Imagine - Tattoo On Wrist

From Robespierre today.

During the French Revolution, the Constituent Assembly was discussed at length by the fate reserved to King Louis XVI. The Revolution had established certain principles which will then be taken up by the European democracies (liberty, equality and brotherhood), and some members of the king wanted to try following these principles. But on December 3, 1972 spoke
Robespierre: Although the first time he had lashed out the death penalty, he took a position in favor of the death sentence of Louis XVI. His reasoning was divided into thin 2 basic points:

1) the Revolution has triumphed with the principles of liberty, equality and fraternity, but the king belongs to the counter, that is, those who have fought against the triumph of these principles . So the counter should not be prosecuted on the basis of the principle
fundamental freedoms, because that would make them feel protected by the freedom itself, even if the fight as part of the counter;

2) Robespierre also submits that it is possible to process the king, as a process should take Also the possibility that the king is innocent, and then blame the Revolution ("Louis is not an accused, you are not the judges [referring to the deputies of the editor's note"]; you are and can not be anything but men of state, representatives of the nation.
do not have to make an award for or against or a man, you have to take a public health measure ").
But since the Revolution can not be guilty as a statement of the people, the king is guilty. The triumph Revolution is the condemnation of the king and must be executed, but the concept of freedom of the Revolution of '89 is still a bourgeois conception.

must therefore be contextualized. At same time re-reading the words of Robespierre addressed the Assembly, I could not help but think of the constitutional principles and the Mancino Law (which prohibits the apology of fascism).
fact that the Constitution is only pressed her freedom above all those liberal (although they are also in social ones) every single statement that goes against the freedoms in the name of them (like the simple phrase contradictory "I am free to declare fascist") is unconstitutional.
The Constitution was born in a specific historical moment in the fight against fascism was a prerequisite for any further
quired freedom. However, the Constituent Assembly promoted a concept of freedom

estremamente ampio che con alcuni ovvii limiti permette a tutti di dire qualsiasi cosa, anche di essere fascista.
Altri stati (per esempio la Germania) hanno deciso diversamente ritenendo di primaria importanza tagliare la strada ad ogni possibile rigurgito di simili ideologie.

A mio avviso sarebbe necessario riconsiderare l'importanza di tutelare lo stato italiano da un ritorno dell'ideologia fascista infatti sono molto preoccupanti le dichiarazioni di numerosi esponenti di Azione Giovani (come "non saremo mai antifascisti", doppia negazione, ergo...), ma anche paradossali e contraddittorie (Giorgia Meloni, di AG, tra l’altro ricopre una carica ministeriale grazie proprio alla Costituzione ed agli antifascisti che l'hanno scritta). We must begin to stand in any possible return to fascism.
The opposition must start from here, from taking part that is written in the Constitution and replaced the Duce, who commanded all (in fact a motto for decades and "due obedience to fight", not "think, participate, act").
I think you also need to take more rigorous measures, as did Germany cited above, I hope the intervention of criminal law.

Kirov