As I mentioned on my tumblr , this morning I went to the hearing of the Superior Council of Magistracy which was to determine the removal of the now ex-judge Luigi Tosti for not having taken a series of hearings (during 2005-2006) in the courtrooms of Camerino in which it was affixed to the cross. His battle began in 2003, five rounds after the removal of the crucifix in a noisy classroom Aquila. After Tosti has removed the crucifix was the then Chancellor to put it back apostrophe with "if you are a believer is not his problem."
In response to this stupidity, Tosti requests over the years were different and did not come to ask Subotica The removal of crucifixes from all courtrooms. First he posted in the classroom and the logo of the EU (Union of Rationalist Atheists and Agnostics) and was taken away even that. Then asked to place even a Jewish menorah (the famous candelabrum) and was denied even that. The Minister of Justice of the time in question time in practice was later told that in order to put a menorah in the classroom would need a law. Rather strange that the crucifix is \u200b\u200benough for a ministerial circular, which, among other things, implementing a law enacted by the Fascist Party in 1926.
During the period of refusal Tosti, the director of the court of Camerino tasks entrusted to him in lieu thereof, that have often increased the workload of the court, and was proposed to hold the hearings in his room or in a classroom without specially used crucified. Tosti has always refused to be ghettoized.
He arrived in January 2006 the first suspension from duty imposed on Tosti: he could have sought the forfeiture barred but formally withdrew during the trial, wanting instead to be acquitted on the merits, he. During the hearing Tosti did not simply reaffirms that its refusal to hold those hearings was the result of its compliance with principles of equality and inalienable rights and religious freedom enshrined in the Constitution (Article 3), the Charter of Human Rights (Article 14) and a 2003 decree on non-discrimination in the workplace.
Now Tosti has also made an interesting point: his behavior is not in any way comparable to an objection of conscience, like a doctor who refuses to carry out abortions, or a blood transfusion because of their beliefs, thus violating the law. E 'instead been compliance with the supreme principle of an inviolable Man who drove at once to refuse to hold a hearing in a courtroom where it is apparent impartiality of the judiciary in the face of religion, her, the accused, the witnesses, lawyers and Registrars.
He arrived in January 2006 the first suspension from duty imposed on Tosti: he could have sought the forfeiture barred but formally withdrew during the trial, wanting instead to be acquitted on the merits, he. During the hearing Tosti did not simply reaffirms that its refusal to hold those hearings was the result of its compliance with principles of equality and inalienable rights and religious freedom enshrined in the Constitution (Article 3), the Charter of Human Rights (Article 14) and a 2003 decree on non-discrimination in the workplace.
Now Tosti has also made an interesting point: his behavior is not in any way comparable to an objection of conscience, like a doctor who refuses to carry out abortions, or a blood transfusion because of their beliefs, thus violating the law. E 'instead been compliance with the supreme principle of an inviolable Man who drove at once to refuse to hold a hearing in a courtroom where it is apparent impartiality of the judiciary in the face of religion, her, the accused, the witnesses, lawyers and Registrars.
Returning to the proposals of Tosti the menorah and other religious symbols, then we want to put the crucifix we should put all other religious symbols, or symbols as billion, citing the same Tosti "the gods of antiquity are not in prescription or have an expiration date as the food. " To respect the equality of citizens, the principle of state secularism, a place to be impartial, the court should also appear impartial, the only solution would be to remove every symbol, to be judged by the Italian State and not by a religious denomination .
Tosti also cited the recent ruling by the European Court of Human Rights on crucifixes in classrooms, arguing that if this ruling applies to schools is not clear how it should not also apply to the courts.
The worst, perhaps, was having to listen to the Attorney to redraft the indictment with which Tosti was suspended from duty two years ago to fit the outcome of criminal proceedings for "acts of omission of office" which saw Tosti be acquitted . The Prosecutor has in fact explicitly stated that, despite Tosti has been suspended by appealing to the fact that the presence of crucifixes in the classroom was lawful, because today is removed, even if it was not the lawful presence of the crucifix, he could not refuse to hold hearings .
to this ridiculous claim Tosti said simply chiedendo, con vari esempi, se davvero si pensa che non si debba entrare nel merito del motivo per cui un giudice non tiene una udienza e quindi rimuoverlo dalla magistratura solo per l'assenza in aula. Anche perché, secondo l'opinione del Procuratore, allora dovrebbero essere licenziati tutti i magistrati che non sono presenti per malattia, per sciopero dei mezzi di trasporto pubblici, per sciopero dei magistrati, il rifiuto a torturare i testimoni qualora una circolare li obbligasse a farlo, senza tenere conto dei questi motivi.
Siccome questo non avviene, allora si tratta solo di una strategia accusatoria che non sta in piedi. Una strategia che tenta di spostare l'affissione del crocifisso da causa prima del rifiuto a semplice pretesto per non work.
Also in 2007 the same CSM ruled in favor of a judge who refused to hold a hearing in the absence of the Registrar, then entering into the merits of a disciplinary measure of the same type.
very solid arguments, too bad that the Superior Council of Magistracy has distracted as a vice president Nicola Mancino, who, after having slept several times during the exposure of Tosti, woke up at 12.55 from the third nap asking Tosti getting to the point. This has however rightly said "4-5 years have been waiting to speak, I wish I had given the time."
The hearing was, however, started at 11:10, one hour and 40 minutes late, and from 9 to 9:45 we were told that while the public hearing, could not attend (with the excuse that the classroom is too small) or make audio-visual recordings. There had been made available to a press room with a large screen from which follow the video (the audio was absent). After repeated requests by attendees to have at least a written statement of reasons, they magically get all this by saying that the 17 limit was 8 and was increased to 15 people. Of course, once inside, it becomes evident that the space was more than enough for everyone.
During the debate has also touched on the importance of cultural but not religious crocifisso, argomentazione che Tosti ha smontato semplicemente annotando che la discriminazione è tale quale che sia la radice religiosa o culturale: se non mi sento rappresentato dalla religione cristiana, non necessariamente devo sentirmi rappresentato dalla cultura cristiana. I principi di laicità e neutralità vengono meno lo stesso.
Un altro accenno interessante fatto da Tosti si riferisce al processo penale nel primo grado di giudizio. Si stabiliva il principio secondo cui se sei magistrato e non ti piace il crocifisso allora non devi lamentarti ma dimetterti. Le conseguenze di questa idiozia è che se qualcuno non si sente rappresentato dal crocifisso tanto vale che non faccia nemmeno domanda. Ovvero: se non sei cristiano non puoi fare il giudice.
For other considerations, and citations refer to my tumblr .
very solid arguments, too bad that the Superior Council of Magistracy has distracted as a vice president Nicola Mancino, who, after having slept several times during the exposure of Tosti, woke up at 12.55 from the third nap asking Tosti getting to the point. This has however rightly said "4-5 years have been waiting to speak, I wish I had given the time."
The hearing was, however, started at 11:10, one hour and 40 minutes late, and from 9 to 9:45 we were told that while the public hearing, could not attend (with the excuse that the classroom is too small) or make audio-visual recordings. There had been made available to a press room with a large screen from which follow the video (the audio was absent). After repeated requests by attendees to have at least a written statement of reasons, they magically get all this by saying that the 17 limit was 8 and was increased to 15 people. Of course, once inside, it becomes evident that the space was more than enough for everyone.
During the debate has also touched on the importance of cultural but not religious crocifisso, argomentazione che Tosti ha smontato semplicemente annotando che la discriminazione è tale quale che sia la radice religiosa o culturale: se non mi sento rappresentato dalla religione cristiana, non necessariamente devo sentirmi rappresentato dalla cultura cristiana. I principi di laicità e neutralità vengono meno lo stesso.
Un altro accenno interessante fatto da Tosti si riferisce al processo penale nel primo grado di giudizio. Si stabiliva il principio secondo cui se sei magistrato e non ti piace il crocifisso allora non devi lamentarti ma dimetterti. Le conseguenze di questa idiozia è che se qualcuno non si sente rappresentato dal crocifisso tanto vale che non faccia nemmeno domanda. Ovvero: se non sei cristiano non puoi fare il giudice.
For other considerations, and citations refer to my tumblr .
0 comments:
Post a Comment