Just 24 hours after the previous post, I'm back to writing about current events, invigorated by a new faith in the power of words (not mine, of course: the word in general) and the necessity of having to talk, maybe even the wind, as long as you speak.
As you know, recently there have been demonstrations organized by students in our capital Gelmini signed against the university reform and against the vote of confidence that the government has obtained (or, according to some, bought). Between an event and the other there were also clashes with the police, because in some cases the situation has worsened.
Before we start talking about with this movie that we act only as a starting point, but that will not represent in itself the object of reflection. I chose a program that many were "left", so not fair, but unfortunately it is one of the few remaining in which they invited politicians from both sides , where there is so the possibility of replication and right to be heard, all of which are lacking in other television networks, where the Barbarian D'Urso, the Big Brothers and Friends some of Maria De Filippi have an obligation to distract the people talking about something else and where, in the rare event that we are talking about politics, politicians are only a certain address, no other ... that is in contradiction
Before we start talking about with this movie that we act only as a starting point, but that will not represent in itself the object of reflection. I chose a program that many were "left", so not fair, but unfortunately it is one of the few remaining in which they invited politicians from both sides , where there is so the possibility of replication and right to be heard, all of which are lacking in other television networks, where the Barbarian D'Urso, the Big Brothers and Friends some of Maria De Filippi have an obligation to distract the people talking about something else and where, in the rare event that we are talking about politics, politicians are only a certain address, no other ... that is in contradiction
Three ways to express
Let us now an important difference at the outset. The modes of expression can be divided into three types, according to me.
There are primarily the peaceful demonstrations, or those with processions with banners when they stand a chorus of protest and that, at most, a few are close road (right guaranteed by law), or spread a bit 'of manure and / or dirt in front of symbolic places of power.
Then there are the events involving violence and public disorder, just as those organized for the purpose, but where the classic and inevitable "hot heads" (which are always present in all environments ), often without even knowing why they are there, they decide to vent their anger and let themselves get carried away with quite similar to those conducted Ultras supporters who take a beating on the steps of the stages (see for example the famous days of the G8 summit in Genoa in which we escaped even the dead): This type course of events is, in itself, openly condemned because it is not right to block social and economic activities of a city, especially then even if this means putting at risk the physical safety of innocent citizens, more or less unrelated to the events ... in such cases is the message of the philosopher Mill that an individual's freedom ends where the other begins.
Finally, there are events in which one is compelled to react in a less peaceful than usual because of an unacceptable withdrawal of rights that have been enjoyed so far: my professor of history at the high school taught me the fact that revolutions (large and small) always arise when a people are denied all of a sudden the rights to at that time were considered essential. And if you think so: this is what triggers the "violent" reaction of the masses, otherwise not explained why a horde of people would voluntarily go to risk their physical safety, which is something completely unnatural. An example of this was the French Revolution. In such cases the reaction violent clashes with security forces may become the only way that people have to recover those rights are denied, may be the last resort, the only weapon you have available. In a democracy, when the dialogue is refused, when the demands of a people are not being heard and his dissent ignored, then you move to a different level of response, more and more violent. But this is an obvious phenomenon, spontaneous and natural, since it starts to prevail more and more the instinct of survival as the laws cease to protect the people.
Let us now an important difference at the outset. The modes of expression can be divided into three types, according to me.
There are primarily the peaceful demonstrations, or those with processions with banners when they stand a chorus of protest and that, at most, a few are close road (right guaranteed by law), or spread a bit 'of manure and / or dirt in front of symbolic places of power.
Then there are the events involving violence and public disorder, just as those organized for the purpose, but where the classic and inevitable "hot heads" (which are always present in all environments ), often without even knowing why they are there, they decide to vent their anger and let themselves get carried away with quite similar to those conducted Ultras supporters who take a beating on the steps of the stages (see for example the famous days of the G8 summit in Genoa in which we escaped even the dead): This type course of events is, in itself, openly condemned because it is not right to block social and economic activities of a city, especially then even if this means putting at risk the physical safety of innocent citizens, more or less unrelated to the events ... in such cases is the message of the philosopher Mill that an individual's freedom ends where the other begins.
Finally, there are events in which one is compelled to react in a less peaceful than usual because of an unacceptable withdrawal of rights that have been enjoyed so far: my professor of history at the high school taught me the fact that revolutions (large and small) always arise when a people are denied all of a sudden the rights to at that time were considered essential. And if you think so: this is what triggers the "violent" reaction of the masses, otherwise not explained why a horde of people would voluntarily go to risk their physical safety, which is something completely unnatural. An example of this was the French Revolution. In such cases the reaction violent clashes with security forces may become the only way that people have to recover those rights are denied, may be the last resort, the only weapon you have available. In a democracy, when the dialogue is refused, when the demands of a people are not being heard and his dissent ignored, then you move to a different level of response, more and more violent. But this is an obvious phenomenon, spontaneous and natural, since it starts to prevail more and more the instinct of survival as the laws cease to protect the people.
But no ...
Perhaps now you are thinking that I want to justify the violence occurred in Rome in the last hour making this speech. But no. To give an opinion like that you should make the strict investigations, as Santoro said in the video, is the responsibility of the judiciary find out who has gone beyond the limit allowed and what were the triggers these excesses. And if it turns out that the degree of violence that has come to be guilty of unjustified black block, it is right that they pay because violence is unacceptable unjustifiable unless extreme or very serious, as it is right that pay if it turns out that the police had overreacted by abusing their position. But apportioning blame is not what you want to do here. This is not the object of reflection.
Perhaps now you are thinking that I want to justify the violence occurred in Rome in the last hour making this speech. But no. To give an opinion like that you should make the strict investigations, as Santoro said in the video, is the responsibility of the judiciary find out who has gone beyond the limit allowed and what were the triggers these excesses. And if it turns out that the degree of violence that has come to be guilty of unjustified black block, it is right that they pay because violence is unacceptable unjustifiable unless extreme or very serious, as it is right that pay if it turns out that the police had overreacted by abusing their position. But apportioning blame is not what you want to do here. This is not the object of reflection.
However it is undeniable ... that
What I blend for the head and that I can say with certainty is rather that we can discuss (or rather: you should discuss ) how much you want to know if these episodes of conflict are to be attributed to a vandalism for its own sake or whether they are the result of a rope pulled too much from a government that has neglected to listen to the excessively general dissent. However there is no doubt that dissent demonstrated by a significant proportion of Italian students and faculty (and even part of the stranger!) has not been heard As there is no doubt that in our country's political class for many years not interprets needs of the community. In fact, I remember, politicians have an obligation by law to manage the affairs of the state to realize that those are the will of the people, not their personal needs . So it works in a democracy. Therefore, when this is done, when the power to make decisions that people are not comfortable, not caring that the people do not go well, technically (and forgive me if I sink into banality) politicians are not doing their job or are deliberately ignoring the will of citizens who is the only will that count under the law : in fact, our good old Constitution tells us that " sovereignty belongs to the people and is exercised '(Article 1, Section 2), that We us citizens to command. Then it is clear that a little 'strange if this one is our policy to their ears in front of students that NO, this reform, just do not want it. It's like a fire alarm sounding in a building there because of the fire, but, in the same building, the exits are blocked and they forgot the willingness of people to come out, even if those ports were placed there for the same people. And suppose also that the people are composed entirely of empty heads who do not understand anything, again paradoxically, the political class would have to make laws that reflect the popular will. But we are not at these levels: there is still among us, who can use your head, who knows how to think.
What I blend for the head and that I can say with certainty is rather that we can discuss (or rather: you should discuss ) how much you want to know if these episodes of conflict are to be attributed to a vandalism for its own sake or whether they are the result of a rope pulled too much from a government that has neglected to listen to the excessively general dissent. However there is no doubt that dissent demonstrated by a significant proportion of Italian students and faculty (and even part of the stranger!) has not been heard As there is no doubt that in our country's political class for many years not interprets needs of the community. In fact, I remember, politicians have an obligation by law to manage the affairs of the state to realize that those are the will of the people, not their personal needs . So it works in a democracy. Therefore, when this is done, when the power to make decisions that people are not comfortable, not caring that the people do not go well, technically (and forgive me if I sink into banality) politicians are not doing their job or are deliberately ignoring the will of citizens who is the only will that count under the law : in fact, our good old Constitution tells us that " sovereignty belongs to the people and is exercised '(Article 1, Section 2), that We us citizens to command. Then it is clear that a little 'strange if this one is our policy to their ears in front of students that NO, this reform, just do not want it. It's like a fire alarm sounding in a building there because of the fire, but, in the same building, the exits are blocked and they forgot the willingness of people to come out, even if those ports were placed there for the same people. And suppose also that the people are composed entirely of empty heads who do not understand anything, again paradoxically, the political class would have to make laws that reflect the popular will. But we are not at these levels: there is still among us, who can use your head, who knows how to think.
So ...
So, in conclusion, the movie beyond the student of political science, Santoro, La Russa, the which we do not care anything in this context and which served only as a starting point, we living today, more than in other legislatures, a situation in which the popular will not only not being heard (and only this already enough to invalidate the conduct of these politicians), but even insulted her with blows of "Shut up! " and" Coward! " (which is the ultimate lack of respect and dialogue between the parties, conduct all the more serious as required by a Minister), as you saw in the video by the likes of The Russian, using rhetorical techniques worthy of a Vittorio Sgarbi and where the right to demonstrate dissent (where the courts determined that was not responsible for and direct cause of violence) is accused of being "apology to crime" .
When you started talking about this university reform, I smelled a bit 'the fact that almost all students and teachers are against, if a reform is indeed good, then it is accepted by at least majority (as was the case for reform of family law of 1975, for example). Here, however, an entire country was mobilized against! Why, I wondered, should these people show so sharp against a reform that protects them? It is obviously not good to the end that protects them, obviously not everything that the Minister Gelmini said is true, obviously the TG5 our minister spoke of reform, telling it a bit 'in her own way (so no one would have contradicted!), as obviously we can not trust the same TG5, which spoke about the student protests (from the beginning and indiscriminately) as an act totally unjustified and without a legitimate reason for being, as if they were mad all of a sudden, equating grimly vandalism to the sacred right of free expression of the dissent from people who just wanted to be heard instead, it is their right. How is it right for all. Therefore, If my history teacher was right, it is true that when the state does not representative of the will of the people you get to the unrest or even revolution, and if it is true (and true) that the Italian people these years not feel represented by their political class, then the conclusion of this syllogism is of concern. Perhaps it would be good to learn from history and respect the will of most of the people, maybe they avoid disturbances far more serious than those of Rome.
So, in conclusion, the movie beyond the student of political science, Santoro, La Russa, the which we do not care anything in this context and which served only as a starting point, we living today, more than in other legislatures, a situation in which the popular will not only not being heard (and only this already enough to invalidate the conduct of these politicians), but even insulted her with blows of "Shut up! " and" Coward! " (which is the ultimate lack of respect and dialogue between the parties, conduct all the more serious as required by a Minister), as you saw in the video by the likes of The Russian, using rhetorical techniques worthy of a Vittorio Sgarbi and where the right to demonstrate dissent (where the courts determined that was not responsible for and direct cause of violence) is accused of being "apology to crime" .
When you started talking about this university reform, I smelled a bit 'the fact that almost all students and teachers are against, if a reform is indeed good, then it is accepted by at least majority (as was the case for reform of family law of 1975, for example). Here, however, an entire country was mobilized against! Why, I wondered, should these people show so sharp against a reform that protects them? It is obviously not good to the end that protects them, obviously not everything that the Minister Gelmini said is true, obviously the TG5 our minister spoke of reform, telling it a bit 'in her own way (so no one would have contradicted!), as obviously we can not trust the same TG5, which spoke about the student protests (from the beginning and indiscriminately) as an act totally unjustified and without a legitimate reason for being, as if they were mad all of a sudden, equating grimly vandalism to the sacred right of free expression of the dissent from people who just wanted to be heard instead, it is their right. How is it right for all. Therefore, If my history teacher was right, it is true that when the state does not representative of the will of the people you get to the unrest or even revolution, and if it is true (and true) that the Italian people these years not feel represented by their political class, then the conclusion of this syllogism is of concern. Perhaps it would be good to learn from history and respect the will of most of the people, maybe they avoid disturbances far more serious than those of Rome.
0 comments:
Post a Comment