The ongoing, aggressive slandering campaign against Free Trieste does also include derogatory graffiti: GIURASTANTE IS A TRAITOR (his name is misspelled as “Giudastante” in a call-back to Judas).
Behind the curtains of the ongoing, violent, aggressive campaign against Free Trieste hides, made of calls for “legality” and “democracy” against a President who, apparently, since his election in January [2014] did every bad thing, there is a visible attempt to put the Movement “under control”.
Indeed, it is a rather dangerous organization for the local, corrupt establishment. This establishment is the “system” that simulates Italian sovereignty over Trieste.
So, of course, they are trying to discredit the Roberto Giurastante (myself), Free Trieste’s third president, and also his agenda.
This is vital to detach the people from Free Trieste’s legal actions Actions that aim at re-establishing the rule of law in the Free Territory of Trieste and its international Free Port.
Yet, popular consent keeps increasing. Sooner or later the international community is going to notice.
This is why stopping Free Trieste’s current leadership means diverting a stand for the rule of law (which means, Trieste’s independence) to other goals. Goals compatible with the local nationalistic establishment’s.
This system, the officers hidden under Italian nationalism for their own gains, wants Free Trieste’s presidents to be people they can “control” to prevent that the stand for the FTT becomes anything more than the old style, stagnating and useless Triestine stand for autonomy.
In other words, accomplishing people ready to compromise with this deviant system of power.
A better settlement for “question” Trieste: a little bit of power and money in exchange of the surrendering of Trieste’s stand for independence. A struggle to become something “lighter”. Like a yogurt: with a light shitty aftertaste.
The crisis within Free Trieste is a combination of attacks from the inside and from the outside. It is an attempt to change the Movement’s course before it becomes something else. Something better.
The Movement’s first president, Alessandro Giombi (Gombač) offered the system all possible guarantees. He is easy to blackmail due to his legal proceedings and his several, pending trials.
The Movement’s second president, Stefano Ferluga admitts that he cannot “expose” himself beyond certain limits. When criticized for his continuous “cuts” from the Movement’s legal actions, he claims:
«…personally, I have never taken care of the movement’s “legal” side, I have neither the skills nor the time to do that. When it comes to the appeal at the Regional Administrative Court, my abstention is due to fear of losing a job that barely allows me to support my family.»
He talks about the administrative action for the annulment of Italian Regional elections in the present-day FTT. 57 of Free Trieste’s members joined the proceeding. Fifty-seven citizens of Trieste stood in defense of 200.000 fellows.
But none of those 57 appellants was one of the four “founders” that are leading the “golpe”.
Not that their current “spokesperson”, former Secretary Vito Potenza is any better. To all of them, suing the Italian administering authority was too dangerous of a limit to cross. Standing before Court is too dangerous.
But the third President was the main appellant. The first appellant. And the Regional Administrative Court labeled him a “subversive” for doing so. His crime? Exercised his right: denying Italian sovereignty over Trieste.
The judgment, impugned before the Italian Council of State, represents the parting between standing with the law without compromise and the end of the legal battle for a Free State, and those who are actively seeking a compromise as early as possible.
That judgment has an absolute value. Ours is an experimental legal action, possibly the first international trial for the rights of the Free Territory. So it is tremendously dangerous for the local system, which would rather parasitize Trieste for 60 more years. Obviously “forgetting” the 1947 Peace Treaty.
And this is why the third president is a “public enemy”. Nobody can control him. So he must go, out of the way.
_______________________
NOTE: Translation of an abstract from JUDGMENT 530/2013:
23. Considering the intrinsic and decidedly subversive nature of the appellant’s appeal (sustained with certainty and intellectual honesty by the applicant), this Panel is compelled to examine certain matters of principle. As is known in Western liberal democracies such as Italy, which both the appellant and the intervening parties are free citizens of, freedom of opinion and expression is, among other types of freedom, granted. Consequently, even unfounded, historically fictitious legal arguments, like those presented in the present appeal, may be freely and peacefully expressed.
23.1 Additionally, like any type of freedom, even the freedom of opinion and expression must always be synonymous of responsibility as it must be exercised within the limits of the law and can never go beyond the limits of respect for diverging opinions, citizens and institutions. It is this very respect that the appellant and intervening parties had also requested for themselves during the public hearing.
As a mere example, it would therefore not be very respectful to state publicly or through the press that a judgment that is not appreciated (but obviously still criticisable and arguable) is in fact a “legal monster”. Furthermore, in no democratic country is it accepted to use freedom of expression to incite to the commission of offenses, including offenses that are fiscal in nature, and unlawful behavior (see Articles 414 and 415 of the Criminal Code) or to directly commit offenses such as, for example, the offense of taking advantage of the people’s credulity (Article 661 of the Criminal Code).
23.2 In all cases, without prejudice to the fundamental rights, a democratic and sovereign State is certainly not a powerless entity, therefore it has the right and the duty to react according to the law but also to the full-extent of the law any time the fundamental principles upon which it is founded are questioned or any time the very safety of the State is in danger. A State’s fundamental principles obviously include its sovereignty and territorial integrity which are reaffirmed in every court.
In other words, a sovereign and democratic State, precisely because it is sovereign and democratic, must use the law to impede he who does not recognize the State’s law and who places himself outside the law. This does not only apply to Italy, but also to two democratic, neighboring and allied countries: Slovenia and Croatia, whose sovereignty and territorial integrity would be undermined if a ghost state like the Free Territory were to be reinstated as the appellant so advocates.