Because it is foolish to criticize the Constitutional Court for no to the referendum on assisted suicide
The Constitutional Court could not have done otherwise after three years of useless waiting for Parliament to approve a law it had requested to better define a matter so poorly regulated. The Scratches of Damato
I understand on the human and political level the disappointment, the protest and so on of Marco Cappato in front of the seat of the Constitutional Court after the announcement of the rejection by the judges of the referendum on the end of life to decriminalize the murder of the consenting party. And I also understand the prediction made in the press by Luigi Manconi of the increase in clandestine euthanasia.
WHAT HAS THE CONSTITUTIONAL COURT DECIDED
The fact is that the Court could not have done otherwise after three years of useless waiting for the Parliament to approve a law it requested in 2018 for no later than 2019 in order to better define a matter so poorly regulated that it forced the Council itself. to take the place of the honorary judge to absolve Cappato from an accusation of murder of the consenting one, in fact, obtained in the exercise of "civil disobedience". Which he has now proposed to resume by reaction.
THE TRUE GOALS OF THE CRITICISM
More than against the Constitutional Court, which refused to endorse the risk of weakening the defense of the life of the weakest with the admissibility of a purely abrogative referendum of the crime, it would be necessary to blame the Parliament which has remained insensitive to the solicitation of the judges of the law such as those who work in front of the Quirinale.
THE CASE OF PARLIAMENT
For this alone, that is, for having evaded a duty written in the Constitution, this Parliament would be worthy of an early dissolution, already earned for other political reasons and spared last year by the President of the Republic, at the end of a long and painful crisis of government, for the emergency of the pandemic. Which would have multiplied the risks of contagion in the polling stations and in all the other phases of the electoral campaign.
THE HAIR OF AMATO
I know well that the new president of the Constitutional Court, a jurist with all the trimmings like Giuliano Amato, had created expectations of a different judgment in recent days, speaking against the tendency often shown by his colleagues and predecessors to look for "nit in the egg " for limit referendums . Which were in fact only 67 in about 50 years: 67, I repeat, of which 25 were thwarted by absenteeism, that is, by the non-participation of the request half plus one of those entitled to vote. But in this case there was not a hair to be removed from the egg. There was a brush to remove: frankly too much.
COMMENTS ON THE REFERENDUM
This explains how it was possible for two observers with such different cultures and backgrounds as the editorialist of Repubblica Stefano Folli and the director Marco Tarquinio of Avvenire , the newspaper of the Italian bishops, to overlap or almost overlap with the titles of their comments, respectively: "Ethical prudence and civil reforms" one and "Never uncivilized" shortcuts the other.
This is a machine translation from Italian language of a post published on Start Magazine at the URL https://www.startmag.it/mondo/perche-e-sciocco-criticare-la-corte-costituzionale-sul-no-al-referendum-sul-suicidio-assistito/ on Wed, 16 Feb 2022 05:40:09 +0000.