For weeks in Italian cities there have been protests against the Green Pass on Saturdays. Despite space limitations and the obligation to mask in the historic centers of many cities, the protests were still organized. Among the still active Telegram chats, the proposal of a boycott of Christmas without purchases and without exits would also have passed.
A Milano the appointments were various, some in solidarity with Zeno Gabriele Molgora, leader of the Milanese No Pass who is under investigation for instigating a crime and receiving stolen goods. A group of No Green Pass arrived between the Duomo and via Torino where the shopkeepers lowered the shutters with the customers inside. The agents invited to wear the mask and sanctioned those who did not.
A Bologna nothing will be in the historic center anymore: the prefecture has banned all demonstrations within the ring road boulevards until January 9th. There are still religious demonstrations and those organized by public bodies with immediate protest from the unions who had to move their march against the economic maneuver.
The unions protest because the right to demonstrate comes after the right to shopping, which is also the right to free enterprise, and to worship. In this period, however, there is the right to health on everything. A number of rights overlap. Where does that stop to manifest? “The Constitution in article 17” he explains Marilisa D’Amico, professor of Constitutional Law and Deputy Rector Delegate for Legality, Transparency and Equal Rights, of the State University of Milan, «governs meetings, groups of people with a purpose, and processions, which are meetings in motion. Any gathering that is not peaceful and unarmed is prohibited. No authorization is required. Only for meetings in a public place is it required to give notice to the competent authority. The authority may prohibit the meeting only for proven reasons of public safety or security. The organizers, not the participants in the demonstrations, are punishable for any violations ».
The Constitution leaves ample freedom, the point is not to abuse it. “If I turn this freedom into violence, into criminally relevant behavior, the state must implement precautionary measures,” says the professor. Its position tends to give as much space as possible to demonstrations, within the limits of the law with specific measures for the violent. “Dissent must be allowed to express itself because by limiting it the situation can worsen. In this context of a pandemic, measures are needed from time to time, banning the demonstrations for a period of time could have consequences. They could only take place with limits which are fundamentally public safety and security. On the other hand, measures that limit the areas in which the meeting can be held are acceptable: freedom of enterprise and movement of others must be counted ”.
For the teacher, there must not be an absolute ban on demonstrations. What if he came back for the obligation to wear masks outdoors? “If it turns out, perhaps in a Telegram chat, that a demonstration is being organized without masks, then this can be stopped because it is contrary to the rules in force”.
Other stories of Vanity Fair that may interest you:
– 2G, Green Pass and others: the rules for vaccinated and non vaccinated in Europe
– Vaccines: the green light of the EMA for children aged 5 and over and the new obligations
I am Derek Black, an author of World Stock Market. I have a degree in creative writing and journalism from the University of Central Florida. I have a passion for writing and informing the public. I strive to be accurate and fair in my reporting, and to provide a voice for those who may not otherwise be heard.