Letters
letters to the editor •
There’s a Conte who can save Italy (spoiler: it’s not Giuseppi)
Who wrote to the editor-in-chief, Claudio Cerasa
28 JUL 26
Translated by AI
Photo: ANSA
To the editor – There is absolutely no hint of favouritism in the Italian football system. #andreapirloctnazionale.
Michele Magno
There’s a Conte who can save Italy. Antonio, not Giuseppi. Forza Conte.
To the Editor – Those who claim that self-defence is always legitimate are not wrong. It is; defending oneself is always legitimate, by definition. What escapes those who think that this makes it possible to ‘exonerate’ Mario Roggero is that his actions were, quite simply, not an act of self-defence. When the jeweller killed the robbers, in fact, the need, the duty and the legitimacy to defend himself had already ceased to exist, given that the robbers were already fleeing. So, is self-defence always legitimate? Of course it is, but first, perhaps, it would be appropriate for certain tenacious but unreasonable defenders of Roggero to explain to us what he was defending himself against when he fired those shots outside the jewellery shop.
Luca Rocca
To the Editor – The usual old refrain about the ‘weak mind’ of the perpetrator of the Berlin attack is about to start up again. In a mental short-circuit that is difficult to regard as naive, people forget that the perpetrator of a crime may well, for various reasons, be considered incapable – but as a person. Whoever armed him, however they did so, must be regarded as the instigator. If it is an organisation, it should be considered mafia-like and treated as such. In almost every country, the instigator is punished more severely than the mere perpetrator. If, moreover, the latter is, for various reasons, mentally incapacitated, the offence of manipulation is added, punishable under Articles 44 and 111 of the Criminal Code, which define the manipulator as an ‘indirect perpetrator’.
Harry Salamon
To the Editor – According to Travaglio, “When a politician wants to send a message to the corrupt powers that be without letting anyone else know, they call them ‘aumma aumma’ or, if they don’t have their number, they give an interview to Il Foglio. Which, being an underground publication, isn’t likely to be read by ordinary people”. As a reader of Il Foglio, however, I didn’t feel the slightest bit offended – far from it: if Travaglio says so, it means we’re not normal, we’re superior.
Arialdo De Petris, Solicitor
When a newspaper resorts to shouting and excessive insults, it is because that newspaper lacks solid arguments to criticise the newspaper it wishes to insult. When a newspaper has no arguments to criticise, it is usually bad news for the criticising newspaper and good news for the one being criticised. As readers of "Il Fatto", however, we cannot help but be pleased to note that, whilst the editor-in-chief of "Il Fatto" was busy insulting "Il Fogliuzzo", his journalists have been reading "Il Foglio" so closely in recent days that, for four consecutive days, they have turned an interview given to our newspaper by Elly Schlein into a topic of debate. We do, however, understand the editor of "Il Fatto" perfectly well: when someone reminds him that, to be anti-fascist, one must stand with Ukraine and not with Putin’s propaganda, his fingers get tangled up – as Fantozzi would say – and he loses his clear-headedness. Spasiba, dear Marco.
To the Editor – I am struck by the naivety of Italian journalists who still fail to grasp the nature and motivations behind the No-Tav guerrilla movement, such as the violent pro-Pal demonstrations, and hundreds of other similar phenomena. These activists are well-resourced and well-equipped; they have the means to travel all over the world, and they rely on an extraordinary network of supporters. Is it possible that journalists do not understand what is happening? These protesters are funded and organised by foreign powers seeking to destabilise Western democracies. Why does no one have the courage to say so? Evidently, these foreign powers are so strong that people are afraid to explicitly admit their complicity in these subversive and destabilising phenomena. At this point, what is the point of journalism if it does not explain the facts as they unfold? Yet the evidence cannot be hidden.
Cristiano Martorella