, well then.

The rules, among other things, are a bit controversial, because the UN has already repeatedly pointed out that the airstrikes of the Saudi-led coalition on civilian targets are not going at all well, and on the bombing of the school last Saturday. Saudi Arabia had to open an investigation (which we imagine very severe, given that the Saudis will have to investigate an alleged war crime committed by the Saudis, well…). The fact remains, it is somewhat minimized and a little misled: it’s not our stuff, ask Germany, why RWM Italia (based in Ghedi, plant in Domusnovas, Sulcis, Sardinia) is their stuff. Too bad that in Germany they deny. Last 8 March a parliamentary question from Die Linke allowed the German government to clarify its position, and the answer was: “No authorization for the export of components destined for the Rwm Italia plants in Domusnovas”. As if to say that the matter of the bombs that go from Sardinia to Saudi Arabia and then from there fall on the hospitals of Yemen are our business. All very complicated, as usual, even if Famiglia Cristiana, in one of its investigations, shows, among other things, photos of unexploded bombs in Sana’a, the capital of Yemem, and they are our toys.

Now, we know that the world is what it is and the situation is not very good. With all this, the war in Yemen is likely to be a dot of paint on a Pollok painting, almost invisible. But there is the detail that every now and then (often, indeed), a hospital, or a school, or a food depot, and even a refugee camp is hit, and this, damn it, becomes news. Various sources – non-governmental organizations such as Amnesty International, but also the Red Cross, and even the UN – speak of a humanitarian catastrophe, more than six thousand dead, more than half civilians, many women and children, over three million refugees, etc. the usual shame. Yemen is a bit far for refugees from that war to come here and ask to be welcomed. But, should it happen, it will be a bit difficult to say “We will help you at your home”, because they would probably say, no, no, that’s enough, okay, thanks.

As interesting as it is, the debate on satire is quite repetitive, it has probably been since the time of the Sumerians that, if it cannot be forbidden, it is accused of vulgarity, bad taste, filth, etc., in short, it is reproached for being satire. To speak of the historical refinement of the material, it often happened that during the commedia dell’arte the actors mimicked the act of defecating on stage (sometimes they did not even pretend), and in the Middle Ages (but even after), when a noble was acquitted unjustly, “executio in effigy” were staged in the square in which power was sbertucciato in every way (repression followed). But in short, the breeze is not new: satire provides for absolute and rebellious freedom, and if you want to start with the matter of single thought, well, historically it is the first that takes a few slaps.

Except that banning satire (or asking it to bow to the grotesque conformism of the politically correct, which is the same) does not stop satire, because asking subjects not to laugh at whoever commands them is beyond human things.

Ah, yes, Mannelli, of course. Sexism is found relatively new, but the matter of bad taste and obscenity, on the other hand, is ancient stuff. George Grosz, to whom we owe the most ferocious description of Germany in the 1920s, with his war sharks, was condemned (and ruined: he died in an asylum) precisely for obscenities, for the drawing of a Christ with a gas mask, cartoon by protest against the Great War.