Video case of Apostolic Judge, League: “The problem is only what you see, nothing else”

For the party led by Matteo Salvini the question is not “who shot the video of a public event in the public square”, but the fact that in the video “we see a judge in the middle of a demonstration where policemen and women are insulted and praises clandestinity”

The case of the video released by Matteo Salvini continues to be discussed in which the Catania judge Iolanda Apostolico is seen – who annulled the detention of four migrants in the Pozzallo CPR, repudiating the Cutro decree – during a 2018 demonstration in Catania in which called for the disembarkation of migrants (THE SPECIAL) from the Diciotti ship. Returning to the topic is the League, which in a note underlines that “for some on the left the problem is ‘who shot the video’ of a public event in the public square. For the League and millions of Italians the problem is what you can see it in that video, that is, a judge in the middle of a demonstration where policemen and women are insulted (‘murderers… animals…’), and illegal immigration is praised. What are we asking for? An apology and resignation.”

The case of Catania

Apostolico ended up in the center of the news for not having validated the detention of three Tunisians in the reception center in Pozzallo (Ragusa), effectively disavowing the government decree, judging it “illegitimate in several parts”. A few days later, the majority of professional councilors filed a request with the CSM (i.e. the Superior Council of the Judiciary) to open a case to protect the judge: in the intentions of the signatories this is a response to the “serious professional delegitimization” that would have affected colleague.

Fontana (CSM): “Video published to confuse plans”

Regarding the matter, CSM councilor Roberto Fontana, one of the promoters of the practice to protect the Apostolic Judge, said that “Minister Salvini’s initiative to send a video relating to the 2018 demonstration in Catania aims to confuse the plans. The jurisdiction is expressed through the provisions, which obviously can be criticized and challenged on the basis of technical-legal reasons. Shifting attention to the life of the magistrate and his possible activities external to the judicial one is a way to avoid the discussion on the merits of the provision and an attempt to delegitimize jurisdictional activity.”