voluntary conscious self-restraint is more consistent with the features and meanings of the "silver age" (In this regard, the main religious denominations have succeeded more). The state needs to adjust the standards of its actions in emergencies regarding the population as a whole and its individual groups based on the experience gained and public demand.