Started by
Moderator
Moderator
I know it's a period where I'm marking poorly, forgive me.
Honestly, I am not very informed about certain matters and, finding the principle that a person should not pay for another's mistakes (even if it were mother/son) to be right, I am referring to the irony regarding the dedication of the Senate hall.
If it were true, I simply do not approve.
Forgive me
Member
It's a hoax, Frank.
The story dates back to 2006 when the Rifondazione Comunista group decided to dedicate its presidential office at the Senate to Mauro Giuliani. The then President of the Republic Napolitano, although urged by strong protests from the Center-Right, believed that one could not intervene in an autonomous choice made by a parliamentary group within the scope of its own space.
The problem ended, however, when Rifondazione Comunista no longer had representation in the Senate and the plaque was removed from that space.
Member
danielescarpetti wrote:It's a hoax, Frank.
The story dates back to 2006 when the Rifondazione Comunista group decided to dedicate its presidency office at the Senate to Mauro Giuliani. The then President of the Republic Napolitano, although urged by strong protests from the Center-Right, believed that one could not intervene in an autonomous choice made by a parliamentary group within its own space.
The problem, however, ended when Rifondazione Comunista no longer had representation in the Senate and the plaque was removed from that space.
Thank goodness!
Member
Here we are again with online hoaxes...
Moderator
Thanks Daniele, so it seems to me to understand that there is a grain of truth.
Member
But yes, there was a grain of truth, but it was relegated to the political will of a party that, like every political force, had its own "private" space within the Senate.
We are talking about a party with ideological connotations, in this case far-left, and therefore the choice of name is not surprising at all.
It would certainly have been more deplorable if it had been done by the institutions, and here we enter the realm of what is legitimate to share and what is not, regardless of the political forces that represent the institutions.
Just to give a clarifying example of what I mean: there are streets that are given names reminding one of highly questionable people who have an exclusively partisan significance but who, historically speaking, were certainly not well-merited.
On this point, I think we should be very careful and review certain types of toponymy, and this, obviously, extends to everything that is public.
