“We will not deny dissent”, but the no front is growing

Rave Party Modena – Picture by Ansa Foto

Today the Senate at 3 p.m. is called to announce the decree-law on life imprisonment, the new anti-Covid regulations and the anti-rave law. The process of converting the three measures into law will begin at Palazzo Madama. Also on the agenda, communications from the President of the Senate for the formation of standing committees.

Meloni: “Anti-rave rule fair”

That on rave parties, “is a standard that I claim and of which I am proud because Italy, after years of governments that bowed to illegality, will no longer be in the black jersey in terms of security. It is right to prosecute those who, often arriving from all over Europe, participate in illegal raves in which they illegally occupy private or public spaces, without respecting any safety rules and, moreover, promoting the sale and use of drugs. The exploitation of the right to demonstrate leaves the time they find, but I want to reassure the citizens that we will not refuse anyone to express their dissent”.

Prime Minister: ‘We will not deny dissent, if any, those who attack the provisions of our executive have denied it’

Thus, Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni on Facebook, explaining that the right to express dissent will not be denied: “To deny it in the past, if anything, it is precisely those who today attack the measures of our executive, in effect defending those who invade other people’s lands and buildings”.

Mollicone (FdI): “It can apply to occupied public or private buildings”

FdI’s Federico Mollicone, on Aria che Tira su La7 said: “This rule can rightly be applied to occupied public or private buildings as it happens in Rome, the capital of Mayor Gualtieri’s Italy, I think of the historic center, ‘Esquilino, where there is the Spin Lab, where they had paid New Year’s parties, for profit, without security measures, three floors underground ”.

The Democratic Party controversy: “There is already a rule that punishes raves”

Anti-rave rule sparks opposition controversy. “While all of Italy is focused on discussing anti-rave pseudo-regulations, the Meloni government is doing nothing about the bills. Very clever, but it does not last long”, writes on social networks Alessia Morani (Pd). “For all those for whom the left does not want respect for order, wants rave parties and reproaches Meloni for taking party. Dear virtual friends, I would like to inform you that in the Italian penal code there is already a rule that punishes rave parties. It is article 633 of the penal code and it would be enough just to apply it”.

Morani (Pd): “As it is written it can create problems”

The new anti-rave rule, according to Morani, “the way it is written can create many problems and must be drastically eliminated or corrected. Here is the text of Article 633 of the Penal Code: Anyone who arbitrarily invades the land or buildings of others, public or private, to occupy them or otherwise benefit from them, is punished, on complaint by the injured person, with imprisonment. . up to two years or with a fine of €103 to €1,032. The prison sentence of two to four years and a fine of 206 to 2,064 euros is applied and the offense is enforced ex officio if the offense is committed by more than five persons or if the offense is committed by a obviously armed person. If the crime is committed by two or more people, the penalty for the promoters or organizers is increased,” he concludes.

Doubts even in the majority, Zanettin (FI): “I will present amendments”

Even the majority has doubts about the anti-rave rule. “I share the need to sanction gatherings and abusive occupations or the drug trafficking that takes place in raves, but I think that it is a rule written too quickly: the abstract case had to be better defined in compliance with the principles of taxation, typicity and determination and reduces the maximum amount of assembly, I believe that 4 years can be enough”, declares Pierantonio Zanettin, senator of Forza Italia. “I reserve the right to present amendments when the provision is debated in Parliament” , he adds, specifying that the rule “should be more precise and with an interpretation of constitutional orientation in compliance with article 17 of the Constitution”, which enshrines the right to meet peacefully.