Italy, february 2004


"We clearly declared right the opposite: not socialdemocracy and his tendencies, but the social unrest dangerous to the peace, must be placed under the law."
Eduard Lasker, National-liberal deputy during the debate on the antisocialist laws at the Reichstag.

On the 19 of october 1878, Reichstag approved the "Anti-socialist Law", wanted by Bismark, with 221 votes for and 149 against.
Even though the national-liberal and progressive delegates supported the opportunity to avoid the issue of special laws during the parliamentary debate, thinking that a prudent application of "common rights" against the socialist danger could be enough, at voting time however, they supported the junkers' politics against the rise of proletarian movement: special laws on the one hand, the so-called Bismarck's social laws or "state socialism" on the other.
This event actually means on one side, the ending of the first big repressive operation on the european proletarian movement on continental scale following the Paris'Commune defeat -carrying out the emanation of measures to persecute First Internationale's structures and supporters in the european/continental states- and on the other side, it anticipates the "permanent structuration" in these states of repressive and preventive mechanism of counter-revolution, to domesticate the subjective expressions of the storic antagonist of the new social class in power: proletariate.
The white terror established by Bismarck under the slogan: "Away socialdemocracy from reichstag!" involved many repressive measures, particularly: 1) the prohibition to make associations, meetings and papers that "are useful at the socialdemocratic, socialist, communist attemps to undermine social order of State and society, dangerousely for the public peace and for the harmony between classes" (the so-called "muzzle-law" that allowed regional Reich's police forces to enact measures to dissolve associations, to prevent reunions, permissions to stay and papers, and to remove trading licences to the "suspects"); 2) the introduction of the so-called "little siege state": the central governement could prohibit, into whole districts, any freedom to meet, to move, to demonstrate and permissions to stayto people that may be "dangerous" for the public order and security or already condemned by the same law.
The coming into force of the anti-socialist bills, that were extending to the 1890, determined the sudden closing of all SPD's papers in Germany (only two of 47 papers survived, changing name and contents before the carrying out of the law) and the lock of almost all the printing houses near the socialist movement; in november 1878 the little siege state was decreed in Berlin (67 activists were expelled by the town): about one year later, the Amburg-Altona district suffered the same destiny.
The socialist movement, was forced to re-organize in secrecy and abroad, but it standed up to the repressive wave and, thank to his discipline and organizing ability could operate along this all time, reinforcing his presence and influence in the german proletariate: remarkable was the organization of the "red mail" that delivered every week the illegal Sozialdemokrat from Switzerland to all the subscribers, diffusors and readers.
After the bloody repression on the Paris Commun, the things didn't go in different ways in the other european-continental countries.
In Spain, the government dissolved the FRE (ispanic regional federation) of the Internationale, declairing it illegal and instrument of foreign states.
Except for the "parenthesis" of the First Republic (Frebruary 1873-January1874) or the time of relative quiet following the promulgation, by Sagasta governement, of a law that legalized all worker's associations and allowed the legal re-organization of the socialist movement in form of trade unions, the socialist movement was obliged to stay underground till nearly the end of the century. In particular, the last decade of XIX century passed through series of popular riots and armed actions of the proletarian movement unions.
In 1891, a bomb exploded in Fomento headquarters (Industrialists Association); in 1892, andalusian regions were shaken by the Jerez de la Frontera revolt (more than 4000 armed countrymen took possession of municipality and withstood the army attacks); in 1893, the attempt on the gen. Martinez Campos...
Special laws of 1894 and 1896 to repress the anarchist and socialist movement were the reaction of Casanovas del Castillo governement.
Among these changes, the special laws involved the constitution of a new political police (the so-called Brigada social) while, hiddenly and in accordance with landowners unions and Fomento, the governement inagurated the season of the death companies (so-called "pistoleros") dealing with the killing of the leaders of the movement.
Between 1892 and 1894, France also lived a fresh outbreak of class war, many fire attempts, explosions and excellent murders; first of all the attempt on the president Sadi Carnot life, stabbed to death in Lion by the italian anarchist Sante Jeronimo Caserio, on june 24th 1894.
During the same year, on the 29 of july, were promulgated the laws remembered as "lois scellerates" (wicked laws). Besides limiting freedom of press and free expressions of thinking (anarchist and revolutionary propaganding was forbidden and judged as a crime because induced to commit criminal actions), these laws introduced the "association de malfatteurs" (criminal conspiracy), with the purpose to include into them revolutionary associations or simple parties of activists and also gave the jurisdiction of these "political crimes" to martial courts.
In those years, Italy was been shaken by the first national "Tangentopoli" (the so-called Banca romana -ex Banca Pontificia- scandal of 1893, in wich were involved Giolitti and the Prime minister Crispi) and especially by a growning wave of social struggles that found its climax into the risings for bread of the 1898 and gen. Bava Beccaris bombing on demonstrants in Milan.
The first of January 1894 the siege state was declared in Sicily and the gen.Morra di Lavriano held fool powers to repress the risings of the "Fasci dei Lavoratori" (more than 2000 arrested and judged by martial courts); on the 16th january of the same year the siege state was declared in Lunigiana and the gen.Heusch held fool powers...
Like in the other european countries, on the 19th of july1894, by proposal of the minister Crispi, were promulgated three laws "against social subversion", remembered as anti-anarchist laws.
In particular: the 314 law about explosive detention (it provided several penalties for who held explosive or incendiary materials and used these material justt with the aim to "rouse public fear"); 315 law, about the press crimes (it introduce the "inducement to committ crimes" and "criminal sympathies" by press); the 316 law, about public safety special measures (it extended the application of the confinement, of preventive detention and put the prohibition of meetings that "have the purpose to overthow social systems"). These laws, publicized by the government as laws to repress the terrorism of the anarchic "conspirators", produced two immediate effects: in july 1894, the revision of the electoral registers with more controls of the school qualifications (measure aiming at the restriction of the socialist and radical electorate: 800.000 voters were deleted from the registers) and the dissolution, in the 22th of october, of the Socialst Party of the workers (born only two years earlier) and of all the socialist associations and unions.
In this context, the new governmen, directed by the notorious general Pelloux, promoted a diplomatic action on european scale to "agree" upon the repressive measures to the proletarian movement. An international conference met in Rome, in Palazzo Corsini from the 24th of november to the 21th 1898. Besides Italy, Germany, Belgium, Denmark, France, Greece, Luxemburg, Montenegro, Portugal, Austria-Hungary, Russia, Bulgaria and Spain all partecipated to the congress. The proceedings, developed behind closed doors, found many obstacles about the difference definitions and interpretation that states gave to "subversion". Really, the Conference come to an end as a total failure: any common repressive measure or unanimous definition of "subversion" were established.
This first attempt to build up in Europe common and homogeneous repressive systems of preventive counter-revolution to control and "domesticate" the rise of the european working class movement, failed in front of the inter-imperialist conflict between middle-class powers (flowing in two planetary slaughters) and, first of all, in front of the first concrete achievement of the revolutionary experiences that gave a positive answer to the slogan written on the flags of the revolting workers: "live in sufferings or dead fighting" (soviet experience and iberian revolution).
After the neo-napoleonic period of the "fascist dictatorships" -in wich, "special" penal provisions against unions and proletarian struggle were estabilished in some states (in paricular Italy, Germany and Spain) and inherited by their following "democratic" systems-, the theme of a homogeneus and "common" structuration of the repressive workings of preventive counter-revolution on the european scale, came up again in front of the new revolutionary ascent of the proletarian movement, in the context (following the second inter-imperialistic world conflict) of the process to constitute the european imperialist pole.
Since the Sixties, the matter of the cooperation between foreign policy and "home security" has been a steady subject within the Community sphere. The formalization of periodic reunions between the heads of state of the countries followers to the communities (so-called European Council), even though it represented the estabilishment of a inter-goverment cooperation support rather than "community", it been useful to european rulers to have a confrontation, to debate, not only about the acceleration of the structuring of the european imperialistic pole (strongly conditioned by the fluctuations of the international power balance), but above all to fix a common action of foreign policy and home security. In fact, their first concrete creation was the instituation of the TREVI cooperation group (terrorism, radicalism, extremism, violence, internationalism) in Rome, december 1975.
From the works of this group, arose an informal collaboration between the repressive systems of the States, and the creation, in 1976, of some specific work groups called TREVI 1 (fight against terrorism) and TREVI 2 (police forces cooperation for the public order). In 1977, the European Council drew up in Strasburg the European Convention on the Suppression of Terrorism. This treaty "innovated" the condition of the rising "european judicial order", regulating, between states, the extradition procedures and the first convention in wich was a list of crimes not considered political offence any more, but "terrorist offences" (quite apart from the national provisions in force in every states).
In 1985, the cooperation was reinforced by the TREVI 3 structuration (cooperation against drug trafficking and organized crime).TREVI 3 that created an agency for the exchange of informations between states about illegal drugs trafficking (EIDU), that showed the way to the formation, into Nineties, of a european police unit (Europol).
In 1988, after the adoption of the Single European Act (1986) -that fixed the 1992 as expiry date to carry out the Common Market- was established the TREVI 1992 working group, that take the task to reinforce the police cooperation between member states in view of the elimination of the controls on the inter-Community borders.
With the Treaty on the European Union, subscribed in Maastricht the 7th of february 1992, began a real costituent process of the european imperialistic pole. For the construction of the Community sovereignty, the treaty identified "three pillars": economic and monetary Integration; Common Foreign and Security policy (PESC); Cooperation in the field of Justice and Home affaires (CGAI).
The first pillar regarded matters in wich the community law systems were really found enforcement, while the second and third pillars were worded at the half way between the classic collaboration of the governements under the international law and the community institutional picture, formed by "common" legislative and judicial procedures.
Just with the Amsterdam treaty, fixed in 1997 and came in force the first of may of 1999, the european constituting process explicitly put in his chief achievements to "keep and make the European Union into an area of freedom, security and justice, in wich the people have the freedom of movement, insured with suitable measures of external borders control, immigration, asylum and to prevent and fight crime" (art. 2 TUE, as modified in Amsterdam).
So, the "third pillar" of the construction of the EU, lost the appellation of "JHA" (Justice and Home affaires) and became explicitly "Police and Judicial Cooperation in criminal matters", as the article 29 of the treaty ordered, "the achievement is to supply the citiziens with an high safety level in a land of freedom, security and justice, developing a common action between member states of police and justice cooperation in criminal matter..", specifying the plan of action of the community institutions in the battle against crime and terrorism, as well as the cooperation in other fields.
In that context, the newly formed Europol, began the main instrument of the "operating collaboration" between european policies, and the "Schengen Agreement"-in particular, the Schengen Information System for the Exchange of Data on Suspected Criminals (SIS)- was incorporated into the european founding principles of the "freedom, security and justice area".
The judicial cooperation on the penal matter was insured making easier the cooperation between the ministries and judicial authorities, as well as the extradition procedures and the actions to unify the legislative systems. In the EU promulgation of laws, even though the prevalence of decision-making power was confirmed to the most inter-governmental organ of the community agencies (the Council of ministers), the "legislative powers" was granted to the european Commission and the "advisory and control powers" (in shape of questions, recomendations and advices for the council) to the European Parliament. In particular, according to the article 34 of the Treaty, began avalaible four kinds of provisions:

a) common positions that "define the approach of the Union to a particular matter";

b) framework decisions for the purpose of approximation of the laws that are binding upon the Member States as to the result, but leave to the national authorities the choice of form and methods;

c) decisions for any other purpose consistent with the objectives of this Treaty, with no entailing direct effect, but excluding any approximation of the laws and regulations of the Member States;

d) international conventions, which the Council shall recommend to the Member States for adoption, once adopted by the majority of the member, enter into force for those Member States, without waiting for a rectification from all the member states.
In this line of "reinforced cooperation", the EU Council adopted some important determinations: with the framework decision of december 3th 1998, the Council authorized Europol to deal with crimes committed or that could be committed in the sphere of action of the terrorist acts carried out with offences to life, security, freedom of people and goods; with the 98/428/JHA Council Joint Action of 29 june 1998, was founded the European Judicial Network: a contact point to exchange informations, consisting of central authorities responsible for the international judicial cooperation and the judicial or other competent authorities with specific responsibilities within the context of international cooperation, both generally and for certain forms of serious crime, such as organised crime, corruption, drug-trafficking or terrorism (art.2).
So, an essential moment in the formation of the guidelines of the implementing trade of the Amsterdam Treaty for the construction of the third pillar, was the Tampere European Council of 15/16 october 1999: besides reinforcing the international role of Europol, was provided another instrument of the judicial cooperation: the Eurojust. So began to show up the framework of a real European Judicial Order.
In Tampere was still exhorted the abrogation of the traditional extradition procedures between member states and the istitution of an European arrest warrant, provided later by the 2002/584/JHA framework decision, adopted the 13 of june 2002.
All the same, considering that only six states had specific regulations for the "terrorist offences" (France, Germany, Italy, Spain, Portugal and United Kingdom), the role of Eurojust and Europol in this matter could be limited in absence of a common definition of terrorist crime. On this point, must be destroyed a propaganding myth of the european imperialistic middle-class. By this mythologic version of the EU constituing process, as a "moderating and benevolent" power the adoption of a common definition to give at the terrorist offences -with the 2002/475/JHA framework decision adopted the 13 june 2002 by the Council of Ministers on the initiative of the European Commission- is a straight realization of the Action Plan decided in the Bruxelles European Council of the 21 september 2001, convoked on special way after the 11 september famous events.
Actually, the 5 sept. 2001 the European Parliament had already approved a resolution to press the Commission and the Council to adopt initiatives to make more effective the fight against terrorism.
Therefore, the attacks after few days against the Twin Towers in New York, brought forward the workings in progress: the Commission immediately proposed and in short time Council and Parliament approved the framework-decision about the common definition of terrorist crime. By this commune line of action of coordination and reinforced cooperation and by the purpose to enlarge the "commun" effectiveness, various national systems of laws prematurely adapted itself to the "communist-hunting" climate, that the President of the Italian Council recently held, illustrating it in the community headquarters as a strategic objective of the EU. The recent legislative innovations of the matter registered in Italy (cf. Senza Censura n° 7 and 8) are just as good as the US Patriot Act of the Bush administration (cf. Senza Censura n°9). But certainly the top of this process of "continental modernization" of the repressive and control measures on the working class, belong to Spain of Aznar and Garzon.
The 27th of june 2002, with 214 votes for and 15 against, the spanish Senate approved definitively the "Ley Organica 6/2002", well-known as "Ley de Partidos", proposed by Angel Acebes, the then minister of justice -of the popular party, today Home Affaires Minister, after the reshuffle- , in close according with the main opposition party: Socialist Party. The following 23 august, with a decree of 375 pages, the judge Baltasar Garzon of the Audiencia Nacional ordined the closure of all the departments and officies of Batasuna, party of the independence left party, prohibiting public demonstrations, parades and all the other activities.
At the approving time of the law, the socialist spokesman Joaquin Galan declared that "this law don't punish any ideology. It's a law to defence democracy and to condemn the actions against the state subject to the rule of law": for the proletarian movement there's nothing new under the european sky.

1- About the anti-socialists law in Germany, cp. F.Mehring, "Sulle leggi antisocialiste in Germania", vol.III, Editori Riuniti.
2- Cp. Lenin, "Lettera al gruppo dei redattori", Articoli per la "Rabociaia Gazieta", 1899, in "Opere complete", vol.IV.
3- The president of Council Canovas del Castillo payed the bill to the spanish proletariate in 8 august of 1897, thanks to the italian anarchist Michele Angiolillo; cp. P.C.Masini, "Storia degli anarchici italiani", Rizzoli.
4- The 6 of may 1898 began the revolt of Milan. Proclamed the martial law, the 9 of may the troups bombed on demostrants mading more than 100 victims; the martial law were extended to other cities; in thousands were arrested; 50 socialist, 25 catholic, 10 republican, 3 anarchist, 1 conservative papers were abolished; the governement dissolved the Socialist Party, 21 Trade Union Headquarters on 25 existing, socialist, republican, catholic organizations. Only the Martial Courts of Milan held 122 trials against 803 defendants of wich 26 women and 224 minors: 668 condemneds for 1488 years of imprisonment and 307 of special surveillance; into the condemneds there was also the catholic priest don Davide Albertario: 3 years of imprisonment.
5- In 1831 the weaver workers of Lion, the canuts, made a vain revolt against the hard conditions of work, asking the institution of a basic wage and the reduction of the daily working hours. In that occasion, the president of Council Casimir Périer declared: "il faut que les ouvriers sachent bien qu'il n'y a de remede pour eux que la patience et la resignation" (" The workers have to put in their heads that there's no solution for them but only patience and resignation"). The workers of these industries lived and worked in "Traboules" area: covered ways maded by corridors with ogival voults that connected ways and narrow squares amongst high buildings. The weavers (canuts) arrived to be in 30000 persons. During the revolts of 1831 and 1834, bloodily repressed by the french army under the general bonapartist Bernard Pierre Magnan orders, the canuts barricade themselves into the "traboules", hoisting barricades, flags and banners on the entrance of the neighbourhood; cp. C.Pisacane, "Saggio sulla rivoluzione", Universale economica.
6- The group was formed by the Home Affair Ministers of the member States, by the police forces and secret service relative heads, and they met periodically to lay the foundations of a concrete structuring of coordination and cooperation between the repressive machineries of the community countries.
7- Once the extradition was regulated by the provisions of the European Convention on extradition of 13 of december of 1957 (with the protocols of 1975 and 1978). Some states, as France, didn't accept the right of extradition to the country of origin to persons that stayed on its area and accused or condemned for political crimes. The "European Convention on the Suppression of terrorism" was ratified by France only in december 1987, with the interpretative clause of the "Mitterand Doctrine", brought in question today by the new community provisions (in particular, the Shengen Agreement of 1985, the Convention on the UE extradition, Dublin 1996, and first of all the so-called european arrest warrant as the recent events of the activists of the italian OCC show.
8- The article 1 of the "European Convention on the Suppression of Terrorism" says: "for the purposes of extradition between Contracting States, none of the following offences shall be regarded as a political offence or as an offence connected with a political offence or as an offence inspired by political motives: a) an offence within the scope of the Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful Seizure of Aircraft, signed at The Hague on 16 December 1970; b) an offence within the scope of the Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts against the Safety of Civil Aviation, signed at Montreal on 23 September 1971; c) a serious offence involving an attack against the life, physical integrity or liberty of internationally protected persons, including diplomatic agents; d) an offence involving kidnapping, the taking of a hostage or serious unlawful detention; e) an offence involving the use of a bomb, grenade, rocket, automatic firearm or letter or parcel bomb if this use endangers persons; f) an attempt to commit any of the foregoing offences or participation as an accomplice of a person who commits or attempts to commit such an offence".
9- With the Convention, drawed up on the 26 of july 1995, between the representatives of the fifeteen States of the European Union, was estabilished an european police unit: the Europol. It was estabilished formally since the first of october of the 1998 and it includes the old system named Eidu-Europol, born with the Maastricht Treaty.
10- The Schengen Agreement provided into its main objectives, the institution of the right to follow and pursue the suspected person .from a state to another; einforcing of the judicial cooperation trough an extradition system more simple and effective; the creation of the information system (SIS) for the data exchange of the identities of persons and objects.
11- In this context the aim of Europol meant the need to develop the policies cooperation through the prevention and the fight against organized crime (drug trafficking, nuclear substances, illegal immigration and other forms of offencies, to life, integrity or freedom), through the collection, preservation, elaboration and exchange of the informations, also regarding suspected financial operations. The main activity of the Europol was the exchange of information between the european police forces and the construction of a computer data collection.
12- The Tampere Council defined Eurojust as a joint unit formed by public prosecutors, judges or police officers of equivalent competence that must "facilitate a good coordination" between the national authorities competent of the procedure, assisting the inquiries related to oganized offences, in particular on the Europol's analisys, and cooperating with the European Judicial Network. Referred in the Nizza Treaty of december 2000 as "UE organ", Eurojust was definitively instituted by the 2002/187/JHA decision: it's an organ with juridical personality (art.1,) Eurojust shall be composed of one national member seconded by each Member State in accordance with its legal system, being a prosecutor, judge or police officer of equivalent competence (art.2). Essential objective of this unit is to improve the coordination, between the competent authorities of the Member States, of legal actions, investigations and prosecutions,in relation to serious crimes (art.3), concerning two or more Member States. The same crimes covered by the competence of Eurojust: in wich, the terrorism and other particular offences, listed in the framework decision (art.4). The Eurojust can act through one or more of the national members or as a College (art.5), with different fuctions in each case, but regarding the request to a Member States to undertaking an investigation or prosecution of specific acts, to accepting that one of them may be in a better position to undertake an investigation or to prosecute specific
acts, coordinating them, setting up a joint investigation team with the relevant cooperation instruments, exchange of informations and coordination in the exercise of proceedings between the competent authorities of the Member States (artt.6 and 7). Even if it seems like an auxiliary and coordination organ for the competent authorities, one day it will perform the duties of superior instance in the setting up of judicial proceedings in the UE countries, as the recent summits on the "anarchist-insurrectionary" emergency show.
13- The European arrest warrant, in application of the principle about the reciprocity of the decisions between judicial authorities of Member States, provides that every national judicial authority can accept the extradition of a person to another Member State by request of its judicial authority. This replace any previous instrument on extraditon matters. All the same, the warrant can be applicated only for the crimes provided by the framework decision and amongst them, the terrorist offence, that is defined by the 2002/475/JHA framework decision. The new decision provides an easier system, that involve only the competent judicial authorities of the Member States. The issuing authority tranfers the warrant to the competent authority on the proceedings, with a data collection to identify the wanted person, the crime of the procedure and the penalty (art.8).
14- The 2002/474/JHA decision give a definition to terrorist offences, to crimes related to terrorist activities and terrorist organization. Each Member State shall take the necessary measures to ensure that shall be defined as terrorist offences the intentional acts (in wich, attacks upon life and the physical integrity of a person, causing extensive destruction to a Government or public facility, a transport system, etc.), referred into points from (a) to (i) of the article 1 of the decision, that may seriously damage a country or an international organisation when committed with the aim of seriously intimidating a population, unduly compelling a Government or international organisation to perform or abstain from performing any act, or seriously destabilishing or destroying the fundamental political-constitutional-economic or social structures of a country or an organisation (art.1); "terrorist group" shall mean a structured group of more than two persons, established over a period of time and acting in concert to commit terrorist offences (art.2); are included also terrorist-linked offence acts: aggravated theft, extortion, drawing up false administrative documents to committing one of the acts listed in Article 1 (art.3); is included the penalty for the inciting or aiding or abetting to committing one of the offences referred to Article 1 (art.4); can be penalized single persons acting individually or as legal person that can be held liable directly for any of these offences, or indirectly for a miss control or surveillance that maked possible to commit any of these crimes (art.7); the framework decision tell some regulations about the jurisdiction of a Member State to validly prosecute the offenders and about the collaboration between Member States when an offence falls within the jurisdiction of more than one Member State (art.9).