kidnapped many more people than Matteo Salvini – Libero Quotidiano

If the climate of our public debate were less spoiled, then there would not be many impassive, and perhaps complacent, in the case of a political leader who for correct or incorrect government decisions is sent to trial for kidnapping. And if the climate were different, there would not be so many indignant at a comparison that in this climate smells of blasphemy and instead is very appropriate: here we have witnessed another type of kidnapping, but more extensive and lasting, namely the regime of touch. curfew that for months has kept millions of Italians locked up at home. I anticipate (and anticipate) the objections: being locked in the house is not a great drama, and then it was about pursuing a higher interest and that is to protect public health threatened by the epidemic.

Except that the first objection can be raised by those who regard freedom of movement, association, study, work, worship as insignificant tasks after all, perhaps also because they sacrifice in compensation of a secure salary and a nice and comfortable apartment. And the second, that is, that it was necessary to do so because a preeminent interest compelled those sacrifices, is an objection made by those who do not understand (or pretend not to understand) that the same argument can be used in a completely legitimate way to argue that protection The national interest went through the refusal to disembark those people. He says: but you defend the preeminent public interest by preventing those four bastards from setting foot on the ground? It depends: if you believe that this landing contributes to compromise, frustrate or delegitimize a migration management policy that you consider appropriate, then yes, defend that public interest by preventing that landing. Are you doing well? You hurt? Everyone responds as they want, but the answer should not come from a court of law.

And let’s go back to the comparison: you want to tell me that this other preeminent interest, public health, is defending it with the hail of Dpcm? With fines and jail for those who do not perfectly comply with the requirements of the people’s lawyer who “allows” this and “does not allow” that? With the public force in riot gear against the peaceful merchants demanding not to fail? With the old man’s shopping bags being searched like there’s a packet of heroin instead of the extra liter of wine? With the commentary from police helicopters while the regime journalist identifies the traitorous corridor of the homeland and shouts “Here it is, here it is!” It is escaping! »? It is at least unlikely that such a garrison was actually necessary to combat the epidemic, and it is likely that the public interest was misled to justify the use of such repressive tools. But we would not feel that we wanted the perpetrators of that civil and constitutional chaos to answer before a judge.