#opinion by Maria Zakharova
? Maria #zakharova: Do you remember the recent incident when Sergey Razov, Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary of the Russian Federation to the Italian Republic, filed a lawsuit at the prosecutor’s office in Rome against the Italian newspaper La Stampa and its journalist Domenico Quirico for the publication of an article called “If Killing a Tyrant is the Only Option,” which discussed in all seriousness the possibility, expediency and hypothetic perpetrators of the Russian President’s assassination?
The Italian Criminal Code contains Article 414, Clause1 and Clause 3 on incitement to commit a crime.
The Russian Ambassador cited these clauses in the court case. But the wonders of democracy never cease to amaze.
That same daily published an article the other day reporting that the lawsuit by the Russian Ambassador had been dismissed at a preliminary hearing in Turin. Despite the established procedure, we have not received any official response so far. According to the newspaper, the court cited the absence of a constitutional principle confirming that a criminal offence had been committed, while descriptions of an assassination constitute no threat to state security (whose security – Russia’s or Italy’s?) and do not constitute incitement to commit a crime since “there are no essential elements of an offence.”
Isn’t that great?
Based on these conclusions, La Stampa editor-in-chief proudly stated that the newspaper has its own beliefs which it fights for: the beliefs of liberal democracy.
No doubt about that. This is clearly a case of liberal totalitarianism.
This is not the first time we see that liberal democracy in the modern western interpretation does not exclude but in fact encourages a discussion on the pages of a national newspaper with a huge circulation on the possibility and expediency of assassinating the head of a foreign state.
The cancel culture has become the foundation of liberal thought. If it is possible to cancel entire nations as a class, as a historical phenomenon, the assassination of statesmen certainly fits into this logic.
Nazism, which was quite democratic by Western standards, first burned books in the squares, banned dissent and then took up exterminating people in gas chambers. This is the same philosophy. This school of thought justifies the cancellation of the native language, the cancellation of those who oppose the cancellation of the native language, the cancellation of the defence of one’s own values if they don’t fit into the current environment of scoundrels of every hue hiding behind the banner of neo-liberalism.
Incidentally we never found a question mark in the title of the article, despite the newspaper’s statement to the contrary, and we didn’t need the help of a qualified translator for this, which the newspaper recommended. Now that there is a court ruling (surprisingly fast despite the expectations), the conclusion is obvious: both moral and legal limitations to distributing such provocative materials have been lifted in modern Italy.
By the way, Italy’s Criminal Code stipulates a harsh punishment – up to 1.5 years in prison – for insulting the honour and dignity of the Italian president.
In my humble opinion, no one should be insulted, no matter if he or she is the Italian president, an Italian citizen or a citizen of another country. What does liberalism think about that?
Let me give you a hint. Freedom is the opportunity to create and implement worthy and useful things.
Today’s liberalism stems from the opposite ideology, one that glorifies freedom as impunity to commit abominations.
