Just to be Muslim in Italy constitutes an element of suspicion, in some way indicating criminality. In times of psychosis resulting from terrorism, the media is always ready to consider a Muslim "presumed guilty," restating the guaranteed principle so solemnly proclaimed. Even when one is proven innocent, the tendency is to either not publish the news or give it just a few remarks.
The kind of controversy surrounding the Moroccan immigrant, acquitted of terrorism by the Milan Judge Clementina Forleo at the beginning of February, has constituted another chapter in the difficult history of the struggle against Islamic terrorism in Italy. It is an incessant phenomenon that really upsets the quiet life of the community all over the world but especially in the West. And the 11th of September was a central dramatic page of this history. The fight against Islamic terrorism has become a fundamental element of political and judicial platforms.
The judicial proceedings, which have portrayed these Muslim immigrants negatively from the beginning, in early 2002, have raised an issue of vital importance for a democratic system such as Italy's. That is, the equilibrium between national security and citizens' rights.
In recent years, Muslim immigrants have been involved in various trials -- accused of carrying out activity connected with terrorism. However few of these trials have uncovered anything concrete that can be utilized against the evil of international terrorism. Between 2001 and 2003 the number of arrests of suspected terrorists increased from 33 to 71 cases. Nevertheless, since September 2001, numerous thorough investigations carried out in various parts of the country have not produced a single stash of arms or a seizure of explosives destined for attack. Often the first in-court verifications have refuted the work of the investigators, sometimes questioning their reliability and significantly downgrading their findings. In some cases, even sources of proof have been obviously manipulated.
This happened in the case of the three Kurdish Iraqis arrested in March 2002 -- accused of preparing to attack Rome, with cyanide. The proof that indited the three unlucky immigrants was covertly recorded on the 20th of February, 2002 at the Via Gioberti prayer hall in Rome. The report of the police officers cited a conversation in Italian in which cyanide and various streets in the Capitol were mentioned. Nine months later (19 November) the three Kurdish Iraqis were freed for their innocence. The glaring fact is that none of them spoke Italian, contrary to the report of the recording; and in the intercepted conversation, which was in Arabic, no one spoke about arms or poison.
This was not an isolated case. In April 2004, 11 Moroccans were released from jail who had been arrested in February 2002, accused of preparing an attack on the American Embassy of Rome. Also in this case the evidence against the accused turned out to be "unreliable" and "vague."
And again in October 2002, three Egyptian fishermen were arrested in Anzio (province of Rome). The three immigrants were acquitted of the crime of terrorism and released in May of last year.
These particular cases obviously do not demonstrate the absence of fringe extremists linked to international terrorism in Italy, (who can sow seeds of terror as they have in New York, Madrid and elsewhere). They are however, cases that feed strong doubts as to how often we actually engage in the fight against terrorism. They were cases that heated-up the evening news creating a strong psychosis among the population, that often deforms people's perception of the truth. Moreover, when all these presumed terrorists were freed, few news sources mentioned it; and then not as front-page news, but as a simple news brief.
In Italy, the procedural guarantees seem to be geometrically variable -- politically adjustable according to the type of criminal: maximum guarantees for VIP defendants (political or financial leaders, etc.); but guarantees rescinded for petty criminals (often a result of social marginalization). This is the case of many immigrants (above all when they are accused of belonging to an Islamic terrorist cell). Those who question this way of perceiving the law, expose themselves to being lynched by the media and to close inspection by Minister Castelli.
The only justification Judge Forleo has, is that she respected Article 3 of the Constitution, which asserts that the law is equal for all without distinction as to religion or race. She simply applied the law without being influenced by the current political thinking, according to which, the fight against terrorism must be carried out by whatever means, even violating the law and compromising civil rights.
Based on the legitimate terrorism alarm, the proper judicial procedures are often overridden. In recent years the Minister of the Interior Pisanu has expelled, by administrative means, persons suspected as a threat to national security. He has sent numerous immigrants back "home," declaring to the public that the decisions to do so were out of the ordinary, the outcome of an exceptional power that would be used with parsimony and responsibility. But in a democratic state, is it justifiable to attribute to a single man, the power to suspend civil rights?
Pisanu has called for the expulsion of the presumed terrorist, Mohammed Daky, released by Judge Forleo, therefore violating even the debatable Bossi-Fini law (which does not allow the expulsion of someone accused of terrorism). But the more serious issue is that the minister favors sending the culprit back to his country of origin, Morocco, where capital punishment is applied for this type of crime. What a very strange perception of democracy and human rights!
Mostafa El Ayoubi
The debate on this burning issue will continue in the next issue of Confronti with an article by sociologist Stefano Allievi.