The events of the last forty-eight hours that require consideration in mid-December had already cornered the attention of the public. It 'a discourse that, like it or not, needs to be addressed, but most times it brings up unpleasant to be provided at a very easy and political exploitation. We talk about the meaning of violence.
The embryo of this thought must be placed at the time of intervention discussed Luca Carfagna Annozero, which occurred nearly two months ago. As noted, at that time was under the eyes of an entire nation a bad example of justificationism naive and leftist , an "own goal" as like to call it many journalists, who became a reality in the unveiling of the side by a large chunk of extra-parliamentary opposition and the obvious savage counterattack by pro-government newspapers and Berlusconi, who lost no time and immediately gave prominence fundamental hypocrisy many of the protests are typical of this phase.
Two events have occurred in the meantime, and in both cases the so-called right side information have been launched attacks, sometimes unfair, sometimes sadly sensible. The other was held yesterday, as everyone knows, the event "anti-Cav" promoted by the Freedom and Justice Palasharp to Milan. Present, among others, Roberto Saviano , Gad Lerner and Carlo De Benedetti. It is no coincidence that these three have remembered their names, because it is around them that has focused the bulk of the controversy of the premier leashes.
De Benedetti has been particularly singled out as the living example of the ambiguity of the opposition and surprisingly bigoted moralist, who has fought for decades in the name of anti-empowerment and, only to rediscover its entirety Catholic and Vatican. Nothing to object: in fact, it is understandable criticism of those who note a sharp De Benedetti contrast between the dark past (and perhaps with some stain on the conscience) and De Benedetti justicialist last minute.
But more than the criticism of De Benedetti, which can not be excluded instrumentality - remember that it is a party to a civil dispute which has for its opponent Silvio Berlusconi - are those Gad Lerner, or rather to his audience, which give food for thought. The columns of Free yesterday, on page 4, Francesco Borgonovo provides an interesting anecdote and the worrying implications:
The confirmation of the feelings that the crowd nutre verso il premier l'ha avuta Gad Lerner. Esordisce moderato: "Dicono che siamo quelli che odiano...". E il pubblico all'unisono: "Sììì". Gad è imbarazzato. Voleva dire, precisa, che il problema non è personale con Silvio. E i tifosi dagli spalti: "Sìììì, invece".
A conferma della notizia, su Youtube è presente l'immancabile versione video dell'accaduto. A distanza di una giornata, stavolta ad Arcore, c'è stata una manifestazione (un'altra) di anti-Cav, al culmine della quale si sono registrati i classici tafferugli e scontri con la polizia culminati con un paio di arresti, polemiche, lashes and blame the newspapers today, as usual, have been highlighted. Here too, the great subject of complaint justicialism , the so-called party of the handcuffs and summary trials and the media, and so on with explicit references to the judiciary and opposition journalists and Jacobin Communist, and climate on both sides compared to what probably breathed in 1789 near the Bastille.
E 'beyond doubt that there is something wrong . Not only inside the palace, but also outside. For years, the parliamentary language has undergone a transformation in the negative, a progressive abbruttimento that, as already emphasized has a lot to do with the color of the words usually get up from the stands of the stadiums and that common sense would have liked to remain confined there. The blame for all this is both Berlusconi, who has opened the political language of the Second Republic since its descent into the field, both all other MPs, who have to fashion boredom or passively accepted this language as normal, making it their own, is still the overwhelming majority of all voters and citizens , of \u200b\u200bwhich I would not forgive the ignorance, although it can partially understand why.
It is true that almost always when you do not have valid arguments in confirmation of his thesis makes up for it by raising the volume of your voice . E 'in this summary, the underlying reason for years of attacks on the judiciary, demonstrations and clashes in the streets, newspapers rolled mo' truncheon, and students who improvised public tribunes solving all the ladies and their efforts in a sorry figure live on television.
Over the two past months I have been able to reflect on how much, instead of Luca Carfagna , I could and wanted to respond to questions by Michele Santoro Postema damn Thursday. violence, which seems at this stage is mounting more and more, fueled by a mail for more corpses and discontent that is reflected off a national word of mouth and the other between a comment on Facebook, that point?
Violence is right?
Of course not! Violence is wrong. E 'wrong time, and always will be. What's more, the violence was wrong before. Even at the time of the Resistance and the French Revolution, which also have historical events of paramount importance because we were here today to quibble democratically of democracy.
Violence obviously wrong. Nevertheless, it can happen, as seems to be happening, that someone crushed by the historical conditions or a more pessimistic perception of the world, life and society can no longer see any possible legal alternative. Do we want to deny that violence, even if totally wrong, is an alternative?
Certainly the violence is a last resort . And 'the tragic solution to which we turn when all else is lost, or so it seems. Our Constitution itself is a pile with embedded foundation in the blood of many victims , partisan, fascist, or simply not deployed. Obviously, the violence almost never can be forgiven by the law. One of the few exceptions is that of self-defense, exonerating it certainly does not apply to political struggle, less than a total reversal of the system (we know that history is written by the winners).
The same applies to the French Revolution, or the unification of Italy. Some historical transitions have made us what we are, but at the cost of losses that only a massive effort and one hand on your heart, you can call sacrifices. These kinds of violence that have marked the history of our country and for this we accept as necessary, but not necessarily become more just. And although one can never speak of crime (because what is a crime the state law and the law, such as History, written by the victors) it will always be spots that someone will call someone else's sins and unpleasant facts.
short. The violence is wrong. Ribadiamolo, as they say in the streets, ten, hundred, thousand times. But this same violence is also a natural alternative, a response inherent in human nature as animals. Let us not make it necessary . It 'an important call, a reminder that should be repeated in each, the politician, who should be careful not to overstretch the rope only by its comfortable, the angry protester, who would not think of it a time, but a billion times before to raise his hand to another human being, violence is wrong; for this, let's not make it necessary.
0 comments:
Post a Comment