Article 3 of the Italian Constitution states:
All citizens have equal social dignity and are equal before the law, without distinction sex, race, language, religion, political opinion, personal and social conditions.
Apart Berlusconi and his ministers, of course, that may declare any legitimately prevented from attending in their trial and then ask the court ... ad libitum, or at least while they remain in office. Yet another law that has the sole purpose of avoiding persecution processes to our Prime Minister making then in effect, unconstitutionally, an Italian above all others and above the Constitution. Sneaky ad personam promptly signed by more and more fearful President Giorgio Napolitano, virtually guaranteeing that no longer guarantees anything. Already recanted several times, continues to sign crap undaunted.
course the trick is not enough to extend to all the Ministers that is in effect a kind of impunity, not to realize that something is wrong anyway. Does anyone remember that most other attempts aimed at one person of the Prime Minister had already been rejected by the Constitutional Court, because the Prime Minister or the Prime Minister, is merely a first among equals, ergo he could not only be "commended "(also here, among other things, the failure of the various awards). E 'exclusively for this reason that this has been on preventing sneaky extended to all ministers, happily complicit in their father and master, all happily ever bowed to defend the leader, to support any Berlusconi can think of him and his zealous defense lawyers, and both deputies of the Republic. Yuck!
But what's wrong with this law? I am not a lawyer, I'm just a citizen a little 'careful and well something does not sound good, and indeed, I am disgusted. First, this is not outlining a sort of "parliamentary immunity." That institution made sense if it had not been completely emptied by the bias of our political class, able only to fade away, across, without any political color, to defend herself, and always uncritically, so that he was forced to abandon under the pressure of Tangentopoli dell'opinipone and public (at least then there was a public opinion able to distinguish between the shit and chocolate!). But at least there was a vote in Parliament. More so in theory, not directly involved (ie neither the accused nor the judges) were asked to determine. Then these other super partes were never able to be such and to decide consciously and opinion, always siding on the side of fellow deputy or senator is another matter.
But with the first such failure is the same President of the Council by a certifying Denouncing the same ground. Which in a democracy is simply absurd. Moreover, the term legitimate, if not carefully detailed, it is so vague that it can include anything from diarrhea, the trip was organized in hoc. The point would be very simple. Why Prime Minister fails to deliver its agenda, say, at least three months before the Court? Agenda that is unchangeable? Thus allowing the courts to schedule hearings, without interfering with its programs mandatory? And in any case, there would always be a non-partisan Commission, whose task would be to judge whether the legitimacy of the impediment, is actually such. It 'obvious should certainly not be a genius to realize that not the same person in question (which has every interest in postponing the trial), the only one to decide the matter. If our President does not realize it, if the next Bersani not realize it (now only Di Pietro is scandalized) is difficult to expect that if they realize the Italians, especially the many hardcore fans Berlusca.
0 comments:
Post a Comment