The promoters of the Family Day continue to stand in guard against all attempts to introduce gender ideology in school programs. The Committee “Let us defend our children” took to the streets in Rome, in front of the Quirinale Palace, and in 15 other Italian cities: Verona, Bergamo, Brescia, Parma, Salerno, Treviso, Genoa, Vicenza, Pesaro, Gorgonzola, Perugia, Avellino, Milano, Massa and Novi Ligure. The secretariat of the Presidency of the Republic received a dossier on cases of gender in schools, the request to formalize the prior informed consent to affirm the right of the educational primacy of the parents and a copy of the educational poster drawn up by the Committee, who also asked to be received by the Head of State to express the concerns of the Italian families with regard to attempts to introduce gender theory in schools.
“The main objective of these demonstrations – the president of the Committee, Massimo Gandolfini explains In Terris – was to reaffirm that we remain vigilant and focused on the actions of the Ministry of Education with regard to the guidelines of the law 107, the so-called Good School Reform. Article 1 states that educational paths aimed at fighting discrimination based on gender orientation. If it comes to fighting all forms of violence, femicide, bullying, we totally agree. But if it will be used as a crowbar to introduce the idea that there are not two genres, but an indefinite variability, we will very firmly oppose it”.
Yet, it was not the only purpose.
“Sure. They were also a first response to the nine bills that had been deposited in the House and were being debated in the Committee on Culture, on the affective Education in all the levels of the school of all levels. Already during my audition I managed to express our point of view.”
What does it consist in?
“We are against it for two reasons. The first is that the State should not interfere in such a delicate matter that concerns primarily families; the second is that if the State determines the content of such an argument, it transforms into an ethical State, and this is absolutely unacceptable.”
During the inauguration of the school year in Sondrio, President Mattarella called a “great social pact” between school, family, police, judiciary, media and show business against bullying. Do you think his words risk being manipulated by those who gives a “radical” interpretation of the fight against this phenomenon?
“Undoubtedly, there is such a risk. If the President’s words are a statement of principle, they are welcome, we agree with it. But we have to see what is ‘written’ in this covenant. I repeat, we say No to all forms of violence, including psychological and affective, but it cannot be an excuse to introduce gender ideology in schools”.
Yet the government seems deaf to your legitimate demands…
“You are right. Already after the great demonstration of 30 January at the Circus Maximus, it remained totally indifferent. There is a strategy going on against life and the family. This is why we made the decision to oppose this action, creating the committees ‘Families that say No in the referendum’. For two reasons.”
“The first one concerns merit: it is a botched, confused, and hogged reform that must be stopped and rejected. We do not need some kind of reform, but a good reform. Yet, this creates more problems than it wants to solve. To name a few, just think about the disputes that may arise between the executive power and the Constitutional Court or during the imaginative revision of Title V of the role of the Italian Regions. The second is that this government scrapped the Constitution and the family got scrapped along with it. Therefore, we are preparing, together with the Christian Workers Movement, a major event to be held in Rome, probably at the Antoniano Auditorium in Viale Manzoni, on November 12, probably under the slogan “Stop the scrap fury”.
How would you assess these first months after the introduction of the Cirinnà law?
“The first obvious thing is that it is used very little. Individual cases are greatly covered by the media coverage, but very few people have resorted to it. We have always said it. Moreover, one of the lies that accompanied the parliamentary process was the ”urgent need to regularize many positions.” But the truth it that they are very few. Many people of the same sex would never think of resorting to civil unions. On the other hand, it falls within the “vocation” of this disheveled government. The risk is a different one.”
“Failure to respect a fundamental instance such as conscientious objection. You are doing a kind of “black list” of mayors who instruct others (councilors and advisers) because they do not want to “celebrate” these unions for conscientious reasons. And this is a serious violation of freedom.”