The judgement that went against Sgarbi establishes that it is an offence to accuse a public servant of iniziating a ‘political investigation’ as it’s a phrase that is obviously offensive and throws into question the morality of the magistrates involved.

The Italian magistrature has come under fire from the political establishment ever since the high-profile investigations it launched in the 1990s destroyed many political careers. It would be an interesting exercise, for example, to try to find one speech by Berlusconi that references justice which does not make the accusation of political motivation against the magistrates.

Pierluigi Mantini of the Margherita, one of the current governing coalition parties, described the ruling as “a strong brake on the long running war conducted by the centre-right [parties] against judges”.

The sentence though is surely nonsense. The offence lies not in the uttering of the phrase ‘politically motivated’ but rather in whether it’s true or not. And obviously it’s highly difficult to prove whether an investigation is, or is not, politically motivated.

To take two examples:
1)Giulio Andreotti, former Italian prime-minister and Senator for life, was investigated by magistrates for association with the mafia (an investigation which found evidence of mafia links, but for which the statute of limitations meant that no guilty verdict could be brought).
2)Silvio Berlusconi, former Italian prime-minister, has been relentlessly investigated on various counts including mafia association, fraud, perjury etc.
In both cases the investigations had a political effect beneficial to their adversaries. Does that mean that the investigations were politically motivated? Who knows? And therein lies the rub.

Italy’s political class has, judging on recent history, much to be investigated for. Each time that happens there is a political effect.

Putting it well into context was Berlusconi’s legal counsel, Nicolo Ghedini (imagine the horror this Monkey felt, when finding himself agreeing with Berluska’s legal eagle), who pointed out that the self same Court of Appeals found that the use of the term ‘buffoon’ when referring to the Prime Minister (at the time Berlusconi) constituted a ‘legitimate political criticism’.