In my last two entries I have indeed primarily interested in how the media machine and the unwound state power its program to preserve the prestige of democracy and blame the ultras. Those in turn, exploit the death of Gabriele Sandris again for their own purposes. In short, a death that has very little to do with football, is used by one side to mobilize a martyr on the flags to the masses and the other side takes the ball of course love to have in order to: a) from its own total failure and divert b) the evil football fans who besmirch the pearly white product-league football, hide with their flags and banners with their singing advertising jingles in the stadiums drown, finally rid of them.
The critical journalists (the dying group of idealists who have tried the head, instead of press releases written off to possible anstrengungsarm rumzukriegen their 8 hours) had indeed thrown rightly, that the ultra-violence in time to an unheard of event followed: A policeman shot a football game and the operation was - unlike in February mysteriously deaths, which took Raciti - continued as planned. Hence: if you do not shoot the fan or at least respond appropriately and reverently, would be nothing happened. A very reasonable objection, given the fact that the qualitative journalistic laziness or less conformist media, almost unanimously on tougher penalties for football fans and civil war-like conditions and attributed the cause of the riots lost sight of. Sandri was by no means a bully or simply Ultras, who was shot during brutal fighting, as he charging the forehead with tape, cartridge belt, Uzi in hand grenade attack and his platoon in left with two frightened traffic policeman. Just a reminder again.
The Italian Interior Minister Giuliano Amato manifests itself now to the case. He defended the police action, of course, that's his job. He must then rebut the charge that it would have without the shooting down one young man sitting in the car from behind surely been no protests. Very enlightening, it is now, as he does: "Gabriele Sandri, ha osservato," non sarebbe morto se un poliziotto non avesse sparato, e questo è comunque imperdonabile, ma non sarebbe morto neppure se i tifosi due Tues squadre diverse, incontrandosi in un autogrill, non si cimentassero in cracks ma bevessero un caffè insieme "." He notes also that Gabriele Sandri no "would be dead if a policeman had not shot, and of course that is inexcusable, but he would not have died if the fan groups of two clubs would not have created together, but had drunk a cup of coffee together. "
Pause.
The associations with this interpretation of the law are of course infinite. When the refugees had not tried to flee over the Berlin Wall, he would not have been shot. If I had not in my apartment hoarded the gold jewelry of my family would not have been broken into. If I had not yet gemusst clock at 22.00 to the gas station to get beer, me, nobody would have scratched the car door. If my child had not gone to school, the class of rowdies had not beaten him. If the lady in the evening at the club had no mini skirt on, they would not have been raped. If the two blacks in the southern states would not necessarily have to live in this village, the KuKluxKlan would not even suspended. Also an interesting point.
You can play through the game from the chicken and the egg indefinitely. Which came first? IRA or British troops? Cromwell? Palestinian violence and Israeli military? Before each event, there was always unjust one else that can draw the opponent to justify. In this way you can prolong the conflict indefinitely and international terrorism - and the fight against it - so show us how it works (the ultras set for "terrorist activities" should be prosecuted, is surely just a coincidence). Here, the whole ball through the small but could unravel in European law has always been rooted word "proportionality". Was shot by any action that is directly connected with the circumstances in which, directly justified? No. If the subsequent outbreak of violence of the Ultras, especially in Rome in any way justified by the previous events and legally excusable? No.
Both actions are a current culmination of a years if not decades-long chain of smaller and larger events, injury, defamation, dead who have been burned into the collective consciousness of the two warring groups and pull the pages from which each have their justifications. If you're no Ultras is a policeman, that looks exaggerated and absurd from - the search for causes resulting in hundreds of thousands of events ramifications. The resolution of this node as well as good for sure recipe for the Palestinian conflict - I do not dare to get involved there. However, I am also not satisfied with the radically abbreviated presentation of the case in the mass media. I guess praises the excellent and critical coverage of the Repubblica from here, from Spiegel Online, otherwise very appreciated by me, I'm just disappointed, however.
Amato is the way, since the September 30, 2006, the so-called "Gruppo Amato" before, official name is "Comitato d'azione per la europea Democrats" (Action Committee for European Democracy, ACED), supported by the European Union, its representatives to sends the meetings. Well then.
