Marco Travaglio Good morning everyone. This has been another great week for the Italian media. They were able to tell that there were few people in Piazza Navona, and Piazza Navona was full on 8 July. They were able to tell that in Piazza Navona has made a big please Berlusconi, Berlusconi also denied calling trash those who have raised against him. They were able to tell that in Piazza Navona was reviled and insulted the Head of State, the head of a foreign state that Pope Ratzinger, the poor Veltroni. Instead we have forgotten to speak on the subject that had kicked off the event that the laws rogue, and in fact as everyone knows, we spoke almost exclusively of Berlusconi, the Caiman and the rabble its laws and if we talked about others because the others are its voluntary or involuntary allies and help to better explain his resistible rise or third best second resurrection. We were told that people are running scared Piazza Navona is gone but not none. That people do not applaud, while in fact applauded enthusiastically. And in the end they told us that for the Italian national priorities are not these, the Italian citizen does not care about justice, law, the law equal for everyone. E 'indifferent to Alfano immunity of the four state offices or rather to follow Berlusconi, defining events "junk", the high state landfills. Then, fortunately, was released, very hidden in the Corriere della Sera, with a small titoletto, a survey by Renato Mannheimer, which demonstrates the following: the Italians, 29.4%, shared the event. See that the Italians responded not on what actually happened because the television news and newspapers have not told what actually happened but what I wanted to believe it had happened. Well, even on completely distorted the image of an orgy of insults, attacks, violence, insults to democracy and institutions, one third of Italians expressed their support. The most amazing thing is that this third of Italians who were favorable to the event as it was presented, there are a constituent of the Democratic Party in two - 48% - and only one third of the voters of the Democratic Party has followed in his Veltroni total dissociation - among other things, it is not clear well from what dissociates because he never associated those here who make the distance without ever having been close enough to make laugh. But even that that square, the demonstration against the rogue laws against immunity for high office, against the gag law on wiretapping and press freedom, against the blocking process, enjoyed 22% of voters leaguers - a voter League's five - and enjoyed 12% of the voters of the People of Freedom party, that party of Berlusconi and Fini. The square, unlike the center-left leader, managed to speak to an important part and to convince an important part of the center-right voters. This is the reality over fantasy, the magic set in motion by the media system to the manger of the parties. We, fortunately, said that democracy in this infamous, more impaired, is there anyone who still wants to pursue to the end its not right to insult - because no insult was launched - but his right to criticize even strong as happens in democracies: the higher the chair where you sit politically, the larger the right and duty to criticize their citizens, intellectuals, writers, comedians, carpenters, butchers, or anyone who wants to exercise it. Freedom of speech has not been won at the price of blood to applaud the power, because that kind of freedom of speech is also in tyrannies. Freedom of speech has been taken over the blood money for the power to criticize and satire, with its language, can do much more than the criticism - perhaps often pompous - professors, intellectuals and journalists. The satire has always been able to afford what others could not afford, just because the satire is satire. As Daniel says Luttazzi, satire does exactly what the fuck she likes, the only limit is the penal code. In short, we have affirmed the right of criticism and we have exercised to the end. It 's the opposite of law and the applause is the reason why democracies are characterized by dictatorships, where you can talk to applaud the power but not criticizing it. In democracies we can do both without, in theory, be affected. What happened? This survey did not encounter any debate, it was immediately dismissed because voters, when they demonstrate mature, should be criminalized, concealed, we must ensure that people do not know of a couple people, when they behave in a mature manner. So when there's good news from the polls, citizens are hidden. The theory is always the same: the parties are always right, people would follow the good start if not wrong, does not understand, be educated. Should be educated to worship impunity, unequal law for all violations of the Constitution. It should be used, little by little. It should be kept in a state of torpor to avoid awake, he understands that react and are angry that even given what's going on. From this point of view is spectacular, what happens less than a week after the event, namely that the parties are back to do exactly what they were doing two or three years ago before the book "La Casta", before the V- Day, before any controversy rising from below against a ruling class is now closed, self, who speaks only for itself and for itself ... It is this spectacular demonstration
conference organized by Massimo D'Alema, Andreotti this loser, who returns continually, cyclically from the ashes, but he can never win an election unlike Andreotti that, if anything, could win the election. This Andreotti, because it is eternal, but it is a loser because he never won anything. Now he has launched a surprisingly lick your fingers off with an interesting debate on electoral reform in the German! A fascinating topic: Anyone frequent bars, cinemas, subways, buses will hear a buzz, people talking on the other! "When is a German?" Yay, finally! D'Alema and give us back the German system! " And all talk of the German system as if it were the number one problem in the country. Why? Because they believe that given the free pass to Berlusconi with the award Alfano unconstitutional, ruling that even before being signed already have told us from the Quirinal to be signed, although all write and know that it is unconstitutional, now you can forgive Casta comfortable. Why? For the next step. They are already talking about the newspapers, there is another genius of the center, the Mantini ... necessary to give immunity to the others. Why only to Berlusconi and the other not? Among other things today arrested Del Turkish half arrived in the region of Abruzzo. This too is cyclical: as early as '93 was arrested in the block and went to get the dog catcher, they led all in jail for abuse of office and in fact had to decriminalize the abuse of office to get them out of the process. Unfortunately, one remained in the same. Salini was the president, had a conviction for forgery, not only for abuse, and given that the conviction could no longer be president of the region, the Regional Council but not even the mayor of his country, the president of the province, even the District Council, it was decided to promote it in Parliament. You know that with a beautiful sentence can no longer enter the local authorities but in the national Parliament. Then he returned triumphantly in Parliament by prejudiced because it had never happened to be a clean record. We took him to force Italy, Mastella then saw him and envious - you know that when he sees a Mastella affected in another party he is now willing to embrace him and take him though - he managed to convince him and bring him nell'Udeur. Now they have arrested Del Turkish, worthy successor of this Salini. We do not know how it will of course the process, there is even talk of a bribe of € 6 million - that is what you want? It should be allowed to burn the stages. So we know that if they were, unfortunately, sentenced or convicted except by prescription, but as often happened - Andreotti, Berlusconi, D'Alema himself are all excellent prescribed - then Parliament would result in a reward. So I would say: it is useless to the process. Rather than prosecute, indictments, taking surveys, making the hearings that cost a lot of money, do this: dichiariamolo immediately parliamentary law. We avoid this long period of loss of time which is the process: when one is arrested for bribery goes right to the national parliament. It might be a reform that simplifies the legal procedures, judges free from these unnecessary processes that are made to public officials and politicians, so we know that if they condemn him promote it to Parliament. E 'futile wait: promuoviamolo now! Let us give promuoviamolo already convicted and now, as the accessory penalty if convicted for bribery is usually a safe seat in the House or the Senate. The alternative, of course, is the return to parliamentary immunity as the good old days of Tangentopoli, when the parliamentarians if they were entrenched in their castles, drawbridges raised all they could to avoid entering the Carabinieri, Guardia di Finanza police or, not ever that the police or the prosecutor violate the sacred soil of Parliament and then threw boiling oil in the form of denial of authorization to proceed to the magistrates who wanted to pursue the Members for common crimes. This would be a replay of a scene already seen and already he is talking about. At this point I say, but why limit the immunity only to a thousand politicians, those who have had the fortune of the last self-appointed term? Why take it out, for example, the presidents of the regions? We have Turkish in prison, Cuffaro who, poor fellow, had to flee when he was convicted of some mobsters and then took refuge in the Senate, we Bassolino who was indicted for the offense of the garbage, we have another former president region, Lease, which asked shortly before his arrest he found refuge in the House and now is also Minister - because we do not miss anything - we have the president of the Lombardy Region Formigoni yet recorded - they just asked for his sentence a few days is the foundation for the scandal Bussolera Branca. Other maybe it will not limit ourselves to Providence, we have investigated also the President of the Basilicata region in the investigations of De Magistris, we have a region such as Calabria, which has 33 directors to 50 under investigation, on trial or already convicted of - they are 66% - including the President Loiero, he pluriindagato. Then do this: we do extra-large parliamentary immunity covering also all local administrators. You could get back to number 400,000: you know that, according to the book "La Casta", those who live off politics in Italy between elective office, the county and consulting assignments, are 400,000 people living at our expense policy. We could establish that these 400,000 people can do or have done what they want but gives him the license of political immunity, so at least you do not speak more privileges to the four high-ranking, three of which, inter alia, have yet to process and then did not understand why being immunized. Doing so would make something a bit 'more equitable because it is actually a bit' little restore parliamentary immunity only for a thousand, leaving everyone else at the mercy of judges. After all, as the Knight in need of serenity, tranquility and also time to be able to do without his cock that interfere with the judicial process, it is right that even a mayor, chairperson, a provincial council have the right serenity and the right time to get their cocks in turn robbed. Let's make it immune to all, we create a category of acquired immune deficiency or immunodelinquenti purchases. As the great Claudio Rinaldi in L'Espresso, the authorization to proceed, in Italy, approval immediately becomes a criminal. Sappiamolo, that if we commit a crime we should at least grab a quiet spot in a city council, or patience to resign ourselves to the role of the robbed, which also is the role that each of us carries with dozens and dozens of years, depending of our birth date. Here, the important thing is to know - And they're already doing - that when we come to tell of a time, in good times, when the Constitution was respected was the parliamentary immunity that protects Members of Parliament from surveys, are lying. In the sense that the parliamentary immunity as telling them never existed. Parliamentary immunity is intended as a space shield that protects the parliamentary investigations has never existed in the Italian Parliament. There was something different, very different, much more limited than was the authorization to proceed. What does it mean? That a magistrate before they can investigate a politician had to ask Parliament if he had no objection. The Parliament could not block the investigation: he had a duty to grant authorization to proceed, unless an exceptional case, namely that there was evidence that that investigation had a parliamentary political purposes. That is, there was no evidence of accused - did not find money, they had found no evidence, no witnesses were not cooperating, they had called in fly - but was simply a theory that suggested a prosecution. That is, there was no money to Mills, there was a letter from Mills which reads, "Mr. B. gave me the money," there were no phone calls Berlusconi Saccà girls who trade in exchange for money or of senators who do the turnaround, there were calls from politicians who climbed banks. Here, there was nothing if not, in fact, probably invented by a judge who wanted to hit this parliamentary politicized for political purposes. About who was cut this rule? It was cut up any opposition which, perhaps, had done some act a bit 'extreme: a public denunciation somewhat' exaggerated a roadblock, an occupation of land, a picketing, a strike by train for an event block trains for demonstration purposes, a conscientious objection to the streets like those of Pannella, which distributed the joints against the prohibition. Things like: investigations into political crimes maybe made by magistrates, it was feared in '46-'48 by the founding fathers, were so approved, subservient to culture, social class power, the government can do a service to the government to release him from some uncomfortable opponent. This was the "ratio of this standard. So much so that until the Parliament was a serious matter this rule has been used with extreme caution. Then he began to svaccare: in the seventies and eighties, when they left the investigation of serious corruption, mafia-political relations, that authorization to proceed began to be denied us in those exceptional cases, when the Constitution provided that it could be denied, but almost automatically, almost always to cover investigations of political persecution and had nothing but at least they had the money, the relationship with the mafia, all the accusations, all the evidence and the evidence. It was said that there was still a prima persecutionis and was denied permission to proceed. The scandal was such that people could not take any more, so much so that in '92, these guys were barricaded in the building not only for protection by the courts but also to protect themselves from voters who, having discovered how they used the power, they wanted him the skin. Does anyone remember the very unpleasant episodes as throwing coins, politicians chased through the streets shouting "thief!" Thief. " It was the last happy moment of a democracy where citizens still had to care about the fate of their future and what they thought were going to say directly to their representatives. At that point in an attempt to recover a minimum of credibility, Parliament stripped of that institution which had become abusive. A bit 'as they are now voting for their neighbors - are the pianists - and make a law to keep from voting for their neighbors. They realized that the temptation was too strong or making a law to cut their hands or those hands would have continued to use them to become immune. Thus, a constitutional law was repealed the authorization to proceed with investigations. It remained, of course, to stop - can not be stopped without the consent of any Member of Parliament -: Parliament never gives consent. Just the other day, Parliament has refused to authorize the arrest for Senator of the People of Freedom Nicola De Girolamo, elected in the Europe by standing abroad and claiming to be resident in Belgium, but was not at all true. That is, it is disguised as a resident alien and definitely not in Belgium. We are talking about a fraud to the voters, if it were demonstrated, but since he was elected can not be stopped. So, to stop always deny it because we still want the authorization to proceed. To deny the interceptions because we always want more. On the other hand, no judge would ever think to call a parliamentary saying "look, you're going to catch, so much so that we ask you and your friends or cronies permission interception. Either you do or do not surprise you. Idem regarding raids. He, therefore, unless permission to do the investigation. Then he remained an area of \u200b\u200babsolute immunity in Parliament as part of your duties or when you rate the performance of your duties. I can not try because you voted in one way rather than another, in Parliament, and I can not process even when you're spoken to Parliament, making a complaint, a petition, a parliamentary . Even this has strategic abused by fall in the external exercise of the functions a number of insults - insults while Sgarbi think half the world until he was Parliamentary aspires to be immune from consequences of abuse. He insults a citizen and one can not have justice. The citizen complaint and he criticizes him, because "I know 'me and you're not a dick", as rightly said the Marchese del Grillo citing Gioacchino Belli. Well, this is no immunity in nearly all countries for which only the words spoken and the votes cast, while the immunity they want to restore is bad in the sense that it protects, in advance of the parliamentary investigation that may involve crimes, crimes related to the function, crimes committed during the exercise of parliamentary duties but also before. E 'then the authorization to commit a crime, the incentive to commit a crime and then to jump into Parliament. Or, the incentive those who are already in Parliament to commit crimes with impunity, so why then are denied permission to proceed. The fact that the wish to restore, and which has declared he wants to restore because it would not even need the immunity law, as Berlusconi also would be covered by immunity retroactively for already begun the process before - that lock together with those of Dell'Utri , Cuffaro, of all the members of the center-right and center we have said in the book "If you know avoid them" - it means they do not want to restore what the founding fathers had set up, namely the exceptional opportunity to block investigations of persecution for purposes politicians. They want restore the version that they had turned into an abuse, one that automatically blocked processes. Why evident than ever, even under the old Article 68 of the Constitution abolished in '93, one might have thought to block the process or process Saccà Mills. Why? Because the process bag is full of trials and have provided their own Berlusconi Saccà with their calls, there is no shadow of politics in everything because they are the ones who speak! Where is the prima persecutionis? They are the ones who have stuck with their own words. Similarly the process never Mills could be reinstated blocked pursuant to Article 68 as it was before '93 because Mills is in the process the confession of Mills to his accountant in which he says exactly "Mr. B. gave me my $ 600,000 in exchange for false testimony or reticent." What they want is to restore the rule of our founding fathers, which no longer has any meaning because fortunately we no longer have a judiciary subservient to the government that may affect men of the opposition, but we have the exact opposite. A government that would block investigations against members of the judiciary of the government, not against opposition members. Magistrates accused of being too independent of the government and the majority of the time. Prepare, of course, because I believe that we will try and probably succeed: there is a broad cross-party consensus, I believe that until now only Di Pietro has said that immunity does not even talk about it while there are vast areas in the center of permeability to this call of the wild. All immune and do not talk about it anymore. So much so that the PD wants to ally with the UDC, which is always presented as the party dell'avvenente Casini and forget that the UDC would not exist if it had not Cuffaro and his friends' friends in Sicily and if there was to 'praeclara other figure of public morality is Lorenzo Cesa, leader of the UDC very active - as you know - even in Calabria, see surveys by De Magistris, who are now taking off his so-called gentlemen. So, speaking of the German electoral law, speak of dialogue with the UDC, prepare immunity urbi et orbi, plenary secula seculorum. As if the book "La Casta" was not released, the V-Day as if there had never been for the political class. Fortunately, as we said, citizens "The Caste" is an important book, the V-Day is an important thing, events such as the Piazza Navona are applauded by one third of Italians, from the middle of the electorate and even the PD one-fifth of voters in the league and a tenth of those of the center. In short, voters are a few miles ahead of our ruling class, simply do not make them feel alone and not make them feel stupid. So let him know what to think and feel it is a good thing and not something to be ashamed of. As usual, spread the word and get ready for a fall referendum. Thanks.
0 comments:
Post a Comment