But she is really certain that measures quite extraordinary - from the prohibition of moving from one region to another with the closure of schools - fall really in the scope of the Paper?
"Yes, the Constitution expressly provides, in article 16, that the freedom of the circulation may be limited "for reasons of health or safety". Article 17, on freedom of assembly, provides that it may be prohibited for "proven reasons of security and safety of the public". I still remember that article 32 on the right to health is not only explicit that it is a fundamental right of the individual, but which also constitutes an interest of the community."
Excuse me, but are we sure that all of this applies to the epidemic by Covit-19?
"Look at the state of public health emergency has been declared not only by the Italian authorities but also, and especially, by the World Health Organization. So we're talking about an emergency state of fact, which, consequently, allows the government an extraordinary intervention and urgent so incisive. It is evident that the full re-expansion of all freedoms must be ensured as soon as stopped, in fact as soon as improved, the situation of emergency".
Then you are providing a full coverage of the constitutional decrees of the government and to the words of the premier, Count?
"I would call it a full coverage yes, but limited in time. It is necessary that all of these measures provide for a deadline and they are justified as long as it does not reverses the trend of the disease. I would like to recall, in any case, that all the decisions of the government, taken to the decree, are then checked, in the form of the issuance, by the head of State. And this is a step that is very delicate, since the conversion of these decrees will be in fact exhausted, and, therefore, will be less from the point of view of "substantial" and the usual parliamentary scrutiny".
But for the closure of schools and health conditions equal for the entire Country, she does not see violated the autonomy of the Regions?
"this is Also required by the Constitution. So much so that the article 120 recites expressly that the government may replace the local authorities in the case of "serious danger to the public safety and security".
by iterating through the decree on the red areas it almost seems to end up in a state of war. And the complaints the individual are already many. For example, on the prohibition of exit from the infected areas. She, in the face of this, is with the government or the citizens?
"of course I, as a constitutionalist, I can not stand on the side of the citizens and their fundamental rights. And, in fact, these measures tend to protect the inviolable rights of the people. Of course, the acts of the government rely heavily on the individual responsibility of each person. Everyone should be aware that the protection of public health is not only an interest of the State, but especially of each of us. Imagine that the success of these measures may burden only on the shoulders of the State, which are functions only thanks to the repressive systems, for example, with the army on the streets, it is pure madness, and it would be very dangerous."
Is saying that you can't do without a strong awareness of the individual conscience even in the face of sacrifice momentary freedom?
"Look, it's obvious that if the government blocks the move from the red zones in any direction to avoid the spread of the infection and then they all assault the train to escape, all of this undermines the efforts of the authorities and the results from all the desired, spreading instead the contagion".
Cinemas and theatres closed, contests, blocked, funerals prohibited, obligation to work from home: we just need to say yes to the Count, who asks us to "change our lifestyle"?
"I would like to give a double answer to this question. If the trauma of this story should teach us to pay more attention to the protection of health, to the environment that surrounds us, the need to ensure not only in exceptional cases, but the emergencies of every day, with a national health service capable of ensuring the fundamental right to health and the cure all, all of this would certainly be a positive consequence with respect to this tragedy. If you think you can stabilize, in the ordinary way, a drastic reduction of the sociability, an exponential increase in individualism, an aggravation of the fear of the other and of the unknown, then the health risk would have a harmful regression in the cultural that we depart from the perspective of freedom and progress guaranteed by the Constitution".
"The Republic will fight always in defense of the freedom of information, to its readers and to all those who have at heart the principles of democracy and civil coexistence"Carlo Verdelli SUBSCRIBERS TO REPUBLIC © Reproduction reserved reader COMMENTS Today on online searches at the time of the corona virus Fountain and Bonaccini: “the Decree Coronavirus, good but more clarity: so it is a mess” If Milan becomes the laboratory of the new solitude Don Rodrigo and the virus of the plague: a journey in Milan, in the Hospital The help you need to banks