04 May 2021
“The new law feeds censorship” Giorgia Meloni has said the elementary truth about censorship and the war on freedom of thought and speech. «Those who would like to introduce Zan with the bill speak of censorship censorship by law and punish with prison those who do not align themselves with the dominant thought ». At these words everyone stands up indignantly to say: it is not true, but it is a dialectical cunning, a way to stay in the tracks of the Constitution. This bill already approved in the Chamber and today on the senators’ table he is not so brash. It does not say: I censor you, and I send you to jail for your opinions. But it is already now a permit to verbal aggression and moral confinement in the hospital of the sick in the head, of those who do not snap into applause towards those who are not ready to snap into enthusiastic applause for the theses on fluid sex and gender education (stimulate the decision to which gender to belong since kindergarten, regardless of biological sex) and the rented uterus which are the undeclared hypertext of the Zan bill (ddl), of which the Concertone of the trade unions was the poster hanging thanks to Rai in the homes of citizens, and without contradiction.
ONLY ONE SPOT
Meloni told al Messenger: «The Concertone was used as a pretext for ideological battles, like the Zan bill, which have nothing to do with work and workers’ rights. All on public TV and at the expense of the Italians. In this context, there are those who use that stage to advertise and create a megaspot, useful for further affirming themselves in the circuits that matter ». This ideology was perfectly visible in the so-called transgressive proclamations because topless and with a bow on the cap ** li with the rainbow colors of the “freedom to love”, as if there were a law that forbids it and prevents the expression of feelings. In the declared intentions, the Zan bill would like to punish discrimination and aggravate the penalties for crimes of violence against disabled, homosexuals and transsexuals (moreover, the aggravating circumstances already exist, and rightly so, not only in the code but in the practice of the courts). So why this urgency? The purpose of this rule is that the deputy of the Democratic Party is the first signatory Alessandro Zan (partner of a company that organizes the Padua Pride, source L’Espresso) is the imposition of the catechism of politically correct morality. As evidenced by the censures inflicted for example by the Order of Journalists, it still does not exist, but it is already asserted as a moral sword to disembowel those who think differently. In reality, the punishment is not yet criminal but everything suggests that a guarantee notice to those who speak against homo-sexual marriage, adoptions for gay or lesbian couples with the right to have children with a rented uterus attached, will not be lacking. How can this urgency be explained? The left and the 5 Stars fear they will not be able to carry out the forced vaccination program of their ideas about life and the family. Even anti-Covid inoculations are on a voluntary basis, instead here we want to inject ideology into the people with the threat of sanctions and planting a voodoo pin to socially isolate those who have ideas that are likely to be defined homophobic.
A practical example? Some time ago Meloni herself explained it: «I am defined homophobic dozens of times a day just because I consider the rented uterus a barbaric practice. This does not mean that I hate anyone, but that I just want to defend a child’s sacrosanct right to have a father and a mother. Out of love, and not out of hate, I lead these battles. We are faced with a profoundly wrong bill, which risks really creating some discrimination and incredible short circuits“. It is enough to read article 4 entitled “Pluralism of ideas and freedom of choices” to understand what the leader of FdI refers to: “For the purposes of this law, the free expression of beliefs or opinions as well as legitimate conduct attributable to the pluralism of ideas or freedom of choices, provided that they are not suitable for determining the concrete danger of carrying out discriminatory or violent acts “. If you feel the need to clarify the obvious, it means that the implant drags you into a situation of one-thought regime. And the final sentence is threatening. Words that lead “to the concrete danger of discriminatory acts”, what does this mean? Is it discriminatory to ban the rented uterus? Is it dangerous, therefore it would be a crime, to mobilize to challenge this practice? Who decides it? Fedez?