Contributi di Matteo Corsalini

Diritto e religione: decostruzione e ricostruzione 

ABSTRACT. Negli anni Quaranta, l'economista austriaco Joseph Schumpeter coniò il concetto di “distruzione creativa” per descrivere come il capitalismo si sviluppa attraverso lo smantellamento incessante e continuo di vecchi paradigmi. Nel panorama attuale, il britannico Russell Sandberg e l’americano Marc. O De Girolami si stanno affermando come i contemporanei “distruttori creativi” nel campo del diritto e religione. Evidenziando le patologie che ostacolano lo sviluppo intellettuale della disciplina e proponendo possibili soluzioni, il presente contributo introduce e analizza due recenti opere dove gli Autori offrono spunti per de-costruire criticamente il diritto e religione e proiettarlo verso il futuro.

ABSTRACT. In the 1940s, Austrian economic Joseph Schumpeter coined the concept of “creative destruction” to describe how capitalism evolves through the relentless and continuous dismantling of its old paradigms. Fast forward to the present, British and American scholars Russell Sandberg and Marc O. De Girolami are emerging today as contemporary “creative destroyers” in the field of law and religion. Pointing to the pathologies affecting the intellectual development of the discipline and prescribing possible remedies, this paper introduces and discusses two recent works by the Authors as part of their efforts to critically deconstruct law and religion and project it into the future.

SUMMARY: 1. Introduction - 2. Repentance - 3. Reappraisal- 4. Regeneration - 5. Discussion - 6. Death and New Life - 7. Conclusions.

Thought and counter-thought. The limits and legitimacy of Israel-critical speech under the European Court of Human Rights

SOMMARIO: 1. Introduzione - 2. Legittimità della critica antisionista: Baldassi c. Francia - 3. Limiti della critica antisionista: status pubblico del divulgatore e natura antisemita della divulgazione - 3.1. Bonnet c. Francia - 4. Conclusioni.

ABSTRACT: In May 2016, the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) adopted a working definition of antisemitism as a non-binding guide for states and policymakers to identify criminal anti-Jewish behaviour. Critics, however, argue that the IHRA definition hastily conflates illegitimate forms of antisemitism with legitimate political speech against Israel's government and policies. Therefore, if integrated into national legislation, they warn that the IHRA definition could easily become a legal tool to stifle critics of the Israeli government and advocates for Palestinian rights. Political agendas apart, the terminological imprecision of the IHRA definition raises timely questions about the boundaries between antisemitism and anti-Zionism, as well as between legitimate and illegitimate Israel-critical speech. This is especially relevant, particularly after Palestinian militant group Ḥamās launched a surprise attack against Israel on October 7, 2023. The ongoing war thus raises the questions: Apart from open calls to violence, how to assess when legitimate, anti-Israel speech might spiral into illegitimate, harmful discourses? And what factors should be brought to bear on legal balancing? Although not dealing with a war-torn scenario, the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) has offered some insights on the issue that will be addressed in this paper.

SOMMARIO: 1. Titoli di testa: introduzione e una premessa di metodo - 2. La vicenda: il caso de “La Scuola Cattolica” - 3. La questione aperta: un divieto amministrativo a tutela del sentimento religioso cattolico? - 4. La decisione: la sentenza del TAR Lazio n. 12795 del 2021 - 5. Titoli di coda: considerazioni conclusive.

It was (not) the hand of God. The movie “La Scuola Cattolica” prohibited to minors by the Film Review Commission

ABSTRACT: On 4 October 2021, the Italian movie "La Scuola Cattolica” (The Catholic School) got a ban on minors under 18 years of age. In this connection, the Italian Film Review Commission argued that the ban was necessary to prevent youth from consuming material deemed to be ‘harmful’ to their emotional and psychological sensibilities. This paper rejects the commissioners’ reasoning, to then introduce and defend the claim that the case of “La Scuola Cattolica” is instead about religiously-motivated movie censorship. Crossing borders between law and anthropology, here the goal is to demonstrate how the grievances behind the screening of “La Scuola Cattolica” concern ‘religious insult’ rather than advocacy of child protection.