“The No Tav movement is terrorism. But the judiciary has turned a blind eye.” Says Public Prosecutor Padalino

“Yet another attack by the No Tav movement on the Chiomonte construction site? We must call a spade a spade: this is terrorism. And we must apply the relevant prevention and enforcement measures. We all agree that we are not dealing with the Red Brigades, but this is a more subtle form of subversion, which does not target ostensibly political objectives, but rather a key objective for the country’s industrial and economic development,” magistrate Andrea Padalino, a former public prosecutor in Turin, tells Il Foglio. It was he who first put forward the theory of terrorism against the violent No Tav protesters, a view later rejected by the Court of Cassation. “The judiciary has shown itself to be too weak and ideological,” he adds. 

“Camping in Chiomonte and an attack on the construction site. The No Tav rally at the end of July has now become an annual fixture. It’s their way of proving they exist,” says Andrea Padalino. This time, the protesters’ violence left around 130 officers injured and caused damage amounting to one million euros. “The scale of the violence has returned to levels seen some fifteen years ago, and this is very worrying, because it had been decreasing in recent years. The point is that unless law enforcement is stepped up – and things are called by their proper name, namely terrorism – this cycle will simply continue.”

What does classifying these acts of violence as terrorism entail? “First and foremost, it means raising the bar in terms of preventive legislation and penalties. This has a significant deterrent effect. When, during the initial phase of the investigations into the No Tav violence in 2011, we charged the suspects with terrorism, coincidentally everything came to a halt. The attacks on the construction site virtually ceased,” recalls Padalino. “The legislation allowing for the charge of terrorism to be brought does exist, and it is not limited to punishing the existence of armed groups with terrorist aims. There is also legislation concerning projects of national interest, and the TAV construction site has been classified as such. The legislation allows for the offence of terrorism to be alleged when there are acts aimed at preventing the completion of projects of national interest or of the European Community,” emphasises Padalino. In the case of the TAV, we are dealing with a transnational project carried out partly with European funds, and therefore all the elements are in place to invoke Article 270-bis of the Criminal Code.”

How can the judiciary’s reluctance to charge people with terrorism be explained? “There is both an underestimation of the problem and an ideological interpretation of the law,” replies the former public prosecutor. “There are magistrates who consider charging young people with terrorism to be too severe. Unfortunately, various factors come into play, perpetuating the stereotype of the ‘ugly, evil terrorist’ from the days of the Red Brigades. But the people storming the TAV construction site are doing exactly the same things, just in a different way, in a different place and with a different objective. However, there is the notion of subversion – that is, of targeting a state structure considered fundamental to the public economy.”

It is well known, moreover, that some magistrates, belonging to left-wing factions such as Magistratura Democratica, have even gone on to become legal advisers to the protesters involved in the clashes once they have retired. “A section of the judiciary has no intention of pushing punitive measures beyond a certain threshold,” Padalino reiterates. “On the other hand,” he continues, “there is a section of the political establishment that agrees with these positions. The result is that here the construction site is militarised, whilst in France it is protected by simple green netting and a few security guards. This is because in France the violent protesters do not have the political backing they enjoy in Italy. I am not referring to a single party, but to a widespread network of solidarity and protection.”

For Padalino, the existence of this safety net is also demonstrated by the events involving those who opposed the violence of the No Tav movement, such as the former PD senator Stefano Esposito (a staunch supporter of the Turin–Lyon line, who was suddenly embroiled in a seven-year legal case, from which he was subsequently acquitted but which forced him out of politics) and Padalino himself (one of the magistrates at the forefront of the fight against the No Tav violence, who was also swept up in 2018 in a judicial investigation from which he was acquitted but which turned his life upside down). “The impression is that anyone who touches certain strings dies,” concludes Padalino.