Letters
Letters to the editor •
Schlein, Fratoianni, Conte. Three tales of hypocrisy surrounding the anti-Semitism bill
Who has written to the editor-in-chief, Claudio Cerasa
25 SEP 26
Translated by AI
Photo: ANSA
To the Editor – Even the PD has decided to vote against the anti-Semitism bill. It is unsettling to consider that there are elected representatives whose highest conception of freedom of thought is to insult Israel.
Giuliano Cazzola
It is disconcerting to contemplate that certain political leaders might regard voting against a law against anti-Semitism as a useful banner to wave during an election campaign to win votes.
To the editor – But exactly, what is the centre-left, which is saying ‘no’ to the anti-Semitism bill, actually saying ‘no’ to? Is it saying ‘no’ to a bill, or is it saying ‘no’ to its own history?
Luca Martini
On the subject of the centre-left’s backtracking on the fight against antisemitism, I am reporting on three brief stories that we have already discussed. The draft bill on antisemitism does not introduce new regulations; it specifies what does and does not constitute an act of antisemitism (criticising the actions of the Israeli government is not an act of antisemitism). To do so, it uses a definition from the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA). The IHRA definition was adopted by the European Parliament in a well-known resolution, B8-0383/2017, which called on Member States and European institutions to “adopt and apply the working definition of antisemitism used by the IHRA”. Who was among the signatories to the draft resolution, on behalf of the Socialist Group? Elly Schlein. A year later, in Parliament, on 4 October 2018, during sitting no. 56, the Chamber examined the motion tabled by Carfagna and others on combating antisemitism. The first commitment called on the government to “recognise and adopt the working definition of antisemitism proposed by the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance”. Which MP chose to abstain on the motion’s preamble and then voted in favour of the commitment “to adopt and implement the IHRA definition”? Nicola Fratoianni. A few years later, in January 2020, Palazzo Chigi decided to officially adopt the IHRA definition. A firm stance: “Anti-Semitism is a certain perception of Jews that may take the form of hatred, and its manifestations may be directed against Jewish people, property, institutions and places of worship”. Who was leading the government at the time? Giuseppe Conte.
To the Editor – Talking about ceilings and percentages does a disservice to schools, which are working tirelessly every day, amidst countless difficulties, to ensure that children simply feel like children. Not Italians or foreigners. What Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni did a few days ago – perhaps forgetting the role she holds and speaking solely as a party leader – is serious: to go so far as to claim that there are Italian children ‘in the corner’ in our classrooms amounts to bending reality to suit an ideological agenda that offends those who experience school life every day. Moreover – now that the school year has begun – the urgency with which the government is justifying a decree is unwarranted; a decree which – if it follows the Prime Minister’s announcement – will contravene at least three articles of our Constitution: Articles 2 and 3, which enshrine the principles of solidarity and equality, and Article 34, according to which schools are open to all. It will be argued – as is currently being argued and as reported by your newspaper – that circulars already exist setting a cap on the number of pupils with non-Italian citizenship per class. That centre-left governments have endorsed them. The right has even dragged the President of the Republic into the debate, distorting the meaning of a text issued in 1990 when he was Minister for Education – a text drafted in a different context and with clearly opposing aims. But perhaps we need to reiterate a fundamental difference: a circular is an organisational document, a recommendation that allows for flexibility. It is not a law that creates a barrier, imposes binding obligations and penalties, and will bring chaos to schools and administrative offices. And it risks becoming an obstacle to school attendance. If Meloni and Valditara are genuinely concerned about the problem of those one thousand classes out of three hundred thousand in which pupils with language difficulties exceed the figures set out in the circulars still in force, they should find funds to strengthen the teaching of Italian as a second language (L2) and ensure that teachers are actually assigned to this task rather than to cover supply teaching posts. They should allow for the formation of classes with fewer pupils. And, if we must speak of a ‘cap’, what schools urgently and desperately need is funding for school buildings, given that one in three buildings requires renovation. That is precisely what a decree would be needed for. But it will never see the light of day, because it is not cost-free. And, above all, it is of no use in the daily, gruelling race to keep up with Vannacci.
Anna Ascani