Glance N.3 by Giovanni Faleg
07/12/2010
Round Up
Two dramatic and unforeseen events are disrupting British citizens’ daily activities and diverting their attention from the realm of government and politics, something we can and ought to control, to a narcotic observation of events that are beyond our command: nature and gossip. Let’s be frank: people are addicted to these two forces. Social life depends upon them, in a way. The reason why we are so fanatical about is twofold: our total incapacity to regulate and delimit them and the sense of community awakening as a result of a direct or indirect involvement. It’s part of our DNA, to eagerly seek what we can’t handle.
As the first decade of the 2000s draws to a close, the emergence of the “W factors”, Weather and Wikileaks, in British politics reveals how self-contradictory our democratic societies and how vulnerable we are to any attempt, normally conveyed by the media, to hijack our participation in politics (the essence of Democracy, according to Tocqueville) and our interest in the res publica.
Weather is a natural factor with significant micro socio-political fallout. We might despise energetic consumption affecting climate change and do our best to counter it, but in our inner nature we are compelled by extreme weather conditions. Annoyed when finding ourselves grounded at airports and railway stations, thrilled when media reports of a “snowmageddon” in Scotland shakes our boring routine as the Die Hard series used to jiggle a rainy Wednesday night. The truth is: we fancy it, as long as it does not threatens our safety and we are pretty much sure that is not turning into a natural disaster. The result is under our eyes: impressive media coverage eclipsing any other domestic or international, political or economic news, with the exception of the exception of England missing out the 2018 World Cup.
Wikileaks is a political factor with minor social and significant macro political fallout. The first batch of 250.000 US diplomatic cables released by Wikileaks in the past few weeks do not hold the same meaning for political élites and ordinary people. The two categories are affected in two very different ways. For the former, the “leaks” represent the first case of cyber threat menacing global security by non-military and non-material means. They constitute a direct attack to one of the pillars of national sovereignty and a core principle of interstate relations – diplomatic secrecy. While Wikileaks constitutes a serious concern for national diplomacies, the whistle blowing acquires a totally different meaning for public opinions. Documents provide an extraordinary amount of material that national media can use in many different ways: malicious portraits of leaders, revelations of mutual suspicion among people and organizations, espionage are broadcasted to appease gossipmongers’ appetite. We did not need the leaks to realize that Mr Berlusconi is “feckless, vain and ineffective as a modern leader”. But recognizing who the sinner is, is far more interesting that knowing what the sin was.
While we should not – or not necessarily – play down these two factors, it is important to recall that overplaying them ought not shade other important issues that are shaping UK’s future. The spending review presented by Chancellor George Osborne on 20 October 2010 fixes spending budgets for each Government department up to 2014-2015. Presented by the Coalition Government as a necessary measure to bring the UK economy “back from the brink”, the scale of the reform contained in the 2010 spending review is impressive as cuts are the deepest since the Second World War. Cuts hit Education, Welfare reform and Defence particularly hard.
Education: On Thursday 9th December, MPs in Westminster will vote for an increase in tuition fees put forward by the Coalition Government that is to modify – radically the education sector in the years to come. Cuts to public funding to higher education, accompanied by the highly controversial plan to raise the cap on tuition fees above the current level of £3,290 a year, have brought mass protests throughout the country, with many universities being occupied across the UK (See Glance_4).
Welfare: The 2010 spending review is the biggest shake-up in welfare since the 1940s. Plans for welfare reform to reduce public spending mark a key moment for both the Coalition and Britain. Main candidates for cuts are middle-class, out-of-work and child benefits, a contentious plan that has been explicitly called into question by the opposition leader Ed Miliband during his first PMQs speech. While government officials are confident that scrapping benefits and replacing them with a single universal credit is a necessary simplification of British welfare and is to make working people better off, Labour says that a precondition for the reform to be successful is that jobs should be available to ensure people get into work.
Defence: the strategic defence review presented by the Government mid-October unveils significant armed forces cuts, with defence spending to fall by 8% in four years and £4.5bn savings at the Ministry of Defence, including a reduction of civilian staff by 25,000 by 2015. Prime Minister Cameron said UK will meet NATO’s requirement of spending 2% of GDP on defence and continue to have the 4th military in the world. But the RAF and navy are to loose 5,000 jobs each, the army 7,000, and the strategic blueprint of the review seriously undermines Britain’s capacity to effectively address security needs in the years ahead.
Wrap-up
Beyond and besides the impressive media coverage of the “W factors” (Weather and Wikileaks) in the last two weeks, the debate over the 2010 spending review is a major political challenge that will deeply affect UK’s citizens lives in the medium-long term. Choosing the right path to recovery is a priority for Britain. If the Coalition Government holds the political accountability to fulfill reforms, the opposition and civil society have the historical responsibility to prevent the executive from going in the wrong direction. This requires active participation in politics by the citizens and effective opposition in parliament by their representatives.
Ed Miliband is right when saying that Labour party must do more than wait for the government to “screw up”. His vision of the Labour as a campaigning force, a movement beyond the New Labour, reaching out people (namely the “squeezed middle”) and standing up for their hopes and aspirations is without a doubt the good approach to set out overhaul of the party after defeat. But, as shown by his speech to the Labour party’s national policy forum last week, morality does not necessarily pay off in politics. Finding a new identity rooted on idealism and morality – Labour as “a force for good”? – must not go to the detriment of practical policy formulation and proposals. The bitter truth is: Ed is not impressing as a Leader, nor Labour as an opposition party. Despite initial fervor following the leadership election – granted outside the House of Commons – and encouraging public support to the project of a “new generation for change”, now the wind is changing. From the BBC to the Guardian, the media are less and less enthusiastic of a Labour leader who took an inexplicably long paternity leave and whose political strategy is ill defined at best. In his BBC Newslog, Nick Robinson denounces Ed’s focus on the squeezed “middle” as a deliberately vague and questions the exact reach – and potential political outcome – of what he ironically labels as the squeezed “muddle”. Not an isolated comment. Most of the reactions after the national policy forum were mild when not adverse.
Labour is at a crossroad. Its leader, Ed Miliband, is getting busy reshaping the party identity to rebuild a widespread coalition of support after the shrinking of the New Labour. But contingency, and short-term policy action, matter too. In our society, people’s hopes and aspirations grow fast. Politics and politicians must keep up. Labour must act both as a “force for good”, shaping a new identity for progressive politics in the long term, and a “contingent force”, showing its capacity to creatively and pragmatically address urgent policy issues.
I call this “the Wilson factor”: the capacity of Labour’s leader to take over a dispirited party, make it a “natural party for government” and, at the same time, unite it under a shared identity and principles. Harold Wilson is the most famous example of a leader who was able to achieve this almost impossible mission. The “Wilson factor”, merging short and long term policy priorities as well as an inevitable process of identity reconstruction, will impact not just on the faculty of Labour to survive the storm, but also on Britain’s ability to avoid the economic and social crash and implement a full, sustainable recovery.
Mirror N. 1, by Umberto Marengo.
“Battling for credibility from the opposition: the experiences of the Shadow Cabinet in the UK and Italy”. 11/2010
ABSTRACT
In the United Kingdom the political weight and experience of the shadow cabinet has proven of crucial importance for the opposition to present itself as a government-in-waiting capable of pressing criticism on the government and also of resetting the political agenda. Visibility and credibility are the two main issues for any opposition party: the shadow cabinet model shows that party leaders need to put faces to policies by shaping a leadership team capable of acting like a proper government
Right-click the link and choose "Save Link As..." to save the document to your computerDownload Mirror n.1
Glance n.2 by Giovanni Faleg
October 18, 2010
Round up
Oct. 8 – Labour shadow cabinet formed
The team that have been passed the torch for Labour in the years to come was announced by Labour leader Ed Miliband on October 8, 2010. The formation of the new shadow cabinet has attracted media attention due to the departure of some prominent Labour figures among them David Miliband, Peter Mendelson, Alistair Darling, Jack Straw and Bob Ainsworth from frontline politics.
Instead some surprising appointments ignited a political debate. Following up party rules Labour leader Ed Miliband has assigned the roles in the shadow cabinet after the Parliamentary Labour Party elected 19 MPs on October 7.
Labour “couple” Yvette Cooper and Ed Balls were both successful and were awarded top jobs. They occupy high-ranking posts of Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs and Home Department. Ms Cooper received the most votes (232), followed by John Healey (Health, 192) and Ed Balls (179).
Among other top positions, Miliband’s leadership campaign manager Sadiq Khan (a British Pakistani that may challenge Conservative Party Chairman Sayeeda Warsi) became Secretary of State for Justice, while senior figures Jim Murphy and Andy Burnham got defence and education.
Quite surprisingly, former Secretary of State for the Home Department Alan Johnson was appointed Shadow Chancellor of the Exchequer, despite having no experience in financial matters.
A complete list of the newly appointed shadow cabinet members is compiled below (source: Labour Party website):
Leader of the Labour Party – Ed Miliband; Deputy Leader and Shadow Secretary of State for International Development – Harriet Harman; Shadow Chancellor of the Exchequer – Alan Johnson; Shadow Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs and Minister for Women and Equalities – Yvette Cooper; Shadow Secretary of State for the Home Department – Ed Balls; Shadow Lord Chancellor, Secretary of State for Justice (with responsibility for political and constitutional reform) – Sadiq Khan; Shadow Secretary of State for Defence – Jim Murphy; Shadow Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills – John Denham; Shadow Secretary of State for Work and Pensions – Douglas Alexander; Shadow Secretary of State for Health – John Healey; Shadow Secretary of State for Education and Election Coordinator – Andy Burnham; Shadow Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government – Caroline Flint; Shadow Secretary of State for Transport – Maria Eagle; Shadow Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change – Meg Hillier; Shadow Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs – Mary Creagh; Shadow Minister for the Cabinet Office – Liam Byrne; Shadow Secretary of State for Northern Ireland – Shaun Woodward; Shadow Secretary of State for Scotland – Ann McKechin; Shadow Secretary of State for Wales – Peter Hain; Shadow Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport – Ivan Lewis; Shadow Minister for the Olympics – Tessa Jowell; Shadow Chief Secretary to the Treasury – Angela Eagle; Shadow Leader of the House of Lords – Baroness Royall of Blaisdon; Chief Whip – Rosie Winterton; Shadow Leader of the House of Commons – Hilary Benn; Lords Chief Whip – Lord Bassam of Brighton; Shadow Attorney-General – Baroness Scotland; Parliamentary Labour Party Chair – Tony Lloyd; Shadow Minister of State – Cabinet Office - Jon Trickett.
Oct. 13 – Miliband plays safe against Cameron in first PMQs
During his first PMQs, on October 13, Edward Miliband attacked David Cameron over the changes proposed by the coalition to child benefits and single income families.
The Daily Telegraph described the first round of Cameron vs Miliband as “a fight between the Prime Minister, wielding a moral club with which he expects to intimidate anyone who stands in his way, and Mr Miliband, who is bent on converting Middle England into “Miliband England” by appealing to our naked self-interest”.
In his first role as opposition leader before parliament Mr Miliband did rather well. He played safe and came across as an authoritative, determined and not far too impetuous leader of the opposition, ready for the next round.
Watch the PMQs video on the BBC website
Wrap up
New generation, “good old” Labour?
Opposition parties have criticized Ed Miliband’s cabinet choices, casting aspersions on the lack of economic experience of shadow chancellor Mr. Johnson and denouncing new shadow foreign secretary Yvette Cooper’s support for the 2003 invasion of Iraq. Other detractors have contended that only 5 members of the cabinet were Ed supporters during the election and that Miliband’s shadow cabinet looks very much like the Blair/Brown New Labour establishment.
The new shadow cabinet may well be a deception for those who believed in a breakup from the New Labour. The reason why a revolutionary change did not come about is that, whatever its intentions, Ed Miliband has to face prevailing political realities. After all, Ed won the election thanks to the support of the base of the party, but MPs in Westminster (who elect the members of the shadow cabinet) largely favored his brother David.
Against this backdrop, however, there are some significant lessons to learn from the formation of the shadow cabinet. Excluding ex-officio members of the cabinet, the leader and the deputy, 8 out of 19 line-ups are new to the frontbench. Only four members of the Shadow Cabinet (Harman, Jowell, Denham and Eagle) have previous parliamentary experience of opposition. Seventeen of the current shadow cabinet members entered parliament from 1997-2005 while Labour was in power, whereas fourteen members got a cabinet post before. Fourteen members are aged under 50.
These data suggest that Mr Miliband is indeed keeping his promises of generational “renewal” of Labour leadership, though not at the detriment of the party’s unity after a divisive leadership contest.
As early as Monday 18th, Labour will unveil its plans for the economy. The weeks ahead will then tell if the new cabinet is able to and capable of turning their intentions into deeds and regain the trust of the electorate.
Glance n.1 by Giovanni Faleg – pic by Giulio Bernardi (from Flickr. All right reserved)
September 27, 2010
Round up
Ed Miliband new UK Labour leader
Labour has chosen its leader: shadow energy secretary Ed Miliband has won the election to be the new leader of the Labour Party. Ed defeated his brother David by a thin margin of 50.65% to 49.35%. According to the BBC, Ed’s dominance across trade unions and grassroots granted him victory in the leadership race, despite David’s acquisition of the majority of support from Labour’s MP in Westminster.
“A party of idealists, not just managers”
What does Ed’s victory mean for Labour? Essentially, it translates into the end of the New Labour era of Tony Blair and Gordon Brown. During the campaign Ed, the “change candidate”, explicitly positioned himself at the left of his brother, who had been a close ally of Tony Blair from the first days of New Labour. Accordingly, Ed’s understanding of the future of Labour points out a reappraisal of ideology to overcome the Blairite/Brownite divisions. He calls new generations to change the party into “a movement and a cause”. As far as policy is concerned, Ed will prioritize measures aimed at taxing the rich, tackling inequality and reforming British industry. His programme include the reform of the state to make it more accountable, elderly care and the creation of skilled jobs, a graduate tax to replace tuition fees and halving UK’s deficit through measures such as higher bank levy.
“Red Ed” will surely increase Labour’s popularity with trade unionists and traditional Labour voters. At the same time, however, he will have to address the criticism coming from the Labour’s old guard, and respond to those who claim that his manifesto is not appealing to non natural Labour voters.
In sum, what is to be expected from Ed’s leadership is an ideological rally of Labour and a return to a more social-democratic vision, which entails a withdraw from the New Labour project. If strong enough to placate internal squabbling, Ed’s leadership has the potential to bring Labour “back to the future” of European social-democracy, and hence to provide an update of the concept of progressive politics, which seems to have disappeared from the manifestos of centre-left parties in Europe.
Veltroni and the 75s, or “a chorus of disapproval”: Bersani’s leadership under attack (again)
The most recent – surely not the last – attack on Pier Luigi Bersani’s leadership of the Partito Democratico (PD) came quite unexpectedly, on mid-September, from former PD leader and co-founder Walter Veltroni. The disagreement revolves around the nuovo Ulivo project, referring to the large democratic alliance of center-left parties that should provide Italy with an alternative to Berlusconi’s moldering Popolo della Libertà, in order to bolster economic – and social recovery. Led by PD’s first leader, 75 Veltroniani MPs joined forces and signed a document to denounce Bersani’s political line and calling for a reassessment of the party’s internal balance of power. Veltroni and the 75s advocate a reappraisal of the original majoritary mission (vocazione maggioritaria), meaning that the party should develop concrete policy proposals and broaden the span of its electoral targets, without playing too much tactics and seeking alliances with other fractions. A vision of leadership in and for the PD, which is at odds with Bersani’s project of a broad democratic alliance that explicitly recalls The Olive Tree (L’Ulivo) political coalition led by Romano Prodi between 1995 and 2007.
There ain’t no heroes
In a very delicate phase of Italian politics, Veltroni and the 75s’ move contributes to fraction, rather than unite the PD, its immediate implication being the creation of yet another movement within the party. Furthermore, Veltroni’s attempt to make an official – and public – count of the forces at his disposal is dangerously ill-timed, since it comes after Berlusconi’s call for early elections following the dramatic split with Gianfranco Fini, the co-founder of the Popolo della Libertà. Instead of accepting Bersani’s olive branch and giving full support to party leadership in view of new elections, Veltroni has made a prodigious demonstration of the fact that the Partito Democratico is nothing more than a bunch of naysayers squabbling over their relative power within the party. Curiously enough, to achieve its aim of a strong and unitary party, Veltroni has sought to knock down its leader. Sad, and quite inappropriate.
Wrap up
When Leadership is change
Ed Miliband’s attempt to end the new Labour era, and Pier Luigi Bersani’s efforts to start a new Olive Tree adventure to rally Italian center-left factions reveal a curious paradox: center-left progressive politics in both the UK and Italy is showing a drastic backward movement. Its leaders champion, respectively, the return to a more radical vision of the “old” Labour Party and a revival of the consensus politics that was banned after the collapse of Prodi second cabinet in 2008. The difference is that, while Ed points out the importance of rediscovering ideology in British politics, Bersani acknowledges the need to play tactics and build alliances within Italy’s center-left microcosmos in order to accomplish urgent reforms. Moreover, the two leaders are facing fierce internal opposition to carry through their programmes. However, both the Labour Party and the Partito Democratico need a strong leadership today more than ever. It will be their leaders’ responsibility to reframe the concept of progressive politics and reassure voters that the end of the new Labour and of the majoritarian PD will not come to the detriment of the credibility of their political agenda.
Glance n.3 is out! LFIT’s Head of Research Giovanni Faleg analyses the latest events in British politics and how the cold weather and Wikileaks have relegated the spending cuts to lesser visibility in the media.
Check it here
pic by Paolo Camera
by Sohail Nazir – LFIT expert on immigration issues
‘That is what happens when Gypsies steal babies’[1]
Right-wing governments in Rome and Paris went too far by shifting the blame on the Roma ethnic community for socio-economic ills and starting off their deportation. In Europe, where monstrous treatment of Jews, communists, social democrats, homosexuals and Roma at the hand of the Nazi dictatorship is less than 70 years ago, any such event at present must be met with sharp criticism. [i]
It is often commonplace that the colour red does not solely carry the message of love and romance, but also rather unwelcoming messages of pessimism, fury and even threat. And as such, dressed in a fervid red jacket, Brussels’ grand lady from Luxembourg, Viviane Reding, brought a surprisingly ardent flavor into the normally dry and boring EU Commission’s briefings. The EU Justice Commissioner and Vice President is known for her immaculate style, always find compromises in disputes. But this time her patience was wearing thin.
Her utter condemnation of French president Sarkozy’s Gypsy (Roma) deportation programme resulted in disbelief in the political establishment. For too long the EU commission kept quite over this sore issue, not realizing how dangerous this game is. It is dangerous in regards to violability of human rights and dignity, freedom of movement and equal treatment. But this time around, Viviane Reding banged the briefing by fiercely opposing the anti-Roma policy, and saying, “I make it very clear (…) to everybody. My patience is wearing thin. Enough is enough. No member state can expect special treatment when fundamental values and European laws are at stake”.[2]
What made her join the international chorus of condemnation against Sarkozy? And why hasn’t she spoken up against the Italian right-wing government which exorcized such policies for years? Why are many public figures silent over such a critical issue?
An alien and maligned minority of social undesirables
About 10 million Europeans are loosely labeled as Roma and Gypsies. Oftentimes they belong to the lower segments of society, to the “underclass” to be precise. They are wretchedly poor and their bad housing conditions in the outskirts of main European urban centres such as in Napoli are ever so often social reality. Such deprivation reminds one of a Third World country. Josephine Verspaget, a Rapporteur for the Council of Europe, hit the point by writing, “The position of many groups of Gypsies can be compared to the situation in the third world: little education, bad housing, bad hygienic situation, high birth rate, high infant mortality, no knowledge or means to improve the situation, low life expectancy(…). If nothing is done, the situation for most Gypsies will only worsen in the next generation”.[3]
Interestingly enough, the Rapporteur composed her report in 1993. This report provides striking evidence for the little tangible differences in their situation today. Their poor condition in world’s richest countries still remains by far and large invisible in international media and politics. Instead, preconceptions and hostile attitudes towards the Roma are ripe in European liberal-democracies which pride themselves with inviolable human rights, yet fail to address the needs of certain minorities, as the Roma.
Straws in the wind
From time immemorial the Roma have faced discrimination, persecution and violence culminating in the brutal Nazi holocaust achieving support by Mussolini’s fascist regime.
Showing an Indian student the picture of the Roma girl depicted above leads her to say that the girl would seemingly appear Indian. “The girl looks as somebody from the slums of Mumbai”. Indeed there is some truth in her reflections. There is an agreement by historians that the Roma originate from northern India and made their way to Europe between 3rd and 7th centuries AD.
Carrying Hindu gods and practicing Hindu customs made it difficult for them to assimilate in the new Byzantine environment. They were considered as heathens soon assimilated to a group of untouchables, called Astingiani. The English word “Gypsy” stems from Astingiani. But the intolerance towards this distinctive group gradually resulted into new waves of persecution, thus forcing them to leave behind today’s Turkey around the 14th century for a new home in the Balkans and Serbia, Bulgaria and Greece.
Their expectations to live freely were not met in their new home. They were not only constrained to work on land but, as in Wallachia, a Romanian principality, they lost their freedom of movement and became property of the principality as slaves. This led to a further flight about a century after. They went to seek refuge in Ukraine and Russia. Regarded as pilgrims there, they were guaranteed shelter.
Even so around the year 1500, a period of fierce repression finalized this light-hearted welcoming attitude. They were hunted down, killed and murdered leading some historians to claim this as to have been the first Roma genocide. There were straws in the wind against them everywhere: in Russia, France, England and Turkey ill-treatment was wide-spread almost all over Europe. In England they faced execution; branding and the shaving of heads were practiced in France; and severing of the left ear of Roma women in Moravia.
Civilizing Roma
The age of enlightenment could hardly be dubbed as the age of reason in respect to the Roma. In fact, the more we appreciate Enlightenment as an age of humanity the more we get troubled by the harsh force of assimilation orchestrated on Roma. The prohibition for Gypsies to get into wedlock among themselves, 24 strokes of cane for those who spoke in their language are some notable examples. But the real abuse was the forceful removal of children. Like the Aborigines in Australia, so the Roma were subject to this heinous practice as much as the latter forced sterilisation in former Czechoslovakia, for example. The vision was clear: to wipe Gypsies off the map. The Roma moved again only to find themselves in the gas vans of Chelmno, where they were abused and exploited in gruesome experiments in the extermination camps. Approximately half a million have been murdered at the hands of the Nazis.
A small minority – posing a threat to the collective well-being?
The prejudice of being involved in petty crimes, their distinctive culture and way of life brought them on the margin of virtually any society they have lived in from generation to generation. A former Romanian president even once denied their existence in his country and others have met the Roma with absolute indifference. Some people echo bitterness and disbelief in the current deportation procedures of right-wing governments – but do we really care?
Let’s have a flashback to July 2009. Do you know the story of the 13-year-old Cristina and the 11-year-old Violetta Djeordsevic from Italy, the two Roman girls whose sudden death marked out the sheer indifference people have found for Roma? On that sunny day both girls left their camp to a well-visited, pleasant beach not far from Napoli. Like many Roma, they were hawkers, trying to sell some inexpensive trinkets to affluent holiday makers. As children they wanted to play in the sea: but died through drowning. The waves brought their bodies to the busy, sandy coast. Clearly realizing of what has happened holiday makers and Italian day-trippers looked at the dead bodies and did not bother. The very next minute after noticing what has taken place they continued to relaxing on the beach, throwing a Frisbee to each other and simply having a sun bath as if nothing has occurred.
Racism does not spare children
One does not need to go into further detail to realise that racism does not spare children. It clearly lays out that there are deep-seated resentments in a Europe which is so proud to live up to the high dreams of the French Revolution of equality, liberty and brotherhood. But what kind of equality and liberty are we talking about when we fail to realize that the memory of the fascist past is fading away just like in Italy? When people having roots in Bel paese (such roots can be traced back to the 15th century in Roma’s case) are treated conspicuously different? What have the society and politics in Rome, Paris and Brussels done to integrate them? Nothing.
Instead Berlusconi and Sarkozy, Maroni and Bossi misuse public sentiments for their own political purposes. It goes at the expense of a poverty-stricken minority on the margins of society. When elected officials attack Roma, it automatically motivates right-wing extremists to use violence against them. Vulnerable groups often lack voice in public. When then established politicians like the Italian interior minister Maroni viciously misuse their vulnerability it gets to a point when one needs to call the fundamental values of human rights to order. Are the most elementary rights truly guaranteed to everyone? To remind you: when vigilant mobs of extremists’ burned down a Roma camp Maroni remarked that ‘this is what happens when Gypsies steal babies’[4]. An unacceptable, utterly abominable view.
People who agree with Kant’s axiom that violence is always immoral must concur that things can’t continue like this. The International Committee against the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination adopted a specific recommendation on discrimination against the Roma in 2000. But their policy proposal is inadequately responded by the Italian and French governments. The centre-left opposition needs yet to provide policy proposals in order to deal with the entrenched social, political and economic exclusion.
When Europe, France and Italy impinges on their pride in highly valuing human rights and the dignity of individuals in a democratic system (…), then people like Anna Meijknecht don’t have a reason to describe the Roma as people without future.[5]
All in all, it was a centre-right politician from Luxembourg who made people think about the Roma’s bad conditions and their marginalisation. At the end I share a quote by Vladimir Luxuria, a former Italian parliamentary deputy who said in regards to xenophobic groups of vigilantes: “The thugs (…) don’t just feel legitimised by Alemanno (right-wing mayor of Rome of the National Alliance), they feel sponsored by him.”[6]
What we need, therefore, are courageous people who stand up for the course and plight of the weak and vulnerable in our European societies. We need politicians from the centre-left who take the fear away and explain why a pluralistic society can and must succeed. Who are able to establish a public morale and call into question what has happened in the past when a government has started feeding people with their fears and misusing such sentiments in attacking a minority, so that they could distract the public from their own failures in governance. This morale begins by supporting Reding in her criticism to halt the deportation and to demand a code of conduct for guaranteeing equal rights and opportunities for everyone.
[1] Italian Interior Minister Roberto Maroni of the anti-immigrant Northern League. http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/16/opinion/16iht-edgoldston.html
[3] Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe Report on Gypsies in Europe. 11th January 1993. Doc. 6733 at para. 29.
[4] Italian Interior Minister Maroni
[5] Meijknecht, Minority Protection. Standards and Reality (2004) TMC Asser Press at 67.)
[6] http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/article4021089.ece
[i] http://www.guardian.co.uk/lifeandstyle/2008/aug/17/familyandrelationships.roma
Bibliographic notes:
BBC News. 08/07/2009. “On the road: Centuries of Roma history”. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/8136812.stm accessed on 12/10/2010.
Goldston, J.A. 15/09/2010. In NYTimes.com. “Roma and the E.U.“ http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/16/opinion/16iht-edgoldston.html accessed on 24/10/2010.
The Guardian. 17/08/2010. “Who do the Italians hate us?” http://www.guardian.co.uk/lifeandstyle/2008/aug/17/familyandrelationships.roma accessed on 24/10/2010.
Meijknecht. 2004. Minority Protection. Standards and Reality.TMC Asser Press at 67.
Hawes, D. and Perez, B. 1995. The Gypsy and the State.-The Ethnic Cleansing of the British Society. Oxford: Alden Press.
Mercier, G. 14/09/2010. “EU Commissioner Compares Expulsions Of Roma To Vichy’s Deportation Of Jews”. http://newsjunkiepost.com/2010/09/14/eu-commissioner-compares-expulsions-of-roma-to-vichys-deportation-of-jews/ accessed on 02/11/2010.
O’Nions, H. 2007. Minority Rights Protection in International Law. The Roma of Europe. Hampshire: Ashgate.
Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe Report on Gypsies in Europe. 11th January 1993. Doc. 6733 at para. 29.
The Times. 29/05/2010. “The politics of fear return to Italy”. http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/article4021089.ece accessed on 22/10/2010.
LFIT launches new publications! Have a look at the section ” In Depth “, where the experts of the LFIT Research Team analyse different social issues.
In the first article of the Immigration section, LFIT expert Sohail Nazir comments on how Europe is dealing with its Roma community members. Against the conservative governments that invoke deportation -Nazir says- we needprogressive politicians to take the fear away and explain why a pluralistic society is the way to follow.
Read the article: Deporting gypsies today, and what next? by S.Nazir
photograph by: jacreative
Mirror is LFIT editorial product designed and tailored specifically for policy-makers. Every publication is intended to compare the Italian and British systems in order to get a deeper comprehension of both and to encourage the exchange of practices and knowledge.
In the first number of Mirror, LFIT analyst Umberto Marengo analyses the role of the shadow cabinet in the UK and the attempts to introduce the practice in Italy.
Battling for credibility from the opposition: the experiences of the Shadow Cabinet in the UK and Italy
“In the United Kingdom the political weight and experience of the shadow cabinet has proven of crucial importance for the opposition to present itself as a government-in-waiting capable of pressing criticism on the government and also of resetting the political agenda. Visibility and credibility are the two main issues for any opposition party: the shadow cabinet model shows that party leaders need to put faces to policies by shaping a leadership team capable of acting like a proper government…
..read more…
photograph by: ktylerconk
The Italian newspaper Il Fatto Quotidiano has published an article on Labour Friends of Italy. Click on the article’s title below to link directly to it:
Scuola di politica “stile British”
Una futura classe dirigente europea
