Between the Apostolic Judge and Salvini, Salvini is undoubtedly right: even Giuliano Ferrara, who never gave the Captain discounts and will not give any, recognized him with gritted teeth at Foglio. If it weren’t something terribly serious, we would have to smile at the rise to the mirrors that magistrates, journalists and trombones from the justice circus launched yesterday to justify the behavior of the immigration lady and her ostensible extreme left-wing political stance. In the first line, as always, the brave Labor member of the Daily Mischief, who every day instead of newspaper articles issues definitive sentences and the Apostolic has already acquitted her without even being heard, writing that no criminal or ethical rule prohibited her from speaking out with many ordinary citizens, but telling a half-truth that completely deviates from the principle of opportunity that should guide every judge in life outside the courts.
In short, for Travaglio, the Apostolic case would be just the umpteenth chapter of the conspiracy hatched by those who every day bring bundles of firewood to the ever-burning pyre of modern witches, that is, “impartial and independent magistrates”. Criticism of the judge’s participation “in an old procession that in no way invalidates his order denying the detention of three migrants” would obviously be an integral part of the anti-toga conspiracy. Because, pay attention, the director of Il Fatto emphasizes that it was a “silent participation”, in such a way that it did not even constitute a kind of “external competition” to the demonstration: in fact, it was others and not her who criticized Salvini, and not The likes placed – and then removed in vain – on the Facebook profile and other vulgar insults against the minister count for nothing. The only thing that matters is clarifying who took that photo. And here too the sentence is already ready: certainly a dossier expert with the intention of “creating chaos” and violating the judge’s privacy. Here, however, it is worth adding an observation: no one actually placed a hidden camera in Mrs. Apostolico’s house, and if a magistrate decided to participate in a political demonstration in the square he certainly would not be able to invoke privacy: perhaps he would do that. I did better to think about it first.
But the judicial left has long been accustomed to defending the indefensible, and is also very skilled at turning the tables, which is why the Republic has written inflammatory words against the “Salvini method” of which, being deputy prime minister, it demands “continence , respect for the judiciary and the separation of powers and respect for people in general”, blacklisting their “rude and uncivilized way of doing politics” (while standing in a square shouting murder at the police is evidently a Stilnovist stance in a toga ). But that’s not all: the relentless journalist also highlights the high level of inconsistency in the position of those who present General Vannacci as a martyr of censorship and then becomes indignant if he discovers that a magistrate “has his own vision of things in life and politics », a highly specialized and diluted version of an improvised and flagrant invasion of the judicial field. This staunch left-wing defender of the untouchable Constitution unfortunately makes slips of the tongue: for example, he forgot the existence of article 98, according to which certain categories of citizens, including magistrates and soldiers on duty, can by law have their rights politicians limited rights, prescribing them the duty to appear absolutely above any controversy. Therefore, Vannacci and Apostolic for the Charter are the same, with the difference that a general is subject to an iron hierarchical order which he must ultimately obey, and Vannacci – who also expressed opinions that do not concern his role – at most I could have made some errors on the geographic map; while a judge has the terrible power to decide on the freedom and lives of citizens and is therefore a matter of a very different value.
Unfortunately, that’s not all: yesterday we also saw a former high magistrate relaunch the so-called social function of the judiciary, which is the Trojan horse for entering forcefully into political decisions: «It is a duty of us magistrates – he wrote with equal enthusiasm to indignation – committing to the rights of the weakest, and even more exposing oneself is possible if it is linked to issues of justice, a common good that can only be affirmed with the daily commitment of a sensitive community, whatever the work and the life system of those who make it up”. According to this school of thought, therefore, a judge and a metalworker should have the same right to take to the streets to protest against government policies and, in fact, a magistrate has the duty to do so when it comes to justice. In short, these are public defenders blinded by ideology, for whom no one can ask magistrates, much less the apostolic judge, who has already become their heroine – to speak and write only with sentences and judicial documents, nor can they be considered holders of “minor rights” (evidently he didn’t read article 98 either…). At the end of this absurd fair, a question is obligatory: but what if Travaglio and the singer’s company found themselves one day in an imaginary courtroom answering for an imaginary crime in front of an imaginary judge who usually describes them as full of insults against him and who took to the streets with the extreme right, would he wait calmly for the trial or would he do everything he could to refuse this imaginary judge by appealing to his magistrate friends? Oh, to know!
Source: IL Tempo

Emma Fitzgerald is an accomplished political journalist and author at The Nation View. With a background in political science and international relations, she has a deep understanding of the political landscape and the forces that shape it.