From security decree to security decree: it seems we never have enough
security. According to our rulers there is always someone or somethingto protect us from, an enemy to defend ourselves from with increasingly
exemplary punishments. But this does not concern safety in the workplace
or protection from environmental disasters or economic crises that
capitalism produces. No, safety is social tranquility, a condition in
which good obsequious citizens live according to the dictates of power
and everything proceeds in perfect government order.
In recent days, yet another security bill was approved by the Chamber
and will now have to be approved by the Senate. I will briefly return to
what this new measure provides for later. Now it might be useful to make
a small history of the most recent security decrees to account for a
continuous and persistent initiative of all the governments that have
succeeded one another in recent years. In 2017, originally so to speak,
it was Minniti, the ineffable Minister of the Interior in the Gentiloni
government, who gave a further twist to the propaganda campaign against
migrants, considered the main culprits of social insecurity. The
measure, actually two, the "migrant decree" and the "security decree"
which however followed the same procedure, provided for the abolition of
the second level of judgment for asylum seekers who appealed against a
denial, the abolition of the hearing, the extension of the network of
detention centers for irregular migrants, the introduction of voluntary
work for migrants, and the so-called "urban Daspo", with which a ban on
access to certain areas of the city is inflicted on those who "engage in
conduct that limits the free accessibility and use" of transport
infrastructures (roads, railways and airport). Without forgetting that
Minniti himself promoted the infamous memorandum with Libya and issued
the code of conduct for NGOs, a first systematic attack on the
initiative of ships that save lives in the Mediterranean. Even then,
there was talk of profiles of unconstitutionality, in particular for the
right to a fair trial and the right to defense.
Then came the Salvini era and his security decrees in which there is no
longer any need to pretend about the equivalence between migrants and
insecurity. In 2018, the first Conte government (the one with the
League), a great hype introduced a first decree, whose main objectives
were the abolition of humanitarian protection, the dismantling of the
Sprar system (remember the Riace-Mimmo Lucano affair?), the expansion of
the possibilities of resorting to the urban Daspo. Between this first
decree and the one now being approved, there was the interregnum of the
second Conte government, the one with the PD, during which the Minister
of the Interior Lamorgese pretended to abolish Salvini's security
decree. In reality, some of its rough edges were toned down, but the
logic of social security to be obtained through repressive
interventions, regulation and control of immigration was left intact.
With the new government of the fascist right, this logic of the
repressive response to the innumerable social problems has undergone a
strong acceleration; every opportunity mounted ad hoc by a complacent
information system has offered the opportunity to predict new crimes and
increased penalties: rave parties, Caivano, Cutro, the actions of
activists against climate change.
Now DDL 1660 introduces further new crimes and exorbitantly increases
the penalties: we are talking about another 20 crimes introduced by the
new rules. They range from the so-called "terrorism of the word", to the
new crime of terrorism; from damage to the crackdown on roadblocks; from
the tightening of the urban Daspo (once again!) to the crime of
occupying property, etc. It is clear that here we are not talking about
a phantom security as a right of citizens, but of preparing special
legislation to hit all those social struggles of resistance that today
try to oppose environmental destruction as well as the precariousness of
work and the militarization of territories.
Now, if I briefly recalled earlier the long journey of which the current
decree is the most perverse product, it is not to belittle the
qualitative leap that the Meloni government would like to make with this
provision, on the contrary. However, it would be short-sighted to
pretend that there is not a general tendency in the so-called democratic
systems towards increasingly authoritarian and liberticidal governments.
After all, numerous rules are already in force that severely limit the
freedom of action for opposition movements; there are many examples and
repression is always lurking, from the most recent initiatives of groups
such as Ultima generazione and Extinction Rebellion, to the decades-long
struggles in Val di Susa, to those against the Muos and against the
Bridge over the Strait, or to the struggles for work outside of union
consultation, or to a thousand others. Just as it is clear that the very
fascist DDL 1660 can truly represent a repressive turning point of great
scope and long duration. And as we have seen in recent years, there has
been no turning back from every twist towards greater security control
and the measures have been added to each other: from Minniti, Salvini,
Lamorgese, not to mention the Turco-Napolitano or the Bossi-Fini on the
immigration issue.
After the passage in the Chamber there have been (and are ongoing)
mobilizations against the approval of the DDL that have also involved
institutional areas. The most relevant one so far was the one called by
Cgil and Uil on September 25, which was joined by Pd, Movimento Cinque
Stelle, and other parties of the so-called opposition. Well, if it is
true, as it is, that this measure marks a fracture between a before and
an after, a before in which up to now, albeit with limits and
constraints, it has been possible to protest and an after in which it
will no longer be possible to do so, a huge mobilization would be needed
to block the fascist drift, a mobilization that involves a good portion
of public opinion, the democratic and progressive media and that
materializes in effective and impactful actions (a non-ritual general
strike?). Is there the intention on the part of these subjects, who in
theory could mobilize millions of people, to carry through to the end an
even "extreme" agitation campaign? Or do they want to limit themselves
to taking positions, which sooner or later (sooner rather than later)
will get lost in the labyrinth of institutional pantomime? And wouldn't
it also be desirable that the entire area that today represents, for
better or for worse, the social opposition finds a unity of purpose and
a capacity for mobilization from below, aware of the danger of a
repression that will invest it even more than in the past?
To defend a true democracy from incipient fascism, it is not enough to
cry fascist wolf, but we must have the courage to carry through to the
end struggles that ensure real freedom of movement and protest for all.
For this reason, we must first question the entire security policy of
recent years, and dismantle the assumptions that security equals social
order, migrants equals insecurity. This is to begin with.
Angelo Barberi
http://sicilialibertaria.it
_________________________________________
A - I N F O S N E W S S E R V I C E
By, For, and About Anarchists
Send news reports to A-infos-en mailing list
A-infos-en@ainfos.ca
Geen opmerkingen:
Een reactie posten