Dear Director Feltri,
I would like his opinion on an affair that, frankly, left me speechless: I refer to the decision of the European Parliament’s legal affairs commission, which rejected the request for revocation of parliamentary immunity to Ilaria Salis, with a very narrow vote (13 to 12). In October we will vote in the plenary, but in the meantime I wonder: what idea of justice conveys all this?
Isn’t it a bit too comfortable to apply to escape a process? And even more absurd that an institution like the European Parliament becomes the golden refuge of those who, in the past, have collected complaints and convictions for attacks on the state?
I would like to know from her: is this the democracy we defend?
Roberta Scotto
Dear Roberta,
No, this is not the democracy we defend. But it is, alas, the one that we have to live in these years of red indulgence, in which everything is forgiven, everything is justified, provided that “anti -fascism” is shouted and the “right” flag is waved.
The Ilaria Salis case is the umpteenth shame of a system that becomes a mockery of legality, state and institutions. And it is already quite scandalous that to subtract a person from a regular criminal trial, process, not platoon of execution, the tricks of the political candidacy has been sought, and even managed to elect it, exploiting the well -packaged victimism and sold by a certain ideologized press.
But what does even more disgust is that an authoritative organ as a commission of the European Parliament has voted, albeit of a whisker, to maintain it immunity, in fact preventing justice that it runs its course.
The principle, which was once sacrosanct, today seems to be overturned: you are no longer innocent until proven otherwise, it has been untouchable until it is convenient to be politically out of you. And if your untreatment coincides with a certain deployment, then you can also take a carabiniere, you will always find someone ready to defend you.
And no, it’s not an exaggeration. Mrs. Salis is not a unfortunate worker accused by mistake. He has collected precedents for crimes related to violence against the police, damage, public disorders. An objectively antistal profile, which has nothing to do with normal democratic dialectic. Here we are not talking about ideas, but of attacks. We are not talking about dissent, but of physical attacks on representatives of the state.
Now, on the left it is fashionable to exchange the truncheon for a political expression tool. It is the usual short circuit: it is praised to democracy while the police are beaten, freedom is sung while there are windows. And when you are caught with your hands in the jam, you try the shortcut of the candidacy: become parliamentarians to escape handcuffs. There is nothing noble in all this, but only an astute ideological marketing operation.
And I say it with contempt but not with surprise. This is the post-ideological left, which no longer defends the work, the people, social justice, but only themselves and their gods, even when those goddesses attack, split, co-seater, as long as all this is done “against fascism” (which, however, never manages to indicate with name and surname).
But be careful: if we allow immunity to those who have always made a mockery of legality, we are not only betraying the spirit of European institutions, but we are clearly saying that democracy can be used as a shield to evade justice. And this, dear Roberta, is no longer democracy: it is chaos disguised as law.
Italy should demand, loudly, that those who make mistakes pay, without escapade or immunity of convenience.
Because Parliament is not an NGO for recycling extremist militants, but it should be the highest expression of respect for the rules. Those who despise the state, attack it and hate the symbols should not sit among its representatives.