Saturday, 12, June 2010, was Margherita Hack’s birthday.
The astrophysics participated at the event: ‘Anteprima: ti presento il mio prossimo libro’ in Pietrasanta (Tuscany) where she did not have any problem to show her age: 88 years old.
One of the smartest minds of our country, a unique power, a voice sometimes inconvenient, but clear, which succeed with her charisma to be loved and to bring people into the complex world of astrophysics.
The S. Agostino’s garden was fully crowd of people ready to welcome her affectionately.

She came in all her simplicity, talking about astrophysics and politics, which has always seen her on the first line to explain her ideas, or sometimes criticize whom who are transforming Italy ‘on the way of under developed countries’.

The professor declared that sciences in Italy have always been seen for minor minds.
The governments of the last years confirmed this approach: the high maths have been considered as useless, because of the use of calculating machines; as well as the study of earthquakes.
She added, with her usual sense of humor: ‘as we know, in Italy does not exist any earthquake: sometimes some hill falls down, destroying some villages, but they are just natural disasters’.
Also the study of universe, that would be nowadays a useful instrument, as been put on a second level, because of the need to cut funds.
‘Calderoli’s idea’- she said- ‘built up a mess. They told him: give up, we will give the duty to someone else. And they give it to Minister Bondi!’

2009 has been the year of the astronomy: 4 centuries after Galileo understood that Aristotele was wrong, saying that all the stars far from the moon, were perfect and steady.
‘And Aristotele was like the Pope: he was always right!’.
Galileo in 1604 started to study this ‘super nova’ of Keplero- from the name of the scientist who discovered it for the first time-: for months, with just a knife, he watched it every day.
After a while, he realized that the position did not change, that means that was a steady star, more far than the moon: so Aristotele was wrong.
Afterwards, on 1609, he also realized that the Moon had hills and plains such as the Earth, so it was not perfect and unchangeable.
As we know, Galileo has been forced to forswear.
Grown up a large ovation when she compare Galileo’ s bad experience with the so-called ‘Legge Bavaglio’ proposed by our government, which force journalists to run away from our countries, guilty to have done properly their job.

Margherita told that she should have done her degree in October 1944, but because of the II world war, the city was desert and dark, because of the curfew ‘so we worked very well’- said, giving a smile to the public, for her ironic and smart way to speak.
She studied physics, but casually she found the opportunity to do her thesis on astrophysics.
Because of the war, the universities were closed: so she spent all the night on the observatory of Arcetri, on South Florence’s hills.

She felt as she has been privileged to have a fixed-term contract just for three years: ‘in 1948 I was already in the paradise of the civil servants’.Nowadays instead, the policies of the cost-cutting force our best minds to leave our country, going abroad, where they can find better job opportunities; and also our best universities do not have funds for instruments to work properly, such as libraries or teachers.
She underlined proudly that the best minds on a European Level are Italian: for example, the European Astronomical Observatory made a project on a telescope of 40 m of diameter; ‘While I did my thesis with one of 40 cm!’: the project has been made by an Italian scientist.

‘We are so much smaller than stars, but our brain is extremely more complex: we are able to understand why they dye, how are they made, which is the universe’s structure.
Instead of feeling so small, we should rather feel so big’.

http://inviaggiocongeniuscard.it/progetti/londoners

No related posts.

Milan.May,13, 2010.
Emil Enea, 13, can dye like this on 2010: in a fire burnt up into the “nomad-camp” where he lived.
He spent half of his life moving from different areas outside Milan; for six times, six cleaning out obliged him to leave the bit he had and start again.
In a precarious conditions, in front of the indifference of the local people, he lived his life with his parents and four brothers and sisters, before Italy would suddenly know his name and his face.

The fire burnt up in the middle of the night, when his father added firewood into the wood-stove that they used to warm-up his family and other 40 people.
An announced tragedy which should let us reflect ; but also this time, our country shows its indifference.

I want to report a wonderful poem by Roberto Malini, called “Goodbye, Emil“, even if I know that in this moment words are not enough to shout properly our disdain.

Goodbye, Emil.

Reading in the ash,
Your name brief and innocent,
As your life.

No, is not a farewell: we will see you tomorrow.

We will bring you to mind between the alive,
In the children who play
(their happiness is a miracle)
In front of the barraks,
In the crumbling houses,
Under the bridges.

See you tomorrow,
So next sunrise
Will not have freezing fingers,
And next sunset
Will not astonish us
With strong burning hands.

See you tomorrow,
Because is still possible to avoid
That other innocent stars
Would fall into the ash.

See you tomorrow,
To not let a day pass,
Without remember to the murderer
Their crimes,
And to the indifferent that their silence is a fault,
And who does not defend the weak,
Kills him.

From Now, rest in peace, Emil

We will protect your name,
To not let it be lost,
Another time,
Into the wind.

http://inviaggiocongeniuscard.it/progetti/londoners

No related posts.

By Marina Chiarugi. Translation by Sarah Potter

In its Universal Periodic Review, the UN Human Rights Council criticised the policies of the Italian government and the terms of its “security package”.

On Tuesday, 9th February, Italy was for the first time the subject of the United Nation’s Human Rights Council’s so-called Universal Periodic Review, a process whereby each of the 192 Member States of the UN is reviewed once every four years to assess their adherence to the principles contained in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

The 92 recommendations made to Italy are concerned with alleged violations that are more or less well known. The reviewers highlighted delays in the introduction of substantial international tools, the most significant of which is the need to incorporate the crime of torture into domestic law. Other recommendations, originating in many European countries and that should not be given room in a report dedicated to a State with a sixty-year tradition of democracy, refer to the independence of the judiciary, the freedom of the press and the concentration of the media. Nevertheless, the main focus of the 47 Member States of the Council were the alarming growth of xenophobia in Italy and the terms of the so-called “security package”.

The extent of the discrimination surrounding the crime of illegal entry into the country was widely criticised, along with such aggravating circumstances as the obligation that healthcare workers report illegal immigrants to the police. The Council voiced numerous objections to the policies for integrating the Roma and Sinti communities, including the confrontations during the forced clearing of the camps they lived in; the hate campaigns stirred up by certain right-wing parties; and the strong support by certain elements in the Italian media during the conflicts for the most abject and reactionary positions. This leads the call for the adoption of a campaign of education and awareness that will aim to promote tolerance and integration in schools, sporting contests and, above all, within the police force.

The consequences of the treaty between Italy and Libya are also significant, as there is now a serious risk of asylum seekers not having their individual cases examined fully in order to gain the recognised refugee status as is their right. Moreover, the practices brought into being by the Italian authorities have shown themselves to be in direct contravention of the principle of non-refoulement, which compulsorily prevents an individual being returned to a place where their fundamental rights could be threatened.

During the Council’s next session, Italy will be called on to respond to these recommendations. We are still waiting, not without a certain amount of disenchantment, to learn of the initiatives that will be put in place to reconcile the policies adopted by Italy with the many provisions of the largest worldwide organisation, charged with protecting human rights.

No related posts.

Livorno, Tuscany, 8 am: a cold day in mid-February.
The day designated for the eviction of the “Roma camp” in Via di Levante.

The camp is a large piece of land that defines the boundary between a large street and cemetery: the land belongs to a private person who has legitimately asked the police to clear the ground by those unwelcome guests.
Around twenty Roma from Romania decided to settle here after that Schengen open their borders to a more democratic and lucky future, so they thought.
They did not come for love of travel and nature, but simply to make some money for their numerous families.
They built some very resistant shack with their hands, to protect themselves from the cold and to have a roof over their heads.
This morning, they lost again the little they had.
With the usual indifference of public opinion.
But not without a smile or faint hopes.

This morning, no authority was present at the eviction, no representation of Social Services wanted to see with their own eyes; no one offered a concrete housing alternative for these people.
The authorities, as too often happens, preferred to close their eyes and to hope to see them go, preferably in another city, preferably in another country.
This kind of response not only shows little interest in the problem but also and especially the lack of knowledge from those who should take care to ensure a decent life to its citizens: they hope, very naively, that these people will get tired of being constantly evicted from their homes and they will go to town more willing to confront these kinds of burning issues.
But the problem can not be solved by silence, nor with indifference.

In the book written by Tiziano Terzani “ Letters against the war ” he writes:

“Unfortunately, today, on the world stage we, westerners, are the only actors and the only spectators, and so, through our televisions and our newspapers, we do not listen anything than our arguments, than our pain. The world of others will never accounted for”.

I choose this so emblematic extract, to explain the indifference of persons with pain that does not belong to them, and that probably will never have.
The paradox of our society: we are moved by seeing the images of the survivors of an earthquake that dig through the rubble of their homes, looking for small memories of a life that they will never have back, but we remain indifferent to twenty people who do not know where spend the night.
But they are Roma indeed, and this is the life they are chosen.
And then, they steal in houses, kidnapping children.
The comment from a woman, just this morning was: “I do not have money to feed my own children, why should I want others? “.
We should just talk with one of them once, to realize that a life in a camp is not the best that a person could desire.
It is only necessary to approach a moment to understand.
The problem is that nobody does.
So, as Karl Kaus wrote: “ anyone who has something to say, speak up and shut up “.
To avoid giving another voice to ignorance, at least today.

No related posts.

(Photo: Gianni D./flickr)

Salon Europa – Dialogues on Transnationalism

Perspectives on Immigration

Thursday 18 February 2010 – h. 18:00
Libreria Feltrinelli, piazza Ravegnana, 1 – Bologna

European Alternatives organizes a new meeting as part of the Salon Europa series of events, which this time will be focused on immigration.

Considered by some as a precious resource – both culturally and economically – and by others as a terrible menace,  migration has always given rise to a mixture of ambiguous feelings among permanent citizens.

Italy has recently been the scene of episodes of violence involving African migrants working in inhuman conditions in the fields of Rosarno (Calabria region) and the local population.

These events will be the starting point for a discussion about immigration, to be examined from different points of view: the “external” view of an Italian journalist and writer – Gabriele Del Grande (Fortress Europe) – who observes the reactions and behaviours of this country towards immigration, and the one of a French correspondent in Italy – Eric Jozsef (Libération) – who can situate these events in the broader European context, tracing parallels and differences; and the “inner” point of view of a writer of non-Italian origins, Tahar Lamri, who himself lives the condition of the migrant and uses his art as a means to narrate the difficulties and potentialities of this peculiar position.

To read about the previous events please click here.

For details and information: bologna@euroalter.com

No related posts.

Unfortunately, hostility against Roma populations is not a recent phenomenon in Italy and the security measures adopted by Berlusconi’s government are just a new development in a deep-rooted problem.[2]

 Genesis of the Current Situation

Although racism and xenophobia against Roma in Italy have increased since the election campaign of 2008, they had already been present for at least 20 years. During and after the war in the former Yugoslavia, Italy faced massive migration influxes of Roma from the Balkans and particularly from Romania. The Italian government’s initial liberal policies towards the entry of these groups into Italy were not accompanied by measures to provide them with shelter and work. As a consequence, more and more campsites (both legal and illegal) have been built in the suburbs of most Italian towns.[3] Their creation was, at the basis of the hostility that grew against both immigrant and Italian Roma starting in the 1990s. The local inhabitants felt insecure in the presence of their new “dirty, illiterate and begging” neighbours and this growing feeling of insecurity provided an opportunity for extreme right wing parties. Security increasingly became the magic word of the members of parties such as the Northern League (Lega Nord), who used Roma and immigrants as scapegoats.

The main problem regarding Roma and Sinti is that they still do not possess official minority status (as do other twelve minority groups living in Italy, such as the German-speaking minority, the Slovene or the Greek one), since, according to the Italian Parliament, they are not linked to a specific part of the Italian territory and therefore cannot be recognised as a linguistic minority. The Italian government explained that: “The basic criteria for the label of ‘linguistic minority’ depend on the stability and duration of the settlement in a delimited area of the country, which is not the case for Roma populations.”[4] The nomad theory is used as the justification for excluding Roma and also to reinforce the popular idea that they are not Italians and do not belong to Italy.  As a matter of fact, 60% of the Roma living in Italy are Italian citizens and almost all of them are sedentary.

 Nonetheless, the last twenty years have marked a change in the history of Roma living in Italy. The earlier decades were simply characterised by a generalised series of racist stereotypes but the radical change, which occurred in more recent times, consists in the manipulation of the old stereotypes as useful political tools. Anti-Romani feelings were spread through apparently objective publications and newspaper articles to gain political consensus. Discrimination of Roma through social exclusion and physical violence is not only an Italian phenomenon, but is common to all European countries where Roma groups are present. Nonetheless, where Italy departs from many countries in Europe is that while other governments at least have tried to promote the inclusion of Roma, the Italian Government has, on the contrary, encouraged racial animosity and exclusion[5].

During 2007 several cases of crimes committed by either Roma or Romanian citizens have reinforced even more the idea of a parallelism between the Roma migration influxes and the increase of crime rates and have stirred waves of xenophobia by civil society, media and politicians.

Roma and Sinti under Silvio Berlusconi’s Government

Silvio Berlusconi’s “People of Freedom Coalition” (Popolo della Libertà), which includes the post-fascist National Alliance (Alleanza Nazionale) together with the Northern League won the Italian general elections in April 2008, acquiring a substantial parliamentary majority. Two surprising results of these elections were that the Northern League, despite its strong regionalist orientation, obtained 8.3% of the votes and that the Communist and Green Parties (Rifondazione Comunista, Partito dei Comunisti Italiani and Verdi) did not reach the required threshold of 4%.[6] The fact that these parties, which have traditionally shown pro-migrant positions, are no longer in Parliament and that the Northern League has obtained so many votes has clearly marked a turn towards social exclusionary policies.

In fact, Berlusconi’s election was followed by an explosion of racism throughout Italy with a rapid acceleration of evictions and harassment by authorities.

The Government adopted on 21 May 2008 a series of legal and policy measures, the so-called “security package”, proposed by the Minister of Interior Roberto Maroni, which are explicitly discriminatory against Roma. The most relevant ones for this article are:

• Law decree No. 92 on “Urgent measures in the field of public security”
• Amendments and integrations to Legislative decree No. 30/2007

According to Law decree 92, both EU and non-EU citizens will be expelled from Italian territory if sentenced to more than two years imprisonment. Moreover the status of irregular immigrant is an “aggravating circumstance” in Italian criminal law: criminal offences committed by irregular immigrants carry the possibility of a one-third increase in the punishment compared to the same offences committed by persons with legal status.

Expulsions of EU citizens are in contradiction with Council Directive 2004/38/EC on EU citizens’ freedom of movement and residence. The right of free movement is a very important one for EU citizens, but is subject to limitations on the grounds of public policy, public security and public health. Nonetheless, these measures should comply with the principle of proportionality and should be only based on the personal conduct of the individual concerned, which is not the case in this law decree, as it sets a general threshold of two-year-sentence, which leads to automatic expulsion. Moreover, the fact that the status of illegal immigrant is now an aggravating circumstance in Italian criminal law is a breach of the fundamental principle of equality before the law, “as it penalises people for who they are rather than for what they do.”[7] Moreover, Law decree 92 does not specify whether the aggravating circumstance in criminal law also concerns EU citizens who are not regularly registered.  The text does not exclude this possibility and, therefore, this provision is in contradiction with the principle of proportionality because it would impose penalties on EU citizens that are a third greater in comparison with penalties imposed on national citizens and is as well contrary to the principle of non-discrimination on the grounds of nationality contained in Article 12 TEC.

According to Legislative decree 30/2007 all EU citizens wishing to reside in Italy for more than three months will have to prove that they have sufficient economic resources, coming from legal activities, to sustain themselves and their families. This is stated as well in the directive on EU’s citizens freedom of movement but the same directive points out that Member States may not lay down a fixed amount which they regard as “sufficient resources” but must take into account the personal situation of the person concerned. As well in this case EU Law does not allow automatic or collective expulsions, since these may be possible only after the examination of every single situation.

Therefore, these measures do not comply with EU law, as they violate Articles 12 and 13 TEC on non-discrimination, Council Directive on EU’s citizens freedom of movement and Council Directive on the principle of equal treatment.

Only a few weeks later, the Italian Government, in no way intimidated by protests and condemnations against the discriminatory measures it had recently undertaken, proceeded with its anti-Roma campaign with a measure that more than the others shocked the international public opinion: a systematic ethnicity-based census through fingerprinting.

EU Reactions

The legal measures adopted by the Italian Government led to a widespread concern among civil society and institutional actors at the national, European and international level.

The first EU institution that reacted to the Italian events was the European Parliament. On 20 May 2008 a debate on the situation of Roma in Italy took place in Strasbourg. At the debate, the Commissioner for Social Affairs Vladimir Špidla declared that Italy’s plan to expel EU citizens is an extreme measure and a limitation of a fundamental freedom of the Treaty, since a decision to exclude can only be made on a case-by-case basis. Moreover, at this debate the Hungarian MEP Viktòria Mohàcsi, after having carried out field research in Italy, reported that the situation of Roma in Italy was one of the worst in Europe and called on the Commission to start an EU Roma Strategy. The European Parliament as well adopted a Resolution on the census of the Roma on the basis of ethnicity in Italy on 10 July 2008, in which it urged Italian authorities to refrain from collecting fingerprints of Roma people and from using those already collected.

The European Commission, at the beginning, simply posed a number of questions to Italy about the census of Roma communities, including the purposes for which fingerprints were collected, the legal basis for doing so, the modalities for storing fingerprint data etc. but in September 2008 Commissioner Jacques Barrot raised his doubts on the legal compatibility with EC law of the Italian “security package”, particularly with regard to the rules on the automatic expulsion of EU citizens, and added that if a solution in conformity with Community law was not reached in a very short timeframe, the Commission would launch infringement proceedings.

Conclusion

Although reports and criticism by international bodies seemed, at one point during the summer of 2008, to have stopped some of the provisions proposed by the Italian Government such as fingerprinting of Roma, the extremists of the Northern League in the Government showed no change and their xenophobic and racist approach still goes on. 

Italian civil society, including NGOs, trade unions and churches, has tried to oppose the “security package”, but the power of Berlusconi’s coalition is too strong and the political opposition in Parliament is quite weak. The Government’s attitude to the protests can be summed up by the rude statement of Senator Maurizio Gasparri (People of Freedom Coalition): “We don’t give a damn!”[8], as a response to the criticism of the UN Refugee Agency against Italy’s measures on migration.

Only a strong, coordinated international movement of democratic forces could produce the pressure that is needed to change the situation. This could be done by a more continuous and organised pressure of the EU institutions and of the Council of Europe.

The EU could, for example, determine the existence of a serious breach of the principles of liberty, democracy, respect for fundamental rights and freedoms and could therefore, according to Article 7 TEU, suspend Italy from certain rights, e.g. voting rights in the Council. Moreover, the European Commission could as well launch an infringement proceeding against Italy.

However, the EU, despite the initial criticism, has still not taken real action against the Italian Government. Has this happened because the country involved is a big, powerful and senior Member State? Is the risk of a new “Empty Chair Crisis” not worth the respect of fundamental rights in all Member States?

[2] P. Colacicchi: Ethnic Profiling and Discrimination against Roma in Italy: New Developments in a Deep-Rooted-Tradition, Roma Rights Journal, No. 2, 2008, p. 35, www.errc.org

[3] H. Scicluna: The Life and Death of Roma and Sinti in Italy: A Modern Tragedy, Roma Rights Journal, No. 2, 2008, p. 10, www.errc.org

[4] Italy: Fifteenth Periodic Report to the UN Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination, 26.03.2006.

[5] R. Kushen: Exclusion as State Policy, Roma Rights Journal, No. 2, 2008, p. 1, www.errc.org

[6] M. Merlino: The Italian (In)Security Package – Security vs. Rule of Law and Fundamental Rights in the EU, CEPS CHALLENGE Research Paper No. 14, 2009, p. 3, www.ceps.eu

[7] L. Trucco: Legal and Policy Developments in the Condition of Migrants and Roma in Italy, Roma Rights Journal, No. 2, 2008, p. 32, www.errc.org  

[8] La Repubblica: Migranti, Frattini frena La Russa “L’Onu sbaglia ma va rispettato”, 17.05.2009.

No related posts.

European Alternatives has produced a dossier on the state of the media in Italy.
As we underline in that report, Italy is the only Western democracy where the prime minister exercises direct control over three television channels he owns and indirect control over three public channels, as well as owning several newspapers, magazines, radio stations, and the largest publishing house in the country. The Prime Minister has recently sued several European newspapers from Italy, France, and Spain.

Today we will try to understand how everything started.
Ambeyi Ligabo, the UN expert on press freedom sustains that “the public television network Rai has been strongly politicized since its creation in 1954. At the time and until the major political changes of the end of the 1980s, Italian public television was controlled by the political party in power, the Christian Democrats”.

The Masonic Lodge “Propaganda 2” was a secret Lodge which became very influent in Italy during the 70s. The P2 has been responsible for most of the Italian bombings of the 70s and can be considered a fundamental player in the Strategy of Tension. The P2 was ready to devalue the Constitution and to transform the Italian democracy into an authoritarian state, but still governed by the Christian Democrats and their allies, maintaining in so doing the Communist at the opposition.

One of the main goals of the Masonic Lodge P2, was the control of the media. In fact, its leader, Licio Gelli, understood that “the real power is in the hands of the mass media”. In particular the P2 proposed the dissolution of the Rai in favor of some private televisions, with the objective of controlling the public opinion.

The P2 has a project for Italy, called “Democratic Rebirth Plan”. One of the main points of the “Piano di Rinascita” (Democratic Rebirth Plan) was the creation of private televisions in order to destroy the Rai.
In the 1976 the Constitutional Court permitted with a sentence the liberalization of the transmissions for the local television and radio stations. After the sentence of the Constitutional Court, there was a proliferation of private channels. It was Silvio Berlusconi who launched the strongest competition against the Rai. Since the 80s the private televise sector was almost monopolized by Berlusconi. In the 1980 “Telemilano” change its name to “Canale 5” and became visible in all the country (in contrast with the sentence of the Constitutional Court). In the 1983 Berlusconi also acquired “Italia1” and “Rete 4”.
When in the 1984 the magistrates of Lazio, Piemonte and Abruzzo sentenced the stop to the transmissions of the Berlusconi’s channels, the Craxi government immediately fabricated a decree-law, which saved the Mediaset channels. Successively, with the so-called “Berlusconi decree” the status quo became law and Mediaset was now legally able to transmit in all the country.
The Rai was forced to accept the logic of the market and partially lost its function of public service. Spots and trash programs invaded the Italian television and the audience became the only real preoccupation of all the Channels Directors, while culture and education were completely forgotten.

In the meanwhile the Masonic Lodge had also acquired several newspapers.
The final relation of the Parliamentary Commission on the P2 that makes clear that “some operators (Genghini, Fabbri, and Berlusconi) received not justified financial aids”.
As reported by the Corriere della Sera, in the year 2000, the Italian Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi affirmed, “being a piduist is not a demerit”. In the 2008 Licio Gelli is returned on the Italian scene with a television program in a private channel. In an interview on La Repubblica, Gelli described Berlusconi as a “great man”. According to Gelli, Berlusconi “has taken the “Piano Democratico” (Democratic Rebirth Plan) and has almost completely copied it” (L’Indipendente).

Since he became President, and because of his control of the media, the face of Berlusconi has occupied over 30% of the time dedicated to the politicians by the Italian televisions channel .

In 2009 Freedom House considering the freedom of the media, has declassed Italy from the status of free country to that of partly free. Italy, together with Turkey, is the only Western European country to be classified as partly free. Italy has been relegated to this category, because the freedom of speech and press has been limited through laws, because of growing intimidations suffered by journalists from the organized crime and rightist extremist movements, and because of the concentration of the media in the hands of few owners.
Karin Karlekar, who has lead the research on Italy, underlining as “the main problem is represented by Silvio Berlusconi”, sustains that his return to the role of Prime Minister in 2008, has re-presented the problem of the concentration of the public and private media under the guide of one person. This is the main reason why Italy has been relegated to the status of “partly free”. Karlekar, in its research, has not relieved, at the moment, attacks from the government to the freedom of the media as happened in 2005 and 2006, but she thinks that Italy should urgently “resolve the problem of the concentration of the media in the hands of one person” underlining as “it is a unique case in the world”.

No related posts.

European Alternatives has just publishes a Dossier on the state of Media Freedom and Pluralism in Italy, concluding that the circumstances of lack of pluralism and evidence of media intimidation in Italy collectively constitute a breach of the fundamental values of the European Union.

This report presents these facts collected from independent reports, and argues that a European reponse is necessary to a situation which sets a dangerous precedent for media freedom both inside and outside the Union.

Click the image below to read the Dossier online, or become a member of European Alternatives by clicking here to receive the Dossier in print at your home!

No related posts.

European Alternatives is campaigning for the European Parliament to pass a resolution in plenary condemning all attempts of intimidation of the press and infringements on freedom of information in Italy. It is lobbying MEPs and also bringing a petition to the committee on petitions. Over ten MEPs have already joined the campaign. Their names follow below.

The resolution would call on the Commission, the European Council and the Member States to investigate and to act to prevent every possible violation of rights established in the Treaties of European Union (notably articles 6 and 7) and the Charter of Fundamental Rights (notably article 11 – freedom of expression and information, and plurality of media).

European Alternatives believes that the lack of a European response to the intimidation of the press in Italy poses a direct threat to the right of liberty of expression throughout the European Union, puts in jeopardy progress in former Soviet countries admitted into the Union, and limits the authority of any European condemnation of censorship in the rest of the world.

Facts about media intimidation in Italy

La Repubblica, L’Unità, El Pais and Le Nouvel Observateur have been sued by the Italian Prime Minister on the basis of journalistic enquiries of a series of private and public behaviours of the Prime Minister, and lawyers have been instructed to take investigate the possibility of actions against newspapers published in the UK.

The situation of media independence in Italy has been condemned by a variety of independent enquiries, including in reports by Freedom House, Reporteurs sans Frontières, and the Open Society institute (see www.freepresseurope.eu for details).

The Italian Prime Minister controls both the three main private TV channels and 2 over 3 State-owned public channels, comprising 90% of Italian television media. In addition, he has been accused of removing critical voices from media by direct dismissals, intimidation and slander campaign, while promoting journalists loyal to his cabinet.

Amongst the MEPs supporting the campaign so far:

Sonia Alfano MEP (ALDE, Italy)
Luigi de Magistris (ALDE, Italy)
Sarah Ludford MEP (ALDE, UK)
Sylvie Guillaume (S&D, France)
Judith Sargentini (Greens, Netherlands)
Rosario Crocetta (S&D, Italy)
Gianluca Susta MEP (S&D, Italy)
Gianni Vattimo MEP (ALDE, Italy)
Isabelle Durant (Greens, Belgium)
Bart Staes (Greens, Belgium)
Eva Lichtenberger (Greens, Austria)
Pascal Canfin (Greens, France)
Jan Philipp Albrecht (Greens, Germany)
Hélène Flautre (Greens, France)
Marije Cornelissen MEP (Greens, Netherlands)
Bas Eickhout MEP (Greens, Netherlands)
Caroline Lucas MEP (Greens, UK)
Catherine Greze MEP (Greens, France)
Franziska Keller MEP (Greens, Germany)
Emilie Turunen MEP (Greens, Denmark)

No related posts.

European Alternatives launches European Campaign for Press Freedom in Italy
see www.freepresseurope.eu
www.stampalibera.eu

Over the last few weeks great relevance has been given by the European press to the “Italian anomaly”. Lately, the attention has shifted to the problematic situation of the media in the country, and the danger of a distortion of one of the fundamental mechanisms of any democracy, namely the freedom and pluralism of information. A lack of a European response to the intimidation of the press in Italy poses a direct threat to the right of liberty of expression throughout the European Union, and limits the authority of any European condemnation of censorship in the rest of the world.

The starting point is well known: Italy is the only Western democracy where the prime minister exercises direct control over three television channels he owns and indirect control over three public channels, as well as owning several newspapers, magazines, radio stations, and the largest publishing house in the country.

To these well-known facts a number of additional, worrying events have been piling up over the last few months, culminating in an all-out offensive of the Italian prime minister against the few organs of the press that still vehemently critique his and his government’s positions.

Here are just some of the recent facts:

Televisions

1. Nearly 90% of Italian television is comprised by the state television channels, Rai1, Rai2, and Rai3, and the Mediaset private channels Rete4, Canale5, Italia1, owned by Berlusconi.

2. In a recent meeting at his own private villa, Berlusconi personally selected the main directors of the public channels and the directors of the evening news editions of these channels.

3. While the exercise could be repeated for most of the newly appointed figures, here are two quotes from the new director of Italy’s leading evening news, TG1, Augusto Minzolini:
On Berlusconi: “He wears a blue jersey and has the firm hand of the worksite master, of the head of the fire brigade, of the military chief, but also the comprehension of the priest. Berlusconi gets exalted in emergencies. His attitude is ‘the politics of action’”.
The largest opposition party, on the other hand, is characterized negatively: “The truth is that the Democratic Party was born antiquated. The world runs, the centre-left stays still”.

4. One of the historical founders of TG5, Enrico Mentana, was recently and abruptly fired by Berlusconi’s Mediaset group over the running of his political program “Matrix”. Here is a letter sent by Mentana to the head of the television channel he worked for, written a few months before being fired and soon after Berlusconi’s latest election: “Our dinner ended a few hours ago. It was a mistake to invite me. I felt out of place. There was all the first bench of the newsdesk, but I did not hear a word about journalism for even a minute. It seemed a Thanksgiving dinner… an electoral Thanksgiving. All those around me had voted in the same way… it was obvious, as it was obviously to congratulate each other for their contribution towards this good end… I no longer feel at home in a group that seems an electoral committee, where everyone thinks in the same way, which is precisely why they have been put there.”

Newspapers

Berlusconi’s statements against particular newspapers opposed to his government are well known. Recently, however, there has been an escalation of what may only be called an attempt at intimidation:

1. Speaking in front of a congress of young industrialists, Berlusconi encouraged companies not to advertise in newspapers hostile to his positions, claiming these same papers are responsible for exaggerating the reach of the economic crisis in Italy. Not only does this represent unprecedented interference by a head of state, but the matter is worsened by three considerations: a) the large advertising budget of ’state’ companies, the directors of which are appointed by the Berlusconi cabinet and seek its goodwill; b) Berlusconi’s large commercial empire and its advertising budget; c) Berlusconi’s interests as editor of competing newspapers, radio, and television stations, all seeking advertising revenue.

2. Following a number of revelations this summer over Berlusconi’s relation with escorts and showgirls and his using State flights for their transportation to private parties, all amply reported by the international media, Berlusconi has sued Italian newspapers La Repubblica, and L’Unita, and European newspapers El Pais and Le Nouvel Observateur, in total claiming in excess of three million euros. He is said to also be investigating suing The Times Newspaper of London.

3. Following repeated criticism over Berlusconi’s personal life and his government’s approach to questions of migration by the newspaper of the Italian catholic bishops, Avvenire, Berlusconi’s own newspaper, Il Giornale, published an unsubstantiated report accusing the director of Avvenire of having threatened the wife of a man with whom he allegedly held sexual relations. The slander campaign has led to the resignation of the director of Avvenire, Dino Boffo.

Independent Reports

1. In its latest 2009 report, Freedom House classified Italy as only “partly free”, isolating in particular the political interference in the system of information

2. In its own latest report on freedom of the press in Italy, Reporters without Borders contend that Berlusconi “increases political interference” in the “editorial line” of the public and private news channels, “fostering self-censorship on the part of a section of the profession”.

3. The Italian association of journalists calls the recent legal proceedings against L’Unita “an attempt to strangle a newspaper of the opposition”

4. Aidan White, secretary-general of the International and European Federation of Journalists, writes in a recent press statement that: “[Berlusconi] puts press freedom at risk by trying to use the law to intimidate journalists and to stifle media reporting.”

In Italy, a more or less sophisticated process of media manipulation risks depriving citizens of the means to form a reasoned opinion on and check the actions of those in power. The legislation governing ‘freedom of the press’ remains intact and fully apt to a twenty-first century democracy. The problem lies in the application of such legislation, the acts of political intimidation and attempts at distortion of the advertising market, and a continuous contamination of the personnel of media organs with individuals loyal to current Prime Minister Berlusconi. In a country where television channels represent the only source of information for over 80% of the population, control over the media cannot be allowed to assume the draconian and totalitarian nature of its twentieth century precedent. Manipulation of the principal, “mass” media of a country can today perfectly co-exist with the maintenance of dedicated ‘indian reserves’ of opposition, flag-bearers of a merely procedural freedom of expression.

The Italian example has consequences far beyond Italy. Lack of a European response to the attacks on the liberty of expression and thought in Italy would threaten one of the fundaments of democracy throughout Europe. It puts in jeopardy progress made in former Soviet countries welcomed into the Union with regards to freedom of expression and of the press, and weakens any European condemnation of censorship or press intimidation on its borders and further abroad. In the context of what seem to be increasing attempts to limit the freedom of expression even in several Western countries which claim to be the homelands of liberty, the Italian example is potentially pernicious, and a Europe-wide response is demanded.

No related posts.