Isolate the violent. Justifying them is criminal. An appeal to all political parties

It is wise to try to understand. Leaving room for justification is criminal. It is from this distinction that I believe the political debate on the violence during the demonstrations in Milan, Bologna and Turin should begin. Jumping on police and Carabinieri vehicles, smashing shop windows and attacking officers are criminal acts. The reason for taking to the streets cannot become an excuse for those who decide to put others’ lives at risk.

I am addressing those in government, those in opposition, those who lead a party and those who speak out in public. I ask each of you to weigh your words carefully, bearing in mind the consequences they may have. A ruling class has a duty to listen to people’s grievances, acknowledge tensions and understand the reasons behind a protest. But this very task requires the ability to draw a line. When protest turns into aggression, that line has been crossed and must be drawn without hesitation. I refuse to equate young people with those who wreak havoc. I regard this as an injustice done to an entire generation and a gift to those within that generation who seek a pretext for their own violence. There are young people who have ideas, demands, anger, hopes and the full right to bring them into the public sphere.

Defending this right means preventing anyone from seizing upon it to turn a demonstration into urban warfare. Anyone who attacks a police officer also harms those walking peacefully alongside them, whose voices are silenced by the images of the clashes.

This is why I consider any leniency towards violence dangerous when it comes from one side of the political spectrum. It is precisely at that moment that the sincerity of a condemnation is put to the test. Distancing oneself from one’s opponents is easy. Holding those who claim to share our causes to account for their actions requires responsibility. I would like to see the same firmness from everyone, regardless of the cause championed by those who strike. The safety of a person in uniform cannot depend on the sympathy aroused by the cause invoked by their attacker.

Behind that uniform there is a person. There is someone who leaves their home to carry out a duty and has the right to return to it. This consideration should be borne in mind by anyone commenting on a protest before making distinctions, seeking mitigating factors or assigning blanket blame. Understanding the context helps to prevent further violence. Using it to make an attack seem acceptable means leaving the victim even more isolated and encouraging those who think they can repeat it. In this ambiguity, politics loses its purpose and leaves room for those who wish to impose force.

Solidarity with the police is necessary, but it must be reflected in our behaviour. Toning down the rhetoric means taking responsibility for the language we use, avoiding describing every confrontation as a war and every opponent as an enemy to be defeated. It also means taking action when hatred is being fuelled within one’s own circles. No one can control every action of those who listen to them. However, everyone can decide whether to help isolate those who resort to violence or to give them a platform to legitimise their actions. It is a choice that concerns all political parties, every day.

I call on politicians to resume exercising this responsibility with conviction. Ensuring that people can demonstrate freely and guaranteeing the safety of those maintaining order in public spaces are duties that go hand in hand. Young people should be able to protest without becoming hostages to those seeking confrontation; citizens should be able to walk through their own cities without fear; and police officers should be able to do their jobs without becoming targets. Defending these freedoms requires clarity. Seeking to understand is the duty of the ruling class. Offering justification to those who use violence is to abdicate that duty.