Oute tou adikein oute tou antadikein. Do not do injustice and do not repay injustice for injustice. It is a cornerstone of the Socratic morality exposed by Plato in the ''Crito''. I think of this maxim that has stuck with me since high school when I am involved in a feeling of revenge in the presence of the judicial troubles of the Minister of Police, Matteo Salvini and the embarrassment of the Grillini allies on the line to be taken in the vote in the Senate on the authorization to proceed.
Too often these political forces, the M5S in particular, they thrived under the banner of the worst justicialism, as if an absolute presumption of guilt were foreseen in the Constitution. This in a country where even the judiciary is questioning itself with concern - see the opening reports of the judicial year and the statistics provided on those occasions - on the number of acquittals already starting from the first instance. This violent justicialism has destroyed the reputation of good people and the tranquility of their families. And it has helped fuel hatred, contempt for politics and democratic institutions. Now that it's the turn of an unscrupulous political opponent like Matteo Salvini, why not take advantage of the judicial shortcut, as the oppositions – even the pompous ones – have done so many times against the government forces and Silvio Berlusconi in particular?
Personally, on the Salvini/Diciotti case, I express a political and moral reproach, but I do not have the competence to draw conclusions of a criminal nature which, by the way, are not mine. Why, then, did I bother to devote some considerations to that event? There is only one reason: I cannot understand the judgments and reactions expressed by so many people who think like me about the current government and Salvini, but who, at this juncture, have criticized the judiciary for two sets of reasons: the the autonomy of politics in the decisions within its competence; the favor that the request for authorization will bring to the electoral fate of the League and its leader.
In the first case: political initiative is always subordinated to the law. It is not enough to be elected by the people to behave in a discretionary way, without posing the problem of the rules in force, even with regard to international law which, as we know, is based on customs and treaties. In the second case: it is not right to save Barabbas because the people want it.
If we live in a phase in the history of the country in which the electorate is in harmony with Matteo Salvini, for this reason we must not ask his natural judge to turn a blind eye so as not to transform him into a martyr (assuming and not granted that he is again after the conspicuous reverse). Don't the supporters of this theory understand that, at the end of this path, one would come to accept everything in order not to oppose those who boast greater firepower on the political and electoral level?
I criticized the senators' appeal them to the Consulta for the events of the budget law, like the ''revolt'', which ended ''in fish tail'', of the mayors and governors against the Salvini law on security. I did it because, in my opinion, there is no ''judicial way'' that can remedy political defeats. But I don't find it correct that a political calculation ends up overruling the need to clarify a possible criminal offense
Salvini will never get to trial because the Senate will deny the authorization to proceed. And maybe it will be for the best. But if things went differently, if Salvini's responsibilities were recognized and if, precisely for this reason, he was rewarded at the polls, the Italians would answer that they had chosen as owner of the Interior not only a bully, but also a politician who, abusing of his power, he committed the crime of kidnapping. In any case, the Captain, taking advantage of this experience, he should reflect on his arrogant reactions, on the challenges launched everywhere, on the lack of respect for the institutions, on the vocation to arbitrariness. He would certainly have made a better impression if, in commenting on the story of the Diciotti ship, already last August, he had used the arguments which, legally speaking, he supported in the letter to Corriere della Sera. A French writer said that ''le style c'est l'homme''.
