The cultural clash between Piantedosi’s new disregard for danger and the warnings from the Colle

It remains to be seen whether, among the ‘serial email threats’ that are currently alarming the government and the public, there might also be the risk of a head-on collision between certified emails travelling in opposite directions, from the highest hill to those just below it. The likelihood of causing a major head-on cultural collision—one concerning the philosophy of law—is very high in a country where, when it comes to risk, prevention and responsibility—be it earthquakes, bomb letters (or parcels) from Taiwan, or those from ‘Misoginistan’—the boundaries are never clear. The exchange of viewpoints yesterday between the hills of Rome and the halls of power was intense. Following the public health committees set up by Giorgia Meloni to find a response to bomb threats in schools and other unpredictable hybrid threats, the Minister of the Interior, Piantedosi, swiftly issued a directive addressed to prefects and police chiefs. It is based, if we may summarise it thus, on a concept of risk assessment that is rather unprecedented in our country – a country so inclined towards the preventative blocking of any activity involving risks – that if the art of divination were enshrined in the Constitution, we would be obliged to preventively block thunderstorms (flash floods).

In summary, Piantedosi instructs that from now on, in the event of a mere "mass email" lacking objective evidence, schools, public or private offices, and even stations and hospitals must no longer be evacuated. One might hope that, as a liberating move, we might be able to give a good kick to the mothers interviewed by Rep. who defend their children who no longer want to go to school out of fear. It will be the sole responsibility of the relevant prefect to assess whether there are concrete grounds for risk and to order any evacuation. School heads will be required merely to report receipt of the email.

In recent days, those headteachers who decided not to send everyone home and stood their ground even in the face of frightened pupils and parents have become heroes for a day. The very same parents and media outlets that are now singing their praises were, until yesterday, accusing headteachers of irresponsibility for not closing schools due to snow warnings in neighbouring regions or strong winds. Thanks to some Putin-style incompetence, we have suddenly become a country that assesses risk with the cool-headedness of James Bond. But what if – heaven forbid (superstition should also be enshrined in the Constitution) – even a single firecracker were to go off in the corridor? Who would be held responsible for the lack of precaution? The directive requiring staff not to abandon their posts says nothing about civil or criminal liability, which by law remains with the headteachers. Will there be immunity from prosecution? And are we sure that in the most victim-centred and litigious country in the world, no one would hold it against them? In the country where geologists were put on trial for failing to predict the earthquake? Are we or are we not the family-oriented country that rejects ‘free-range parenting’ at least until the age of majority – indeed, even when ‘choosy’ students sleep in tents? But as for hoax bombs – no, we shall no longer be afraid of them.

It is a revolutionary and interesting cultural choice, to be assessed in the light of another letter. At the very moment when Piantedosi was turning us into devotees of a disregard for danger, Sergio Mattarella at the Quirinale was returning the new civil protection law, signed and promulgated, accompanied, however, by a (precautionary) letter to the Presidents of the Senate and the Chamber of Deputies and to the Prime Minister, containing a number of prudential points.

The purpose of the amendments sought by the government to the current legislation, the 2018 Civil Protection Code, is not to grant criminal immunity (by no means!) to those involved in civil protection activities, but to narrow the circumstances under which behaviour or decisions taken during an emergency might subsequently be deemed criminal offences. For example, immunity from prosecution is introduced for offences committed through negligence, provided that the perpetrator complied with national guidelines or best practice as applicable to the specific case. Furthermore, criminal liability is limited to gross negligence, and this also applies to volunteers involved in such activities. Finally, when assessing potential negligence, the judiciary must take into account the urgency of the situation, scientific uncertainty (such as in the case of earthquakes) and the predictability of the event.

The President of the Republic has signed the bill, but wished to emphasise to the leaders of the state and the government that this constitutes “a very broad exemption from general liability for negligence” and that, furthermore, the new scope of application of the regulations is very wide. Far be it from us, or anyone else, to doubt the Head of State’s principles and his wisdom on these specific matters. Yet the country’s cultural U-turn persists. Just as was the case with criminal immunity for police officers—perceived by many as a freedom-eroding law in a country where it is often the police who end up in hospital—so too, in a country that puts meteorologists on trial, the principle of ‘reverse precaution’ must address the risk that a mayor, in emergency circumstances, might breach some regulation by making decisions that a magistrate might one day deem to be wrong. But it may well be that the ‘massive emails’ have finally forced Italians, too, to face a choice: between precaution and a sense of responsibility.