first yes to defamation investigation –

More than a wide field, it is a minefield. There is a yes from the Senate Immunities Committee to the authorization to proceed against Carlo Calenda, the secretary of Action sued for defamation by Clemente Mastella for a post on Twitter last April, during the electoral campaign for the elections Europeans. The proposal of the rapporteur Ada Lopreiato (M5s) was voted by the senators of the 5 Star Movement, the Democratic Party, the Green and Left Alliance and Italia viva. Those in the majority, however, abstained. The question now passes to the Chamber of Palazzo Madama for examination. At the center of the issue is a tweet from Calenda, launched online in the days in which the lists of candidates for the European elections were presented. The Action leader commented on the rumors surrounding the candidacies of the United States of Europe (a list that united Italia Viva and +Europa) with harsh words: “It makes no sense to bring along, even through a third party, Cuffaro, Cesaro and Mastella. The culture of the mafia is the opposite of European values.” “This spoiled Pariolino who plays at being a media bully cannot afford to associate my name and my political history with the mafia,” replied Mastella.

“It must be the judge who establishes whether Carlo Calenda has committed the crime of aggravated defamation against Clemente Mastella with his social post in which, according to the plaintiff, he compared his person to the mafia. Never as in this case are they completely missing the conditions for recognizing the unquestionability provided for by article 68 paragraph 1 of the Constitution”, stated M5S senator Ada Lopreiato, rapporteur in the dossier in the Elections and Immunities Committee of the Senate. “There is no parliamentary act, neither contextual nor immediately preceding or subsequent – he added – in which Senator Calenda deals with the issue addressed in the post, therefore outside the parliamentary halls. The Constitutional Court has always reiterated that a connection with political activities is in no way sufficient to establish the prerogative referred to in article 68. Nor is it possible to extend the scope of application of the unquestionability beyond the limits of article 68. In the council, after an initial unanimous direction, we witnessed some slip-ups by the majority, between defenses that resembled a scramble and votes different from what was announced in the previous declaration, in the end the report I proposed passed and we will go to the chamber with it”.