(AUTOMATIC READING)
“With this process, for the first time in Italy the three main freedoms of our civilization are at stake simultaneously: that of opinion, that of scientific dissemination and that of religion”. Lawyer Mauro Ronco thus comments with Nuova BQ on the upcoming hearing which will see the writer as a defendant, and doctor, Silvana De Mari, dragged to court by an LGBT association for simply expressing a scientific truth about the condition of homosexuality. Defamation. This is the charge for which the fantasy writer will have to appear 18 next July before the judge of the Turin court.
The declarations and positions that De Mari made in the year are under accusation 2016 in various newspapers (including the Mosquito, la Nuova BQ e la Crocequotidiano) and his Facebook profile to warn homosexuals of the health risk of their conduct. Hard words, but true, which De Mari felt like pronouncing mainly as a doctor, after having been in contact with the health consequences of homosexual patients for many years. Ma parole politicamente scorrette, which today it is forbidden to remember and for which from now on we will have to be careful not to impose the penalty of having to answer for it in front of the judge.
De Mari published a defense statement on her blog in which she goes into detail about the accusations made against her and explains, scientific data in hand because his is an indisputable scientific information activity. A writing in which the woman intends to “to demonstrate that the accusations made in the indictment have no foundation. I have always intended to express scientific truth, moreover corresponding to metaphysical truth, concerning the meaning of human sexuality, as well as serious diseases that are sexually transmitted through anal erotic practices”.
And he relies on Orwell: “In the hour of universal deception, telling the truth is a revolutionary act. Ora, considering the fact that criminal proceedings have started against me, it even seems that telling the truth is a criminal act”. In the meantime, the hashtag #iostoconsilvanademari was launched and an appeal was made which thousands of people have already joined.
De Mari clarified that until two years ago “I thought homosexuality was not genetic and irreversible. I had always taken it for granted that it was constitutional and I had realized in my career as a doctor the problems it causes from a physical and psychological point of view.. But the knowledge of Luca Di Tolve's cases, Joseph Sciambra e Richard Cohen, all former homosexuals who, thanks to reparative therapies, have demonstrated that homosexuality is not an irreversible situation, I decided to come out and make the truth about homoerotic relationships and sexual promiscuity available to the public, which multiplies diseases and has nothing cheerful about it”.
The defense brief, which will be handed over to the judge, constitutes the bulk of De Mari's defense, which is followed by lawyers Mauro Ronco and Fabio Candalino. And it is precisely with Ronco, criminal lawyer and prince of the bar, but also a renowned jurist and president of the Livatino Study Center, that Nuova BQ tried to understand why the De Mari trial which will open in Turin will in some ways mark a watershed in Italy.
Professor Ronco, the De Mari trial therefore deals with many freedoms?
We will support freedom of expression as the most basic level of defense but above that we will come to scientific freedom and finally to religious freedom. The point is that an absurd claim seems to have been imposed even at a legal level: that no criticisms or observations can be made of those who practice a certain sexual attitude, which is rejected by the Old and New Testaments. If this concept were to pass, it would mean that in Italy one cannot even proclaim the truth of Scripture.
But Scripture is Scripture, science instead…
There are natural truths that are confirmed at the level of revelation and that the Scriptures tell. Let's take Sao Paulo where homosexuality is greatly condemned because it does not conform to nature, which is linked to fertility. Forbidding to say that this type of genitality denies the fundamental purpose of sexuality is therefore also an attack on religious freedom.
But De Mari is a doctor and not a religious woman…
As regards the freedom of scientific dissemination, Dr. De Mari exposed scientific realities and did not offend anyone, indeed, he has always shown the utmost respect towards people of homosexual tendency. In his attitude and in his writings and interviews there is no intention to diminish the dignity of people. She wants to underline the non-compliant nature of these sexual habits. And this is proven by the serious illnesses that these relationships can cause. Furthermore, has documented the serious infectious and anal-damaging diseases that derive from this sexual behavior.
Opinions, so? Such as to deserve a defamation complaint supported not only by the writer, Turin Pride, but also by the mayor under the Mole Chiara Appendino?
We are faced with something more than opinions, but fundamental scientific notions and truths about human nature. Everyone retains their freedom to express certain tendencies, but the doctor has the freedom and the duty to express all the objections of the case and also to warn about the health risks. All his work and the statements made on those specific occasions were to highlight what anal sex entails. This is why scientific freedom is at risk: precisely because doing so prevents a doctor from exercising his duty to provide information.
But what does Turin Pride oppose?? For example, you advance scientific counter-evidence that what you write is wrong or not fully shared by the scientific community?
No, none of this. And it couldn't be otherwise because there is no scientific thing that can be opposed. Pride simply said that we violated the freedom of these people they represent and violated their honor, but in all truth it is not clear what we would have discriminated or harmed since De Mari's activity has always been animated by scientific evidence and not by that ideological-political envy that can instead be seen in the complaint.
Because it came to trial?
The prosecutor had asked for it to be dismissed. But before the investigating judge there was opposition from the LGBT movement and the judge, according to the procedure, he decided that the prosecutor should compulsorily carry out the criminal action. So we arrived at the first hearing on 18 July.
You have felt the pressure from the so-called gay lobbies?
Unquestionably. This operation is the bearer of an interest aimed at strengthening the intangibility of criticism in order to silence any type of freedom. The lobbying action is evident. But it is a way of gaining strength which has the effect of making it impossible to exercise medical influence to prevent the manifestation of scientific truths.. This is very serious.
He believes this process marks a turning point?
Absolutely yes. In many years of my career, it is the first time that I have found myself facing a case of this kind in which three of man's fundamental freedoms are called into question at the same time.
