Lawyers like to try ideas of justice

ANM would like to implement the feedback. Here’s the latest dangerous idea from the Ropes Union, which has decided to scrap the commissions in response to “attacks on jurisdiction” and “severe disparagement of individual magistrates who have carried out activities related to international security”. Yes, you got it right. Come back to 1944, the only difference is that today there is no fascist link to be eradicated and punished, but the worst narrators of bad justice are in the crosshairs. But be careful: we are not talking about the bad justice done by the judges, but against them. It’s about freedom and fame. Even more hastily, given the speed with which ANM’s central steering committee decided to convene an extraordinary assembly, it drafted and approved a single document. October 21 to 26, five days and the pace is astonishing, especially compared to the time frame of our justice system. But that’s another story.

The point here is that the magistrates met in the Aula Magna of the Court of Cassation in Rome to formulate their plan of action.

It has a very specific roadmap: it must be completed before summer. Here the misguided mind can assume a sort of clockwork response considering the next European elections.
But what did ANM establish? First, the desire to protect individual magistrates, as we read in the document – ​​“the attempt to shift attention from the legal content of the provision to the person of the judge who issued it must be forcefully rejected”. In short, sufficient apostolic cases must be clear.

But here comes the beauty. What would be the concrete measures? Meanwhile, by March, “an important event” will be held simultaneously in all judicial offices (a series of seminars of at least three meetings should follow, again on a section and sub-section basis in the summer) aimed at providing information “with popular attitudes about the constitutional role of the judiciary.”

Then, last but not least, establishing a central commission and regional commissions with the task of monitoring the public debate on justice matters and identifying thematic forms – reflected in the judicial offices of the district -, potential guests ; Establishing at the central level a mixed commission composed of judges and social media experts, which will create social content aimed at following the public debate on justice matters, explaining the constitutional role of the judiciary and creating legal issues related to the topics. It caused a certain outcry”.
Minkulpop 2.0 is a Big Brother that constantly checks whether correct information about the judiciary and the work of individual judges is given in newspapers, TV, squares and radio. If these commissions are already in place, what will be the ban on that minister or that journalist who allows the publication of information about the past of a Toga like Iolanda Apostolico? Will it be information that citizens have a right to access, or will it be an attempt to outlaw the work, coherence and impartiality of the office? Ask the ANM for the answer.