« April 2007 | Main | June 2007 »
May 22, 2007
Hear no evil. Italian politicos trash the BBC
A leading Italian current affairs programme has opted to buy the BBC documentary 'Sex Crimes and the Vatican' to be transmitted this Thursday along with a studio debate.
In most of the free world controversy comes after the broadcast of sensitive programmes like this. When toes have been trod upon, one can expect a reaction. Enlightened Italian politicos, ever vigilant to safeguard the nation's sensibilities, are, though, ahead of the game. They're trying to avoid controversy, by ensuring there's no debate to start with.
Mario Landolfi, a member of the politically appointed committee which oversees the State broadcaster (the existence of such a committee says it all), has urged the Director General to intervene against the broadcast. Landolfi, a member of the 'post-fascist' Alleanza nazionale party remarked that he wished "to avoid public service television becoming a media execution squad ready to open fire on the Church and the Pope"[1].
Today Pier Ferdinand Casini, leader of the centre-right UDC party, supported this line, saying "I don't see why we have to always copy the others. I don't understand why because the BBC have broadcast a trashy documentary, we have to imitate them, buying it perhaps with money from the Public TV service [...] Let's have a good inquiry into the work of the Church in the World, giving Paedophile priests the space they deserve, which is a tiny fraction in respect to all the positive work of the Church in the world".
Landolfi's argument simply shows how little he knows about the role of public broadcasting in a democracy. Should one expect any better from a post-fascist? It's unclear as to whether Landolfi has seen the film in question. He doesn't take issue with the BBC's journalism directly. That's nothing new in the history of censorship.
Casini's arguments are more media-friendly but are equally ignorant of the purpose of public broadcasting.
Public broadcasting has, as one of its many functions, the unpleasant task of asking difficult questions, of invesigating power. Paedophilia is universally recognised as a particularly serious crime. If there is evidence that an institution, such as the Church, has repeatedly protected paedophiles within its ranks, then that is a matter for public broadcasting to deal with.
Landolfi and Casini could reasonably suggest that the Church be fully represented on Thursday night's programme. There is no suggestion, though, that presenter Michele Santoro would wish to exclude church spokespeople from the programme. On the contrary, one would imagine that he'd be delighted to have someone on to whom he can pose difficult questions.
Because, what Casini and Landolfi and their ilk try to obscure or censor is the fact that there are serious questions to be asked of Ratzinger, and the Vatican. Read the Ferns report, for example, and come to your own conclusions.
Italy has, thus far, had very few scandals involving Paedophile Priests, despite the fact that cases have come to the fore across the catholic world. The unholy alliance between Politicians, the Media*, and the Vatican, as demonstrated in this case suggest, sadly, that this may be more a case of 'hear no evil' rather than one of institutional virtue.
Interestingly, the film has been broadcast unofficially with subtitles on YouTube, getting thousands of views. If the film is as bad as Landolfi and Casini suggest, it should be in the public interest to broadcast it within the context of a balanced debate. Best not mention it, though. They'll probably try to shut YouTube down.
Things were so much easier when you could just burn books...
Watch the film Sex Crimes and the Vatican
*reporting on the film, virtually all newspapers carry severe points of criticism from the Vatican press office. None carry any response from, or reference to the film-makers
[1] BBC
Posted by 3Monkeys at 03:35 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
May 16, 2007
Conflict of Interest
In the week that Silvio Berlusconi's Mediaset announced a take over of Dutch programming giant Endemol, as if by coincidence, Romano Prodi's government are starting to chart the waters for a new law on conflicts of interest.
Good luck to them. There is, perhaps, no other country in the EU that needs such a law so urgently.
A culture change left-and-right would be needed though to have any effective legislation passed - and this is not just down to Silvio 'Grande Fratello' Berlusconi.
An example: Justice Minister Clemente Mastella, the leader of the minnow-like UDEUR party commented to his government colleagues today, according to Repubblica - " We'll draw up a new electoral law that I propose. In this way the government and coalition will not just last out it's term, but we'll win the next election". If his colleagues decide not to choose his proposed new electoral law, which will favour small parties such as his own, the implication is clear, according to the paper. He'll bring down the government, starting with the already risky conflict of interest bill (risky because there are those who fear it will paint Berlusconi, one of the richest and most powerful men in Europe, as a victim).
Mastella started his career in the Christian Democrat party (DC) - like Romano Prodi, amongst others in the currently elected Parliament. A party that ruled Italy throughout most of the post-war period up until the 1990s when it was was shattered by revelations of widespread corruption.
Grim Business
Meanwhile it was reported today that the Mafia in Foggia have been charging a pizzo (protection money) to funeral undertakers. The gangsters get a payoff for each body buried. Another conflict of interest...
[1] "Io ai miei colleghi di lavoro l'ho detto chiaro e tondo: facciamo la legge elettorale che propongo io. In questo modo governo e coalizione non solo arriveranno fino in fondo alla legislatura ma vinceranno anche le prossime elezioni" - Repubblica 16/05
Posted by 3Monkeys at 09:25 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
May 12, 2007
Respect da family
Today, after almost two months of publicity and preparation, a demonstration will take place in Rome in support of the family.
The Italian family is in decline, it would seem. Low birth rates and marriage rates, according to the organisers demand urgent action on the part of the government.
The motivation behind the timing of the protest, though, is open to question. This so-called decline in the family has been evident for years (if not decades), but a mass demonstration has been organised solely when a centre-left government proposes legislation that will give legal rights to co-habiting couples - including homosexuals.
How popular/important the demonstation will be remains to be seen. Political support has thus far been patchy, even amongst Catholic politicians. An interesting barometer is the fact that Silvio Berlusconi has been hedging whether he'll appear on the stage in Piazza San Giovanni in Rome today. Presumably he's waiting for a head count.
Chief amongst the problems with the demonstration is that it there are no concrete proposals, it seems, from the organisation's manifesto, other than protecting the unique legal/constitutional position of the family.
It's as if there are legions of us who would get married and have children in the morning, were it not for the alluring prospect of legal rights for co-habiting gays. Do the organisers really believe that the main reason why people hesitate to get married and have children in Italy is because they're holding out for the easier co-habiting option to be given legal rights and tax breaks?
The more uncomfortable truth is that many Italians of child-bearing age do not have the economic confidence to start a family. Given that both centre-left and centre-right governments are committed to labour 'flexibility', perhaps the organisers would be better advised to have made their protest on the May day along with the Unions (although at least one mainstream union will be officially present at the demonstration).
Taboo is the suggestion that perhaps the 'family' structure isn't above criticism. A reader's letter to La Repubblica during the week was eloquent, but went largely unnoticed, pointing out the scriptural arguments against prizing the family above all. By and large, the central thesis of Family Day 2007,has been accepted across the political spectrum, that "the family is a fundamental human resource on which the identity and future of both the person and community depends. Only in the family founded on the union between a man and a woman, and open to a natural generational order, can children be born and grow into a ommunity of love and life, from which they can expect a civil education, both moral and religious"[1].
Much of this is transparently open to question - and yet, unsurprisingly, no major political figure has called into question this thesis.
Within this context it's worth publishing, in full, a press release received from The European Women's Lobby Group:
We are families!
On the occasion of the International Day of Families, 15 May 2007, four social NGOs are reminding the EU that any definition of families should reflect the diversity of families which exist in European societies. Increasingly, the traditional concept of family is challenged by the evolution of society. The number of teenage pregnancies, single-parent families and families based on same-sex unions is on the rise in the EU. A failure to acknowledge their existence, and respond to the particular challenges they face, in policy and legislation amounts to discrimination on the grounds of sex, race, age, nationality, religion, disability and sexual orientation.
Today is also the occasion to remind the EU of the need to implement the principle of family reunification and freedom of movement of families within the EU without discrimination. Increasingly restrictive family reunification policies across the EU member states undermine the right to family life, and have a detrimental effect on the integration of migrants.
Definitions of families and family policies should extend to quality publicly funded care for dependents and state benefits which recognise families in their diversity. Caring duties and costs must not fall solely on families and in particular women. Member states must take responsibility for the well being and the full integration of dependents.
List of quotes:
Patricia Prendiville, Executive Director of ILGA-Europe said:
“We do not want our families to be constantly considered as second class. At the end of the day, the ones who pay the toll for such discriminatory measures are children in lesbian, gay, bisexual or transgender (LGBT) families. Not recognising LGBT families in law and practice will only damage the right of children to the security and protection available to other children; it will not stop LGBT families from existing.”
Kirsti Kolthoff, President of the European Women’s Lobby stated:
"Care services are missing in the EU, which leads to a "double life burden", for women who more and more work outside the home and at the same time perform the majority of caring and household tasks. The way out of this "double life burden" of women, lies of course in changes in attitudes in the home, for an equal sharing of caring tasks between women and men, and it also depends on policies that allow women and men a real choice.”
Pascale Charhon, Director of the European Network against Racism (ENAR), pointed out that “there is an inherent contradiction in the policies of member states which seek to increasingly restrict migration and family reunification, while at the same time promoting integration and family rights in Europe”.
Anne-Sophie Parent, Director of AGE - the European Older People’s Platform observed that “the family should be considered in all its dimensions including the ageing family and that family policy should recognise the wish and limitations of families to care for their elderly dependants”.
[1] "La famiglia è un bene umano fondamentale dal quale dipendono l’identità e il futuro delle persone e della comunità sociale. Solo nella famiglia fondata sull’unione stabile di un uomo e una donna, e aperta a un’ordinata generazione naturale, i figli nascono e crescono in una comunità d’amore e di vita, dalla quale possono attendersi un’educazione civile, morale e religiosa. " - Piu Famiglia manifesto
Posted by 3Monkeys at 10:39 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
May 09, 2007
Holy Mary, Mother of God!
Almost four years ago a row exploded over the display of religious symbols in state-run institutions. An Italian convert to Islam brought the state to court, demanding that a crucifix prominently displayed in his daughter's classroom be taken down. The case was decided, initially, in his favour, provoking tempered headlines in right-wing outlets worldwide along the lines of "Adel Smith tries to make Christianity illegal in Italy"[1]
This week a state run obstetric hospital in Milan will replace crucifixes throughout the hospital, for a less controversial symbol, out of sensitivity to the cultural and religious backgrounds of their patients - up to 30% of which are non-Italians.
This enlightened move will, no-doubt, stir up the usual racist clap-trap about how, if they're in our country, immigrants should accept the predominant culture. Clap-trap apart from anything else because, in theory, the Italian Republic is a secular state - for Italians, as well as immigrants.
Before we get too busy clapping the move on the part of the Hospital's administration, though, we need to zoom in and find out what's replacing the crucifix.
You guessed it? Everybody's favourite cross-cultural mommy figure - the Madonna. Hospital administrators explained: "Our wards have become multi-ethnic and to avoid problems or forms of discrimination, we've decided to put in place of the crucifix the image of the Madonna, which is also favourably seen by Muslim women".
And if you'd rather not be surrounded by fundamentalist imagery of any kind? Tough, it would seem. The blank wall, while the most obvioius solution, is not an option.
For the theologically inclined, surely an image of the only woman in history to, supposedly, have given birth painlessly, reminding women in Labour that, thanks to the sin of Eve, "in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children"[2] is, at best, inappropriate for the walls of an obstetrics ward.
[1] Jihadwatch
[2] Genesis [3:16]
Posted by 3Monkeys at 08:58 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
May 08, 2007
Ah, that explains it...
I'm perversely partial to reading the Becker Posner blog, a dialogue on various themes between Economics professor Gary Becker and Law professor and judge Richard Posner.
Posner's worldview, is always worth a chuckle, were it not for the fear lurking at the back of your mind that he actually means even half of what he writes.
In a recent post Prof. Posner turned his judicial eye to the question of why there have been so few large scale protests against the war in Iraq, at least in comparison with the protests against the Vietnam war.
Posner identifies five reasons, other than the fact that now there is no draft involved in military recruiting, for the diminished tendency to protest publicly. In at #2 is the wonderful 'opportunity cost' is higher today than in the 60s: "This is partly because of higher wages, especially for educated people, and the fact that a higher percentage of women are employed. The greater competitiveness of the economy discourages people from taking risks with their careers by protesting. It discourages college students as well as the employed, because someone who gets the reputation in college of being a violent protester, or is suspended or simply gets very low grades because of the distraction of engaging in protest activities, will see his opportunities for a good job diminish."[1]
So those middle class hippies protesting in the 60s were doing so because they had little to lose, and nothing more profitable to do with their time. Genius.
Then again, judging by the huge protests in Italy against the war, and the virtually non-existent opportunities for full-time employment for University graduates here, perhaps the Judge has stumbled upon something...
1 - Becker Posner Blog
Posted by 3Monkeys at 10:54 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
Second Life? Antonio di Pietro goes to Neverland
One of the more interesting figures on the Italian political scene is Antonio di Pietro, founder of the Italia dei Valori party, and someone who first came to public prominence as a prosecuting magistrate during the mani pulite era, when Italy's ruling political class was decimated by investigations into corruption.
Di Pietro's party, founded in 1998, was one of the party's that had a surprising amount of success in last year's election, winning 5 senate seats and 20 seats in the chamber of deputies (though, as Di Pietro admits now, much was done through 'franchising' - and the party suffered an embarassing and tactically devastating defection of one of their senators, De Gregorio , to the centre-right).
Apart from 'franchising', Di Pietro and Italia dei Valori must be credited with harnessing the internet in a way few political leaders in Italy, or elsewhere have managed. Di Pietro publishes a regular blog, and broadcasts cabinet meetings on YouTube.
Adressing the party faithful at the weekend, at the annual Italia dei Valori congress, Di Pietro commented on one of the great problems of Italian politics: "The distance that today separates the electorate from the political parties is an abyss, it's the duty of the parties to bridge this gap that, unfortunately, grows wider all the time."[1]
And Di Pietro's latest attempt to bridge that gap? He's gone and bought an Island, which will be opened to interested persons to experiment with new forms of participatory democracy. Lacking the budget of Berlusconi, though, the Island is a virtual one - in the painfully trendy Second Life. Di Pietro's Island is called Neverland, and Second Lifers can 'teleport' there through this link
The man is either mad or a genius...
1La distanza che oggi separa gli elettori dai partiti è un abisso, il compito della politica è di colmare questa distanza che, purtroppo, cresce sempre più nel tempo."
Posted by 3Monkeys at 10:01 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
May 07, 2007
If Dolphins were Monkeys
The Presidential election victory in France of Nicolas Sarkozy has meant that, by necessity, this entry concerns representatives of Italy's centre-right parties. Had Segolene Royal won, no doubt exactly the same problem would have reared its head, but from the other side of the political stage - and one uses the word stage advisedly.
Sarkozy's win has put a grin on the faces of all those with a righward bent (and, perhaps a touch of good old fascism - but that's another day's work), with party spokesmen for the centre-right all managing to conclude that this bodes encouragingly well for Italy's centre-right coalition, and terribly badly for the ruling centre-left coalition of Romano Prodi.
Why?
A candidate in a different country wins a Presidential race (for a position that has no similar one in your country), under a system of government significantly different to yours, and you manage to pull out of the bag:
"The overwhelming vote for Nicolas Sarkozy demonstrates the desire for change that's crossing Europe and not only in France. The defeat of Royal is yet another proof that Europeans consider the capacity of the left to govern spent"[S.Berlusconi - 7/05/2007]
Sadly we have yet to hear the political implications in Italy of the SNP's victories in the Scottish Election last week...
Posted by 3Monkeys at 09:36 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
May 02, 2007
Just when you were starting to feel sorry for them
This monkey has already written about the daubing of the slogan 'Shame on you Bagnasco' on the doors of Genoa's cathedral, suggesting that it was wrong to term this a threat, as most of the media immediately did.
Some hotheads somewhere decided to up the ante, though, and daubed walls in Genoa, and elsewhere, with bona fide threats to the head of the Italian Bishops' Conference. Slogans like 'Death to Bagnasco' have cropped up on walls.
Then, at the weekend, the Bishop - who, in reference to Italy's impending legislation on rights for co-habiting couples (including homosexuals), likened homosexuality to incest and paedophilia - received a bullet in an envelope. Something no-one, regardless of how bigoted they maybe, should have to endure.
Unfortunately, though not surprisingly, the St.Peter's square branch of the regligious fundamentalist internationale have decided to take full advantage of this cowardly act, in order to smear any criticism of the Church whatsoever.
Today's edition of the
Osservatore Romano, 'newspaper' of the Vatican, leads with a headline 'Vile attacks on the Pope are also terrorism'.
"This is also terrorism. It's terrorism to launch attacks on the Church. It's terrorism to feed blind and irrational furies against he who speaks always in the name of love, love for life, and love for man. It's vile and an act of terrorism to throw stones this time even against the Pope, while feeling protected by the shouts of approval from an easily excitable crowd.[...]
And yet the fact remains that this character, to whom will regrettably be conceded an hour of unmerited notoriety, was chosen by someone. And whoever chose him hasn't taken into account the moment in which we're living. The words of the 'presenter' were perhaps just an expression of a worrying superficiality. But their danger is is anyting but superficial. These are the hours of serious attacks* and threats against the President of the CEI [Italian Bishops' Conference] Archbishop Angelo Bagnasco" [1]
The Paper's fury was directed at a comedian, Andrea Rivera, who was one of the presenters on-stage for the massive annual rock concert, sponsored by the major unions in honour of May day. Rivera's vile act of terrorism? From the stage he pronounced these lines - to, as the paper suggests, widespread applause:
"The Pope said he doesn't believe in evolution. I agree, in fact the Church has never evolved. I can't stand the fact that the Vatican refused Welby** a funeral. At the same time, though, it wasn't like that for Pinochet, for Franco, or for one of the Banda della Magliana***. It's right like that, though. At Jesus' side weren't two sufferers of Lou Gehrig's disease, but two thieves"[2]
Archbishop Bagnasco should receive protection from physical threats - like any other citizen of the Republic. Neither he, nor the rest of Benny's Bigot Brigade, should expect, though, to be shielded from criticism, ridicule, or even - god forbid - insults. That's the way of fascism - something they surely wouldn't be partial to...
*Verbal one would assume, although the Holy See seems to believe there's no difference between criticism and physical violence.
** Piergiorgio Welby was an Italian poet, painter, and activist, who, while suffering from Lou Gehring's disease, campaigned for his own right to die. In December of 2006, an anaesthetist controversially agreed to help him to die. Welby was denied a Catholic funeral.
*** A criminal gang which operated in and around Rome during Italy's anni di piombo. Gang members have been linked to the murder of Roberto Calvi, banker to the Vatican.
[1] "Anche questo è terrorismo. È terrorismo lanciare attacchi alla Chiesa. È terrorismo alimentare furori ciechi e irrazionali contro chi parla sempre in nome dell'amore, l'amore per la vita e l'amore per l'uomo. È vile e terroristico lanciare sassi questa volta addirittura contro il Papa, sentendosi coperti dalle grida di approvazione di una folla facilmente eccitabile.
[...]
Eppure resta il fatto che questo personaggio, al quale purtroppo si è costretti a concedere ora un'immeritata notorietà, da qualcuno è stato scelto. E chi l'ha scelto non ha tenuto conto del momento che stiamo vivendo. Le parole del "conduttore" forse sono solo espressione di una sconcertante superficialità. Ma la loro pericolosità non è altrettanto superficiale. Sono di queste ore gli attacchi e le minacce, pesanti, rivolte al Presidente della Cei, l'Arcivescovo Angelo Bagnasco" - Osservatore Romano, 02/05/2007.
[2] "Il Papa ha detto che non crede nell'evoluzionismo. Sono d'accordo, infatti la chiesa non si è mai evoluta", ha detto alla folla di giovani della piazza. "Non sopporto che il Vaticano abbia rifiutato i funerali di Welby. Invece non è stato così per Pinochet, a Franco e per uno della banda della Magliana. E' giusto così - ha sottolineato Rivera - assieme a Gesù Cristo non c'erano due malati di Sla, ma c'erano due ladroni" - La Repubblica
Posted by 3Monkeys at 05:57 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
May 01, 2007
Building walls - it worked then...
There's an interesting blog entry on the Times Literary Supplement site, from regular columnist Mary Beard, on the subject of Hadrian's Wall. Beard gives a quick history lesson to George W. Bush, and the Knesset, regarding their proposed and actual defensive barriers*.
Beard deconstructs the conservative-comforting image of Hadrian's wall, that of an impressive barrier separating civilisation from the barbarians. It would seem, points out Beard, though, that whatever Hadrian's wall served as, it certainly did not serve as an effective military barrier.
Theories now abound as to its use, though, interestingly given that it is usually fertile ground for 'non-official' theories, an internet search will dig up hundreds of sites all sticking to the barbarian-barrier line established, according to Beard, by an unreliable late Roman biographer of Hadrian. Was it a structure to facilitate the imposition of levies on goods passing to-and-from the empire? A giant toll-booth, as it were. Was it a communications channel running from east to west?
One thing is relatively certain, the wall was built by Roman legions, and thus by taxpayers money.
Lessons have been learned, but, as usual, all the wrong ones. The proposed bridge connecting Sicily to the mainland; the high-speed rail lines that will shave transit time for merchandise travelling in and out of Italy; Grand public works that will provide jobs (for the boys).
Meanwhile, a European Union paper on the progress of nation states towards reaching Renewable Energy targets says of Italy:
"No progress has been made towards reaching the RES-E target. While Italy’s RES-E shareamounted to 16% in 1997, it had fallen back to 15.43% seven years later (in 2004).Progress in the biofuels field is equally slow, with a share of 0.51% in 2005, compared to thetarget of 1%."
*It's worth pointing out, as an aside, that the Berlin wall was commonly refered to as the 'anti-fascist protection barrier' by East German 'news' journalists.
Posted by 3Monkeys at 09:08 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack