[Translated by Arif Ishaq]

[Translator’s Note: The European Parliament has asked all member states to promulgate a law on torture. During its discussion, the League of the North, headed by Bossi, presented an amendment whereby torture would be illegal only if reiterated; it passed in the House. Earlier, the same League had promoted more permissive laws over self-defence. In the same period, the House is also debating over the Gasparri law designed to let Berlusconi keep his illegal TV, Rete4]

As an Italian I’m really relieved: they’ll be able to torture me but only once. I hope not to be lifted up by the balls, because I’m afraid it hurts a lot even the first time. After the passing of the League’s [of the North] amendment in the House (perhaps written by Bossi himself directly on the blackboard with which he communicates to his brave lot) we are finally a more civilised country, aligning ourselves in this to the good old Iraq of Saddam, to North Korea and to our Yankee friends, Guantanamo style, not to forget the ancient Aztecs.

What a relief. Politically, there’s talk of an exchange: you vote for my torture and I’ll vote for the Gasparri. In your opinion, what would Silvio choose if he were faced with the tragic choice of legalizing torture to save Rete4? Guess. Here we are with Apply-Once Torture. Don’t fear, the law will not pass with the Celtic amendment: even some Fascist Colonel has declared (after having voted in its favour) not to like it. As for the Centrists – they too – after having voted – appear contrite and the group leader, Volontè, has said that he will use his body (literally) as a shield to block the law.

It’s the first time in memory that the body of Volontè will be of use. From a practical point of view, the law will change habits and procedures; even poster design will be updated with big notices like: Attention – Forbidden: Torturing a Second Time. Now we await the explicative circular. Let me explain myself: if in order to torture, they tear off my fingernails, let’s say, is the second fingernail considered reiteration? Or can they tear all ten of them (horror! maybe all twenty) in a go and it counts as one torture sitting? You ought to agree that it is a point that needs clarification. After all, public officials always love a show of excessive zeal: if instead of one, they can deal you two blows, certainly they won’t let the occasion escape.

What remain are doubts of a deeper, almost philosophical nature. One: we didn’t have a law on torture, and that sounds a bit bizarre two and a half centuries after Beccaria. Two: it’s been decided to design an ad hoc law evidently because the problem exists. No one sits down to write a law against ordeals, human sacrifices or cannibalism, simply because it’s supposed that these things don’t exist any longer. I deduce that it isn’t so for torture.

I have other, a bit more morbid, curiosities of the kind: it being possible to torture people at least once, will special rooms, like the ones in Bolzanetto, just to get an idea, be equipped for the purpose? Or will it be entrusted to improvisation, the great national quality, and everyone will be able to torture you wherever it most pleases them or it is more comfortable? It’s not an irrelevant detail, because with this law it is evident that you may torture only without going wrong, the very first time. No public official with a head on his shoulders will risk the absurd need to torture twice (crime!) and will take good measures to optimise the first sitting. Thus there is need for suitable instruments, great professionality and studied-for-the-purpose single-use utensils since the second is forbidden by law. So, there’s need to ask: do we have the necessary financial cover to buy rubber tubes, milling machines, circular saws, ear cutters, hatpins, oxyhydrical flames and Malese boots? If we don’t have this financial cover we could always cut some of the funds for hospitals, schools, pensions and wisely dedicate them to the re-organisation of the torture sector.

Certainly, every law is perfectible. This one on torture, for example, has a big defect: it leaves open and unresolved the whole problem of the obstinate resistance of the tortured. To understand better: if the tortured doesn’t yield at the first torturing what do we do, let him get away with it? Even with all the breadth of vision we are capable of, it is not admissible that a constitutional state give this opportunity to one tortured, one who may afterwards even face a trial! Fortunately, the League comes to the rescue even in this case, filling the legislative hole: if after the first session of torture the tortured hasn’t spoken (it’s rare, but it happens), it will be possible to shoot him in the head invoking legitimate defence.

It won’t even be necessary to demonstrate having been attacked, it’ll be enough to sustain that he tried to rob us of something. Hey, you don’t believe it? It’s my word against his, and he is dead! After that, with the corpse still warm, it’ll be possible to look the judge in the eyes and spread your arms: Your Honour, try to understand, the victim tried to rob me of the electrodes with his genitals! (il Manifesto, April 25, 2004)

---