Bangladeshi residents and others in Monfalcone say decisions to prohibit worship at cultural centres and banning burkinis at the beach is part of anti-Islam agenda
The envelope containing two partially burned pages of the Qur’an came as a shock. Until then, Muslim residents in the Adriatic port town of Monfalcone had lived relatively peacefully for more than 20 years.
Addressed to the Darus Salaam Muslim cultural association on Via Duca d’Aosta, the envelope was received soon after Monfalcone’s far-right mayor, Anna Maria Cisint, banned prayers on the premises.
“It was hurtful, a serious insult we never expected,” said Bou Konate, the association’s president. “But it was not a coincidence. The letter was a threat, generated by a campaign of hate that has stoked toxicity.”
Monfalcone’s population recently passed 30,000. Such a positive demographic trend would ordinarily spell good news in a country grappling with a rapidly declining birthrate, but in Monfalcone, where Cisint has been nurturing an anti-Islam agenda since winning her first mandate in 2016, the rise has not been welcomed.
Yeah that was gonna be my question: does Italy not have any legal mechanism in place that would be the functional equivalent of the US’s supremacy clause?
Like…not saying shit like this isn’t attempted all the time in deeply conservative areas of the US, but in most cases where the far right leadership has even a shred of strategic thinking, they often don’t even attempt to pass or enforce laws like this because it’ll trigger immediate challenge in the courts, the challenge will be 100% taken up and the decision will come down against them (since even in a conservative court, the only thing they hate more than ruling in favor of “liberal” causes is any ruling that would limit the court’s power in the future), and at that point there’s a permanent legal precedent in the books, against the repression they’d like to carry out.
That’s exactly the same in Italy, freedom of religion is constitutionally protected. So either there’s something the article is not reporting, ie they are forbidding praying on the pavements of the street blocking the pedestrian circulation (which I promise you does happen), or the ban will simply be vetoed by the court.
Normally these things are about the call to prayer, not the actual praying. This does seem to be being reported as the actual praying though.
Public praying in areas which cause obstruction could potentially be justified under the public safety exception of the ECHR.
If only there was a way to find out.