As seems to be very few people who have really and concretely understand the contents of the CD "Code of Conduct and Ethics 2010," that all members (employees and volunteers) of the Italian Red Cross were forced to sign at this time, I decided to make public the reasons why I, the code, do not sign it, or at least not entirely subscribe. If I will be allowed, in fact, explicitly exclude the letters K, L and M , art. 15.
Here, the basis on which the letters above article. 15 are, in my opinion not be subscribed.
Regarding the letter K ,
the formulation of the same, under a first profile, is too ambiguous in the absence of certainty: it is in fact impossible to know what are the limits of the prohibition contained in it , since it is not stated whether the same prohibition exists only with reference to articles or books published, signed by CRI, that all those texts (eg even a simple 'notes' on Facebook) with whom the individual wishes to express belonging CRI his simple advice on techniques, practices, regulations and organization of the Red Cross itself, stimulating debate and possibly critical, under a second profile, closely connected to the first, depending of the restrictive or broad you want to give the standard, you can find profiles of unconstitutionality in respect of Article. 21 of the Constitution, as well as art. 10 ECHR on the freedom of expression and criticism, especially when that criticism relates to the management of public administration.
With reference to the letter L ,
even here there is a distinct lack of certainty of the rule, since it is not clear whether the same rule applies to only those documents containing cc. dd. 'Sensitive data' regarding the patients or the administration itself (and therefore already protected by law) or whether it applies instead to all those documents that you should be aware in the course of their duties, thus including, for example, the texts of the same order commissarial, financial statements, texts of regulations and internal communications to individual committees, etc.. Even here, in order to respect the principle of transparency of public administration, the more correct interpretation from the standpoint of the legality of the provision, is the first, that is more restrictive. However, the text of the rule leaves much to believe that the will of the extensor of the Code is to prevent the every single type of communication to the outside, resulting in injury, even here, the above-mentioned articles of the Constitution and the European Convention.
With regard, finally, the letter M ,
this is certainly the rule that at the level of interpretation, creates enormous (and dangerous) problems not experienced in legal matters, since, with the smart play of words contained in it could easily mislead the CRI said member, who, once aware of wrongdoing (whether administrative or criminal) may be convinced of the existence of an obligation not to proceed with a formal complaint to the competent judicial authority before having tried and exhausted any possible recourse internal hierarchies, thus defeating the investigative activity of Powers (whose effectiveness is very often based on the secrecy of its run) with all due respect, inter alia, Articles. 362 and 331 cp cpp, in terms of reporting the crime. To confirm this dreadful risk of interpretation is the last sentence of the said letter m), which states that the person has a duty to ensure the accuracy and relevance of his statements, as if to say that it is the person himself who burden of the prior investigations personal / amateur.
So far, the danger of the letter m) of art. 15 for those who do not chew on the right: why its text should be completely rewritten!
But the letter m) not only poses the problem: to read the text, in fact, it is clear that "it is also important to refrain from issuing defamatory statements directed MAY Association. Well that "possibly" linked to what is stated in Art. 16, exposes the individual belonging to a Red Cross psychological pressure as well as a heavy risk that are in fact intolerable.
The rule, in fact, dubbed by some (including Corriere della Sera) "under anti-Report" , aims to punish anyone who disseminates information that is not positive for the Red Cross, regardless of whether or not such information is supported by factual evidence.
fact, if the volunteer or employee that would put in place a similar behavior may, relevant conditions are met, be ordered (both civilly art. 2059 cc, and criminal art. 595 cp) for libel, by subscribing to such a standard that the volunteer or employee may be sentenced to civil liability under the contract, EVEN IF DOES NOT FULFIL ABSOLUTELY THE CONDITIONS OF THE CRIME OF LIBEL, since that provision refers expressly to "POSSIBLY defamatory statements."
This member has the CRI in a state of complete uncertainty and worry, he can not know what to say and what not, thus reducing the complete silence (hence the 'nickname Code gag found by some trade unions).
For example, Red Cross volunteers and staff who have contributed to the episode concerning the Report of the Red Cross, would be prosecuted (in the sense that the Italian Red Cross may chiedergli risarcimenti milionari) anche laddove quanto da loro riferito si dovesse scoprire corrispondere a piena verità, e ciò per il solo fatto di aver messo in cattiva luce la Croce Rossa.
Se tale normativa può trovare una qualche legittimazione in un'azienda privata, così non può essere per una Pubblica Amministrazione.
Questi sono, in sintesi, i motivi per i quali io ho serie difficoltà a firmare il codice etico, dato che sarebbe per me un controsenso sottoscrivere ciò che sconsiglierei di firmare a chiunque mi dovesse chiedere un parere giuridico sul punto.
Source: Marco Mambrini
0 comments:
Post a Comment