The Italianist

After a (very long) series of adventures (see previous post), regional elections finally took place in Italy over the last two days. Reports can be found here, here and here.

Some will celebrate the charismatic leaders  who have won this exciting political contest. Others will mourn the sinking of Italy’s opposition against a coalition that makes every effort to be defeated. Others, and I am among them, will nonetehless be positively surprised by some results. That’s life.

The PM, in the meantime, remains vigilant over Italy, keen to defend its image both at home and abroad:

Augusto Minzolini is the editor of the news on the Italian channel RAI 1,the principal channel on Italian TV. Hence, the principal TV news programme. TG1 is what families always watch during dinner: back home after a hard day at work, they can finally relax and enjoy a good home-made meal, while being informed on what happens in the world. It is the main channel of TV information in Italy, at least in terms of audience size.

Minzolini was elected for this role on 20^th May 2009, after a career in journalism and cinema. The latter reveals he is at ease when appearing on the TV screen: as we will see, that has turned out to be the key quality in his role as editor. Regarding the former, Minzolini is famous for having  introduced a new journalistic style, allegedly labelled ‘minzolinismo’ . 

Minzolinismo relies on “collecting ‘informal’ statements from politicians without checking over their validity”. One may be slightly reluctant to define this ‘a journalistic style’: it would be a bit like introducing a style of cooking that relies on throwing random stuff in a pot, and boiling it for a certain amount of time, then serving it into leather shoes.

Anyway, one should not ask too many questions. Furthermore, this may well be a case of a genius, one who revolutionizes an entrenched tradition by violating the accepted rules. Actually, it must be so: otherwise, why would they elect him director of the main TV News programme?

This is Augusto Minzolini:

Once he became editor of TG1, he exported his minzolinistic approch also to the world of editing. As applied to TV journalism,  minzolinism is characterised by the use of direct-to-camera editorials. What happens is that at some point during the TV news, the flashy head of Minzolini appears on the screen and takes over. For about 2-3 minutes, the director expresses his thoughts about one the central issues in the Italian news. This raises a couple of questions: 1) How can his head be so flashy? What is it made of? 2) Why the editorial? Why does the director of the public news channel need to step in and tell the audience what he thinks the right answer is?

Rather, it seems appropriate for him to remain in the background, to define the editorial line –for sure- yet not acting himself as a journalist. He can certainly express his views, but he may well do that on other occasions than on the news he directs. News programmes are to report facts, not to tell people how to understand the facts. Hence, here is Mizolini’s innovative contribution: minzolinismo means that the deus ex machina can also appear and talk.

On the day he took office at the TG1, Minzolini made his first appearance on the screen to explain his manifesto. His goal -he stated- would have been ‘to deal with the real life of the people’, and ‘to make the audience not just an audience, but also a co-editor’. Rightly so. Unfortunately, he then pushed the ‘real life of the people’ line too far, by claimed that the accusations against the Italian PM, that so much spice gave to our last summer, were pathetic. This immediately posed problems to the minzolinic directing style.

In fact, as it happens to all the geniuses, the world was not ready yet to receive minzolinismo. So a few days later, the TG1 was widely criticised for not reporting anything at all regarding the aforementioned scandals: the news were all about football, sun, and holidays. Minzolini gave his explanation, in one of his direct-to-camera editorials, by confirming that what he intended to do was to talk about what really is important, not the stupid gossip of journalists that enjoy throwing mud at respectable people.

In October, a huge protest took place in Rome in defence of press freedom, after Governamental decisions against some overly-critical journalists. During TG1, an even flashier Minzolini appeared on the screen, to make it clear that he found that protest ‘incomprehensible’, and that Italy enjoyed the highest level of freedom of expression. The fact that he was expressing himself freely on TV was the sign of this.

Pure art.

Nevertheless, criticisms of his style increased. Bu so did also the frequency with which he flashily defended his mission. On 11^th December, during a trial, the mafia turncoat Gaspare Spatuzza mentioned alleged connections between the Mafia and the actual Government. On the same day, Minzolini appeared on the news (again, the public news), just to clarify that Spatuzza’s claims were “bullshit which contributed to damaging the image of Italy”.

A few days later, on the 14^th, Berlusconi was hit in the face by an object thrown at him by a protester. Minzolini commented, in one of his stylish editorials, that criticisms of the PM had created a ‘climate of hatred that is leading to civil war.’ It was time to stop, once and for all, to criticise the PM. Enjoy your meal.

The new year did not bring better luck to Minzolini’s attempt to innovate the art of directing the news. A big polemic followed the decision of Milan’s mayor, LetiziaMoratti, to entitle a street to Bettino Craxi, as part of a broader attempt to rehabilitate the memory of one of the most corrupted politicians of the 80-90s. Minzolini then performed again. In one of his editorials, he defined Craxi “a great statesman”. According to Minzo, Craxi had been turned into the scapegoat of a system that had resisted after the Cold War. He had been a great statesman, and it was now time to look at him “with history’s eyes”. Unfortunately, once again the world was not ready for this, and Minzolini was accused of serving the PM’s desire to rehabilitate the image of a politician with whom he had shared so much. This is Bettino Craxi in an old picture (on the right, with a friend):

 

The story continues. In his effort to tell the audience/co-editor about the Government’s performance, the editor of the public news directed his team to show how well things are going in L’Aquila, the city in central Italy struck by a powerful earthquake in April 2009. The PM had made it clear from the beginning that the Government would have made every effort to help the population of L’Aquila: together with the Head of the Civil Protection, Guido Bertolaso, he set out to rebuild central Italy. Thus, the TG1 regularly showed reports of happy people, new houses, politicians’ promising/accomplishing things, order returning, etc.

Sadly, that did not seem to have captured entirely what is happening in L’Aquila. When, later, a troupe of TG1 went to L’Aquila again, an angry mob attacked them and sent them away, yelling “Go away, scondinzolini!” The term ‘scodinzolini’ seems to be a mixture of the aforementioned ‘minzolini’, and of the verb ‘scodinzolare’, wagging. Look where the attempt to make his audience also co-editor took him: the angry mob had clearly misunderstood Minzo’s attempt to report on ‘what people really care about’, for him wagging the tail at the PM.

There have been many more episodes, in which Minzolini has employed his style towards a precise and efficient News service. Even more, though, has been the ostracism he’s had to face from those who are against his pioneering approach. In fact, a few days ago, phone tappings have been revealed in which, allegedly, the Italian PM calls Minzolini to tell him what he has to say in the TG1. It is alleged that in these phone calls, the PM calls Minzolini “direttorissimo” (“super-editor”).  

 

Faithful to his style, Minzolini reacted to this attack to his style yesterday, during the news on the public channel, claiming “they (who?) want to shut my mouth. They want a ‘halved editor. But I will not be a halved-editor”.

However, his head looked vaguely less flashy.

The opposition Party in Italy is not doing very well. While the PM seems to be facing a never-ending series of problems, the Left endlessly fails to corner him and – God forbid- try to defeat him. So if on the one hand there is growing despair that things will ever change, on the other there is a clear sense that the Left  is not an opposition Party at all.

It is a short step for the leftist voter to feel depressed. You have a Government that you hate, and no Party that truly fights for your cause. “What’s the point?”- one may think? Apathy may just be behind the corner, and this would help preserving Italy’s stagnant political scene.

Luckily, the leaders of Rifondazione Comunista, the heirs of the old Communist Party, have come up with the right move to motivate their depressed electorate. New posters have begun to pop up around italian cities:

“I join Rifondazione Comunista because … I am a classy woman“

The communist wears Prada, so to speak. Definitely, the best reply to the Right-wing Party. Put on your make-up, people: the time for revolution is coming.

I have been unable to write on the blog in the last two weeks, and Italy hasn’t stood waiting for me.. So I’m going to post a brief overview of what’s going on in the cradle of the Roman Empire, hoping to go more into details over the next days.

Legitimate Impediment

In its strenuous fight against communist judges seeking to prevent the PM from saving the country from hell, the Italian Government has proposed a new bill exempting politicians from appearing at the trial if a ‘legitimate impediment’ occurs. On a loose reading of this proposal, a Minister (especially a Prime Minister) can say no to an order to appear at a trial (especially a trial where he is the accused one) if he’s busy.

Unnatural Rights

The Pope has urged Catholics churches in England and Wales to oppose the Equality Bill. The idea of equal rights, said the Pope, is against the natural law. Some failed to see the Catholic spirit behind Ratzi’s pledge.

Silent voting

Italy is the country of the freedom of information and of expression, as it is well known. The Government is committed to preserving citizens’ right to be informed and to make free choices about which Party to support. It is in this spirit that, in view of the regional elections in late March 2010, the Government has banned all political talks on TV in the month before the elections. This is meant to guarantee that voters’ minds not be polluted with subversive messages. The bill applies only to State-owned TV channels, RAI, and not to private ones, owned by the PM.

How to lead a proper relief operation

In the aftermath of the catastrophic Haiti earthquake, the head of Italian Civic Protection Department, Guido Bertolaso, (a man who worked closely with the PM to help the population of l’Aquila, in central Italy, after the earthquake a year ago), criticised the US Government for the way it was handling the relief operation. Bertolaso, whom I have discovered today to have been the head of the Civic Protection Dept under the last 14 legislatures, is now on the news again:  phone tapping have been published concerning the way he runs the business of civic protection. 

In the Name of the Father

The son of  Vito Ciancimino, the first politician to be found guilty of Mafia membership, during a trial has produced a letter his father allegedly sent to Silvio Berlusconi, outlining conditions for a pact between the Mafia and the State. The papello, as the letter is called, contained a series of requests the Mafia made to the State to stop the campaign of terrorist attacks in 1992-3. This casts some shadows on the origins of Berlusconi’s political career. More on the papello can be found here.

For the Francophones

France is still coping with the defeat in the Wold Cup final, four years ago. So, they are still trying to show that they are better than Italy, and that they should have won instead…

A month has gone since the day the Italian PM Berlusconi was hit by a statuette of the Duomo in Milan, thrown at his face by a mentally ill person, Massimo Tartaglia. The world still remembers, and will for a long time, the shocking images of Berlusconi’s face covered in blood, his eyes staring blankly at the cameras.. That was really a scary episode, and it has been described as the result of the “climate of hatred” that anti-democratic individuals had fostered against the PM in the months leading to the attack.

Sadly, the Government had to (temporarily..) give up some of the most urgent and necessary measures to prevent further spreading of hatred.  Hence, the enemies of democracy have been able to come back on track, and use the internet to keep the fire of hatred going. Now, some of these emenies of democracy are even claiming that Berlusconi had not been injured at all, and that the attack was set up by the PM’s entourage. How could they say so? I am going to mention a few anti-democratic points about the accident.

Here is, once more, a video of what happened:

One main anti-democratic question has to do with the PM’s security service. In a case like that, it is expected they protect the PM’s safety, by taking him away immediately from the place of the attack. There could be other attackers ready to strike again. Instead, Berlusconi was taken into the car, which remained there. After a while, he came out again. His security guys even helping him to stand up and show himself to the public! I can see two explanations for this (apart, of course, from the anti-democratic one): a) Security did not know of the climate of hatred ; b) Berlusconi was showing Italians that a further increase in the tax load will be justified by the cost of re-making his face.

The infamous statuette of the Duomo was never found. We know that it is what Tartaglia used to hit Berlusconi. But how do we know that, since it’s never been found? Also, some point out, undemocratically, the strange trajectory the object has when it hit the PM, and his very unnatural reaction when hit by it. He covers his face with a coat, or a bag, or whatever black he has in his hands. A Youtube video highlights the strange fact that, before throwing the object at Berlusconi, Tartaglia is standing just between two journalists, one holding a TV camera, another holding a microphone. According to an anti-democratic theory, the man with the microphone says something to Tartaglia, before the latter carries out his evil act.

In an undemocratic frame, it appears quite clearly that there is no blood on Berlusconi’s face when he enters the car. That frame refers to a moment in which Tartaglia has been already identified and immobilized by the security service: which means, some 20seconds (or more) after the object hit Berlusconi’s face. No sign  of blood. Then Silvio goes into the car, and when he gets out, blood everywhere.

Not really everywhere, actually. After the promenade, Berlusconi is taken to the hospital. His personal doctor, Alberto Zagrillo, informs the journalists of the PM conditions: the impact with the little sculpture of Milan’s Duomo had caused a fractured nose, two broken teeth, a facial trauma. Berlusconi had also lost half-a litre of blood.

Yet there is no trace of this bloodshed on his face: his shirt is perfectly white. No blood running from his nose.

The anti-democrats say this was all set up to get Berlusconi out of the fire, after months of accusations for sex scandals, corruption, anti-constitutional laws and mafia links. This is all impossible, of course: Berlusconi entered politics SIXTEEN years ago, promising a “New Italian Miracle”.

He has clearly fulfilled his promise:

13th December 2009

6th January 2010

When it comes to football, human beings are meant to be inclined to lose some of their basic social skills. In a sport that tends to focus on the result over than anything else, it is quite easy to get more concerned with pushing the ball into the goal and not on showing ‘a virtuous character’. In fact, for many people ‘virtue’ probably means ‘winning’.. Italy is not exception: rather, Italy is probably one of the main examples of this kind of approach to the ethics of football. We tend to get quite extreme (some would say simply ‘passionate’), though we are surely not too extreme.

So, what happened on last sunday during the Ascoli-Reggina match came as a surprise, and initiated an ongoing debate about what is right or wrong in football. At some point during the match, one player on Reggina’s side got injured: everyone, as it usually happens in cases like these, stopped playing so to let the guy come back on the pitch. However, one of Ascoli’s player, allegedly not noticing what was going on, kept running with the ball towards Reggina’s goal. He did not encounter any opposition from his opponents (the ref had not stopped the game though), so he carried on, and once in front of the goal he passed the ball a teammate, who scored. Reggina was not very happy with that kind of behaviour: a fight between the players started immediately after. Nonetheless, the ref validated the goal (which was, in fact, a valid goal).

But here is the coupe de theatre: after this dodgy goal, Ascoli’s coach, Bepi Pillon, told his guys to let Reggina make a goal, so to equalise the score. Thus, to the dismal of Ascoli’s supporters, the Regginians moved easily through Ascoli’s defence, the keeper did not move, Reggina scored. 1-1. A video of this surreal match is here.

Unfortunately this display of honesty did not help Ascoli win, and the match ended 3-1 for Reggina. Still, we were left with a somewhat refreshing message about the value of fair-play against what Weber called “the disenchantment of the world”. This was especially significant in this case, given that Ascoli is fighting to avoid relegation in Serie C and now, after this defeat, is closer to the abyss..

In fact the media are celebrating Ascoli’s act for its display of ‘fair play’. Even the Herald Tribune today dedicated an article to Pillon, suggesting he should be awarded the FIFA Fairplay Prize 2009. The only ones who were not delighted by Ascoli’s gesture were, unsurprisingly, Ascoli’s supporters.. Actually, they seemed to have been quite upset by the choice of letting Reggina score. When asked whether he would do it again, a sad Pillon replied “I don’t know”. Then he continued: “In Italy people make too much of these things. When I went abroad, I saw a different kind of football. Here, everything is so exasperated, too many interests, and too many situations that turn playing into pain, instead of joy.”

However, in a sport where you can qualify for the World Cup by openly cheating with your hands, and then pretend to be sorry, the case of Ascoli, a small team fighting for survival in Serie B, is to be praised.

Yet, I admit being happy that I am not an Ascoli supporter.. But I’m much, much happier, that I am not French.

(infophoto)

At the trial against Marcello Dell’Utri, the Mafia witness Gaspare Spatuzza has confirmed in front the judges what he had previously told the prosecutors:

“Graziano told me that we had got everything thanks to the reliability of the persons that carried out the deal. Two names were mentioned to me: that of Berlusconi and that of Dell’Utri. (…) Because of the reliability of these persons, the country had been basically put in our hands”.

Info in english can be found here, here and here.

The Italian PM Silvio Berlusconi went to Belarus yesterday to pay a visit to the country’s President, Alexander Lukashenko. The event gained relevance on the news worldwide, for it was the first visit of a Western leader to a country which, since 1991, had not had friendly links with the West. This visit is meant to represent a reopening of good relationships between Belarus and the West. A fuller description of the meeting can be found here, and here .

This is Lukashenko:

This guy is an interesting character. Some called him “Europe’s last dictator“. He supported the coup against Gorbachev, in 1991, and then succeeded in being elected President of Belarus in 1994, a position he has kept since then (incidentally, Berlusconi was elected PM, for the first time, in the same year. Mere coincidences.) A fuller biographical profile of Lukashenko can be found here. He has been widely criticized for making comments in which he seemed to imply that Hitler was an example of a great politician. Particularly, he is criticized for a too authoritarian regime, serious human right violations, violent repression of dissent and – allegedly- the ‘suppression’ of some opponents.

Berlusconi, on meeting Alex the Great, highlighted how Alex is loved by his people. Belarussians “love you, which is shown by the elections,” Berlusconi told Lukashenko. More than a meeting, the event became a competition for the best compliment. Did Silvio fall in love?

I wonder why Berlusconi chose such a controversial character to visit, given all the mess that is already going on in Italy at the moment. The italian news report the two reached agreements on the adoption of Belarusian children by Italians: definitely worth a trip to Belarus. Silvio will have time to deal with his own country, later.

It’s hard not to talk about the last proposal from the Italian Government to reform the judicial system. The legal apparatus represents the core of the present Government’s concerns. The Italian PM has always made clear that he intends to fight, wholeheartedly, against what he sees as the pathology of our society: namely, the judiciary. One of the main faults of the Italian legal system is that there are too many trials, too much money is spent on them, and most of all, they last for too long. This is a serious problem for Italy. So, here is the solution: make the trial shorter! If the accused is not definitely proven guilty after 6 years, the trial ends (with an acquittal, of course) due to the statute of limitations. A full account of this bill can be found here , here, and here. 

There are different ways to explain this governmental policy. Some (probably judge-related) people say it is the umpteenth act of a man who seeks to avoid the legal consequences of his illegal conduct. Some offer a medical explanation for this new bill (see this interesting blog.) Rather than going into the details of this new law, I think it is important to focus on the Government’s effort to make the legal system “better”.

Berlusconi, as I said, has been the leader of the crusade to extirpate the cancer of legal justice from Italy. He’s been doing this for 15 years. He’s the William Wallace who screams “Freedom!” against the judge who orders him to confess. We should give him credit for this.  

 I think it is important to offer a brief summary of Silvio’s strenuous effort to reform the legal system. (This is going to be a very short selection.) 

 In 1994, Berlusconi has just won the election. Yet, he already knows who his enemy is. Thus, he decides to take action immediately against the worrying number of arrests in Italy. This happens just after the scandal of Bribesville has just wiped out  the italian political class (so to speak: they all, minus one, came back later). The Minister of Justice (at that time), Alfredo Biondi, then proposes a bill  to avoid pre-trail arrest for some crimes, including corruption. Incidentally, the brother of Berlusconi, Paolo, is under charge for corruption.

In  2001, the second Berlusconi Government prescribes that rogatory letters are not be considered valid evidence at a trial. It is a coincidence that this law makes it harder to investigate some dodgy story about Cesare Previti, the (at the time) lawyer of Berlusconi, who is accused of corrupting some judges in Rome. A few months later, another strategic move to fight the judges’ interference with the life of the good citizens: the depenalization of account business fraud. A side-effect of this bill is that Berlusconi’s  involvement in three trials for account fraud is put on hold. 

Later in 2002, the Cirami bill  allows defendants to ask for the transfer of their trial to a different court, when there is ‘reasonable suspicion’ that the judges are biased. Now, it seems that this bill may be a cause of the extreme lengths of criminal trials in Italy and that, therefore, it goes against Berlusconi’s effort to make the legal system go smoothly. Nevermind. Also, as an effect of the Cirami bill, Berlusconi’s trial for bribing judges in the SME affair move towards a quick conclusion.

In 2004, judges are still threatening Italy’s health, trying to put politicians under charge. Hence, the Schifani bill declares the immunity for the 5 highest figures of the State, and the immediate stop to any legal proceeding they might be involved into. The 5 are: the President of the Republic, the President of the Senate, the President of the Chamber, the Prime Minister, the President of the Constitutional Court. When the bill is proposed, only the Prime Minister has (several) legal trials to deal with. Nonetheless, it is clear that the law is meant to be to the country’s benefit. Unfortunately, the judges manage to prevail again and the bill is rejected for violating the Italian Constitution.  

At this point, the strategy becomes clear: we need shorter trials. Hence, the ex-Cirielli bill is issued, with the aim of halving the status of limitation. Again, as an effect of this law, many of the charges Berlusconi is dealing with are cancelled. Also, Cesare Previti, his ex-lawyer, seems to benefit from the bill, to the point that some ignorant still call it ”Save Previti Law“. 

The truce does not last for long. Italy is still ill, the pathology (the judges) is still dragging it towards the abyss. Thus the Government makes a new attempt to cure Italy. This is the famous Alfano bill. This law is very similar to the previous, unconstitutional,  Schifani bill, yet it has a crucial difference: it holds not that the 5, but only the 4 highest figures of the State are beyond the law. (The poor President of the Consitutional Court can, instead, be charged for illegal behaviour. Probaly, Alfano must have thought  “That’s why the previous bill was unconstitutional! Gotcha!”). Like with the Schifani bill, when the Alfano bill is proposed the only ‘figure’ who’s got (lots of) trials to deal with is the Prime Minister. This time too, the blindness of the Consitutional Court rejects the bill as violating the principles of the Italian Constitution.

The Italian Government must, at this point, realize that the only effective way to fight the judges is to go back to the attempt to shorten the trials as much as possible. A strategy that seems to have been more successful than trying to establish immunity. Notice that the principle behind the latter idea was “we’ll charge them later”. Now, the policy seems to shift to “we charge them now, briefly and that’s it”. With some provisos, of course.

In fact, the new statutes of limitations would apply only if one has a clean record. Does it mean that those who have not been condemned in the past because of statute of limitations are covered by the law? Yes, it means that. Does it also mean that, if (for example) I’ve been previously found guilty of immigration, the new bill will not apply to me and I will have to go to the whole length? Yes, in the name of law.

But what if I have corrupted judges, yet have not been condemned because of the statutes of limitations? Then I’ll be covered by the bill. Which means: if someone wants to put me under trial now, they’d better be quick. Very quick.

Both national and international news are reporting a decision of the European Court of Human Rights  against crucifixes in public schools in Italy. The ruling has caused an immediate outcry of anger and disdain towards what, for many, is a threat to Italy’s cultural foundations. TheECHR specifies that the presence of the crucifix, ”which is impossible not to notice in classroom,could be easily interpreted by students of any age as a religious symbol”; and this would make them feel they are being educated in an environment carrying the mark of a specific religion. This, in turn, would violate “the right of the parents to educate children as to their own wishes”, and also the liberty of religions of pupils. More details of this story can be found here, here and here.

Italian politicians have joined their voices in joining the Vatican’s voice in condemning the ECHR’s decision. The Vatican has commented that the ruling is “myopic and misled”. A full version (in italian) can be found on the CEI website. Politicians have followed suit.

Here’s a brief selection of these comments. While reading them, keep in mind Italy is ruled by Berlusconi. The italian magazine Oggi published last year some pictures of the italian PM discussing catholic values with the young generations, warning them of the risk of losing our cultural foundations.

 

 

 

 

Yes, that’s him.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Gabriella Carlucci, from PDL, the right-wing coalition, underlines that “the crucifix is a symbol of Italy’s history and culture, hence of our country’s identity, and it constitutes the symbol of principles of equality, tolerance, and our State’s secularism”. Someone might spot a contradiction in the appeal to secularism to defend the crucifix. But she has made her point. For those of you who don’t know her, here’s a picture of Carlucci:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Alessandra Mussolini, the granddaughter of the more popular Benito (the one on the left in this picture), has commented that the ECHR’s decision tends to “cancel our Christian roots,  and to block a process of real integration. We are creating an identity-less Europe. Therefore, it is now urgent to insert the principles of Christianity in our Constitution”. One might point out that if those principles are not in the Constitution, there must be a reason. But she has made her point too. Here’s a picture of a younger Alessandra campaigning for European identity:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Next comes Mara Carfagna, Italy’s charming Minister for Equal Opportunities: “The crucifix is not only a religious symbol, but it’s also a testimony of a thousand-year tradition, of values shared but the entire Italian population.” She then adds: “ Others, and surely not the presence of a crucifix in classrooms, are the real limitations to individual liberty. I am thinking of the burqa and the niqab.” Well said, Minister of Equal Opportunities. It’s hard to find a picture that gives the right credit to the values we all share, and that she embodies. I try this one anyway:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Davide Boni, from the Northern League, warns that “ people who cancel their own history are doomed to lose themselves, selling themselves to cultures which are stranger to them. [These cultures] share nothing with those who took part in building and raising not only our own country but Europe itself. But now, that very Europe expects to wipe the slate clean.”

Boni has always been committed to the idea of preserving the values of our people: he is the mind behind the Northern Leagues’ proposal to ban kebab and foreign food from italian cities. This is Davide, the polenta supporter:

 

 

 

 

As his t-shirt points out, “Women from the Northern League are the best”.

 

 

 

 

 

Faced with the ECHR’s ruling, Maurizio Gasparri wonders: “What kind of Europe is this? Surely it is not by denying the identity or history of an entire people that minorities’ rights are guaranteed . We are faced with a lay drift that has nothing to do with religious freedom. Italy is a country that bases, and recognizes, itself in the values of Christianity. The crucifix is a symbol of all that. We reclaim its presence in the schools as in all the institutional places.” He concludes, ”We will consider the issue of whether to maintain those institutions [the European Union?] that cost us so much.” This is Gasparri:

 

 

 

 

 

 

Ups, I got confused, sorry. I mean, this is Gasparri:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

When Italy declared illegal immigration to be a crime, Gasparri said he was proud of that decision. However, the Vatican criticised the Government’s decision as being against the values of Christianity. To make things even, Gasparri probably suggested that every boat shipping immigrants to Italy should have its crucifix. (He didn’t, actually.)

Hard times, then, for our traditions. A Facebook group was born immediately after the ECHR’s decision became public. The group’s name is  “You take the crucifix off the wall? I’ll cut your hands off!”. (“Tu stacchi il crocifisso dal muro? E io ti stacco le mani!”). An updated version of the Christian value, in which we all recognise ourselves, “if a man slaps your cheek, offer him the other cheek to slap”.