Italian elections from abroad

I have to say that, like many Italians right now, I flirted with the idea of not voting. There are many reasons for this: Italy is in deep crisis with too many groups defending vehemently their own interest with no regard for the rest of the population and the future of the country (see the opposition to TAV – high-speed trains; the opposition to the sale of Alitalia; opposition to the liberalisation of professions etc.). Italy has always been affected by deeply rooted corporativism, which sits uncomfortably in the globalised economy of the 21st century. There are many things that need to be done and yet political parties are squabbling. There is very little vision, direction and gravity.
Nonetheless I voted. After all, I thought that the people who might not vote at these elections are the moderate ones, those who are fed up with games, sound-bytes and shouts. This leaves the hard-core voters of Alleanza Nazionale (rightwingers), Lega Lombarda (Lombardy League) and the communists … oops the Sinistra Arcobaleno (those who would like to live in Cuba if it wasn’t for the systematic abuse of free speech and civil liberties). This is what made me vote! My vote counts.
The policies are similar and I haven’t got the time to look at the specifics or the costing. So it all comes down to trust, as in most elections.
I have no idea how much I can trust the coalition of the Partito Democratico (Centre-left) of which Italia dei Valori are part. I know I cannot trust Popolo delle Liberta' (Berlusconi’s party). Not because of Berlusconi, but because I don’t trust a party that did all they could to make the government fall. This is NOT responsible politics! It is NOT in the interest of the country, even of those who voted for the opposition.
I hope the new government, whoever they are, will have to guts to challenge the vested interest of small groups and bring Italy into the 21st century. I hope they will promote accountability and trust starting from the local level. And I sincerely hope that the opposition will work with the government to ensure that important reforms go through. We deserve this much!

As mentioned in my previous post, I contacted the main parties’ candidates and asked the same two questions, what they thought of the privatisation of Alitalia and the refuse problem in Naples without giving any hint about my position.
[Needless to say I’d like to see Alitalia sold to AirFrance, that being the best offer, thus giving Italian taxpayers a break as they’ve been dishing out cash to a badly managed ultra-protected company for donkeys years; while the refuse problem needs concerted action starting from tackling the mafia and introducing better ways to manage waste such as recycling, re-using but also green plants producing energy without releasing harmful emissions, yes they do exist! I would also like to see reforms to increase transparency and accountability for universities, the whole administration of justice and, of course, local government.]
The winner was Mr Angelo Berardini (Italia dei Valori – centre-left) with a very exhaustive and balanced reply, which I report below (sorry too long to translate).

Gentilissima Signora Francesca
Grazie per l'attenzione che ha voluto riservare alla mia candidatura nella lista dell'Italia Dei Valori.
I due temi che mi ha sottoposto sono importanti ed anche emblematici della realtà dell'Italia e della sua realtà socio-economica, rispetto all'Alitalia: la privatizzazione è una realtà e nello stesso tempo una necessità, semmai il problema è che in tutti questi anni essa è stata al centro di una politica di protezione che le ha impedito di competre nel mercato come hanno fatto altre compagnie aeree europee e internazionali; ritengo anacronistico ripresentare il tema dell'Italilanità dell'alitalia, è giunto il momento per essa di "navigare" in mare aperto e affrontare le onde e le burrasche con i suoi mezzi, che si attrezzi, che partecipi alla competizione del mercato attingendo alla professionalità, alla competenza e soprattutto all'abbandono del clientelismo di cui è stata vittima e carnefice nello stesso tempo. La questione dell'aeroporto Malpensa è un tema diverso e solo i mistificatori tendono a confondere le acque e a tenere insieme le due questioni.
Rispetto al tema dei rifiuti: prima di tutto chiederei, come del resto ha già fatto Di Pietro, le immediate dimissioni dei principali responsabili, in primis Bassolino e metterei in campo una governance di esperti totalmente indipendenti dal potere politico con il compito solo di portare a soluzione il problema dei rifiuti che per essere risolto ha bisogno di una molteplicità di interventi: educativo (cultura della raccolta differenziata), etico (cultura della legalità della responsabilità),
politico (coinvolgimento di tutti i cittadini singoli e raccolti in associazione in un'azione di denuncia e di ripristino sul tema dei siti), tecnico (bonifica delle scariche e individuazione di luoghi di stoccaggio), costruzione di nuovi e moderni impianti per lo smaltimento), chederei solidarietà e aiuto alle altre regioni (sempre dietro una rassicurazione che la richiesta è una tantum e che partecipa di un progetto integrato per la soluzione del problema, una volta tanto mi rivolgerei al popolo campano sano, quello che ha intelligenza e onestà per sollecitarlo a credere che la soluzione del problema è dipende in larga parte anche da lui.
Capisco che non ho risolto i problemi, ma spero di essere riuscito a far capire che alcune idee possono essere messe in campo.
Se eletto, come ho risposto adesso, così risponderò domani, fornendo soluzioni e accogliendo consigli.

Law, morality and the Archbishop

I read Rowan Williams’ long pages of ambiguous woolliness and managed not to get too irritated. He’s right, of course, to say that as soon as you mention sharia most people (or the media?) think “it is repressive towards women and wedded to archaic and brutal physical punishments”. No wonder it caused such a bang, which, I assume, was Rowan’s intention to ‘diffuse’ or confuse tensions ahead of Lambeth Conference. It feels, however, that he has miscalculated how loud the bang would be.
The Archbishop in acutely careful language criticises the monopoly of positive law over principles. Law is not the pure positivistic construction the nation-state created. It is only fair that in a pluralist society our diversity is reflected in it by allowing flexibility of interpretation. Sharia, Torah and Christian Canon law are guided by principles and the Archbishop would like to see religious courts exercising a limited role in applying the law according to their principles as a form of ‘supplementary jurisdiction’. Rowan is well aware of the pitfalls to which this suggestion may lead. For example, he states that:

recognition of 'supplementary jurisdiction' in some areas, especially family law, could have the effect of reinforcing in minority communities some of the most repressive or retrograde elements in them, with particularly serious consequences for the role and liberties of women.

To counter this problems, he reassures us that

If any kind of plural jurisdiction is recognised, it would presumably have to be under the rubric that no 'supplementary' jurisdiction could have the power to deny access to the rights granted to other citizens or to punish its members for claiming those rights.

This would mean that one who appeals to the religious courts would be granted all the rights that civil courts guarantee. In what way would it be different than the current situation? Rowan Williams does not explore it in any detail so it is impossible to guess what would be the matters on which the courts could judge legitimately. It is, at best, impractical and expensive for the community.

The point Rowan so badly tried to put across is that he wants more flexibility in interpreting human rights. He’s keen to have more exemptions on the basis of one’s ‘conscience’.

Earlier on, I proposed that the criterion for recognising and collaborating with communal religious discipline should be connected with whether a communal jurisdiction actively interfered with liberties guaranteed by the wider society in such a way as definitively to block access to the exercise of those liberties; clearly the refusal of a religious believer to act upon the legal recognition of a right is not, given the plural character of society, a denial to anyone inside or outside the community of access to that right. The point has been granted in respect of medical professionals who may be asked to perform or co-operate in performing abortions – a perfectly reasonable example of the law doing what I earlier defined as its job, securing space for those aspects of human motivation and behaviour that cannot be finally determined by any corporate or social system. It is difficult to see quite why the principle cannot be extended in other areas.

Actually, it’s very easy to see why the principle cannot be extended in other areas! Leaving the abortion discussion aside for once, I cannot see the deontological validity of the opt-out of professionals from performing legally recognised procedures. I believe a blanket policy in such matters is inevitably discriminatory. More importantly, shouldn’t theologians and religious ministers advise on moral matters rather than other professionals?
If we recognise the opt-out principle, why not the ‘go forward’ one? Both Liberal and Reform Judaism had been celebrating homosexual weddings (albeit in private) well before they became legally recognised in European states. They recognised women as equal and therefore allowed to be rabbis before equality legislation.
Human rights legislation protects individuals regardless of their religion, sex, race, ability/disability, sexual orientation. You might not realise it, Rowan, but your courts, if given legitimacy, would undermine the human rights of all. They would call into question what we’ve so painfully achieved so far and bring relativism back in from the front door.
I believe there are fundamental misunderstandings in this reasoning. Firstly, the law is flexible and changes according to political priorities but also societal changes through government policies, parliamentary legislation and the courts. Religious law does change but it very seldom does so as a result of the community’s will, especially now that we are granted rights and liberties under secular legislation. Who would set the law guiding these courts? Unelected institutions? Unelected theologians?
Secondly and most importantly, legal systems are hierarchical. It follows that the religious courts he’s promoting would not be able to derogate from primary, secondary legislation and, needless to say, EU law. This is the best bit. Leaving aside competition law, the most important document underpinning European legislation is the European Convention on Human Rights. Yes, it’s binding! Yes, it’s part of UK law, albeit belatedly!
The funny thing is that (from my perspective) the recognition of the dignity of the human that is enshrined in human rights legislation comes from religion. Human rights are simply the secularised version of the guiding principles of major religions.
Europe has seen many forms of governments including monarchies, empires, city-states, nation-states and now the European Union. With modernity, sovereignty has moved gradually but decisively from the political, ethnic and religious communities of pre-modern times to the individual. The individual and his/her autonomy are at the centre. Thus, following the end of the Second World War and its horrors, the recognition of the individual (=human) was the cornerstone of the European Convention on Human Rights. The Daily Mail is right, it is European (human rights) law that is sovereign and has therefore power to strike down national laws that do not comply. However, European, national and regional courts enforce universal law, albeit ‘translated’ in the local understanding of it (=proportionality).
It will, thus, be a very interesting exercise to recognise religious courts in ‘public life’ as these would be required to uphold common human rights principles. These are ‘common’ because recognised by democratically elected states and therefore are taken to represent the view of the majority and include the recognition of minority rights. There is no need for any 'supplementary' jurisdiction, human dignity is already enshrined in human rights' law.

Who’s afraid of Europe? The Ryanair revolution

The UK government’s pusillanimous approach to the European constitution (or Reform treaty?) is annoying both pro- and anti-Europeans. Pro-Europeans are mystified by the timidity, when not antipathy, in embracing the liberal democratic values enshrined in the charter of fundamental rights, which are already part of British law and tradition. Anti-Europeans regard the absence of ratification through a referendum as an affront to British democratic sovereignty.
A treaty is generally a document that requires specific legal knowledge. Parliament ought to be given the opportunity to ratify clause by clause any treaty, but I find that a referendum on the new treaty would be like asking people to express their opinions on the constitutional set up of the UK including devolution, the monarchy, House of Lords, House of Commons and the courts. It's a bit like having a referendum on land taxation. It’s that sort of thing. I'm not opposed to a referendum but I think we should have one on European principles and priorities (such as terrorism, climate change etc.)
Of course, the government (any British government that is) is too afraid to take any Euro stuff to the people. Misgivings about the European project have been a traditional feature of British politics, but are they still justifiable?
Undoubtedly, there will always be a number of people who are suspicious of Europe and want the UK government to keep as far away as possible from European institutions. They are those who have buried their heads in the sand and fail to understand a deeply interconnected world where to keep outside means letting others decide for you. For the past 50 years, politicians and the media have been playing the ‘European game’, where Europe is seen as either an unpalatable but necessary tool or the bogey man.
What is doubtful is the general population’s feeling about it. The game is over. People want their politicians to be the main players, not the poodles. They rightly question why governments can’t find agreement on themes that affect the whole of Europe and that don't stop at a country's border, such as terrorism and organised crime (including trafficking of people, arms and drugs), environment, migration, and health and safety standards of food. They are no longer afraid of Europe. I like thinking of it as the Ryanair revolution. Low-cost flying has forever changed the way Europeans (including Britons) think of Europe and themselves. It might not be environmentally friendly (I myself would prefer travelling by train and hopefully this will happen soon), but easy access between European countries has been exceptionally valuable. There are people commuting across countries, including the UK, every week or sometimes even more frequently. All of a sudden, a holiday or even a short break abroad has become affordable. People have discovered new tastes and places. They enjoy the food, the wine, the sitting outside in cafés and want a slice of that at home. I’ve lived in Britain for nearly ten years and I can assure you that life has changed and, at least in some small part, Ryanair and all the other low-cost airlines have played a role. Easy communication has unleashed a thirst for a different approach to life as a whole. It’s about Britain finding its place in Europe instead of looking always across the pond of the Atlantic. It’s about a Europe with soft power but a strong identity. A referendum on principles and priorities, such as the charter of fundamental rights, would give a face to Europe. Citizens would have the opportunity to decide what Europe is really about. It should be about individual citizens whose rights come before the so called ‘national interest’, a euphemism for what is good for some in the business community. It should be about our rights and freedoms that cannot be violated by any government including our own. It is about us participating in making democracy work instead of being the end receivers of politicians who tinker at the edges due to lack of vision. The people of Europe are ready, why aren’t the politicians?

Testing Britishness

The government have come up with yet another initiative to promote Britishness or citizenship or both: discussion groups on "modern British cultural and social history", "social and moral responsibility", "community involvement" and "political literacy", whatever they mean. I thought the British Test was bad enough from all points of view. It is expensive, patronising and ideological. Instead of promoting the importance of partipating and integrating in the community at large, the test seems designed to alienate. There are impossible and irrelevant questions, such as: "Do many children live in single parent families or step-families? When do children leave home?"; "How many people say they have a religion and how many attend religious services? What are the largest religious groups?"; "How do elections for the House of Commons work? How are candidates selected? What do the Speaker and Whips do?"; "How are local services managed, governed and paid for?"
The last one is quite interesting given the intricacies of local government finance.
I have no idea who thought these questions, but it must have been someone who has no idea of where democracy comes from, how it works and, above all, its importance.
The Times was right in dismissing the government’s latest attempt at citizenship as "mush". Britishness and British democracy, its ideas of equality, liberty, tolerance and rule of law originate from Graeco-Roman culture. Liberal democracies are the product of the often dramatic events and ideas that have dominated European history. Yet, these ‘common values’ are not static; rather they have adapted and developed as a result of the meeting and sometimes clash with other cultures. Multiculturalism has so far relied on the recognition of group rights thus essentialising difference. If we want to ensure that liberal democracy is a concrete reality enjoyed by each one of us, rather than a philosophical concept, we need to create the opportunity for groups and individuals to meet and interact, to discuss citizenship and rights. Democracy happens when there is integration and when individuals’ diversity and rights are respected just as much as groups’ diversity and rights. This is who we (Europeans) are.

Has the web resurrected the radio?

I was rather glad to learn that Channel 4 is launching an alternative to BBC Radio 4. Although I'm one of those who uses 'indeed' a lot, I find most of Radio 4 frustrating. There are some very good programmes, but when Radio 4 proposed to its listeners to make suggestions on what could replace the Shipping Forecast, the greatest majority wrote against the change, notwithstanding some good ideas. I doubt it was the majority of listeners, only the majority of those who have nothing to do but defend their attachment to something they enjoy simply because it's been there all along. Of course, not all change or innovation is good change, BUT!!! Our lives are shaped by the world around us, not a nostalgic past. We live in cities, we travel the world and share the place where we live with people who come from other cultures, born and brought up somewhere else where there's no Shipping Forecast, and that's me by the way!
And it would be nice if they could learn to pronounce foreign words or names instead of anglicising them out of sheer smugness.
But as I said, I don't dislike Radio 4, there are quite a few programmes I like such as Civilizations, Just a minute and Mastering the Universe or Analysis and so on, but Channel 4 gave us Father Ted and Jon Snow's news so I'm very hopeful.
I'd love to see a portal from which one could easily access news, newspapers, radios and other programmes from each country within the EU at least. The internet has allowed us to be able to choose what we read, listen to or watch from all sources. This, I think, it's still in its infancy and is fraught with problems. The internet is the perfect vehicle for dangerous propaganda because it has no borders, cannot be policed and is ruled by the logic of the market place. Contrary to what J.S. Mill, thought, the 'truth' does not triumph in the free market place of ideas. It's quite often the opposite if there is no competition, no alternative offers, there is no opportunity to deepen one's understanding of an issue. It is information and the ability to understand it (which should come from education) that makes one free. That is the basis of democracy. It is down to us to use it to seek the truth and be critical and open minded, and it's down to good journalists and researchers around the world to challenge our complacency.

The veil - whose business is it anyway?

It is very interesting to see how the media have jumped at Jack Straw’s comment on the wearing of the veil. There has been relative little speculation about Jack Straw making a pitch for deputy leadership and why he chose this topic. Some journalists condemned the veil as being oppressive, some defended it and some found it sexy!
The problem is that they all seem to believe that it is something to do with religion. The choice of dress expresses how one interacts with the outside world. It has always been about status and power. It is highly symbolical and identifies societal codes with regards to relations with others. As such, strictly speaking, it is not a custom, but a symbol and convention. Even today an Armani suit sends out a different message from jeans and T-shirt. Dress codes belong to all societies; they identify what is required at a specific occasion. We are not free to wear what we want and in some cases there are consequences. If an event has a ‘black tie’ code, you will not be allowed in with trainers. Women’s status has been inferior in pretty much all societies throughout history. As dress symbolises power and status, it follows that women’s dress encapsulates their position in society. In the 1920’s and 1930’s when women gained more freedom, the corset went, so did the long skirts, the impossible hair styles and so on. It’s depressing to notice that the corset is back, that women starve themselves and 1950’s style clothes are fashionable. The idealised image of womanhood from the 1950’s was extremely oppressive. Women were mothers and wives, beautiful and powerless. Strangely enough I haven’t come across any comment on the corset. It’s obviously easier to condemn what neighbours do. Of course, multiculturalism poses challenges. Not so long ago, all religious signifiers were banned in French schools. In Italy, the veil in schools is allowed provided that the pupils are recognisable. However, the religious or political significance of dress is not the whole story. Some are uneasy at reports of a terror suspect wearing the burka to evade arrest, á la John Simpson! However, only good intelligence can tackle terrorism. Dress is really none of the law’s business. So, who cares? Given that Muslims didn’t respond much to Jack Straw’s comments, one wonders why it is a particular section of journalists and commentators who are so interested in it. I suppose this controversy sells more papers than the crisis in Somalia.

Business first

A recent judgement by the European Court of Justice has put the clock back a decade or two. The Court rightly ruled that employers cannot lawfully pay some workers much higher salaries than others solely on the ground of long service. However, as reported in the Guardian, the decision will not have an effect on women taking maternity leave, despite some reports last night that the ruling would leave women who took time off after having a baby with no right to claim the same pay as male colleagues. In particular, the Court’s decision did not agree with the Advocate General’s opinion. Bernadette Cadman, a principal Health and Safety Executive inspector, took her case to an employment tribunal five years ago after discovering that male colleagues in the same grade were earning between £5,000 and £9,000 more. She won the case, but the decision leaves open the possibility of higher salaries based on length of service rather than competence. After all, how many people will be willing to challenge in the courts the relevance or otherwise of length of service? Of course, experience is important, however it does not necessarily mean one is more qualified in doing the job. Simple pay audits and transparency over salaries would be much more beneficial than this part-victory. not to put their careers in jeopardy. The real problem, however, is that whilst people’s view of life is changing dramatically, work structures are not. Men and women want more flexibility; they want to spend time with their children without sacrificing their career. This is why men do not make full use of paternity leave. Flexible working arrangements allow people to have other responsibilities, such as bringing up children, part-time studying or indeed being a local government councillor! This, in turn, develops skills that work alone cannot develop. We should recognise the experience, competence and understanding gained in other contexts. Employers should look at their employees more roundly. What is striking is the fact that this decision goes against the times. Work-life balance issues are now firmly on the agenda and at least some businesses have realised that flexibility pays. It saves money, it attracts talent, it motivates employees and increases productivity.
This should be replicated for very senior jobs. Apparently, the number of women in Britain's boardrooms has fallen sharply, wiping out the small but steady gains made over the past few years. As rigidity has been shown to shut off talent and competence, flexibility should be the rule rather than the exception. If I were head of a company I would be rather alarmed at the thought of my work force being composed of employees who might be dedicated to their jobs, but have no wider perspective, are increasingly stressed and have been there for donkeys years.

In search of peace in Lebanon

I feel a strong sense of deja-vu; no, not 1982, but 1967. Back then, at the height of the cold war, the US and the USSR were sworn enemies fighting the war by proxy. Today, the US has managed to recreate a situation where the West fights the East by proxy or sometimes directly (Iraq). After destabilising Iraq (didn’t we say so?), the Middle East is rapidly changing shape. In the first few weeks of this latest conflict between Israel and Hizbollah, the US seemed to dawdle, or did they? They were keen to go on with their ‘war on terror’ and democratisation by bombs, this time by proxy.

At first I thought Israel was being rather incompetent from a military strategic point of view. You cannot go to war with terrorists, it’s a contradiction in terms. Vietnam springs to mind where terrorists were hiding among the farmers. How do you fight a war like that? You don’t. Ariel Sharon wouldn’t have, but he could, he was an ex-general, ex-Likud, and above everything else, he was Sharon. Olmert, by contrast, is fighting to gain a strong enough position that would allow him to negotiate. He’s fighting the wrong war, a war he cannot win or be seen to win. That’s why the EU and the UN need to step in and impose a truce. Of course the latest UN resolution is flawed, but it’s open enough for the parties to fill the gaps once the hostilities have come to a halt.

I believe the parties should agree to the resolution, a UN contingent with Chapter VII mandate should be set up as soon as possible and should be sufficiently big to uphold the ceasefire. This should be followed by multi-party talks on a peace process agreement which should include an agreement on Israel and Palestine but also Syria, Iran and Lebanon and their responsibilities in backing Hizbollah and Hamas. Hizbollah’s objection to the resolution on the grounds that it would allow Israel to maintain its occupation while a UN force is put in place is utterly preposterous considering that Hizbollah is not and does not represent a state. Hizbollah has, therefore, no sovereignty over the territory now occupied by Israeli forces. The big loser is Lebanon, a state without control over itself. But perhaps it is not sovereignty we should worry about, but security and peace. If one is always under threat (be it rockets or missiles), there can be no peace. Similarly, if there’s no peace process, there is no security. It is time to kiss goodbye to unilateralism and terror (from all sides). It’s time to talk and talk and then talk some more, because it’ll take years to reshape a secure and peaceful Middle East. We have a great opportunity now to sit at the table and tackle head on nuclear ambitious and disarmament, energy, occupied territories and cross-border co-operation, disbandment of militias and economic development. It is down to the EU to steer the world in this direction and go for the long term view. This is the only path to democracy.

Todos Somos Madrilenos

198 dead and 1400 wounded. Aznar's Government is still trying to blame ETA because they know ETA, they can deal with it, but also because admitting that it was, at least partly, Al-Quaida means acknowledging that it was Spain's part in the war in Iraq that made it the victim. It follows that next in line are the UK and Italy and then Japan and Australia. It is no coincidence that clues lead to the Abu Hafs al-Nasri Brigades, responsible for the attack against the Italians in Nassiriya last November.
After the 11th of September 2001, the Bush administration declared war against terrorism. The whole idea is ludicrous. Can a state combat a network by waging war against another state? Of course not, at a time when the whole world was with the US, the way ahead was to increase cooperation. We should have stopped financial flows (why didn't we pay banks to close accounts? They know where the money comes from!), we should have intensified intelligence work and also further international law and democracy. What did we do? We went to war with Afghanistan because we suddenly saw it as an oppressive regime, however those belonging to Al-Quaida or the Talibans were 'unlawful combatants' therefore when captured they do not 'qualify' as prisoners of war. This means there can be no trial, no investigation, no international law upheld.
We also wasted intelligence resources to desperately find something on Iraq with no success and by-passed the UN to wage war against Iraq which had nothing to do with terrorism but Saddam was a bad guy.
Some of you might think that we need to be tough with these people, but you are forgetting why we want to fight terrorism and what terrorism is. Terrorism is a strategy that aims at delegitimising the state, its victim is democracy, the dead are its pawns. That is why the only effective way to fight it is by upholding the rule of law and democracy and ditching double standards. The Bush administration is totally blind to our new reality, they are using it to justify invading where it suits them when they are still financing oppressive regime (ever heard of Uzbekistan and Krygystan for example?). The US wasn't the only country that took advantage of the war of terror to justify curtailing rights and freedoms at home and abroad: Russia, Colombia, Mexico, Argentina and even Spain did so. We can also add Blunkett's blueprint for a police-state Britain.
Bush & Blair painted terrorism as the new Empire of Evil, clinging to an ideology that will justify any breach of what we are actually trying to preserve. To believe their propaganda is to allow terrorism to win.

How European are you?

My results:

You are descended from Napoleon. You see no national boundaries and sweep freely across the continent. You are so European, if you had a pond, you would give your neighbours generous quotas to fish in it. You are probably whistling the Ode to Joy right now.

Take the test

Etsi Deus Non Daretur

Last week I went to Swansea for a theology lecture given by the Right Reverend Christopher Herbert, Bishop of St Albans, entitled Inter-Religious Dialogue in Europe.
The lecture was certainly good and the 'Church of England-style' exposition made everything sound moderate, reasonably contradictory and pleasing all sides. Nonetheless he seemed to welcome anything that would bring back religion onto the public domain and condemned the latest move from France to ban the veil and other overtly religious symbols from schools. The Bishop had kind words for Pisanu (Italy's Minister for Interiors) who pushed for interfaith dialogue to be the vehicle for social cohesion.
What I feel is missing is the fact that after the Industrial and the French Revolution, the world changed dramatically. A similar change happened only with the Neolithical Revolution and at a much slower pace. This new era saw religion becoming a personal matter and people becaming citizens of the State. Although nationalism made infinite assumptions on the identity of the citizens, in effect creating nations, modern states allowed a certain equality and rights bestowed on all citizens. Yes, in practise it is quite different but rights and freedoms, to be concrete, they must be fought for.
At a time when the Nation-State is disappearing, new technologies force society and institutions to change. In a fragmented society, people will cling to their 'identity' constructing and essentialising it. People feel under threat and need to show signs of a particular identity. I'm all in favour of respect for religion and rites as long as there is integration (not assimilation!), as long as fundamental rights are respected and there's equality before the law.
In Italy, we would say Etsi Deus Non Daretur, as if God did not exist. As soon as you link rights with a particular understanding of God, an absolutist view of them takes hold. Those who say they have the monopoly of the Truth will want to impose their understanding of such truth. Last year Chief Rabbi Jonathan Sacks said in an interview (appeared on the Guardian) that no religion has monopoly of the truth, only a path towards it. Everybody rejoiced until he got summoned to Manchester to explain his latest 'rebellion'. What I just can't get to grips with is the fact that some people decide what the majority needs to believe.

Local elections

This year there will be local elections here in Cardiff but also in my home town Cesena. There, like here, people express disenchantment and anger at politicians on all sides for their lack of commitment and will to improve services. Like here, people in Italy are fed up with the lack of change and seemingly pointless elections. Turnout in Italy? 80%!
We'll be lucky if we get a 30% turnout. So what is the secret? In Italy the right and duty to vote is enshrined in the Constitution, the 'red regions' (Tuscany, Emilia-Romagna e Umbria) are particularly political and have a background of republican thinking (liberal-socialism) that inspires participation.

We need more civic education and more devolution. A far away government is a detached and irrelevant one. Although I always hear people complaining about the Assembly, what they are frustrated with is the lack of powers of the Assembly not its existence. What people don't like is the waste of time and money when the Assembly takes a decision and then is overruled by London or when discusses matters that should be under the jurisdiction of Councils. The only way out is for the Assembly and local Councils to be more powerful but also more democratic and open.

Some say that the Liberal Democrats can say whatever they want because they are not in power. It is true at the national level, but not so in Wales, Scotland and at the local level. Keep us in check, then, and see whether we actually promote what we say we stand for.

(take for example Bridgend Council where we pushed for the constitution to demand that the Chair of the Scrutiny Committee should belong to an opposition party)

10 Days in Italy: Turin, Nuclear & Censorship

I went home for 10 days to see my parents. It was of course at the time of the national funeral of the 19 Italian soldiers killed in a suicide attack in Iraq so the atmosphere was sombre.

We visited Turin, a jewel of art nouveau and deco enveloped in fog. It was the first Italian capital and home of Cavour. Chocolate at Baratti was sublime and so was Rossini's Semiramide at Teatro Regio. Lingotto is spectacular (ex-FIAT factory redesigned by Renzo Piano). It hosts a permanent photographic exhibition of some of the most famous photos. Really worth going!

Art aside, Italy kept us entertained with a dispute on where to store nuclear waste. The Government had decided for Scalzano Ionico (South East Italy) which they claim would be very suitable because of the soil. The waste would go at 800m under the ground. But as governments often do, they tried to force it on the local population without providing adequate information or discussion. As a result, the whole town and surrounding was up in arms to demonstrate against it with the usual populist slogans to the embarrassment of the Government.

Very funny was also an episode regarding Gianfranco Fini (leader of the National Alliance Party). For the past 10 years he has reformed the ex-fascist party into a moderate rightwing party, becoming respectable and thus in effect splitting the party. Although he is a moderate, many people within the party aren't. For years he's been trying to go to Israel but was always prevented by the Italian Jewish Community who did not fully trust his U-turn of the Party. He went to great lengths condemning this and that of the fascist regime, and once all packed and ready to go, Serena (MP from his Party) sent a videotape in defence of Priebke responsible for the massacre at the Fosse Ardeatine in 1944.

Finally, yet another programme was censored by the Government for being distasteful (read: critical of the government). After Enzo Biagi (journalist), Daniele Luttazzi and others, it was Sabina Guzzanti's turn and her programme of satire Raiot to be axed. Over 20,000 demonstrated in Rome, the case continues…