After the case of university professor Teramo who gave a lesson on the tragedy of the Shoah denier , and in the wake of almost daily rants of Ahmadinejad and cronies, Riccardo Pacifici, the head of the Jewish community of Rome, proposed a law that punishes the denial. Assuming that we could not be farther from the positions of anyone denying the Holocaust, the question arises: in a country sick of secularism and rampant racism, because the denial needs a state law that punishes and homophobia rather not?
The Act concerns homophobia was finally sunk a year ago, in a Parliament has not even discussed blocking the vote on the ruling of unconstitutionality submitted by the party ultra-Catholic UDC and also voted by the PDL (Finian excluded) and the League, with dissenting votes instead of the PD and IDV.
comparing the positions that led to the two bills, it is not clear where it ends the right to express an opinion, as clearly unfounded, stupid and idiotic, and where it should begin with the crime and its punishment. But mostly affects the difference in view between the two issues: the denial needless to talk about it, so obvious is its inconsistency, but homophobia? Why the Taliban Vatican nostrani and all their minions should remain free to say that atrocities such as homosexuality is "unnatural," that gays are perverts and should be maintained even against their will, pointing out that those who would give them the most basic civil rights would be even against the laws of nature and / or God, basing their case on terms that often are the boundaries of racism real? With all that that entails, as the newspapers tell us quite regularly, suggesting that what leaps to the headlines is just the tip of the iceberg, but often is silent about what the homosexual and transsexual people have to suffer even today in theocracies Islamic countries and stronger Christian character.
We have just commemorated the deportation of Roman Jews from the ghetto on 16 October 1943, and every time we forget that the tragedy of the Holocaust have also found death homosexuals (and the Roma and other dissidents) would be a very good exercise for consistency and realism, as well as democracy, remember that racial discrimination - all - have the same gravity anywhere at any time. If it is desirable to have a clearer dividing line between freedom of opinion and propaganda of racist potentially (too often actively) el'incolumità dangerous for the freedom of certain 'categories' of citizens, then we must remember not to exclude anyone.
Incidentally, I am for freedom of expression, even the fools (as homophobic and negazonisti), but we can not ignore that some 'terms' have practical consequences different from the others, so that you could easily define 'propaganda', using a tremble in the last century had a very meaning left.
Perhaps the biggest problem today with respect to anti-Semitism and homophobia, which is an institutional bank even at some European governments. It 's true, however, create protected categories or unequal treatment of citizens is as pull a pickaxe to the liberal state, but in practice it ignores the consequences of religious propaganda against homosexuals, not for nothing that the Vatican and all the monotheistic religions have always opposed a law against homophobia (which exists in other countries) and understand why, as now also oppose the proposal of the rabbi of Rome. Want to have your hands-and language-free in both fields.
In short, this is not just verbal formulas negligible, because the words that open the way to the facts. It 's always been like that. We do not agree? Ok, give up the law against homophobia, but then also say no to the proposal for Pacifici, and also abolishes the Mancino law in its entirety.
The truth is that a truly liberal democracy and no difference between people working on it to get there on time, and if you need some 'corrections' to protect the physical safety and civil rights of some, and educate everyone mutual respect, Well then you have to do. Waiting for better times.
0 comments:
Post a Comment