Prosecutors accuse Siher of terrorism, but the evidence is extremely flimsy.

One is left stunned by the weakness of the evidence and the flimsy arguments underpinning the charges brought by the Milan Public Prosecutor’s Office against Youssef Siher, the 30-year-old researcher arrested as part of the investigation into the protest initiatives announced following the violence of 17 October in Milan. The Public Prosecutor’s Office accuses him of leading a digital movement, with a Telegram channel that had reached over 11,000 subscribers, and claims that he was organising new demonstrations intended to degenerate into destruction and looting. Hence the charge of incitement to commit a criminal offence for the purposes of terrorism. The public prosecutor’s office has requested that the arrest be upheld and that he be remanded in custody. Yet, in the prosecutors’ application, not a single message can be found in which Siher orders or urges users to carry out violent acts, to attack anyone – particularly the police – to vandalise shops or to storm buildings. None of this is present. 

In their application for the arrest warrant to be upheld, the prosecutors state first and foremost that “the Instagram page ‘Movimento 17 ottobre’ contains violent content”. “In particular, we highlight posts published on 20 October with the following content: ‘the State is pissing on us and the media are making us believe it’s raining’, ‘Meloni is declaring war on the future of this country and we are declaring war on this despicable present’”, the magistrates emphasise. So what? Where is the violence? These are invectives against the government, expressions of political anger, deliberately provocative slogans, but simply using the word ‘war’ is certainly not enough to turn a metaphor into a criminal plot.

The prosecutors then focus on Siher’s comments against the new security decree, which was approved in recent days. Siher describes the measure as “an authoritarian blow against those who dissent, of a severity not seen since the days of fascism”. The prosecution interprets these words as confirmation of a subversive plot. But the text expresses a political criticism – however harsh – of a government measure; nothing more.

However, let us turn to the most ‘serious’ charge levelled by the prosecution against Siher, namely that of having published ‘subversive content, including a handbook inciting revolution and the use of urban guerrilla tactics inspired by the 2011 Egyptian revolution (“Rivoluzione, istruzioni per l’uso”) to deal with street clashes’Subsequently, however, the prosecutors themselves explain that “the text identifies three main objectives: to express one’s dissent, to involve as many people as possible, and to protect those taking part in the protest”. To express, to involve and to protect. Here too, there is no call to attack the police or to storm shops. The paradox is that it is the public prosecutors themselves who point this out, thereby contradicting their own premises.

The prosecutors go on to point out that the handbook “also mentions tools to be used during clashes with the police”. One might expect to read calls from Siher to take to the streets armed with metal bars, firecrackers and stones. Nothing of the sort: “It shows,” the prosecutors write, “an outfit consisting of hooded sweatshirts, protective goggles, a keffiyeh and gloves, presented as tools to protect oneself from tear gas and clashes.” So much for incitement to violence.

Even more surreal is the fact that the prosecution cites messages from other members of the Telegram group proposing to ‘smash up credit institutions’, send ‘all the banks to the stake’ or destroy RAI transmission masts. These are extremely serious statements, but they were not written by Siher, who administered the group. Yet, according to the prosecutors, by failing to distance himself from these statements and continuing to provide organisational guidance, Siher allegedly reinforced the users’ criminal intentions. Thus, the administrator of a group automatically becomes liable for the criminal intentions expressed by other members.

The instructions on communicating meeting points at the last minute and the calls to delete group chats and digital traces remain. The public prosecutor’s office interprets these as tools for evading checks and organising clashes. These are factors to be assessed, but the organisational secrecy surrounding a demonstration does not, in itself, prove that a riot is being planned.

The most incredible leap in reasoning concerns the alleged terrorist intent. The prosecutors infer this from slogans about ‘war’, the unrest on 17 October (which predated the creation of the Telegram group), the group’s growth and the fear felt by shopkeepers. The fear aroused by previous acts of destruction demonstrates the severity of that violence, but does not prove that Siher intended to terrorise the population.

In short, in the public prosecutor’s request, words become evidence, suspicions become certainties and radical dissent is labelled as terrorism. The problem is that, when it comes down to the facts, the prosecution finds no concrete evidence to support its case.