I wanted to do a post about the differences between the paper version for technophobes of today's paper, in which prevails in front page news that Napolitano would not have presented the state funeral for unhealthy Silvio (perhaps because the people of the network is easy to understand that the sprained ankle is an excuse more than acceptable ?) while in the online version is in a column to the right with tiny font, while the center stands Berlusconi: "Case within a few months" .
Then I found an article on immunity used in Europe by the opponents of the emperor.
Among the MEPs was also quoted Di Pietro.
recurrence an article in February Tonino said that he first told in a "subliminal" will not avail itself of the immunity, and of having "forgotten" when appropriate, as it would ask "of his own to appear before the Committee on Legal Affairs [...] By law, the EU Parliament (Italian or European that is) is called to rule on the immunity only if a party raises the exception, that is, if the defendant requests it. The court of first hearing may also decide to office applications, but in this case is not successful, probably because the magistrate did not find in the article by Di Pietro a simple case of "opinion expressed in the exercise of Parliamentary . It could have been there close affair, with a negative sentence of the court, if Peter had not asked for immunity, and then the court in Brussels .. "
Now, I'm not a journalist, but I think that in the meantime could also ask: just do a little research in sito dell'Europarlamento per leggere che "Il Parlamento ha deciso di non revocare l'immunità di Antonio Di Pietro nell'ambito di un procedimento per diffamazione avviato da Filippo Verde presso il Tribunale Civile di Roma. Di Pietro avrebbe ammesso che l'articolo per il quale è stato incriminato conteneva un «errore madornale», ma per i deputati, nel commentare una delle più importanti vicende processuali che hanno alimentato il dibattito politico italiano, egli stava esercitando le sue funzioni parlamentari." e che nella relazione si legge che "In tale ordinanza il Tribunale italiano, esaminando l'argomento difensivo sollevato dall'on.Di Pietro sotto forma di eccezione di insindacabilità, ha chiesto al Parlamento europeo di decidere sull'immunità di Antonio Di Pietro, dal momento che all'epoca dei fatti egli era parlamentare europeo" e che "l'on. Di Pietro stava svolgendo le sue funzioni di deputato. Cercare di imbavagliare i parlamentari, avviando procedimenti giudiziari nei loro confronti, per impedire loro di esprimere le proprie opinioni su questioni che suscitano un legittimo interesse e preoccupazione nell'opinione pubblica è inaccettabile in una società democratica e costituisce una violazione dell'articolo 9 del Protocollo, che mira a salvaguardare la libertà di espressione dei parlamentari nell'esercizio del loro mandato, nell'interesse del Parlamento in quanto Istituzione."
It is also not true that only the accused may require discussion on immunity.
The reports of the Members who have applied are mentioned two paragraphs of Article 6 (Waiver of immunity) of Regulation dell'Europarlamento, which is the first ("In exercising its powers in respect of privileges and immunities of Parliament seek primarily to maintain its integrity as a democratic legislative assembly and to ensure the independence of its members in carrying out their duties. ") and the third, for whom" every request to the President by a Member or a former Member in defense of the privileges and immunities shall be communicated to the Parliament's plenary and referred the committee responsible. "as in the case of Umberto Bossi (Lega ) and Aldo Patriciello (UDC) .
Instead report same Di Pietro says that" any direct demand the President by authority of a Member State and to lift the immunity of a Member shall be communicated to Parliament in plenary session and referred to committee..
Already this difference should not be a prick up their antennae journalist?
Another lie, even if D'Alema (quoted in the Journal of course) was the Milan prosecutors investigating the Unipol case asks you to waiver of immunity (dall'Europarlamento rejected, not by D'Alema, as it suggests instead the article) in order to use the intercepts between him and his wife.
But why not talk about the mitttico Brunetta ?
I would mention that the Newspaper, with pace Indro Montanelli, is currently directed by Vittorio sympathetic Felt, who already "on 8 November 1997, after receiving 35 complaints, denies what has been written so far by the newspaper against Antonio Di Peter, calling reports in electoral purposes only. Felt In December 1997 he resigned after the sensational article in favor of Antonio Di Pietro, just while the journalist had arrived at its highest levels "(source: wikipedia.org ).
0 comments:
Post a Comment