There are no doubts that Genova 2001 has been a significant experimental lab. Not only in the Carlini Stadium, for the renewal of the disobedience practices and the new approximations on the issues of rights and dignity. It also happened in the other side of the barricades. In the places of power determination, where the political rank in charge was updating the inheritance of the left wing thata had been at government beforehand: red zones and CTP are “democratic” inventions. Also at a level of organising the repression, in a sort of civil war simulation. Four internal police corps interacting with a dozen of imperial police forces in the managment of cages, containers, amphibious units, were the background of the worst deployment of violence on defenceless demonstrators ever seen in Europe. Immedialtely serching for a body to leave lying on the ground, strong of an evident condition of impunity, granted by the chain of power reaching top governamental levels directly in the operational centers. We had never seen police forces raising their aim the day after killing a twenty years old kid. And even at the level of managing the communication flows, with the Italian Prime Minister addressing the nation, after the Diaz massacre, on an operation that had assured to justice the violent ones backed by the pacifists. The boss of an umprecented communication system who is able to include facial lifting as media experimentation.

At a level of judiciary appendixes, with its two poles: on one side the roughness of the judges from Cosenza, who are running an inquiry for subversive association and other borbonic type crimes that came from an allucinated file from the ROS of the Carabinieri, on the other side the more subtle frame set up by the judges from Genova who, with a solid jurisprudence behind, have elaborated accusations of devastation and looting and also new matters in hand such as the “psichic participation”.

The experiment of the legislator in these three years was focused on the making of laws useful for reliefing the prince and his fuedataries from the processes they should bare such as the depenalization of balance frauds, the impossibility of referring to international rogatory letters, the approving of the Cirami law, finally blocked only by the outrage of the Schifani award. Without forgetting to interfere with migrational fluxes and drugs circulation.The governing majority has been united in the effort to discredit the the judiciary power, with the idea that the best defence is outside the courts. Under the lead of a premier who is accused of corrupting judges and of a Justice engineer who compares judges to core unionists. The opposition finds its new identities through consistent quotes of the civil society, determined to protect the judiciary power trough its demonstrations. A lot of people don’t realize (or maybe they actually do) that it is inside this State power that the inquiries against the movement are brought forward by so called democratic judges. And not only the ones for the blodshed days of Genova (just to mention it, the crime of looting is punished with up to eight years of imprisonment), but also those that followed since then, from the days of the mobilizations against the angloamerican invasion of Iraq, up to the accuses of crime association that was charged against the gatherings of people struggling for the right to a home and against the arbitrary arrests for unproven violence. The partial limitations in personal liberties decided by police officers have been always approved by the judges: from the special surveillance to the expulsion decrees. Every liberated space of democracy has a price to it. The chances of imprisonment become real for the simple occupation of a social space. Or maybe even for a strike outside the rules. This is only a brief summarization of the general portrait, but the justicialist drift of a certain left is definitely worrying, even because of the existence of an insane debate over violence and non/violence. The trials are going on, even those for the thousands of episodes of small scale conflict, and it seems that there is no appropriate space for a massified speculation that could provide a shelter from the following cases of liberty privations. And it could also bring forward the question of the legitimate defence of their own bodies that the (at the time) white overalls practiced in Genova against an evident and preordered homicidal determination. A legitimate defence that was also practiced later in time when defending the bodies of man, wimen and children during the mobilitations against the war. And it was also practiced every day in the different locations of the conflict for the conquer of rights and dignity, of a mannered quality of life.

The first date, the second of March in Genova, is hosted by a judiciary court that is evidently hostile, like the management of the measures of liberty privation and the contempt for the defensive preliminary argumentations show. To refuse the court in Genova does not mean to waken the work that has been done to reveal the truth around the violent repression. We are not missing a chance to have justice over murderers and torurers, even if there are no names linked to the political responsibilities. But it is also necessary not to be limited to the defence in the trials, where there are great difficulties: it is imperative that we concurr in the definition of new normative matters in hand with which the penal action can be paralized. We must empower the workgroup that since october is trying to focus on new normatives that could give dignity of law to the concepts of resistance rights and humanitarian intervention right, and even come up with an effective law proposal. We must also suggest on our side a new experimentation due to the constant ridefinition of the juridical categories in that short circuit between legality and legitimity that’s still burning since the days of Genova.

The feeling that this is not only something we should dare but more an inevitable countermeasure, is sthrenghtened every day in the territories and is clearly present in the sinister declarations of the internal affairs minister, who says they are working at the extension of the crime of subversive association also for those movements that are not structured as hierarchical and structured organisations, without leaders and followers. It’s not difficult to imagine who all this refers to.