Irresponsible outbursts are dominating the debate following the violence in Milan

The public debate that unfolded in the hours following the violence recorded last Sunday on the streets of Milan has provided observers with a considerable number of useful insights into some of the flaws within our country’s political discourse. We could single out at least five: the police are always in the wrong; the young people need to be understood; the social unrest needs to be analysed; the state gets everything wrong, whatever it does; and the capitalists, whatever the case, have brought it on themselves. In recent days, the ‘minimisation experts’ have played with words, attempting to append a dangerous ‘but’ to every condemnation, thereby nullifying any basis for condemnation. They’re violent, but. They’re criminals, but. They’re hooligans, but. The ‘but’ has generally been used to ‘reason’ about the issues raised by the young people who took to the streets of Milan. But behind every ‘but’ there is often a trap lurking.

When discussing an act of violence, if one hastens to find a reason to legitimise other protests, one is not defending those who took to the streets peacefully; rather, one is demonstrating that the perpetrators of violence have achieved their aim: to shift the focus away from the violence itself and onto what might have driven them to act violently. A tendency to brush things under the carpet in the face of violent acts is dangerous, because it leads to contextualising, relativising and, consequently, downplaying the issue. But alongside the risk of denial lies another significant one, which stems from a non-demagogic consideration: in the cities where street violence has occurred, could more have been done to ensure safety? This is a legitimate question, yet one that clashes with a dual attitude cultivated by a not insignificant section of public opinion. If one calls – even from the left – for the police to do much more to ensure a city’s safety, one ought to be open to considering preventive detention, including any extensions thereof, as a legitimate tool – indeed, a necessary one in certain circumstances – rather than a violation of freedom of expression.

On the other hand, if one chooses to criticise the security system for what it has failed to do, one should also consider any repressive measures as legitimate, if necessary, as a last resort. The gradual criminalisation of the police has instead led to every police officer or carabiniere being treated as a monster until proven otherwise, and the result is what we see today: Would anyone calling today for greater powers of intervention for the police be prepared, in the interests of security, to defend the use of more invasive measures than those seen in recent days in Milan – even knowing that of the 271 people taken to the police station, 220 were minors? The other omission broadcast in the last few hours during the scenes of looting concerns a small but significant asymmetry. The ‘collective sociologist’, as you may have noticed, has sought out acrobatic ways to try and frame the violence within the context of a serious generational crisis. Yet that same spirit of empathy has shown little sign of emerging in the face of smashed shop windows, looted luxury shops, vandalised supermarkets and shop assistants being threatened.

The pattern is clear: if you vandalise a Feltrinelli bookshop, you’re in the wrong; if you vandalise a Louis Vuitton shop, you’re committing an obscene act which may, however, benefit from a generic mitigating factor known as ‘anti-capitalism’. When a city is put to the sword, there are responsibilities that it would be foolish not to recognise. Yet alongside these responsibilities, there are also instances of irresponsibility stemming from instincts that often surface in public debate when discussing street violence: demonising the police, contextualising brutality, playing the ‘yes, but’ game, and seeking out generic mitigating factors. Let us take note of this, before the next looting and before the next attempt to downplay the situation.