Hello, genuine sons of the network. Now we will try to analyze one of the three proposals that the great comedian claimed during the v-day, even as I am here to write a post, analyze them all 3.
- inelegibilità of all the parliamentary convicts
- directly elected by citizens
- maximum level of 2 terms of office for MPs
In my humble opinion, it was all a waste of breath and energy, and not because despite the consensus stolen from the almost pseudocomico the situation remained unchanged, but because the 3 proposals could have been easily reduced, simplified and summarized in 2. Let me explain:
is natural to think that people agree with the thought of Cricket, and then they do not want parliamentary preceded the trial behind him, would be reluctant to give preference to those same MPs. With direct preferences and then by the citizens, it follows that those people will not have the requirement for eligibility, however, because will have little choice.
The same thing applies to the proposal 3: the citizens in favor of this initiative when they will face a candidate grandfather, easily turn their gaze elsewhere, to younger subjects, and increasingly through direct election, would eliminate the so-called "journeyman policy." Deciding how to not be able to express freely express their preference for this type of parliament, leaving the decision to the party secretaries.
- inelegibilità of all the parliamentary convicts
- directly elected by citizens
- maximum level of 2 terms of office for MPs
In my humble opinion, it was all a waste of breath and energy, and not because despite the consensus stolen from the almost pseudocomico the situation remained unchanged, but because the 3 proposals could have been easily reduced, simplified and summarized in 2. Let me explain:
is natural to think that people agree with the thought of Cricket, and then they do not want parliamentary preceded the trial behind him, would be reluctant to give preference to those same MPs. With direct preferences and then by the citizens, it follows that those people will not have the requirement for eligibility, however, because will have little choice.
The same thing applies to the proposal 3: the citizens in favor of this initiative when they will face a candidate grandfather, easily turn their gaze elsewhere, to younger subjects, and increasingly through direct election, would eliminate the so-called "journeyman policy." Deciding how to not be able to express freely express their preference for this type of parliament, leaving the decision to the party secretaries.
Finally, keeping only the second, while leaving each person free to stand apart from its history, the situation, however, relates to a healthy democratic decision. THIS 'DEMOCRACY!
That said, I would like to point out my point of view in front of this initiative:
serious crimes, with a lot of sentences in third grade, there are. No denying it. This in effect leaves reflect a lot, smoking is the brain, is shocking in every respect.
is very different in reality the proposal of Cricket which "preclude" the parliamentary road to any person with a final sentence or awaiting trial. The chilling thing for me at least. First of all I remember from the list that has beautifully shown pseudocomico around Italy with all the names and surnames of those condemned also includes those with convictions really of little weight, but even worse, with convictions for libel. Defamation by definition has always been the condemnation of the anti-popular story, as they often collided with the freedom of opinion. A classic example is the story of Lino Jannuzzi.
Several times in fact happened is that individuals, with their statements, have touched leading figures and important. After that were deemed inconvenient and therefore unreported. Finally, for lack of evidence to the detriment of the persons against whom the statements had been made, the process ends with convictions for defamation.
Now, it's good to clarify some points, first of all generalize that the thought is never good, especially if we are turning to persons appointed to political office.
In other words, not all people are truly innocent or acquitted "little angels", as not all those sentenced are in fact wrong. Maybe it legally, but in practice the findings may be different. So one thing is to prevent people with questionable past can harm our country, another to say that a person with, for example, a conviction for manslaughter because he hit a pedestrian with his foot on the strip, should not contribute to political of our country.
The instrument of foreclosure for condemnation, could make it to blackmail some people. In the "power struggle" was nothing to prevent any corrupt judge to remove some people from the square with a small condannuccia just to get in exchange for some favor from political rivals. WE LOOK TO THE GENOVESE! We must take account not only good ideas and good thoughts, even a good chunk of rotting of our society.
That said, I would like to point out my point of view in front of this initiative:
serious crimes, with a lot of sentences in third grade, there are. No denying it. This in effect leaves reflect a lot, smoking is the brain, is shocking in every respect.
is very different in reality the proposal of Cricket which "preclude" the parliamentary road to any person with a final sentence or awaiting trial. The chilling thing for me at least. First of all I remember from the list that has beautifully shown pseudocomico around Italy with all the names and surnames of those condemned also includes those with convictions really of little weight, but even worse, with convictions for libel. Defamation by definition has always been the condemnation of the anti-popular story, as they often collided with the freedom of opinion. A classic example is the story of Lino Jannuzzi.
Several times in fact happened is that individuals, with their statements, have touched leading figures and important. After that were deemed inconvenient and therefore unreported. Finally, for lack of evidence to the detriment of the persons against whom the statements had been made, the process ends with convictions for defamation.
Now, it's good to clarify some points, first of all generalize that the thought is never good, especially if we are turning to persons appointed to political office.
In other words, not all people are truly innocent or acquitted "little angels", as not all those sentenced are in fact wrong. Maybe it legally, but in practice the findings may be different. So one thing is to prevent people with questionable past can harm our country, another to say that a person with, for example, a conviction for manslaughter because he hit a pedestrian with his foot on the strip, should not contribute to political of our country.
The instrument of foreclosure for condemnation, could make it to blackmail some people. In the "power struggle" was nothing to prevent any corrupt judge to remove some people from the square with a small condannuccia just to get in exchange for some favor from political rivals. WE LOOK TO THE GENOVESE! We must take account not only good ideas and good thoughts, even a good chunk of rotting of our society.
Finally I want to remember the many historical figures, the great geniuses who have been convicted in any case: from Socrates, Pasolini, Gramsci Caravaggio, etc. etc..
EVEN GESUUUUUUUUUUUU'!!!!!!!! (Which I do not want;)
This, ladies and gentlemen, it is not clean, meets!
0 comments:
Post a Comment