The EU PNRR funds will only be disbursed in return for a series of reforms, including that of the judicial system. Thus, among other things, the reform of the civil process, within which cases of separation and custody of minor children fall, is being discussed in Parliament. The European Union, as we saw on Monday, gives clear indications on this issue: children must always be entrusted to mothers if fathers are “authors” of violence. Not “found guilty”, as the law already says, but “authors”, as such claimed by the mother herself. Put these aspects together in the hands of people like Senator Valeria Valente and all her feminist company and you have the new configuration of the civil process. The ‘Tribunals for Minors’ disappear, transformed into ‘Tribunals for the Family’, with specific competences precisely on separations, divorces and foster care. It is not only a change of name, but also times and procedures in a very precise perspective, the one dictated by the European law: to favour the rapidity of proceedings for women victims of violence. Only for them. Because, this is the premise, men and fathers cannot be victims of violence, and if they are, it is only in a few negligible cases. It is called ‘positive discrimination’, it is a legal aberration, it is unconstitutional, but, as we said on Monday, it is in accordance with a European directive that is not yet in place, but will arrive soon. And EU directives are superior to the Constitution. So it is an aberration, yes, but it is completely legal.
However, this is not the end of the story. The civil judge is given powers typically attributed to the criminal judge: he/she will have the possibility to take ‘protective’ measures for a woman who claims to be a victim of violence. In order to verify that there is ‘real’ violence, the civil judge has to contact the criminal judge dealing with the case and see if there are ‘traces of violence’. The same criminal judge has to inform the civil judge in case the man is subject to some restrictive provision. And while this transfer of information is taking place, if the civil judge finds that there is an economically weaker party between the two, ex-husband and ex-wife, he can immediately establish that a portion of the income of the stronger one automatically goes to the weaker one. Practical example: Gino and Gina separate. They cannot agree on the terms of the separation and the custody of the children, they go to court. Before going to the civil court, Gina sues Gino for a criminal offence of her choice (stalking, sexual abuse of minors, mistreatment, battery, the choice is wide…). Thanks to the “Codice Rosso”, Gino is immediately charged and maybe even given a restraining order, waiting to see if Gina’s complaint checks out. In the meantime, having declared a case of violence, the civil separation case speeds up: the judge calls the prosecutor who is prosecuting Gino and asks him: “oh, is there violence in this case?”. The prosecutor replies: ‘who knows? We’re checking it out, but in the meantime Gino is under house arrest, just in case’. ‘OK, thanks’. With that, the civil judge goes back to the courtroom, orders in favour of Gina the custody of the children and, since she earns less than Gino, also that half of Gino’s salary should go to Gina’s account every month.
The interests of the child will coincide with those of the mother.
Yes, but, it will be said: Gino has not yet been found guilty of the crime for which he was denounced by Gina, by law he is innocent until that moment, so even this provision is horrendously unconstitutional! Yes, we reply, you don’t need to be a jurist to realise this. But even in this case it is the future, imminent and already mentioned European directive that requires it: as a superior source even to the Constitution, everything will be regular. So Gina finds herself with one and a half salaries, the house assigned and the children entrusted to her care, while Gino has to face a long criminal trial. And while he, forcibly removed by the judge, waits for the sentence and does not see his children any more, Gina and her family have all the ease of bleaching the children’s brains and hearts so that they come to hate, or at least ignore, the father figure. Gino can point this out to the civil judge, who can set up CTUs to understand how things stand, but… the reform constructed by Valente forbids CTUs to mention, even only in passing, cases of psychological conditioning or maternal conducts that are hostile to the father’s frequentation. Although the Supreme Corte di Cassazione has recently sanctioned that this kind of behaviour must be sanctioned with the super-exclusive custody to the fathers, the new law forbids the consultants to make even the remotest mention of alienating behaviour. And if, by chance, there is any doubt as to the real reasons why a child refuses his father, ‘the judge, personally, after hearing the child and taking all the information considered necessary, shall ascertain the causes of the refusal as a matter of urgency’. In short, judges are also asked to act as child psychologists. Since they are not able to do so, they will do the most obvious thing: they will believe the child’s words, without asking themselves whether they were not previously and duly placed in his mouth by his mother.
In the meantime, Gino has two possible courses of action: he could end up in one of the ‘special courts’ referred to in the European law, designed specifically to increase the number of convictions of men and fathers, and then he will have no chance: he will be convicted, he will have to undergo ‘treatment programmes’, also provided for in the European law, and he will never see his children again. If those courts, fortunately for him, have not yet been set up, then after three to four years of proceedings, he will either see his case dismissed or be acquitted with a full sentence on a false charge, as happens in 90% of cases. Yes, but in the meantime, his children will no longer want to see him, they will despise him, they will hate him, or they will simply not give a damn about seeing him. Les jeux sont faits et rien ne va plus. This already happens today in a disproportionate number of cases. It sometimes happens, however, that the mechanism does not work: a few lucid judges, a few too many insistences from mothers who are too rancorous, and the whole strategy risks breaking down. In those very few cases, the Corte di Cassazione’s decision happens: the mothers are recognised as clearly inadequate and the children go to stay with their fathers. Well, with Valente’s reform, not only will the exclusion of fathers from their children’s affections (and the plundering of their economic resources) become systematic and structural, bringing the whole system to the (distressing) state it was in before the 2006 reform based on bigenitoriality and equal economical sharing, but also those few exceptional cases in which the systematic combination of false accusations and maternal custody will be revealed and defused will disappear. The intervention of Valente and her acolyte on the civil process obtains a historic and devastating result: “The ‘superior interest of the child’ prevails over the principle of bigenitoriality”, they say. In reality, it is made to coincide with that of the mother, definitively sinking the law 54/2006 on separation and custody, which has never been really applied, and giving an even more powerful impulse to the already rampant phenomenon of complaints based on false and instrumental accusations made against men and fathers.
We have not been able to defend the sons and fathers of the future.
The fact is that this can no longer be stopped. For the contingent political reasons linked to the Italian parties interests, but also for much broader and general reasons. It is the concrete realisation of a legal and ethical horror that has been worked on for a long time, with a gradual but unstoppable path that starts from the infamous anti-stalking law of 2009 and arrives until today. It is a prearranged and planned plan, built at the table with great precision, zealously implemented by political operators supported by an increasingly consolidated and rich territorial network, with tentacles that operationally sink into the editorial offices of every mass media and the decision-making centres of the key sectors of civil life (law enforcement, education, justice), geographically reach as far as Brussels, Strasbourg and New York, and historically date back to the UN conferences in Cairo and Beijing in the 1990s and the Istanbul Convention that followed. It is about the creation of a new world, governed by an allegedly ‘female’ regime, which is in fact a feminist totalitarian one, and as such is based on a merciless war on men, on the ‘male’, and on everything it represents: strength, inventiveness, nonconformity, resourcefulness, exploration, change (even revolutionary change), the solidity of values and institutions such as the family. The regime that is being constructed needs to eliminate and humiliate all these aspects in order to take root in an earthly, conservative, conformist, overprotected, immobile, malleable, conciliatory configuration, based on empathy and emotion, the latter duly stimulated towards the impulses to consume and the abandon savings. This configuration is no more and no less than the demise of the man and the father, both definitively certified as historically and currently toxic, and therefore to be neutralised, but it is also the dawn of the woman, sanctified in turn as a historical victim who today finds her redemption in a system built in her exclusive image and likeness. In short, it is a regime based on false postulates, but capable of feeding a gigantic network of interests and the need for supranational powers to be able to compress the freedoms and rights of all without having any opposition, but rather the applause of all.
Who would not applaud a law that ‘returns children to their mothers’? Who would not applaud a law that ‘defends women against violence’? It is the same applause that the Germans gave to those who spoke of ‘laws for the purity of the race’, or the American colonists to those who freed the western territories by exterminating “Indian barbarism”. History repeats itself and continues to teach nothing. While I am writing this article, I am being bombarded with reports of webinars, YouTube live broadcasts, and clear positions against this subversive coup d’état that shatters the most basic rights, as well as common sense. I just smile condescendingly. Too late, I think. Too late. For years there have been those who have been ringing the bells to warn of the dangers that are now taking the form of a law. Some have listened to the alarm signal, very few. Others, too busy defending their own backyard (whether associative, political, cultural or other) have pretended not to hear it. The majority didn’t hear it at all because of the amount of propaganda wadding in their ears. Could we have played it louder, been more incisive, more present, more united, less stolidly attached to party affiliations? Yes, definitely yes. There was ample room to interrupt the creeping path that has led up to this moment of albore of the new regime. At least it could have been slowed down or diverted. There are those who have done a lot and they deserve credit, but it is the final total that must be considered. And it is negative. It is a deep chasm into which all the sons and daughters of the future are destined to fall, and right behind them all the fathers of the future. We could have fought hard, united and determined, for some time and avoided the current situation, which will do damage that can only be repaired in several generations, but we have not done so. For this reason, instead of doing webinars of empty chatter, after allowing ourselves to be reduced to the relevance of small angry ants, we should instead be silent, be self-critical, but above all bow our heads and ask for forgiveness for our inaction to the generations of sons, daughters and fathers who will come after us and whom we have not been able to defend.