Curfew entirely political choice: first Conte now Draghi, a dangerous authoritarian twist
Fury of the Communists in government against the Italians. If the 10 pm curfew has been confirmed, it is only for one reason: to preserve the political balance of the majority. Fundamental freedoms continue to be arbitrarily harmed, with the excuse of Covid, only to avoid giving it to the League. Sources of the Cts: never consulted, it has always been a "political choice"
There is no longer any sanitary and epidemiological logic, the fight against Covid in Italy is turning into a fight for freedom. The latest decree, called "Reopening" , passed yesterday by the Council of Ministers, with the abstention of the League component, makes it clear that now this government, like and perhaps more than the previous one, is screwing into a spiral of measures – old such as the curfew or new ones such as the green pass – increasingly bizarre, without any scientific support, without any cause-and-effect correlation between the situations or behaviors affected and the containment of the contagion, nor any cost-benefit analysis and in many cases not even a sense logical. It is now clear that it is all about politics – and low politics.
Care cost us a breath of fresh air to the restaurateurs, to be able to reopen outdoors in the yellow zone, and the mini-reopenings from April 26, with a thousand absurd complications, with however greater limitations than in the same period of 2020, when there were no the vaccines. Therefore, curfew from 22 confirmed and green pass , just because the communists in government could not lose face and give it to the League. “We cannot afford to give the idea that Salvini is giving the cards at 360 °”, a 5 Star rumor spreads to the Huffington Post website.
While waiting for the text, it is not yet clear until when the curfew will be in effect from 10pm to 5am: until June 15, it is clear from the official press release of Palazzo Chigi; at least until June 1, since government sources have spoken of a "coupon" to the measures "after May" (which means that only after that date could the start of an hour or two be postponed, or if it goes well revoked). In any case, we risk paying for uncertainty: tourists are deciding in these days where to go on vacation, they will not wait for the "coupon" of the Draghi government. Today's decision risks compromising the summer season, after the winter one, for one of the sectors most affected by the crisis. And by the way: has the quarantine been lifted for vaccinated people arriving from other countries?
The League fought in the CDM so that the start of the curfew was at least postponed to 11 pm, an extra hour of air. But it is a point of principle: a measure so damaging to personal freedoms is not adopted if a benefit from an epidemiological point of view is no longer proven. And the studies on the subject are very weak, they don't even try to establish a correlation. By now we have all understood that the curfew from 22 was adopted to give the "feeling" of the emergency and reiterated in order not to give the message of "free all". And today that the League is in government even an hour of curfew, from 10 pm instead of 11 pm, it becomes a political barrier against Salvini, on the skin of 60 million people.
But if the Catto-Communist political forces, majority in the government, are tied and are increasingly tied to a "closed" line , in opposition to the League, and if the survival of the Draghi government depends on the stability of the internal balance of the majority, how can we ever get out?
Just yesterday, very heavy declarations were leaked from the CTS, collected by the Agi agency which, if confirmed, would show how the curfew was from the beginning a 100% political choice, behind which there has never been any epidemiological evaluation that suggested it to reduce infections. The CTS sources cited by the Agi state that the confirmation of the curfew from 10 pm is not an indication of the technical-scientific Committee, which would never have been consulted on this specific aspect: "In reality, we have never talked about the curfew , it has always been a political evaluation, we have never been subjected to any request to that effect ” . As it happened, however, it is pointed out when it was established six months ago.
According to the Agi , there is a certain discontent among the technicians for the attribution to the Committee of the indication to maintain the curfew from 10 pm. Among the most authoritative statements, those of the ministers Gelmini and Patuanelli, who spoke of a decision "listening the Cts ”, would therefore be blatantly denied.
In the evening, the patch of the CTS spokesperson, Brusaferro (whose name appears in the case of the WHO report covered up), who does not deny the sources cited by the Agi (political evaluation, never asked for an opinion), but runs to the government's rescue by doing to know that the Committee "deems it appropriate that a gradual and progressive relaxation of containment measures, including the starting time of movement restrictions, should be favored".
In short, for six months, fundamental freedoms were limited by "political choice", without scientific evidence and not even an opinion from the CTS as a support. How to define a government that arbitrarily, without any factual motivation, imposes a curfew on 60 million citizens? Isn't there enough to send this and the previous government to the Court of Ministers? Isn't there a judge in this country? Isn't there a president of the Republic? Isn't there a constitutional court? Yes, there are, but they are all politically aligned powers with the catto-communist forces that for over a year have been imposing liberticidal measures, unloading obligations, prohibitions and lockdown costs on citizens, to cover their failures in managing the emergency. Failures that have led our country to the sad record of Covid deaths per million inhabitants.
The reconstructions of yesterday's clash in the government that filtered through the press agencies also raise, again, great concerns regarding President Draghi's lucidity and institutional correctness, if, as reported, in the face of the insistence of the Northern League ministers to at least re-discuss the time of the beginning of the curfew, postponing it to 11 pm, had opposed the decisions now taken in the "Control room". Can the Council of Ministers be transformed into a mere formal ratification of the decisions of the "Control Room"? The institutional and constitutional tears are beginning to be too many.
The ministers of the League did well not to vote on the decree. In fact, we must ask ourselves if the mini-reopenings starting from April 26 are worth the authoritarian twist of a curfew for political choice and a pass for travel between Regions. Is there a limit? Are there any non-negotiable principles? Has a red line been drawn? Is there too high a price to pay to stay at the government table?
In Atlantico Quotidiano we had warned since last March: when a government is allowed to decide by decree (often only administrative) on the fundamental freedoms of citizens, for months, in fact without limits, with the justification of an emergency and on the wave of fear, the risk is that it will take pleasure in us, and that the state of necessity will soon pass to pure will for political interest. We got there.
The other key measure of the new decree, the green pass, which gives vaccinated, cured and buffered patients the possibility to move freely in the orange and red regions, presents quite a few critical issues from a legal point of view, serious profiles of unconstitutionality, and is not supported by sufficient scientific basis.
With the criteria of the beginning of March, therefore not even two months ago, most of the Regions would already be in the yellow zone today. It is reasonable to assume that in a few weeks, according to current criteria, with the increase in vaccinated people and the warm season, all the Regions will be at least in the yellow zone. So why introduce a pass to go to the orange or red regions right now? The suspicion is that they intend to change the criteria again, to ensure that the whole country is never in the yellow zone.
We remind you that last year, from May 18, bars and restaurants were able to reopen both indoors and outdoors, with spacing rules. This year, however, they will be able to serve customers inside from June 1st and only for lunch. Also in the yellow zone, restrictions on moving to the private homes of others will remain in force, at least until June 15, while in 2020 they were canceled starting from May 18. In short, after months of closures and vaccinations, we are facing a spring and a summer with greater restrictions than last year, when despite the prophets of disasters the summer passed without massacres – unless we want to explain the rise of the infections at the beginning of October with two months of incubation… In the open air, contagion is very unlikely and in the summer the virus loses strength. Plus, we have vaccines this year. So there is no reason for more restrictive measures.
Returning to the interregional pass, which makes us go back to pre-unification Italy (other than Schengen!), Until the government is able to offer all adult citizens, without distinction, a vaccine, it is discriminatory, unconstitutional. In addition, there would also be discrimination between vaccinated: with Johnson & Johnson you would have the pass immediately, with Pfizer or Moderna after at least three weeks from the first dose; with AstraZeneca after three months. And if you are young, we will talk about it again in the autumn …
The pass is valid for 6 months, so anyone who was vaccinated in January or February would see it expire at the end of the summer. What should it do? Getting revaccinated after only 6 months? Swabs every two days until the next vaccine? And who was traveling between Regions even orange or red for work, health or necessity, only with self-certification, will be forced to a new fulfillment? Will he have to swab every two days if he is not vaccinated?
Discriminations and practical difficulties that cannot be justified with the aim of preventing contagion, or that at least appear disproportionate: it is not certain that a vaccinated person cannot infect (indeed it seems that the transmission of the virus remains possible) and the swab up 48 hours beforehand does not guarantee that the subject does not positivize before, during or immediately after the move.
Finally, we take the school. After more than a year of pandemic, protocols, more prolonged closures than any other advanced country, wheeled benches, we are still at "not all classrooms can accommodate 100 percent of students" . Here too we are at the blame. The government says it will reopen 100% in attendance, but the principals claim that they cannot guarantee compliance with the protocols everywhere, which provide for a minimum of one meter distance between students. Who will be right? If what unions and principals claim is true, that is, after a year of pandemic, not all schools are placed in a position to comply with safety protocols, then someone should start to answer for it, some heads should start jumping. If this is not true, or it is a question of very isolated cases, then we need to think of a pathetic excuse for not returning to teaching face to face.
Well, it seems that in this case the decisions taken in the control room, and the same words of Prime Minister Draghi in the press conference, could be revised: the high schools, which in the yellow and orange area should have given lessons in the presence of 100 one hundred, may reduce attendance by up to 70 percent, at the discretion of the principals.
The post Curfew entirely political choice: first Conte now Draghi, a dangerous authoritarian twist appeared first on Atlantico Quotidiano .
This is a machine translation from Italian language of a post published on Atlantico Quotidiano at the URL http://www.atlanticoquotidiano.it/quotidiano/coprifuoco-scelta-tutta-politica-prima-conte-ora-draghi-una-pericolosa-torsione-autoritaria/ on Thu, 22 Apr 2021 03:56:00 +0000.