Wednesday, February 24, 2010
Peter Popham, writing in the Independent last week, provided a good run-down on the latest scandals here, together with a forthright attack on everything which he sees as wrong with the bel paese:
Italy today is devouring its own entrails. Private affluence and public squalor; constantly shrinking budgets which inflict vicious blows on schools and universities and hospitals and museums while the entrenched gerontocracies which preside over them are untouched; talented and vigorous youth who flee abroad to find study and work opportunities in ever-greater numbers, while their less-enterprising contemporaries struggle to make ends meet in jobs with miserable pay and no security; organised crime which constantly extends its reach; fear and hatred of immigrants, cynically encouraged by politicians in the government: this is Berlusconi's dismal legacy.
The accusations of racism might seem deliberately over-blown, particularly to UK readers who are more accustomed to seeing journalists speaking truth to power. The anger is real, however. What the article doesn't make clear is the gulf of mutual incomprehension between Berlusconi's supporters and his opponents. The list of gaffes at the end of the piece is a nice example of this: to the pro-Berlusconi camp (at least 50% of the Italian population), these are evidence of his humanity and his sense of humour - proof that he's 'one of us'. For the antis, it is a list which gives rise to acute embarrassment, and confirms their view that Berlusconi is unfit to govern.
These are effectively two mentalities in competition - a kind of civil war in the Italian consciousness. Those who love Berlusconi have one view of how public figures should conduct themselves; those who recoil from him have another. One side considers him tasteful and elegant (words he uses to describe himself),; the other sees him as vulgar. One side is happy with the image of Italy which Berlusconi projects to the world; the other yearns for a leader who can embody a more Northern European ideal of civic behaviour.
One thing can be said: Berlusconi's international image is extremely negative, and there can be no doubt that this is damaging Italy's reputation. Berlusconi has become is standard fare for every comedian in the UK. As a friend told me the other day, "We're all having a good laugh, but I guess if you live there it's no laughing matter."
Monday, February 22, 2010
This is the election theme song for Berlusconi's 'People of Liberty' party during the 2008 elections here in Italy, with subtitles in English.
It's mind-boggling stuff.
P.S. Count the ethnic minorities.
Sunday, January 10, 2010
I tend to agree with Johann Hari that the solution to the problems of free speech is more free speech.
And in a democracy as old as Britain's, you would expect at least a basic understanding of free speech from politicians. That is thankfully still the case in relation to parliament, where thoughtful and experienced members of both houses continue to resist ever more unprincipled and opportunistic legislation.
It is sadly not true of the current government, which started life in 1997 in an Obama-like frenzy of high principles, but succumbed pretty rapidly to the temptation to trash everything they once believed in return for a few votes. Think Blair, who piloted the Human Rights Act into law only to stage a series of tabloid-pleasing attacks on the Act when it proved an obstacle to sending extremists back to countries where they would almost certainly be tortured.
Last week in similar vein we had the spectacle of the Home Secretary egging on the police to ban the proposed march by the extremist Muslim group Islam4UK through the Wiltshire town of Wootton Bassett. Alan Johnson was filled with revulsion at the idea of the march, and his statement left us in no doubt that this is why he wanted to ban it.
It shouldn't need saying, but the fact that someone (or even everyone) finds something revolting does not mean it should be banned. In a democracy, we ban things which endanger life and limb, not things which endanger moral, political or religious sensibilities. If Wiltshire police had concluded that there was no way they could prevent the march from degenerating into a pitched battle, then that would be grounds for a ban. Ironically it was the police themselves, in the shape of ACPO President Hugh Orde (no stranger to sectarian marches) who were left to make the argument for free speech - the argument which should have been made by the Home Secretary.
All of which pushes me further towards thinking that Ministers ought to have a statutory duty to uphold a written Constitution, but I digress.
I can't help feeling the opponents of Islam4UK have missed a trick here. The idea of parading mock-coffins through Wootten Bassett is both staggeringly tasteless and calculated to get wall-to-wall media coverage. What better opportunity to expose Islam4UK as a bunch of nut jobs and to shame them live on national TV?
Instead of cowering behind a ban, turn the tables on the extremists. Free speech is a double-edged sword, after all.
Here are some ideas for starters:
- get tens of thousands of people lining the streets, each holding a 'shame on you' placard.
- put up huge billboards detailing Mr Choudary's £25,740 a year in state benefits.
- plaster the town with the recently-published photos of Mr Choudary drinking beer, smoking cannabis and 'leering at porn'.
Use your imagination, people.
Sunday, December 06, 2009
My wife's squirrel (public school):
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Sitemeter
