Fabio V.: „Der Knast war eine harte Erfahrung“

INTERVIEW MIT FABIO VETTORELL

Die Erzählungen von Fabio, der nach über vier Monaten Gefangenschaft endlich frei ist.

Das hellblaue Hemd ist zerknittert, weil man im Knast verständlicherweise nicht bügeln kann. Die bereits nachgewachsenen Haare sind notdürftig frisiert, um der Müdigkeit zum Trotz einen guten Eindruck zu hinterlassen. Darunter vielleicht auch vereinzelte weisse Haare. Eine solche Erfahrung zeichnet einen. Vielleicht ein paar Kilo weniger auf den Rippen, weil es im Knast nur ungesalzene Kartoffeln, Reis, Brot und halbwegs geniessbares Fleisch gab.

Aber etwas hat sich nicht geändert, in seinem Gesicht glänzt nämlich immer noch das selbe Grinsen wie eh und je. Ein Grinsen, das sagt: „Es ist schön, frei zu sein.“

Wie hast du diese Erfahrung überstanden?

Für mich als politischer Häftling war die Haftzeit einfacher als für einen gewöhnlichen Kriminellen. Denn ich erhielt viel Solidarität, auch weil sich meine Situation von der der anderen unterschied. Man hat mir geschrieben, viele versuchten meinen Eltern zu helfen, welche ebenfalls wunderbar waren. Ich wusste, dass in Feltre und Belluno Kundgebungen organisiert wurden, welche einerseits meine Freilassung forderten und anderseits Geld für die juristische Verteidigung organisierten.

Wieso wurdest du verhaftet?

Weil der G20 wegen den Protesten gescheitert ist, weil diese mehr mediale Aufmerksamkeit erhielten, weil unsere Anwesenheit die Regierung und den Bürgermeister gestört hat. Der Wirtschaftsminister wurde von den Protesten blockiert. Wir waren effizienter.

Wieso hast du dich entschlossen zu protestieren?

Es kam von Herzen, ich dachte, es sei gerecht auf die Strasse zu gehen um zu zeigen, dass nicht 20 Personen um einen Tisch sitzen und das Geschick der Welt lenken sollten, wir sind frei und wollen über unsere Leben selbst entscheiden. Die Ungleichheit auf der Welt steigt, die Klimaveränderung wird nicht von denen ausgebadet, die kommandieren, Migranten sterben im Mittelmeer, ohne dass es die Menschen kümmert. Es gab viele Gründe, die mich dazu bewegten, aus dem Haus zu gehen, Urlaub zu nehmen und hierher zu kommen.

Wie war das Leben im Knast?

Ich hatte Glück, ich war nicht lange im Knast. Fünf Monate sind nicht viel, es gibt Häftlinge, die sitzen da für Jahre drin und es hilft nichts, an die grossen zu denken, die da schon durch sind, es reicht, an andere Jungs wie mich zu denken. Tagsüber las ich, schrieb Briefe und sprach mit den anderen Häftlingen, mit denen ich immer ein gutes Verhältnis hatte, viele verhielten sich solidarisch und ich werde ihnen weiter schreiben. Es war nicht einfach, weil sich nicht alle Wärter gleich verhalten und du nicht weisst, wann du heraus kommst. Aber ich habs geschafft.

Woran wirst du dich mit Gelassenheit erinnern?

Für mich war es eine starke Erfahrung: Ich lernte, nett zu sein, allen zu zuhören und zu versuchen, alle zu verstehen. Im Knast war ich unter Menschen wie ich, die jedoch mehr verdient hätten. Im Knast treffen sich die Verletzlichsten, die Unterdrückten, die Migranten, die mit unvorstellbaren Lebensgeschichten. Ich hatte Glück, hatte wunderbare Eltern und eine schöne Kindheit, mir mangelte es also an nichts. Während viele meiner Mithäftlinge dieses Glück nicht hatten. Weil sie auf der falschen Seite der Erde geboren wurden, an einem armen Ort, wo sie nicht studieren konnten und auch wenn sie Arbeit hatten, hatten sie kein Geld für essen und mussten Hunger leiden. In der Hoffnung auf ein besseres Leben kamen sie nach Europa, aber sie fanden nicht, wonach sie suchten und mussten sich mit Diebstahl und Drogenhandel über Wasser halten. Das ist schrecklich.

Hast du Deutsch gelernt?

Ein bisschen, denn alle sprachen es. Die Wenigsten konnten Englisch, nur einige afrikanische Jungs. Manche Wärter beherrschten es, aber sie sprachen lieber Deutsch.

Was hast du dir gedacht als sie dich nicht mehr aus dem Knast liessen?

Es gab viele schlechte Momente, um ehrlich zu sein, rechnete ich auch nicht damit, heute gehen zu können; ich war auf eine Haftentlassung im Februar vorbereitet. Aber mir wurde klar, dass es einen Grund gab, weswegen ich hier war; nämlich, dass ich meinen Widerstand verwirklicht habe und daher musste ich das überstehen, auch wenn sie mich noch länger festgehalten hätten.

Fabio traf auf ein Hamburg, voll mit Lichtern und solidarischen Menschen, dieselben, welche auch seiner Mutter halfen, die nicht ohne Schwierigkeiten nach Deutschland reisen konnte. „Zu wissen, dass sie für mich leiden musste, war eine der am schwersten zu akzeptierenden Tatsachen. Aber ich hatte Glück, sie reichte mir immer eine Hand. Sie ist wie ein Fels in der Brandung, ich kann mich glücklich schätzen, eine solche Mutter zu haben.“

Als die Anwälte, seine Mutter, seine Freunde und Fabio – nun endlich frei – den Gerichtssaal verlassen, treffen sie sich zu einem gemeinsamen Mittagessen. Der erste Teller schmeckt nach Freiheit, es gibt Schweinskotelett und Pommes, mit vielen Pommes, so wie Fabio es mag.

Der Mutter fällt als erstes Fabios Gangart auf: „Er wirkt eher verwirrt als froh.“ In ihrer Stimme schwingt hörbar die Befürchtung mit, der Knast könnte negative Auswirkungen auf ihren Sohn gehabt haben. Aber Fabio scheint das nicht zu bemerken, er bedankt sich nur tausendfach für die „Rettung seines Lebens“ bei ihr. Er wiederholt immer wieder: „Ich bin aus dem Knast raus“, als wolle er sich selbst davon überzeugen. Kaum aus dem Gerichtssaal raus, schlägt er vor, ein Bier trinken zu gehen. Alle stimmen zu.

Die Mutter kann ihre Augen kaum noch von Fabio lassen. Sie nennt ihn Stern, küsst und umarmt ihn immer noch ungläubig. Sie hält ihn immer wieder an, sich zu entspannen, während er seine Freunde aus Feltre aufzählt (aus Cadore ist Fiorenzo gekommen, um ihn von allen zu umarmen) und seiner Mutter voller Vorfreude sagt: „Wir werden jede menge Zeit haben, um jede menge Sachen zu machen.“ Genug für weitere drei Monate. Währen er auf seine Bestellung wartet, beginnt Fabio auf dem Natel seiner Mutter Zeitungskommentare zu seinem Gerichtsfall durchzulesen, sie ermahnt ihn: „Das tut dir nicht gut.“ Doch er liest weiter und grinst.

Zu den ersten Sachen, die Fabio geniessen will, gehört ein Kaffee, denn im Knast war er nicht gut. „Der Kurde kaufte so eine Packung für 20 Euro“, erzählt Fabio und zeichnet mit seinen Händen dabei einen kleinen Haufen, „ich kann nicht sagen, dass er gut war.“ Auch die Mensa schien ihre Aufgabe nicht erfüllt zu haben, denn „ich war dabei angelangt, mich mit Kaffeelöffel voller Zucker zu zudröhnen.“ Heute wird er wieder zum Jugendknast in Hahnöversand zurückkehren, diesmal ohne Eskorte und ohne Handschellen, nur um seine letzten Sachen zu holen.

Jamila Baroni (Fabios Mutter) sucht sich eine Wohnung, denn zurzeit teilt sie sich ein Zimmer mit einer anderen Italienerin.

Am Abend folgt noch ein Telefonat mit Maria, dem Mädchen, dass mit ihm verhaftet wurde und wieder frei kam, während er auf seinen Prozess wartete. Ein Telefonat voller Gelächter und Unbeschwertheit. Das brauchte es.

Interview von Francesca Valente vom Corriere delle Alpi

*Übersetzt aus dem Italienischen. Original: http://www.osservatoriorepressione.info/carcere-unesperienza-dura-intervista-fabio-vettorell/

Greece: Revolutionary Struggle Prisoners Pola Roupa & Nikos Maziotis Refuse Hospital Transfer on Day 20 of Hunger Strike


rs

STATEMENT OF POLA ROUSA AND NIKOS MAZIOTIS, MEMBERS OF REVOLUTIONARY STRUGGLE IN RELATION TO HOSPITAL TRANSFER

On the 20th day of our hunger strike, the prison doctors have referred us to an external hospital.

Over the last few days, we have stated that in order for us to be transferred to a hospital, the prison authorities must allow us to have telephone communication at the hospital with our child, since on previous occassions when we were hospitalized we were denied communication.

Since the prison authorites have not replied to our request, we refuse to be transferred to hospital.

It should also be noted that the Justice Department have so far ignored our request for them to withdraw Article 11 from the new prison code, which basically reintroduces Type C Prisons. The prison authorites also refuse to reply to our demands regarding the right to have visits with our child for 3 hours and visits between us for 2 hours when we have no other visitors and for Nikos to be moved from isolation.

Pola Roupa – Nikos Maziotis

members of Revolutionary Struggle

INTERVIEW: Rückblick RAF – Kontinuität eines Standpunktes … Wolfgang Lettow im Gespräch

raf.grab

Gespräch am 22. Oktober 2017 in Hamburg

Am 22. Oktober fand im Hamburger Centro sociale eine Informations- und Diskussionsveranstaltung zu den im Herbst 1977 in den Knästen Stuttgart-Stammheim und München-Stadelheim tot aufgefundenen Gefangenen aus der RAF statt. [1] Wolfgang Lettow, der zu den Organisatoren und Referenten der Zusammenkunft gehörte, beantwortete dem Schattenblick im Anschluß daran einige vertiefende Fragen.
Schattenblick (SB): Wolfgang, es ging bei der heutigen Veranstaltung um die Frage, was wir aus der Geschichte lernen können. Warum sind die historischen Ereignisse, über die wir gesprochen haben, aus deiner Sicht so wichtig?
Wolfgang Lettow (WL): Die Geschichte der RAF, des bewaffneten Kampfs hier in Deutschland, hat etwas mit der 68er-Bewegung zu tun, die eine bundesweite Erhebung war. Das war sozusagen die Voraussetzung, daß bewaffnete Gruppen auch hier in Deutschland, in Westeuropa, in Nordamerika, sich verbunden gefühlt haben mit den Befreiungsbewegungen in der Dritten Welt. Und diese Geschichte, insbesondere aber, was die Ereignisse des 18. Oktober 1977 in Stammheim betrifft, wird von den Herrschenden tabuisiert. Ich habe in meiner Eigenschaft als presserechtlich Verantwortlicher des “Gefangenen Info” (GI) [2] ausgeführt, daß wir nichts schreiben dürfen, was in Widerspruch zur Selbstmordthese steht, und es deswegen mehrere Verfahren gegen unsere Zeitschrift gab. Wir wollten daher einerseits einen Kontrapunkt setzen, weil die herrschende Meinung nicht unsere Meinung ist. Zum anderen gibt es die RAF seit 1998 nicht mehr, und es fehlt eine gemeinsame Aufarbeitung. Es interessieren sich jedoch viele Leute für die RAF, die aufgrund ihres Alters die damaligen Kämpfe nicht selbst miterlebt haben. Da wir die notwendige gemeinsame Aufarbeitung nicht leisten können, haben wir eine “Kurze Einführung in die Geschichte der RAF” für jüngere Leute als Buch herausgegeben, damit sie sich damit auseinandersetzen können. Es ist ein Teil unserer Geschichte, und wir haben festgestellt, daß unaufgeklärte Todesfälle im Gefängnis nicht auf die RAF beschränkt sind. So etwas passiert nicht nur politischen Gefangenen, sondern insbesondere auch migrantischen Häftlingen wie Oury Jalloh. Darüber eine Öffentlichkeit zu schaffen ist sehr wichtig. Wir können froh sein, daß es bei G20 keine Toten gab. Bei den Überlegungen im Vorfeld wurde nicht einmal ein möglicher Gebrauch von Schußwaffen völlig ausgeschlossen. Es ist sehr wichtig, den Blick für die Frage zu schärfen, mit was für einem Staat wir es hier zu tun haben. Er ist zwar in der Theorie dem “scheinbar liberalen” Grundgesetz verpflichtet, doch in der Praxis mutiert er zum Polizeistaat mit Feindstrafrecht, wie Anwältinnen und Anwälte sagen.
SB: Die Geschichte der RAF wurde von Stefan Aust und anderen uminterpretiert und gewissermaßen neu geschrieben. Wie ist sie aus deiner Sicht in der deutschen Öffentlichkeit insgesamt verarbeitet worden?
WL: Von Anfang an war eine authentische Vermittlung der Geschichte der RAF und der Haftbedingungen der Gefangenen stets sehr schwierig. Die ersten Schriften wurden zum Teil bei Wagenbach verlegt, das war zunächst das Konzept Stadtguerilla. Wenn ich mich recht erinnere, wurde bereits die zweite Schrift beschlagnahmt. Es war zum einen nicht möglich, öffentlich darüber zu reden. So gibt es Zitate entsprechender Aussagen von offizieller Seite, daß nichts Authentisches publiziert werden darf. Geduldet wurde nur eine Umdeutung, beispielsweise in Gestalt der Personalisierung, daß Andreas Baader ein Macho war und Ulrike Meinhof und Gudrun Ensslin ihm hörig gewesen seien. Eine authentische Vermittlung über die RAF und wofür sie steht, wurde von Beginn an verhindert und kriminalisiert. In dieses Vakuum sind Leute wie Stefan Aust gestoßen, der von so etwas gut leben kann und ganz offen mit der Polizei zusammenarbeitet. Auch Gerd Koenen oder Wolfgang Kraushaar versuchen, die Geschichte umzuschreiben, um den Aufbruch, der damals stattfand und zum bewaffneten Kampf führte, zu verfälschen.
SB: Menschen, die damals verurteilt wurden und ihre Haftstrafe verbüßt haben, sind im Zuge neuer Verfahren erneut der Strafverfolgung unterworfen worden. Die Frage der Täterschaft soll neu aufgerollt und bis ins Detail ermittelt werden. Müssen diese Menschen bis ans Ende ihrer Tage unter dem Damoklesschwert leben?
WL: Ich kann nicht für sie sprechen, weiß aber, daß es für sie klar war, als Kollektiv gehandelt zu haben. Für sie war es sekundär, wer was gemacht hat. Sie stehen für eine gewisse Etappe, in der sie in der RAF organisiert waren. Sie bekennen sich zu ihrer Verantwortung, unabhängig davon, wie genau ihre Beteiligung war. Nach dem Verständnis, das sie vermittelt haben, wurden die Aktionen gemeinsam beschlossen und dann durchgeführt. In diesem Sinne ist jeder und jede dafür verantwortlich gewesen. Wie sie später erpreßt wurden, zeigt unter anderem das Beispiel von Christa Eckes, die an Blutkrebs erkrankt war und im Sterben lag, als sie dennoch von der Bundesanwaltschaft verhört wurde. Sie hat die Aussage verweigert. Für die Gefangenen aus der RAF, die erhobenen Hauptes durchs Leben gehen, war von Anfang an klar, wenn sie sich in der Gruppe organisieren, werden sie entweder den Knast nicht überleben oder ihr Leben lang verfolgt. Das war ihre politische Entscheidung, das wissen sie. Insofern war das eine Entscheidung, die sie auch 20 Jahre später nach Auflösung der RAF beibehalten, soweit ich das mitkriege.
SB: Die ARD hat in Dominik Grafs Stuttgarter “Tatort: Der rote Schatten” die Todesnacht von Stammheim für ein breites Fernsehpublikum thematisiert. Wie bewertest du diese Verarbeitung in Gestalt eines zeitgenössischen Krimi-Szenarios?
WL: Zur Sprache kam im Tatort die Selbstmordvariante, aber andererseits auch die Möglichkeit, daß die Gefangenen von einem Spezialkommando liquidiert worden sein könnten. Daß diese Frage überhaupt in dieser Form thematisiert wird, ist auf jeden Fall zu begrüßen. Andererseits entspricht die Darstellung der Leute, die der RAF auch nach deren Auflösung zugerechnet werden, natürlich nicht der Realität. Es wurde sehr viel mit Sex & Crime gearbeitet, was nach meiner Erfahrung, die ich mit ehemaligen Gefangenen der RAF gemacht habe, nicht der Wahrheit entspricht. Es wurde wieder ein grob verzerrtes Bild gezeichnet, aber trotz alledem ist es ein erster Schritt. Die Reaktion von höchster Stelle, von Steinmeier und dann auch von Aust, der ja öffentlicher Meinungskommissar ist, zeigte, daß im Tatort etwas Richtiges angesprochen wurde. Wir haben in der Diskussion über Helge Lehmann [3] gesprochen, der Mitte der 1960er Jahre geboren wurde und daher die Ereignisse erst in ihrer späteren Darstellung mitbekommen hat. Seine Zweifel an der Version des Staates, auf welche Weise sich die Gefangenen umgebracht haben sollen, veranlaßten ihn, die offiziellen Angaben unter anderem mit Hilfe praktischer physikalischer Versuche nachzustellen. Er kam nach gründlicher Untersuchung zu dem Schluß, daß es so nicht gewesen sein kann, was er dann in Form eines Buches publiziert hat. Insofern war der Tatort überraschend, denn er hat etwas zur Sprache gebracht, was lange versiegelt schien, aber weiter verfolgt werden sollte.
SB: Du verfügst über eine langjährige Praxis, diese Thematik nicht in Vergessenheit geraten zu lassen. Was sind deine Erfahrungen mit solchen Veranstaltungen wie der heutigen? Wie hat sich das Interesse an diesen Inhalten über die Jahre verändert?
WL: Ich denke, wenn nach 40 Jahren immer noch mehr als 40 Leute kommen – trotz der ganzen Desinformation -, ist es auf jeden Fall wichtig, weiterhin solche Veranstaltungen zu machen. Wir haben eine entsprechende Veranstaltung in Bremen gehabt, wo insbesondere die Frage, was diese Geschichte mit heute zu tun hat, auf großes Interesse innerhalb der Linken gestoßen ist. Die Rote Hilfe Zeitung hat wegen unserer Intention bei uns einen Artikel angefragt. Es ist wichtig, den Staat so zu bezeichnen, wie er tatsächlich ist. Er konstruiert ja ein Bild von sich, das so nicht stimmt. Ich kann in diesem Zusammenhang noch eine Sache erzählen: Ich arbeite bei einem freien Radio in Hannover mit. Dabei hatte ich eine Erklärung zu den dreien verlesen, die der RAF zugerechnet und noch gesucht werden. [4] Daraufhin gab es einen heftigen Angriff gegen dieses Radio, das natürlich eine viel größere Reichweite als eine Veranstaltung hat. Die Sendung wurde als Podcast bei freien Radios veröffentlicht und erreichte dadurch Menschen im deutschsprachigen Raum von Hamburg bis Zürich und Wien. Der Sender wurde in einer ersten Reaktion unter Druck gesetzt, obgleich der gesendete Text schon beim “Gefangenen Info” durch die staatliche Zensur gegangen war. Der NDR-Journalist Stefan Schölermann, der sich rühmt, gute Kontakte zum Staatsschutz zu haben – natürlich rein professionell – hat eine Anfrage an das freie Radio gestellt, um den Sender unter Druck zu setzen. Auf diese Weise soll verhindert werden, daß unsere Öffentlichkeit, die bei Veranstaltungen natürlich nur auf bestimmte Bereiche wie hier in linken Zentren im Schanzenviertel oder Karoviertel beschränkt ist, beim freien Radio über diese Szene hinausgeht. Das heißt mit anderen Worten, daß es sehr wichtig ist, solche Veranstaltungen wie die heutige durchzuführen und die Informationen im freien Radio für breitere Kreise zu senden.
Die Geschichte wird nicht nur um ihrer selbst willen bewahrt, denn es geht ja um einen neuen Aufbruch, dessen Inhalte von denen bestimmt werden, die sagen, wir halten es nicht mehr aus. In diesem Zusammenhang ist es wichtig, die Geschichte der RAF kritisch, aber auch solidarisch aufzuarbeiten. Wir haben in unserer Zeitung “Gefangenen Info” verschiedene Gefangene und Gruppen angesprochen, worauf es in nur einem Monat sechs Beiträge gab, vier von Gefangenen: Yusuf Tas, ein türkischer Gefangener, ein Beitrag von Thomas Meyer-Falk, einer von einer Frau, Lisa, die wegen Bankraub festgenommen wurde, und einer von Manfred Peter, der sich seit über 20 Jahren in der Forensik befindet. Die Rote Hilfe Italien hat sich ebenfalls beteiligt. Dort war nach dem 18. Oktober klar, daß es Mord war, und es hat sehr viel Solidarität gegeben. In zehn italienischen Städten wurden damals binnen kurzer Zeit Demonstrationen und militante Aktionen organisiert. Geschrieben hat auch die Gruppe Siempre Antifa aus Frankfurt, das ist eine etwas jüngere Organisation, deren Mitglieder 1977 noch gar nicht geboren waren, und die sich nun mit den Texten sehr konstruktiv, solidarisch und auch kritisch auseinandergesetzt haben. Um etwas Neues zu beginnen, muß man auch die alte Geschichte kennen und aufarbeiten.
SB: Bei der Veranstaltung im Centro sociale war einerseits natürlich die ältere Generation sehr präsent, es waren aber auch etliche jüngere Leute da. Entspricht diese Zusammensetzung deinen Erfahrungen in Bremen und bei früheren Veranstaltungen?
WL: Das Interesse ist auch bei jüngeren Leuten durchaus vorhanden. Sie äußeren sich allerdings zu diesem Thema zunächst wenig, weil sie es nicht so genau kennen. Wir hatten jedoch die Verbindung zu den G20-Protesten, an denen sie sich beteiligt haben. Aus diesem Zusammenhang sind heute jüngere Leute gekommen, die uns von dorther kennen. Es ist zwar nicht ihre eigene Geschichte, sie wollen aber etwas darüber wissen.
SB: Gibt es angesichts der G20-Gefangenen einen Anknüpfungspunkt, die Frage der Haft und insbesondere der politischen Häftlinge aufzugreifen und umfassender zu thematisieren?
WL: Wie mensch sich bei politischen Prozessen verhält, ist stets die Entscheidung der Betroffenen selbst. Es gibt Broschüren zum Thema, wie mensch sich bei solchen Prozessen verhält, inwieweit mensch Einlassungen macht und wie es damals gewesen ist. Daran besteht auf jeden Fall Interesse, und darüber hinaus muß man sich weiter auseinandersetzen.
Es ist schon hart, wenn AktivistInnen für einen Flaschenwurf auf einen gepanzerten Polizisten ein halbes Jahr in U-Haft sitzen oder eine Bewährungsstrafe kriegen. Das ist auf jeden Fall politisch anzugreifen. Der heutige Bezug ist jedenfalls in Hamburg und Bremen da, und wir müssen sehen, wie es weitergeht.
SB: Wie gehst mit deinem Informationsvorsprung hinsichtlich der Geschichte der politischen Gefangenen um, ohne belehrend rüberzukommen?
WL: Wir haben durch unsere Veranstaltungen Leute angesprochen, die unsere Idee gut fanden und sich mit Beiträgen an der Diskussion beteiligen wollen. Es ging uns eben nicht nur um die damalige Geschichte, sondern auch darum, eine Verbindung zu heute zu ziehen. Bei G20 haben die Leute gesehen, daß wir gewisse Erfahrungen haben. Auch wenn mensch nicht in politischer Hinsicht in allem übereinstimmt – ich drücke mich jetzt etwas vorsichtig aus – würde ich dort etwas sagen wollen, wo ich auch involviert bin. Dabei akzeptiere ich durchaus Positionen, die ich nicht unbedingt teile. Ich glaube, ich kann nur etwas sagen, wenn ich auch als älterer Mensch an heutigen Kämpfen beteiligt bin. Das ist dann auch nicht aufgesetzt oder vom Sessel aus.
SB: Hast du schon Pläne für die Zukunft, was Themen, Publikationen oder Veranstaltungen betrifft?
WL: Dieses Jahr wird es noch eine Veranstaltung in Leipzig geben. Im “Gefangenen-Info” wird ein Beitrag der heutigen Veranstaltung “Haben die Aussagen der Gefangenen aus der RAF heute noch Gültigkeit?” veröffentlicht. Zusätzlich werden wir von weiteren türkischen Gefangenen aus dem Münchener ATIK-Prozeß Beiträge publizieren. Auch gibt es erfreulicherweise noch zwei Texte von jüngeren Menschen.
SB: Wolfgang, vielen Dank für dieses Gespräch.
Fußnoten:
[1] Siehe dazu:
http://www.schattenblick.de/infopool/politik/report/prbe0295.html
http://www.schattenblick.de/infopool/politik/report/prbe0296.html
[2] Zu beziehen über kontakt@political-prisoners.net (Kostet 5 EUR.)
[3] Zur “Todesnacht in Stammheim” (Helge Lehmann) siehe:
http://www.schattenblick.de/infopool/politik/report/prbe0126.html
http://www.schattenblick.de/infopool/politik/report/prin0139.html
http://www.schattenblick.de/infopool/politik/report/prin0141.html
http://www.schattenblick.de/infopool/politik/report/prin0143.html
[4] Bei den dreien soll es sich um Burkhard Garweg, Daniela Klette und Ernst-Volker Staub handeln.
29. November 2017

*Quelle: http://political-prisoners.net/item/5618-interview393-rueckblick-raf-kontinuitaet-eines-standpunktes-wolfgang-lettow-im-gespraech-sb.html

Hamburg: Solidarität mit Fabio!

Autobahn bei Zürich

Wir solidarisieren uns mit Fabio V., der in Hamburg vor Gericht steht und heute nach vier Monaten Haft aus dem Gefängnis entlassen wurde, weil er – wie so viele von uns – nach Hamburg ging, um Anfangs Juli gegen das Treffen der G20 zu demonstrieren. Fabio begegnet diesem Prozess politisch und lässt sich nicht in die Defensive drängen, weder distanziert er sich noch entschuldigt er sich für die ihm vorgeworfenen Taten. Im Gegenteil: Fabio nutzt die gebotene Plattform, um die Demonstrationen gegen das Treffen der G20 zu verteidigen und diejenigen anzuklagen, denen tatsächlich der Prozess gemacht werden sollte, nämlich die VerteidigerInnen des Kapitalismus.

In der Repression, welche diesen Julitagen folgte, ist die politische Prozessführung eine zu seltene Ausnahme. Dabei sind wir den bürgerlichen Medien und der Klassenjustiz keine Entschuldigung schuldig. Aufarbeitungen der Aktionen gegen das Treffen der G20 sind notwendig und richtig, aber wir werden sie mit Sicherheit nicht unter Beteiligung derjenigen führen, die auf der anderen Seite der Barrikaden stehen. Es sind Barrikaden, die in Hamburg so fassbar wie selten in den vergangenen Jahren wurden. So sehen wir die Ereignisse in Hamburg als klaren Beleg dafür, dass es auch nach Jahren der Hetze weiterhin eine starke Bewegung in Europa gibt, die sich im Bruch zum Kapitalismus positioniert. Es ist eine Bewegung, die sich im Herzen der Metropole und unter den Augen eines hochgerüsteten Sicherheitsapparats manifestierte. Ihre Härte in der Repression ist vor diesem Hintergrund zu sehen. Wir begegnen ihr, indem wir die Proteste gegen die G20 mit all ihren Facetten verteidigen und sie als Ausdruck unserer Stärke sehen, auch wenn diese zeitlich beschränkt war.

Wir möchten mit einem längeren Zitat aus der Prozesserklärung von Fabio am 7. November 2017 enden:
«Wie auch immer die Entscheidung des Gerichtes lauten wird, sie wird nichts an unserem Protest ändern. Denn noch viele junge Männer und Frauen, die von den gleichen Idealen angetrieben werden, werden auch weiterhin überall in Europa auf die Straßen gehen, ohne sich dabei um die Gefängnisse zu kümmern, die Sie mühevoll versuchen, mit politischen Gefangenen zu füllen.
[…]
Die Entscheidung, nach Hamburg zu kommen, war eine parteiische Entscheidung. Es war die Entscheidung, mich auf die Seite von denen zu stellen, die um ihre Rechte kämpfen. Und gegen die, die sie ihnen wegnehmen wollen. Es war die Entscheidung, mich auf die Seite der Unterdrückten zu stellen. Und gegen die Unterdrücker. Es war die Entscheidung, gegen die kleineren und größeren Mächtigen zu kämpfen, die unsere Welt behandeln, als wäre sie ihr Spielzeug. Und denen es dabei egal ist, dass immer die Bevölkerung ihren Kopf dafür hinhalten muss»

Rote Hilfe Schweiz, Revolutionäres Bündnis Region Zürich, Revolutionärer Aufbau Schweiz, Revolutionäre Jugendgruppe Bern, Anarchistische Gruppe Bern, Secours Rouge Genève, Revolutionäre Jugend Zürich, 27. November 2017.

L’orrore del 41 bis

l documento che Nadia Lioce, prigioniera politica detenuta da anni a regime 41 bis ha presentato al Tribunale Penale de L’Aquila in occasione del processo che la vede imputata proprio per avere protestato in carcere contro il 41 bis.

La sottoscritta Nadia Lioce ha presentato opposizione al decreto penale di condanna n.29/2016 ritenendo di poter qualificare le azioni, addebitatele come di disturbo delle altre detenute, come tradizionali azioni di protesta verso l’amministrazione penitenziaria (battitura delle sbarre), e di poter argomentare come non potesse ritenere di aver arrecato un disturbo alle altre detenute, non avendo udito lamentele; né che tali azioni arrecassero un tale disturbo, essendo  state storicamente accettate e/o condivise dalle detenute della sezione femminile 41 bis dell’istituto de L’Aquila, come in generale lo sono  per tutti i detenuti.

Gli eventi in oggetto –di battitura delle sbarre- sono quelli del 25/08/2015, 27/08/2015, 29/08/2015, 31/08/2015, 04/09/2015 e 07/09/2015, quali segmento di una protesta durata dal 27 marzo 2015 al 30 settembre 2015, con una frequenza analoga a quella citata (documentata dalle sanzioni irrogate le cui notifiche sono state depositate agli atti), e forme identiche (battitura con bottiglietta di plastica del cancello) e durata (mezz’ora), per un totale di episodi superiore alla cinquantina, in un regime di prigionia “speciale” quale, essendo segregativo nella natura e nello scopo è ordinariamente ben poco conosciuto. Eppure per poter contestualizzare i fatti è necessario poterne distinguere le caratteristiche, per cui la sottoscritta cercherà di tratteggiarle per come si sono andate determinando storicamente, pur nella consapevolezza che il salto esistente tra la vita civile e le condizioni della prigionia speciale in particolare, complessificando la rappresentazione in parole della sua concretezza, possa non essere colmato dal proprio tentativo e lasciarne incompleta la comprensione.

Ma è tanto più necessario quanto più è rilevabile una certa ambiguità aleggiante sulle regole che attengono alla prigionia speciale, sulla quale si tornerà in seguito con degli esempi.

Il 41 bis nasce negli anni ’90, ma come antesignano ha quello che si chiamava “articolo 90”, che veniva applicato ai prigionieri politici, e non solo, ed era parte anche di una più vasta trasformazione dell’istituzione carceraria in direzione della differenziazione in più circuiti detentivi (bassa, media, alta sicurezza – politici e non) e della normalizzazione di sistemi premiali; oltre che inquadrato in ragioni politiche la cui trattazione esula da queste precisazioni.

Entrambi finalizzati a segregazione dall’esterno e controllo interno della popolazione detenuta, all’origine concepiti come regimi di prigionia speciale rispondenti ad un’emergenza, ovvero ad una situazione a termine, non strutturale – l’art. 90 fu addirittura abrogato una volta ritenuta esaurita l’emergenza rivoluzionaria – che in quelle condizioni politiche lo rendeva compatibile con i principi costituzionali.

Il 41 bis conserva –all’origine– questa giustificazione nelle forme applicative ma, non sussistendo più le condizioni politiche generali dei decenni precedenti, in se stesso può nascere per restare come forma di prigionia speciale “normalizzata”.

Almeno in una prima fase viene concretamente gestito con applicazioni di durata limitata della misura che la legge prevedeva potessero essere anche di 3 – 6 mesi e con proroghe non automatiche, e sia l’amministrazione che la giurisprudenza le concepiva revocabili; successivamente la legge aumentò la durata della singola applicazione a 1 o 2 anni e poi ancora, così che attualmente la durata della prima applicazione è imposta a 4 anni, quasi 10 volte più che all’origine, mentre le proroghe sono di un biennio e sono automatiche nella sostanza. Se fino al 2009 esisteva una teorica possibilità di revoca della misura, in sede ministeriale o giurisdizionale, in quanto l’onere di provare la sussistenza di motivi di applicazione era in capo al proponente o al decisore, con le modifiche apportate questa teorica possibilità non esiste più (che non significa che non ci sia stata più alcuna revoca da allora, ma un conto è la regola, un altro il caso particolare).[1]

Precedentemente la detenzione speciale consisteva nella separazione delle sezioni o dei reparti di 41 bis da quelli ordinari (comuni, A.S., EIVC); nella limitazione dei rapporti con l’esterno ai colloqui con il vetro con familiari entro il 3° grado per una o due volte al mese decise dal ministero oppure dal tribunale di sorveglianza territoriale in sede di reclamo, quando la competenza a decidere dei reclami al 41 bis era dei tribunali di sorveglianza locali; limitazioni dei “pacchi” di vestiario e cibi mensili a 2 per 10 kg totali; limitazione delle telefonate a 1 o 2 a familiari (che per riceverla devono recarsi al carcere). Per quanto riguarda la limitazione dei rapporti all’interno essa consisteva: nella frequentazione di 2 ore di passeggi e 2 ore di saletta in gruppi formati al massimo da cinque persone.

Per dare un termine di comparazione rispetto all’antesignano: l’art. 90 non prevedeva suddivisioni in gruppi, cioè i “gruppi” non esistevano, “l’aria” (o passeggi) era frequentata dalla sezione nel suo complesso; (“la socialità” forse al tempo non esisteva).

Rispetto agli altri circuiti detentivi: tutti i circuiti prevedono che l’aria sia a frequentazione comune, di tutta la sezione o di tutto il reparto. Non tutti i reparti utilizzano sale per la socialità che perciò può essere fatta nelle celle in un numero limitato di persone scelte dal detenuto volta per volta.

I detenuti comuni usufruiscono di sei ore mensili di colloquio con un arco più esteso di familiari, quelli in alta sicurezza o del fu EIVC, di quattro ore.

Tutti i detenuti di bassa, media e alta sicurezza possono fare una telefonata settimanale di dieci minuti ai familiari.

Il 41 bis prevede inoltre in tutti i casi la censura della corrispondenza che il censore operativo esamina, ed eventualmente sottopone al giudice competente, per la decisione dell’inoltro o meno. Una misura applicabile anche a detenuti non in 41 bis, in genere a quelli in A.S.

Tutto il resto del trattamento in teoria non avrebbe ragione di differire.

Cioè: si potrebbe erroneamente pensare che le altre condizioni di prigionia di detenuti ordinari e in 41 bis, possano essere le stesse.

In realtà non è mai stato così.

Innanzitutto perché la legge nel definire “le misure eccezionali” rispetto all’ordinamento non ha mai citato limiti minimi, con cui di norma si asseriscono le condizioni garantite per ogni condizione della prigionia, ma solo massimi.

Ad esempio: le ore di colloquio, di aria, di saletta, i chilogrammi e il numero dei pacchi, i capi di vestiario e i generi alimentari e di conforto detenibili in cella… sono tutti limiti non superabili. Le ore all’aperto – una all’aria, l’altra in saletta – sono “non superiori a due”. Cioè, mai condizioni garantite, proprio perché è stato un regime concepito come una eccezione (e lo è) rispetto ad una normalità.

Poi perché il decreto riserva al vertice dell’amministrazione ulteriori specifiche disposizioni, individualizzate e non, sicché tutto il resto può anche differire totalmente e ulteriori compressioni delle libertà residue ed estensioni delle restrizioni possono colpire ogni aspetto della vita quotidiana, che sia per iniziativa del Dipartimento o per iniziativa locale, di interpretazione delle direttive, o di propositività di iniziativa.

Infine perché addetti alla custodia dei detenuti al 41 bis sono i G.O.M., cioè un corpo speciale di polizia penitenziaria, forse introdotto nel 1998 e dal 2009 obbligatoriamente nei reparti di 41 bis, che consiste in una sorta di polizia penitenziaria militarizzata -finora informalmente- centrata su compiti di contrasto e in grado di praticare questo genere di direttive.

Questa serie di peculiarità incidono su tutti gli aspetti della vita quotidiana: da quello delle disponibilità materiali – detenibilità di materiali in cella, dal vestiario, al cartaceo, a generi alimentari e di conforto o per l’igiene ambientale, o degli oggetti personali; a quello dell’accessibilità all’acquisto di prodotti non inclusi nella lista dei generi acquistabili di “sopravvitto”; a quello delle modalità e frequenza di svolgimento delle perquisizioni personali o della cella.

Ognuno di questi aspetti delle necessità, condizioni e disponibilità personali può essere investito, e concretamente lo è stato e lo è, da un regime ulteriormente restrittivo, quando in modo “regolamentato” quando nella pratica provocatoria e nella finalità vessatoria che voglia essere messa in atto ad arbitrio, incidendo in modo significativo sulla vivibilità quotidiana della prigionia, con una tendenza dominante alla generalizzazione delle condizioni più restrittive e privative, per un principio di cosiddetta uguaglianza.

A tutto ciò va aggiunto che, con le modifiche legislative introdotte nel 2009, la logica giuridica generale che sopravviveva alla base del 41 bis originario viene rovesciata e viene sancita una sostanziale e permanente esternità “spaziale” del regime speciale all’ordinamento giuridico generale, che subentra alla eccezionalità e al suo carattere per così dire temporale.

Innanzitutto, appunto, esso, da misura almeno in teoria circoscritta nel tempo, diventa strutturale per un tipo di persone, cioè per coloro ai quali fosse stata applicata dal ministero.

L’inversione giuridica attraverso la quale può concretamente succedere è il trasferimento dell’onere della motivazione. Da questo momento quella che andrà motivata, di fatto, non è più la proroga della misura, ma la sua revoca. Dunque l’onere viene trasferito dal proponente o decisore al detenuto in 41 bis, che deve dimostrare: o che c’è stato uno scambio di persona, che cioè non è lui la persona che il Ministero vuole assoggettare alla misura, oppure di essere un collaboratore, cioè non il tipo di persona cui la misura è destinata.

Per un prigioniero che si è assunto le sue responsabilità verso un referente politico – l’organizzazione rivoluzionaria d’appartenenza – e sociale – la classe a cui ha rivolto la proposta rivoluzionaria – è cioè una esplicita richiesta di abiura politica che, di fatto, in se stessa abolisce il diaframma giuridico ordinariamente interposto dallo stato nel rapporto col prigioniero politico e politicizza il rapporto stesso, facendo diventare il regime di prigionia speciale uno specifico piano di confronto. Confronto nel quale, in sostanza e in generale, l’interesse del prigioniero ad una prigionia “normale”, non segregata, viene usato contro lui stesso, ossia come leva per ottenere la collaborazione, praticamente in modo esplicito.

E, a corroborare la coercitività del regime speciale ai fini della torsione della volontà degli assoggettati ad esso, viene allargato lo spettro delle misure restrittive fino a quel momento adottate e vengono intensificate quelle già esistenti, in parte con la legge stessa, in altra parte tramite ordinanze e circolari dell’amministrazione centrale o locale.

La sottoscritta approfondirà ora le condizioni particolari del regime di 41 bis in cui si sono collocati i fatti in oggetto, specificando cosa siano i gruppi, partendo da quello che sono diventati.

La legge del 2009 restringe i “gruppi”: da 5 componenti – al massimo – li riduce a 4.

Inoltre, essa dispone che le carceri per 41 bis siano distinte dalle altre, allocate nelle isole e, mentre il Ministero stabilisce la costruzione di apposite strutture carcerarie con sezioni “monogruppo”, la legge dispone anche che le strutture carcerarie adibite al regime di 41 bis, in generale siano attrezzate logisticamente per assicurare che i movimenti degli appartenenti a un gruppo avvengano precludendo la comunicazione con appartenenti a gruppi diversi dal proprio (la qual cosa in una sezione “plurigruppo” – come quella dei fatti in oggetto – avviene con l’accostamento dei “blindati” delle celle, da parte del personale penitenziario, durante il passaggio nel corridoio di un detenuto), in quanto stabilisce anche il divieto di comunicare tra appartenenti a gruppi diversi (comunicazione che sarebbe fisicamente possibile nelle sezioni “plurigruppo”)[2].

Con questa ulteriore stretta segregativa è avvenuto che i “gruppi” non siano più stati delimitazioni circoscritte alla frequentazione di passeggi e saletta per una funzione di controllo interno, ma siano diventati “esclusivi”.

E’ avvenuto cioè uno slittamento sostanziale dei paradigmi alla base della legge originaria che già – rispetto all’art. 90- introduceva delimitazioni alla frequentazione comune di aria e socialità, rispetto alle condizioni degli altri circuiti detentivi.

Un’evoluzione della normalizzazione dell’eccezione per il tramite della torsione giuridica, che sembra giungere a un momento di inversione del senso giuridico particolare della prigionia speciale, sancendone una ambigua ma strutturata e strutturale esternità ad un contesto regolamentare sistematico.

In pratica, con questo slittamento, i “gruppi” diventano “gruppi di segregazione” che escludono tutti gli altri.

Prima erano limitati ad un’aggregazione di 5 persone, per un’asserita garanzia di controllo, ora la vita in ogni sua espressione, anche verbale, non deve fuoriuscire dal gruppo di assegnazione (ridotto ad un massimo di 4 persone).

Non un “buongiorno” può essere scambiato.

Così come effettivamente disposto dalla direzione dell’istituto de L’Aquila in data 6 novembre 2016. Un divieto di scambio di saluto tra detenuti presenti all’interno di una medesima sezione, che in concreto interruppe questa sopravvissuta tradizione e che è una delle espressioni, materializzate, di quella ambiguità aleggiante sulle regole del 41 bis, che si genera tra disposizioni di legge già citate, disposizioni del decreto di 41 bis, apparentemente a raggio di azione circoscritto[3]; e contenuti di giurisprudenza costituzionale (esempio: sent. C.Cost. 122/2017) che, dagli asseriti legittimi limiti alla comunicazione dei detenuti appare escludere, e con un argomento pesante quale quello dell’inviolabilità della persona, la possibilità di precludere comunicazioni tra detenuti compresenti in una sezione, in quanto argomenta di limitazioni alla facoltà dei detenuti di intrattenere colloqui diretti con persone esterne all’ambiente carcerario[4].

Uno slittamento che pare essere potuto avvenire in una condizione generale formata da una reiterazione di rappresentazioni pubbliche del carcere come un “santuario”, ovvero luogo in cui chi vi si trovi è invulnerabile, incontrollabile e incoercibile, opposte alla realtà della prigione, in cui le libertà sono a priori residue, e chi vi è rinchiuso è “coatto”, che hanno sollecitato un’aspettativa pubblica giustificante le scelte politiche alla base della legiferazione.

In ogni caso, ricostruendo gli avvenimenti, “la parola” segregata fu in realtà introdotta già da una circolare ministeriale nell’agosto 2008, cioè circa 10 anni fa, plausibilmente come sperimentazione della successiva introduzione legislativa.

La “parola”, ovvero quella facoltà innata del genere umano che storicamente presso un po’ tutte le civiltà ne tipicizza la dignità rispetto alle altre specie animali, viene criminalizzata in se stessa. Verso il detenuto in 41 bis che non si auto inibisse, lo è dal 2008 in poi con la sanzione disciplinare, sebbene non prevista come indisciplina specifica dall’ordinamento penitenziario né dal regolamento di esecuzione almeno fino al settembre 2017, ma, si presume, suscettibile di sanzione in quanto inosservanza di un ordine. Ma verso chiunque altro “consentisse” al detenuto in 41 bis di “comunicare” con “l’esterno” (presumibilmente anche del gruppo) -dal personale penitenziario, all’avvocato, al familiare, a chiunque solidarizzi- la previsione legislativa del 2009 è l’incriminazione penale. E tenuto conto che “verba volant”, che significa che le parole non hanno consistenza materiale, né in se stesse potenzialità di effetti materiali, intorno a questa criminalizzazione è venuto a formarsi un grumo antigiuridico potenzialmente ad alto tasso di criminogenità, potendo chiunque essere accusato di qualunque cosa[5].

Questa innovazione legislativa, insieme a quella che andava a creare un regime speciale per il diritto di difesa del detenuto in 41 bis limitandone le ore di colloquio e la durata delle telefonate (negli anni arrivate alla consulta e dichiarate incostituzionali) e insieme centralizzazione presso un unico Tribunale di Sorveglianza – quello territoriale del Ministero decretante la misura- dei reclami contro i decreti di 41 bis, andarono ad integrare il nuovo paradigma del “carcere duro”. Un paradigma la cui specificità rispetto al precedente è la capacità di proiezione di conseguenze a largo raggio, molto oltre l’ambito dei suoi “ristretti” o dell’intera popolazione detenuta, venendo ad incidere sul ruolo e sull’operatività di tutta la Magistratura di Sorveglianza.

Conseguenze al confronto delle quali le tendenze all’inibizione della parola non solo conversazionale, ma pure funzionale[6] sono solo una deriva parossistica localizzata dentro le mura del 41 bis.

A questo punto è necessario accennare alla specificità della componente femminile della popolazione detenuta a 41 bis.

La specificità della sezione 41 bis femminile dell’Aquila è quella di essere stata istituita da zero. Cioè scegliendo: ubicazione geografica e strutturale, personale assegnato e sua formazione, e il trattamento a cui sottoporre le “politiche” per cui è nata. E ciò potendo contare sul fatto che le prigioniere sottoposte alla misura non avessero un’esperienza pregressa, nemmeno storica, del 41 bis (misura che viene previsto possa essere applicata anche ai politici nel 2002). Inoltre, la mancanza di una loro coesione per ragioni di forza maggiore, ha reso più praticabile un trattamento di “massimo rigore”.

Col passare degli anni, e radicato l’insediamento e le sue caratteristiche di fondo, la particolarità è stata essenzialmente quella di essere poche.

Ma è necessario fare un passo indietro.

Fino al 2005, la sezione 41 bis femminile era quella di Rebibbia, a Roma, dove le restrizioni applicate erano quelle di legge e generali, e il personale penitenziario era ordinario.

Quella sezione nel 2009 chiuse.

In quella aquilana, aperta nell’ottobre 2005, per applicare il “massimo rigore” fu adottato l’espediente di elaborare ed affiggere nella saletta della sezione un regolamento apposito per la sezione, che voleva dare l’impressione che, data la peculiarità di genere della sezione, essendo femminile in un carcere esclusivamente maschile, ne servisse uno apposta, altrimenti esisteva un regolamento di istituto che era vigente a tutti gli effetti.

In realtà, quando nel 2006 fu chiesto di poter acquisire il regolamento d’istituto –tutti gli istituti devono averne uno – non fu opposto un diniego, non sarebbe stato giustificabile, ma fu affissa una copia del regolamento mancante di alcune pagine iniziali e anche al suo interno. Se ne dovette perciò reclamare l’affissione nella sua interezza al Magistrato di sorveglianza. E infatti così fu fatto quando il magistrato lo ordinò.

Allora si poté scoprire che, quelle mancanti, erano pagine concernenti modalità di perquisizione personale, quantità e generi alimentari, di vestiario e altro, detenibili in cella. Ambiti in cui la prassi nella sezione femminile non osservava il regolamento a scapito delle detenute, fino a quel momento ancora poco esperte.

La sottoscritta farà alcuni esempio pratici: le “perquisizioni personali con denudamento” venivano fatte con denudamento integrale nonostante il regolamento d’istituto prescrivesse che il detenuto restasse con gli indumenti intimi.

Un altro esempio: il regolamento d’istituto prevedeva che in cella si potessero detenere 10 pacchetti di sigarette. Quello di sezione non contemplava l’argomento, sicché la quantità detenibile veniva comunicata oralmente. Diventarono 8, poi 6, poi 4. E il momento della decisione di ridurre da 8 a 6 ecc. era quello in cui nel corso della perquisizione della cella, a quel tempo settimanale, se ne trovavano 7, poi 5 e così via.

Alla detenuta veniva contestata la detenzione di un “eccesso”, alla previsa e scontata rimostranza, la prima volta c’era l’avvertimento, la seconda il rapporto disciplinare. E così per ogni variazione in senso restrittivo che potesse/volesse essere inventata.

A quel tempo, fino a tutto il 2009, era un metodo, poi è diventato periodico, mentre, più in generale, anche sui generi detenibili in cella il dipartimento ha sussunto molte delle potestà prima in capo, almeno formalmente, ai direttori.

Come detto, la particolarità della sezione femminile 41 bis è ora in buona parte dovuta alla scarsità di detenute, un dato di fatto che di per sé si traduce in una pressione più elevata, e che consente di gestire la frequentazione alternata dei comuni passeggi e della saletta, anche formando “gruppi” di due persone.

E poiché come prima opzione l’amministrazione privilegia la composizione di gruppi di numero minimo di persone, i “gruppi”, salvo cause di forza maggiore, sono sempre di due donne.

I gruppi di due persone nella vita civile si chiamano coppie. Anche in carcere, tempo fa, la definizione di “gruppo”, almeno nelle controversie insorte tra amministrazione, detenuti e magistratura, rispettava il senso comune. Il gruppo, cioè, era costituito da un minimo di 3 persone.

I gruppi di 2-3 persone, inoltre, erano limitati alle “aree riservate”, cosi dette perché braccetti separati “monogruppo”, isolati dagli altri e con un trattamento più duro,  fino al 2009 presenti in poche unità per carcere ove fossero ubicate.

Trovate forme di legittimazione, di fatto con la legge del 2009, “l’area riservata” è diventata il modulo segregativo della popolazione detenuta al 41 bis. E anche in questo senso, la sezione femminile, che dall’apertura della sezione de L’Aquila è sempre stata un’area riservata per un massimo di 4 detenute – fino al 2013 – si è ritrovata ad essere il “benchmark” ed infine “la nuova normalità”.

Come si può intuire, i mini gruppi di 2 persone sono la composizione a massimo condizionamento reciproco.

Ad esempio offrono la possibilità con una sanzione di erogarne informalmente 2.

È quello che sarebbe successo alla sventurata detenuta che fosse capitata nel gruppo con la sottoscritta, anche dall’aprile 2015 all’ottobre 2017, quando avrebbe dovuto restare sola al passo delle sanzioni scontate dalla sottoscritta per la protesta effettuata dei fatti di un segmento della quale qui si discute.

E invece non è successo perché la sottoscritta, anche per senso di responsabilità verso le altre detenute, all’atto del trasferimento in una sezione più grande in grado di custodire ulteriori detenute sopravvenute, ha scelto di non condividere gruppi con nessuna, ovvero dal gennaio 2013 a tutt’oggi.

In parole povere, composizioni di gruppi minimali sono una condizione che genera isolamenti in se stessa perché l’unico altro componente resta solo in casi di: sanzione, malattia, colloquio, udienza, o semplice, legittima, mancanza di volontà di uscire dalla cella, o di svolgere le medesime attività durante l’ora d’aria o di saletta, dell’altro.

Tutte condizioni concretamente verificatesi centinaia di volte dal 2005, da quando cioè L’Aquila aprì la sezione femminile per “le politiche”.

Dopodiché l’essere umano è per sua natura sociale, cioè lo è sia interiormente che nelle sue interazioni, non lo è solo circostanzialmente, perciò le circostanze sono ciò con cui potenzialità e istanze si misurano e con cui le persone possono maturare, anzi tanto più possono aspirare a migliorarsi, quanto più difficili fossero le circostanze che si presentassero.

La sottoscritta, non potendo sapere quale sia l’idea dei presenti sulle comunicazioni nelle sezioni 41 bis, immaginando che non fossero note né le circostanze derivanti dalla propria condizione di “solitudine” e dunque di preclusione assoluta delle comunicazioni con altre detenute, né che – tra le altre cose – all’epoca dei fatti la sottoscritta avesse conosciuto soltanto due delle altre sei detenute presenti nella sezione femminile in quanto già a L’Aquila dal 2010 – 2011, e infine immaginando che possa essere ritenuto – erroneamente – che una situazione del genere, contrastando con un principio di inviolabilità della persona, non possa verificarsi in questo paese, ha preferito dilungarsi a illustrare le condizioni d’esistenza proprie e delle altre detenute, nel regime di prigionia di 41 bis, prima di entrare nel merito di quanto in oggetto.

Perché in questo contesto di inibizione delle comunicazioni sociali nello spazio comune della sezione in cui i suoni fisicamente si tramettono, che la sottoscritta non ha proprio avuto modo di sapere/capire di aver arrecato un concreto disturbo ad altre detenute.

  1. Perché battiture delle sbarre sono sempre state fatte collettivamente, e non, per periodi di mesi e anche di anni e per più volte al giorno ognuna di 10-15 minuti, la qual cosa autorizzava a ritenere che ce ne fosse una pacifica accettazione.
  2. Poiché la sottoscritta mentre faceva la battitura leggeva, come del resto facevano altre detenute in occasione di altre battiture, cioè la battitura era compatibile con altre attività, o, quando non lo fosse stata, ad es. durante la somministrazione di terapie farmacologiche, la sottoscritta, su richiesta, la interrompeva.
  3. Perché la sottoscritta non ha mai sentito nessuna lamentarsi né avrebbe potuto sapere di una lagnanza per comunicazione da qualche detenuta la cui quiete fosse stata disturbata, a causa del divieto di parlarsi di cui sopra, come asserito invece da terzi, interessati perché destinatari della protesta.
  4. Perché quando la sottoscritta ha letto le contestazioni dei rapporti del 25 e del 27 agosto 2015, recitanti: “dopo la perquisizione ordinaria effettuata nella propria camera detentiva, nonostante non le fosse contestato nulla, lei iniziava a battere con una bottiglia di plastica contro il cancello della sua cella, provocando le lamentele esasperate della restante popolazione detenuta. Per quanto sopra, le si contesta l’infrazione prevista dall’art. 77 punti 4 (atteggiamenti e comportamenti molesti nei confronti della comunità), 19 (promozione di disordini o di sommosse), 21 (fatti previsti dalla legge come reato commessi in danno di compagni, di operatori penitenziari, di visitatori)”, la sottoscritta, non avendo udito lamentele esasperate dalla restante popolazione detenuta, non gli ha attribuito rilievo, se non ai fini di ipotizzare una volontà dell’amministrazione di applicarle anche il regime di 14 bis (ipotesi confermata dagli atti depositati in quanto richiesta fatta da un responsabile GOM), per l’inverosimiglianza degli addebiti (punto 19) nella situazione concreta, oltre che per un’illinearità di interpretazione del “fatto battitura” che si ripeteva dal 24 marzo 2015 almeno due volte alla settimana – in occasione cioè delle perquisizioni della sua camera detentiva (a seguito della originaria perquisizione nella quale ne venne asportato materiale cartaceo, corrispondenza e atti giudiziari) e che sono terminate il 30 settembre 2015 a seguito della restituzione di gran parte del materiale, con le stesse identiche forme e durate, e per l’incoerenza tra gli addebiti al punto 19 e 21.

Oltretutto le sanzioni anche del 26 e del 30 settembre, sono per le infrazioni al punto 4 e 21, ma delle quali, dopo due anni, non si ha notizia di denuncia. Né se ne ha di denunce o di decreti emessi da codesto Tribunale penale per un reato di oltraggio a pubblico ufficiale come asserito a pag. 11 del decreto di proroga del regime speciale, notificato alla sottoscritta il 6 settembre 2017, e che si allega agli atti.

Nadia Lioce

Note:

[1] La legge sulla sicurezza del luglio 2009 sostituisce l’articolo 41 bis con un nuovo testo, e nel nuovo viene escluso che il “mero decorso del tempo” costituisca “di per sé” elemento sufficiente per escludere la capacità di mantenere  i collegamenti con l’associazione o dimostrare il venir meno  della operatività della stessa.

[2] La legge sulla sicurezza del luglio 2009, già citata, apporta modifiche all’art. 41 bis co. 2 quater lett. F, aggiungendovi: “saranno inoltre adottate tutte le necessarie misure di sicurezza anche attraverso accorgimenti di natura logistica sui locali di detenzione volte a garantire che sia assicurata la assoluta impossibilità di comunicare tra detenuti appartenenti a diversi gruppi di socialità, scambiare oggetti e cuocere cibi”.

[3] A pag. 17 del decreto di proroga del regime di 41 bis alla sottoscritta del 06/09/2017, all’art. 2: “Il direttore dell’istituto di pena, ove l’anzidetta detenuta è ristretta, adotterà le misure di elevata sicurezza interna ed esterna, anche attraverso accorgimenti di natura logistica sui locali di detenzione necessarie a prevenire contatti con l’organizzazione criminale di appartenenza o di attuale riferimento, contrasti con elementi di sodalizi contrapposti, interazione con altre detenute appartenenti alla medesima associazione ovvero ad altre ad essa alleate, secondo le disposizione dell’amministrazione penitenziaria”.

[4] Sent. 122/2017 C.Cost del 08/02/2017 pag.11 “… non può che essere ribadito il costante orientamento della giurisprudenza di questa Corte, secondo il quale la legittima restrizione della libertà personale, cui è sottoposta la persona detenuta, non annulla affatto la tutela costituzionale dei diritti fondamentali. Chi si trova in stato di detenzione, pur privato della maggior parte della sua libertà, ne conserva sempre un residuo, che è tanto più prezioso in quanto costituisce l’ultimo ambito nel quale può espandersi la sua libertà individuale (sentenze n. 20 del 2017 e n. 349 del 1993), e il cui esercizio, proprio per questo, non può essere rimesso alla discrezionalità dell’autorità amministrativa preposta all’esecuzione della pena detentiva (sentenze n. 26 del 1999 e n. 212 del 1997).

La tutela dei diritti costituzionali del detenuto opera, pur tuttavia, «con le limitazioni che, come è ovvio, lo stato di detenzione necessariamente comporta» (sentenza n. 349 del 1993). La legittima restrizione della libertà personale cui il detenuto è soggetto, e che trova alla sua base un provvedimento giurisdizionale, si riverbera inevitabilmente, in modo più o meno significativo, sulle modalità di esercizio delle altre libertà costituzionalmente alla prima collegate. Ciò avviene anche per la libertà di comunicazione, la quale, nel corrente apprezzamento, rappresenta – al pari della libertà di domicilio (art. 14 Cost.) – una integrazione e una precisazione del fondamentale principio di inviolabilità della persona, sancito dall’art. 13 Cost., in quanto espressione della “socialità” dell’essere umano, ossia della sua naturale aspirazione a collegarsi spiritualmente con i propri simili.

È evidente, così, che lo stato di detenzione incide in senso limitativo sulla facoltà del detenuto di intrattenere colloqui diretti con persone esterne all’ambiente carcerario: colloqui che, quali comunicazioni tra presenti, ricadono certamente nella sfera di protezione dell’art. 15 Cost. Di necessità, i colloqui personali dei detenuti «sono soggetti a contingentamenti e regolazioni da parte dell’ordinamento penitenziario» (artt. 18 ord. pen. e 37 reg. esec.) (sentenza n. 20 del 2017) ed è l’autorità penitenziaria che, in concreto, stabilisce (in particolare, tramite il regolamento interno dell’istituto: art. 36, comma 2, lettera f, reg. esec.) i luoghi, i giorni e gli orari del loro svolgimento, senza che in ciò possa scorgersi alcuna violazione della norma costituzionale evocata”.

[5] La legge sulla sicurezza, già citata in nota 2:

“Nel libro II titolo III capo II del codice penale dopo l’art. 391 è inserito il seguente:

Articolo 391 bis (agevolazione ai detenuti e internati sottoposti a particolari restrizioni delle regole di trattamento e degli istituti previsti dall’ordinamento penitenziario) Chiunque consenta a un detenuto, sottoposto alle restrizioni di cui all’articolo 41 bis della Legge 26 luglio 1975 n. 354, di comunicare con altri in elusione delle prescrizioni all’uopo imposte è punito con la reclusione da uno a quattro anni.

Se il fatto è commesso da un pubblico ufficiale, da un incaricato di pubblico servizio ovvero da un soggetto che esercita la professione forense si applica la pena della reclusione da due a cinque anni”.

[6] Il riferimento è al tentativo – in pochi giorni rinunciato – risalente al giorno successivo alla visita del garante nazionale dei detenuti, che avvenne il 05/05/2017, di vietare lo scambio verbale funzionale tra detenute e “portavitto”, ossia la lavorante nell’esercizio della sua funzione.

*Quelle: http://www.osservatoriorepressione.info/lorrore-del-41-bis/

Wochenüberblick 20.11. bis 26.11.

Free Fabio! – Am Montag wird Fabio voraussichtlich aus der U-Haft entlassen! Nachdem am Freitag das OLG die Beschwerde der Staatsanwaltschaft unter Auflagen zurückgewiesen hat, gehen wir davon aus, das Fabio morgen nach dem Prozess frei gelassen wird. Der Prozess beginnt Montag um 9:30 Uhr, ab 8:30 Uhr  ist wieder eine Kundgebung vor dem Gericht angemeldet. Der Prozess wird dann am 4.12. um 9 Uhr in Altona fortgeführt. Am 2.12. wird es in Feltre eine Demo mit Konzert für Fabio und alle G20-Gefangenen geben.

Auch gegen Konstantin geht der Prozess am Donnerstag, den 30.11. um 9 Uhr am Gericht in Mitte weiter. Wie immer wird der Prozess von einer Kundgebung die um 8:30 Uhr startet, begleitet.

Begleitet solidarisch die Prozesse und schreibt den G20-Gefangenen! Peike (Prozessbericht) und alle anderen, deren Kontaktdaten nicht öffentlich sind, können Post über den Ermittlungsausschuss Hamburg bekommen (Adresse). Schreibt auf Deutsch, Niederländisch, Ungarisch oder auch Englisch.

Am Mittwoch 22.11. ist Evgenij frei gekommen, auch die Statsanwaltschaft sah keinen dringenden Tatverdacht mehr. Der einzge Belastungszeuge, eine Tatbeobachter aus Bayern, schilderte in exremer Lückenhaftigkeit seine Version eines Flaschenwurfs zu einer konkreten Zeit (19:31) an einem konkreten Ort in der Juliusstr. Diese Schilderung passte in keinster Weise zu einem Video des fraglichen Zeitraums an diesem Ort. Dennoch wird am 12.12. um 9 Uhr in Altona weiterverhandelt und die Staatsanwaltschaft will in der Zwischenzeit weiterermitteln – entlang der Annahme der Zeitstempel des Videos könne falsch sein.

Am 23.11. ging ab 14 Uhr das Verfahren gegen Christian trotz eines laufenden Befangenheitsantrag bei Richter Krieten weiter. Insgesamt war die Verhandlung davon geprägt, dass Krieten die Strafprozessordnung missachtete und gegen die Verteidigung wütete. Unjuristischer als jede Fersehgerichtsshow und um so entlarvender für dieses „Rechtssytem“, dass das Strafgericht in Mitte ihn nicht längst unschädlich gemacht hat.

Am Samstag, den 18.11. wurde die Generalstaatsanwaltschaft am Gorch-Fock-Wall von Leuten mit Farbe und Steinen angegriffen. In einer kurzen Erklärung wurde sich mit den von Repression Betroffenen der G20 Revolte solidarisiert.

Der „Wasserwerfer der Herzen“ rollt seit dem 21.11. wieder, nachdem er kurz vor dem G20 Gipfel in einer spektakulären Aktion durch die Innenbehörde vor dem Haus des Innensenators Andy Grote abgeschleppt wurde.

Am 25.11. fand unter dem Motto „Jetzt erst recht! Gegen Überwachung und Kriminalisierung“ eine Demo in Göttingen statt, die den G20-Gefangenen solidarische Grüße sandte. (für Aufruf und mehr Bilder klicken und etwas nach unten scrollen)

In Stuttgart haben vermehrt Menschen Post von den Repressionsbehörden bekommen und werden zu einer freiwilligen DNA-Abnahme aufgefordert! In einer gemeinsamen Erklärung der Betroffen, rufen sie zur gemeinsamen Solidarität und Widerstand gegen diese Maßnahme auf. Sollten auch andere Menschen Post bekommen haben, meldet Euch beim EA oder der Roten Hilfe. Flyer – Erklärung DNA

Polizeigewalt hat es ja nach der Deutung von Bürgermeister Olaf Scholz angeblich nie gegeben. Im Video-Interview mit Spiegel-Online ist Sonntag erneut ein dokumenierter Fall von Polizeigewalt öffentlich geworden der symptomatisch für den G20 Gipfel ist! Gleichzeitig stellte Spiegel-Online ein Interview ins Netz, in dem Joachim Lenders (CDU, Polizeigewerkschaft) einmal mehr Raum gegeben wird um gegen Linke zu hetzen und noch mehr Cops zu fordern.

*Quelle: https://unitedwestand.blackblogs.org/wochenueberblick-20-11-bis-26-11/

Wegen Teilnahme an G-20-Protesten: Der 18jährige Italiener Fabio V. darf das Gefängnis nicht verlassen

Von Kristian Stemmler junge Welt 20.11.17

Seine Mutter stand am Freitag schon vor dem Jugendgefängnis auf der
Elbinsel Hahnöfersand, um ihren Sohn abzuholen. Doch Jamila B. musste
wieder umkehren. Obwohl das Amtsgericht Hamburg-Altona den Haftbefehl
gegen den italienischen G-20-Gegner Fabio V. am Donnerstag aufgehoben
hat, bleibt er in Untersuchungshaft – weil die Staatsanwaltschaft keinen
Millimeter nachgibt. Der Justizskandal um den jungen Italiener, der
während des G-20-Gipfels bei einem Polizeieinsatz im Industriegebiet
Rondenbarg am 7. Juli festgenommen worden war und seitdem in Haft sitzt,
weitet sich damit aus.

Die Amtsrichterin hatte den Haftbefehl gegen Zahlung einer Kaution von
10.000 Euro aufgehoben, da nur noch mit einer Verurteilung zu einer
Jugendstrafe auf Bewährung zu rechnen sei. Vier Polizisten hatten den
Angeklagten zuvor im Prozess nicht wiedererkannt. Doch das focht die
Staatsanwaltschaft nicht an. Sie legte beim Landgericht Beschwerde gegen
den Beschluss ein. Als die am Freitag abgewiesen wurde, zog die
Staatsanwaltschaft vors Hanseatische Oberlandesgericht (OLG). Bis das
entscheidet, bleibt Fabio in Haft.

Das sorgte für wütende Reaktionen. Am Samstag abend bewarfen 15 bis 20
Vermummte, wie der NDR am Sonntag berichtet, das Gebäude der
Generalstaatsanwaltschaft in der Innenstadt mit Steinen, Farbbeuteln und
mit Farbe gefüllten Flaschen, zündeten auf der Straße vor dem Gebäude
Autoreifen an. Diverse Scheiben gingen zu Bruch, die Feuerwehr löschte
die Reifen. Die Polizei fahndete mit einem Großaufgebot, ohne Erfolg.

 

Auch in »sozialen Netzwerken« wie dem Kurznachrichtendienst Twitter, bei
dem seit Wochen unter dem Hashtag #FreeFabio die Freilassung des
Italieners gefordert wird, war die Empörung groß. In den Fokus wurde am
Wochenende Berit von Laffert gerückt, die Staatsanwältin, die im Fall
Fabio die Anklage vertritt. […]

Bereits am Mittwoch hatte das Team der ZDF-Satiresendung »Heute-Show«
den Fall aufgegriffen, als Quizfrage aufgemacht: »Dieser 18jährige sitzt
seit vier Monaten in Haft. Die Anklage beruht allein auf seiner
Teilnahme an einer Demo – er selbst soll keine Gewalt ausgeübt haben. In
welcher Stadt ist Fabio V. angeklagt? A) Ankara B) Hamburg«.

Tatsächlich zweifeln immer mehr Fachleute an der Rechtsstaatlichkeit im
Fall Fabio V.: Amnesty International Italien appellierte bereits Anfang
Oktober an die deutschen Behörden, den Gipfelgegner freizulassen. Der
Prozess wird mittlerweile nicht nur vom italienischen Konsulat in
Hamburg, sondern auch vom Grundrechtekomitee und der »European
Association of Lawyers for Democracy & World Human Rights« (ELDH,
Europäische Vereinigung von Juristen für Demokratie und Menschenrechte)
beobachtet.

In einer Pressemitteilung vom Mittwoch erklärte das Grundrechtekomitee,
gegen Fabio V. lägen keine Beweise vor, die U-Haft sei »zu keinem
Zeitpunkt« gerechtfertigt gewesen. Die Justiz setze den Kurs fort,
G-20-Gegner zu »diffamieren«, Fabios Verfahren sei nur »eines der
klarsten und schockierendsten Beispiel«. Die Entscheidung über den
Haftbefehl liegt nun beim OLG, also dem Gericht, das diesen im Juli mit
der Begründung bestätigt hatte, wegen seiner »schädlichen Neigungen« sei
eine Verurteilung Fabios zu einer Haftstrafe ohne Bewährung zu erwarten.

 

Greece: Pola Roupa and Nikos Maziotis, imprisoned members of Revolutionary Struggle on hunger strike

November 11, 2017

THE ROTTEN SYSTEM AND THE ABSENCE OF RESISTANCE ARE THE REASONS FOR THE ROTTING OF SOCIETY

Almost 10 years after the outbreak of the crisis with the collapse of the financial system, bank bankruptcy, and seven years after the commencement of the era of the memorandum and the monitoring of the country by the troika (IMF, EC, ECB), the social base in this country has suffered the strongest blow since the Second World War.

Greek puppet governments have definitively delegated substantial economic and political governance to EU supranational organizations and indirectly to the capital markets and are imposing new measures of social euthanasia for large sections of the population in this country, they are now insignificant for their added value to capitalist wealth. That’s why it does not matter if they disappear. This condition of condemnation is also a prerequisite for the survival of the system itself, for the preservation of the political regime, for the perpetuation of capitalism.

The government’s propaganda to overcome the crisis and return the Greek economy to a recovery path is a common European lie to showcase the supposed success of the programs and memoranda, to allow the EU to be removed from the obligation to continue to financially support the Greek regime and to let the capital markets take the lead from the EU in the recycling of Greek debt and speculation through it. A debt that regime agents already admit that if not drastically reduced in the immediate future will force the Greek state to declare bankruptcy. Not least that the exit to the markets of the Greek state will further exacerbate the already exaggerated Greek debt, which now exceeds 180% of GDP.

The message, however, that the world’s powerful have taken from these years with the rescue policies of the system by the central banks and governments that have put the whole weight of the crisis that the rich created on the backs of the peoples: whatever they do they have their pack animals, the social base, to bear the crisis and produce profits. And the usual practice of enrichment through the swelling of global debt and its financialization continues until the next collapse. But the people have already suffered a huge blow. The social base in the country counts millions of poor, marginalized and desperate. It counts thousands of deaths from hunger, illness and suicide.

The SYRIZA-ANEL government’s minister, Kontonis, argued that it is a government success that people do not eat from the rubbish. People still do eat from the trash, but they no longer show them on television. This is why it is a universal political priority to support the “success story” of the memorandum by all parties and the media.

The theft of any surplus wealth left to the social base continues with unabated tension by the government with wage and pensions cuts, the abolition of public insurance, the taxation of the most economically weak, all while poverty is rising, on the orders of the EU the banks will throw thousands of borrowers onto the streets, and there is no chance to persuade the government to get out of the crisis.

The only success of the government is social passivity and the defeat of struggles. Because the basic precondition for imposing these criminal policies in the country that threw thousands of people to the margins, which killed thousands, was and is political normality and the absence of a strong social reaction. Because the smaller the resistance of society, the more ruthless the system becomes.

The social reactions to the memorandums somehow came to a standstill as the regime was determined to impose the memorandums at all political expense. But the reason these memoranda were imposed was the absence of an expanded and powerful revolutionary movement that could be an obstacle to the social euthanasia policies. Upon the defeat of the resistance SYRIZA stepped in to climb to power. The SYRIZA-ANEL government has also been the last sparks of reaction to the system and policies to overcome the crisis.

Today, the social base is rotten, while the economic and political lords of the country have secured their wealth in tax havens and in foreign banks. The Paradise Papers come to recall what everyone knows: That the economically powerful and their political aides are not touched by any crisis and it does not concern them that any measures are imposed. In a “legal and moral” (sic) way they will continue to enrich themselves while millions of people die of hunger and poverty.

Nowadays, the social base is rotten because this rotten system is killing to survive, because it kills social solidarity and cohesion and pushes it into crime. The war of all against all is the beginning of capitalism and the economic freedom of the rich to do whatever they want with the support of governments. It is the beginning of the absolute competition that has dominated the planet.

Their own creations – the crimes among the social bases – are nowadays the politicians’ number one issue. “Order and security” is the common slogan of the political elites to deal drastically with these phenomena which the regime itself gave birth to. One of the most popular aspects of propaganda is crime among the social bases today. It is the phenomenon that the regime itself generates and nourishes.

And, on the other hand, the great criminals, the real terrorists and the bandits that make up the economic and political power, remain immune.

Society rots and turns into cannibalism as there is no political way out of the social conditions that the regime itself shapes: Because it creates poverty and want, marginalization and despair. This drowns the youth with drugs, it dissolves social solidarity. This creates the conditions for a cannibal society. This is the crime.

Prisons are full and more and more will pass through their doors as the political and economic conditions for increasing all forms of delinquency exist and will continue to exist.

And prisons are now being targeted by the left-wing totalitarianism promoted by the government with the new punitive code, which aspires to turn prisons into crematoria for thousands of prisoners.

REVOLUTIONARY STRUGGLE IS THE TARGET

At the top of the government’s priorities, and other regime parties, is always the political representation of Revolutionary Struggle and our political view. And the attitude that the regime has always reserved for us was analogous to its view of the political threat represented by Revolutionary Struggle but also by us personally. And they never hid it.

Because Revolutionary Struggle was a political threat to the policy of the Memoranda, an important factor of resistance, an organization that promoted the overthrow of the system and the revolution, the change of society in order to tackle the crisis at its root.

Because Revolutionary Struggle and we personally struggle for social solidarity which can triumph with the overthrow of the criminal regime that promotes social decay and social death. And the triumph of social solidarity presupposes the creation of a society of economic equality and political freedom for all.

And because they condemn us as enemies of democracy, those whose political system disdains and mocks with its very existence real democracy, there’s is a system of oligarchs in favour of the rich and the powerful, they break their own Constitution when the power of bankers and the wealthy is at risk (anti-constitutional imposition of memoranda), we point out that real democracy is direct democracy, this political organization of society today presupposes the economic organization of society based on the principle of economic equality.

The current system of parliamentary representation, especially in our time, with a discredited parliament that, according to a Eurobarometer survey, is only trusted by 13% of the people in the country, the current political system that is now commonly understood to be a puppet of the world’s powerful, this is the enemy of real democracy.

Real democracy, political freedom and economic equality are inseparable values. And an indisputable value is social solidarity. All these values that kill the existing economic and political system. And these are the values for which Revolutionary Struggle fights and for those values we are in prison.

Even before our arrests the repressive mechanisms they formed the frame through the media with ourselves as the central faces and Revolutionary Struggle as an umbrella organization for every armed activity in the country. They had set a bounty of €1 million each for us.

The arrest of Nikos Maziotis in July 2014 was presented by the then Minister of Public Order as an important element for the unimpeded implementation of the memoranda and the salvation of the system. With Nikos Maziotis they “inaugurated” the Type C prison[1] of New Democracy in Domokos as he was the first political prisoner to be transferred there.

A special moment in our special treatment was the arrest of Pola Roupa. The way the state and government treated our six-year-old child will remain in history as the most violent repressive blow.

The imposition of a unique exemption regime for Maziotis, who has been in isolation since last July, is another move in our special treatment.

The new Penitentiary Code introduces a special photographic arrangement for Pola Roupa to be put in isolation and to establish the isolation regime of Nikos Maziotis (article 11 par.6 point e). Whilst a special provision is introduced for the detention of those who are tried and are in a special regime of isolation, they are detained in police stations, which, for us and the long trials we have, is a move aimed at failing to conduct the civil trial and effectively cancelling it.

We know that we represent a political threat to the regime even though we are in prison. We know that we are still at the top of the agenda of the government’s political goals to address a political adversary of the system. This was expressly stated by Tsipras in the parliament, mentioning twice the name of Pola Roupa to the successes of his government’s repressive policy, paying special attention to this arrest. And they all heard that it was the only name in terms of arrests mentioned in the parliament.

They explicitly state this with the extensive reports they are always doing mentioning the name of Pola Roupa and our political history with the media presenting us as the central face in every armed activity.

And it is clear that while the repressive mechanisms have already reduced Revolutionary Struggle to an “umbrella” for a series of robberies that have taken place across Greece, they continue to place at the center of domestic armed action – of every kind and form – Revolutionary Struggle and us personally.

This is a strategically important policy for the state, the government and the media that stems from the prioritization of our case, Revolutionary Struggle and our political choices. Because while we are in jail, their war against us does not stop and in every way the government shows its political will against us that has long been personal.

We have repeatedly stated and everyone knows that what we do, we do. The political actions and actions of Revolutionary Struggle, of the organization to which we are members, we always defend them politically at all costs. However, actions that are not related to and are not related to Revolutionary Struggle – which the repressive mechanisms know – we are not willing to be credited with. Everyone assumes their responsibilities in the political field.

However, we know that the choice of the state to place us at the heart of any armed activity is of strategic importance. And this policy is converging with the state’s primary target of putting us in a special treatment regime within prisons. It comes and converges with the new exception regime that prepares and restores Type C prisons, with a special priority to be given to us personally this time with the photographic arrangement of Art. 11 para.6 of the new Penal Code.

THE NEW PENITENTIARY CODE AND THE THREAT OF THE PRISON REGIME

According to Article 11, paragraph 6 of the new Penitentiary Code, “those convicted of organizing escapes and other offences committed within detention facilities and under the applicable criminal and terrorist law will be detained in specific designated areas”.

It is known that in the past there have been cases of escaping detainees or attempted escapes. Never before has any government been asked to legislate specifically on organizing escapes to isolate detainees for such cases. The last escape took place in 2013 under ND (New Democracy political party).

In the recent historic juncture, the only such escape that has not been tried is the attempted escape of political prisoners that Pola Roupa attempted in February 2016, for which both Nikos Maziotis and other political prisoners are accused.

We do not know whether this provision is applied retrospectively and includes other cases of escape, but it certainly concerns this case. This is a pure device.

To the extent that there are other prisoners convicted of organizing escapes from prisons, they will obviously have the same treatment, as we know that the extension of an exceptional measure already enforced by law will include other categories of prisoners, that is a given.

Every move towards more and more totalitarian conditions in society, and in this case in prisons, is usually passed over the declared political enemies of the system that are prisoners of the state and then they are to be extended to wider social and political categories of people. With regard to escapes from prisons, up to now – and after legal and political interference in the matter – it has been enshrined as a prisoner’s right because of the recognition of human nature which tends towards freedom, with the result that the escape has constituted until recently a misdemeanour.

Obviously in a regime such as the modern one, which is steadily and without a political rival heading towards an absolute totalitarianism, the state wants to show that this tendency to freedom is a detestable tendency. That’s why their exemplary punishment by putting them in a regime of permanent isolation is now routed through the new penitentiary code by a left-wing government.

The special conditions of detention, even in absolute isolation, are laid down in the same article and for a large category of prisoners who “manifest violent behaviour towards the prison staff”. In addition to the imposition of a disciplinary sanction on the so-called “harsh” prisoners that is to be imposed by the council, Article 11 (6) (a) introduces the possibility of placing these detainees in a special quarantine regime for long periods of time. And because the issue may even concern the incitement of mobilization in prisons, this article is expected for “security reasons”, prisoners who are actively involved in prison life are to be placed in isolation.

Article 11 lists discrimination and segregation of detainees. In addition to the existing categorizations in paragraph 4, an extraordinary regime for the detention of a special category of detainees is taken “in case of transfer for procedural reasons if there is no such facility or department, the detainee resides in a specially designed area of a local police station”.

“If reasons connected with the security of the country or public order or order and security in the detention facilities make it necessary to take additional security measures for the guarding of a detainee for procedural reasons and to avoid communicating with detainees of other categories, guarding and staying in the detention facility may be done at the suggestion of the competent police authority or the Directorate-General for Criminal Offences of the Ministry of Justice in some other police facility”. “Grounds related to the country’s security or public order” are clearly relevant to members of armed organizations since they are invoked for reasons which exist only in 187A and in any other article of the Penal Code. Accordingly, this provision reserves the option to keep someone in isolation in GADA (Police Headquarters) and detention there by decision of the minister if it is someone who is in prison under 187A[2], IE they are a member of an armed revolutionary organization, throughout their trial.

Detention in the police stations (and while there are prisons in the trial area), the same article is also provided for security reasons for detention facilities. Consequently, for those detained in the detention category under special circumstances, their right to an effective trial is being circumvented.

Given the conditions of detention in these circumstances and given that our trials are many months long with the restoration of this provision initially introduced by ND with the Type C prison bill, the state not only violates any right to trial, but renders void its conduct. And in this case it is clear. Kontonis, the Minister of Justice, with Article 11, quite openly declares the “extraordinary” treatment that we have, a unique exception scheme with more personal targeting.

Since he has stated in many ways the central policy of the government and himself to introduce segregation and within the class of political prisoners, IE those in prison on 187A, it is clear that the exceptional treatment is aimed at creating the most stifling conditions of imprisonment, without communication with other detainees.

Article 11 and the subheadings introduced in paragraph 6 in conjunction with the specific reference made in Article 11 itself and in paragraph 4 to “security issues of the country and of public order” which concern exclusively political prisoners and the conditions for conducting their trials, which are mainly political trials, it is clear that the ministry has launched the exceptional treatment and personal targeting against those who have a political attitude and reason, who defend their choices and express them throughout the prison and courts. Our trials are targeted and their abolition is being launched, all of which, together with Article 51 on prisoners’ communications and their drastic limitation (see below), aims at the political silencing of political prisoners.

We know that even our political voice is dangerous to the regime junta. The open attack on us is at the bottom of their policies, and comes from this political fear. Because it is assumed that trials such as those we face are impossible to conduct smoothly under the conditions introduced by the new prisons, the safe conclusion is that ultimately the government’s goal is primarily political. It is the abolition of the civil trial.

Equal rights and respect for human dignity under the Constitution are explicitly circumvented in the New Penitentiary Code, both with the special provisions and the exception regime that will be imposed in specific cases as we have mentioned, and through other provisions such as Article 2 Paragraph 4 mentions “exceptional cases where measures may entail restrictions on the normal living conditions of prisoners determined on a case by case basis by a public prosecutor’s decision”.

Also, Article 15 (3) provides for the decision of the Minister of Justice to “include detainees in new categories for reasons of special treatment”. Therefore, the introduction of new discrimination among prisoners is subject to the discretion of the prosecutor and the minister.

Article 51 introduces the restriction of the prisoner’s telephone communications. Based on this article, telephone numbers communicated with by prisoners will be imported into software and the prisoners will be given a password to communicate with them and only the phones they have given themselves to the service will be allowed. It is clear that this measure is not introduced to monitor and control the prisoner’s telephone communications as this is in any case valid. What is introduced is the strict control of communications on those persons who visit the detainees, IE relatives, and will clearly require special approval from the prison service for the other prisoners’ communications. If for example the individual prosecutor does not approve any communication, no password will be given.

The universal restraint of all first-time prisoners’ telephone communications is a new type of totalitarian measure against the freedom of people in communications that is also enshrined in the Constitution.

Although it is not explicitly stated in this article, the restriction of prisoners’ communications is the one that provided for by this article.

Article 13 “on special arrangements for detained mothers and detained parents” and in paragraph 3, first incorporates Article 1532 of the Civil Code on “Parental Responsibility” for imprisoned parents. It restricts the possibility for children up to 3 years of age to live with their detained mother (the possibility of living with the detained father is introduced, but such a possibility is impossible under the existing conditions) only if judged necessary by a juvenile court. Therefore it dismisses the fact that if a prisoner, a mother can keep her child if she wishes within the prison. This will now be judged by the courts. There is also a distinction in those prisoners serving sentences of more than 10 years where the child’s care – whether it will go to a relative or an institution – will also be judged by a juvenile court. Consequently, the child will remain with the mother as a need only if there is no other suitable person and at the discretion of the judge.

And when the child reaches the third year it will go to an institution if each juvenile court deems inappropriate the family environment of the parents. While the government says it legislates release for women with young children and with sentences not exceeding 10 years, the new penal code cancels this feature as in Article 13 paragraph 3 provides that this measure be applied ”Where the provision for an individual living space solely for the detained parent and his/her child is not possible (…) It (the competent body) can order the house arrest of the mother or father (…)”. Under house arrest it is a given that no parent can perform a parent’s duty, as the child cannot remain continuously closed in at home. It is therefore ridiculous to propose and apply such a law.

But what if the sentence exceeds 10 years? In Article 13, paragraph 3 it says that if there is no suitable place to stay for children up to 3 years old with its mother in prison and while the sentence is more than 10 years the juvenile court will decide if the child is taken by a family member or an institution. And in cases where there is no family member or they are not considered appropriate by the court, rather than improving conditions of detention they prefer to put children in institutions.

Instead of institutionalizing children, they could arrange another space for the mother to stay with her younger child up to the age of 6 – an absolute necessity for the mother – instead they provide for day visits by imprisoned parents once a month, instead legislate for overnight stays for underage children with their mothers, for example. With one visit in a two-month period, a measure that would be essential to support children themselves, they legislate against children and are vindictive and sexist to women – they abuse the law and are denying the right to maternity.

It goes without saying that no possibility of release is given to detainees whose sentences exceed 10 years, and the absence of a suitable environment for children makes definite the decision to go to the institutions.

It is obvious that the regime that existed beforehand on parents and detained minors is overturned. To date, children and their detained parents have not been involved in court proceedings to judge the environment of the child, except in exceptional cases of violence against children, or the complete inability of the environment to keep them or in the absence of relatives.

There is now a measure that has so far been applied in very special cases, for the courts and child psychiatrists to control and decide on the children’s environment, while the detained parent enters into an unfavourable and racist attitude for their ability to judge the interests of their child, such interests under Article 13 (3) will now be judged by the court.

This arrangement was announced by Justice Minister Kontonis in an interview he had given on 7/1/17 on the state TV channel, when interviewed about the treatment of our child by the state and the government with the arrest of Pola Roupa on 5 /1.

It is well known that the “exceptional” treatment of our child, who was held in GADA and specifically in the anti-terrorism department for hours under extreme secrecy, was interrogated and with a prosecution order kept guarded in a closed psychiatric clinic, is historically unique. Our child was treated as a criminal offender as a potential terrorist because it was our own child. Then, at first, it was initially attempted to remove our parental care altogether and definitively, to take away any parental relationship with our child and to break it forever, giving parental care temporarily to the social service of the hospital that kept it with the option of shutting it in an institution.

The kidnapping of the child in the psychiatric hospital ended after the hunger and thirst strike, but also the political and social outcry that it stirred up, but the State claimed through the Prosecutor’s Office of Kalamata to remove custody of our child and impose restrictive conditions on him under the supervision of the social service and child psychologists. This condition of permanent hostage that they want to impose on our child, as well as the removal of custody from us, relates to the fact that we are who we are.

In the trial that will be held on 15/11 from which we are excluded by refusing to take us to Kalamata to attend the trial, the Prosecutor’s Office of Kalamata asks us to permanently remove our custody and impose conditions on our child until he reaches the age of maturity, the imposition of permanent control by the social services and the child-psychologists. For reasons of political revenge they want to remove our custody, for reasons of revenge and on our own child, they want to impose restrictive conditions, to keep him as a hostage.

Article 13 does not provide custody to imprisoned parents, but the courts will decide which is the most appropriate environment for their care. What they have sought for our own child is clearly different and is dictated by our political choices and positions.

Article 13 introduces a new totalitarianism. The ability of the state to judge universally and to question the suitability of the parent or relatives on the basis of its own criteria. It is well known that the institutions that have the honour in the new prison code are claiming child prisoners. Obviously the financial interests behind the institutions, the most famous of which are under the auspices of well-known economically powerful individuals in Greece, are very large and the expectations for the expansion of institutions-businesses in the country are significant. It is not possible for the government to deceive people that it is legislating on the basis of the “interest of the child”, everybody understands this – since it is known that the institutions are an investment for the powerful and for specific economic interests – the interests of some powerful families in the country. It is also well known, for the most part, that many institutions are genuinely hell holes for children, who are systematically abused and sometimes “killed in the wells”.

However, in the name of the interests of ‘security’ and, in particular, of the state totalitarianism being promoted, institutions are now legally recognized as a ‘popular’ destination for the children of prisoners, and always, in ‘the child’s interest’.

Other provisions of the new Penitentiary Code are also contributing to the setting of prison conditions.

The lawful detestable vaginal check-ups for women and the incarceration of the prisoner during a physical investigation with Article 21 paragraph 7.

Article 63 (1) first regulates the use of force against detainees by prison staff in any cases such as “active or passive physical resistance to a lawful order” or “lawful defence cases”. In short, every employee can legally practice violence against any prisoner even if they show a passive refusal to execute a staff order! As for the equipment of prison staff for the means of violence, it will be provided by the prison rule under Article 63 (4). It is clear that while the use of force will be provided for by the prison services themselves and at the will of the individual guards, the use of force by police forces and the special guards is legislated in the same article, and in cases of group disobedience, such as the mobilizations of prisoners when they refuse to enter their cells it will be handed out, (article 63, para. 2). Legislation on the abolition of protests and mobilizations of detainees introduced by this correctional code is one of the most totalitarian features of the history of prisons in the country. Along with the legalization of the use of force as provided, the conversion of all prisons into disciplinary cultures is rooted in the most explicit way, while the right to protest is criminalized.

On the basis of Article 63 and in conjunction with Article 11 (6) (a), detainees will be placed under special detention if they participate in mobilizations or, most importantly, if they are potent, since in any event they will be suppressed with violence.

The right of prisoners’ leave is to be abused for many categories of detainees, and sentences for acts of violence exceeding 15 years ( Article 53 (2 ) (d ) will be excluded from this right. In these cases involving hundreds of prisoners, leave will not be given and the prisoners will be in danger of being in a closed prison even until the end of their sentence.

And while Justice Minister Kontonis defends “equal treatment of prisoners in the face of the law” he legislates for discrimination based on the offence, refusing leave and release for certain categories of prisoners, such as those incarcerated for 15 year sentences and above for acts of violence, including those falling under 187A. And it is not about the specific measure for example drug dealers. We mention this example because he has publicly stated that he has intervened in a court decision to refuse to interrupt a prisoner’s sentence because he considered it unfair to decide the interruption of a sentence for a drug dealer rather than for a specific prisoner. He is extremely selective not only in his interventions but also in the way he is legislating now. And he is the first minister to legislate for discrimination on the basis of the offence, but also on the basis of specific persons.

Let us remind ourselves that he is the same minister who publicly defended the special treatment of our child, for which a number of laws were violated, he finally defended the treatment of our child, a six-year-old child, and defended his treatment as a “criminal offender” and his confinement to the psychiatric hospital.

In any case, the new penitentiary code wants to promote the end of prison protests, to introduce violence, punishment and revenge on detainees without room for protest, especially through articles that provide for special quarantine conditions.

A new regime of extermination of a special category of prisoners is introduced in the article. 11 (6) (e) and (4) of that Article. As far as political prisoners are concerned, the continued pressure to legislate on denial of leave and release without a statement of repentance reduces political prisoners to a special category for political reasons, since the extraordinary treatment concerns the motivation that is political rather than personal.

And such pressure as these measures to exclude political prisoners in prison are those which power wants to pass is in the direction of destroying all political resistance against the regime. The status of the oligarchy of the rich and their political co-soldiers who are responsible for the death, extermination and misery of millions of people in the country and for these crimes, for the terrorism they are practising, no one will pay.

On the contrary, those who struggle against their criminal, murderous regime must be exterminated.

The invocation of cases where prisoners violate the law when they left prison under the Paraskevopoulos law[3] is devoid of substance, since the type and intensity of social crime is not defined by the time of imprisonment, but by the wider social and economic conditions.

While the increasingly harsh conditions of detention will guarantee the return of detainees to delinquency, and even in more fierce forms of detention, since the tendency for revenge will coexist.

To the extent that poverty and regime violence at the expense of the social majority is increasing by dismantling social cohesion, killing social solidarity and turning the social base into a jungle, it is assumed that social crime will not only grow but will become more and more violent. The status of the “war of all against all” is imposed by the economic and political system itself. Since the elimination of crime presupposes the treatment of the causes that give birth to it and because the cause of the crime is the very system of capitalism, the state and the junta of the markets, the only way to effectively tackle crime at the basis of society is another type of social organization based on economic equality and political freedom.

Through Article 11 (4) and (6), it is clear that it is determined that we will be placed in a regime of permanent isolation from other prisoners while aiming at removing the possibility of trial. Nikos Maziotis is already in isolation status for the last 4 months for reasons we have outlined in texts published last July and September. Obviously, the imposition of a total isolation regime for Maziotis has “whetted the appetite” of the ministry to establish this treaty by law and to impose it on Pola, as she has taken responsibility the attempt to break out political prisoners from Korydallos.

The left-wing government, specializing in introducing and promoting divisions within resistance spaces and within political prisoners themselves, is certain that these measures will not apply to all those detained for involvement in armed activities. There will be clear discrimination among those who the government and the state always judge for their behaviour, especially their politics. As far as we are concerned, it is clear that we are the top priorities of the government’s war. And we will be the ones the government wants to pass these new measures upon.

But they will not just stay with us. It is certain that any exceptional measure applied to the political opponents of the regime will be broadened in their application to other categories of people.

Flagging the phrase “for the country’s security and public order”, the Syriza-ANEL government introduces new regimes of exclusion and isolation, as well as the most restrictive terms of detention for anyone recognized as a political threat.

The regime of modern parliamentary and economically powerful oligarchs does not recognize the existence of political opponents, it characterizes them as “terrorists” and condemns them with 187A to severe punishments. Once again, provisions are introduced for their slow destruction through the return of isolation and special conditions of detention. At the same time, both the media and the regime politicians howl about the treatment of the Junta and demanded that this regime be extended to a life long treatment, so as not to let the political opponents of the regime out of prison. It is obscene to draw a parallel with the Junta who imposed fascism on the whole country, who killed, tortured thousands of people, and sent tanks to the Polytechnic in 1973, and killed the insurgents in revolt in any other case.

As we have already said, Revolutionary Struggle has for years been an important priority in the repressive state policy. We know that we are also an important political target for the regime, given the choice of struggle we have made. However, the totalitarianism introduced by the new prison code and the incessant measures of control and pressure on prisoners promotes a new type of universal censure and social racism in prisons in order to make the pursuit of detainees more effective and on terms that will even go as far as their crushing if the state deems it necessary for its security.

In a pro-government newspaper we read in regard to the new prison code, titled “Prisons not sweat shops”, that the supposed pillar of the new code is the principle that “the only restriction imposed on the prisoners is on their movement.” No matter how the government’s parrots tried to beautify the new law they can not reverse the truth: It is a legal monstrosity that introduces the “modernization” of prisons to the country turning them into crematoriums for many detainees according to the specifications laid down by the new totalitarian regime imposed on the whole of society.

It is in “absolute harmony” with the modern junta of markets, supranational capital and government-puppets in Greece. It is in “absolute harmony” with the supervision and social subordination to the supranational power centres. With policies of social genocide for the social base, subordination and total control for all, to ensure the smooth reproduction of the criminal economic and political system. No social resistance, no political threat. And it is clear that while the regime imposes these conditions on society, and while politically threatening adversaries do not exist, the totalitarianism that will pass as a juggernaut through society will not leave the prisoners out of their sight.

The new penitentiary code and the threat of the detention conditions it imposes are a cause of struggle for all prisoners, and it does enough to “raise” the request to withdraw all the articles mentioned in the text, which for us are weapons of revenge and punishment against thousands of prisoners.

But we have already said they will not let the new Type C prisons and prisoners’ extermination schemes pass over us.

So we commence a HUNGER STRIKE today Saturday, November 11th with the following demands:

To withdraw the provision in Article 11 para, 6 pt. E and para. 4 in the same article regarding the detention in police stations. Do not bring back the Type C prison regime. Immediately release Nikos Maziotis from the isolation in which he is held by a decision of the ministry since last July.

Introduce adjustment to the correctional code for the easing of visitor hours based on the frequency of visits a prisoner has. For example, a prisoner who has one hour per month visit or cannot at all extend the time of the meeting.

There should be a special meeting room for parents to meet with their children (there is no such place in the Korydallos men’s prison) and when the frequency of meetings is rare, the meeting time should increase accordingly.

In our case the visits with our child, take place once a month due to distance and the time of one hour that is imposed is a mockery for the child. Also other visitors than that, we do not get at all. Everyone in prison knows this condition and the frequency of visits is written in the prison books.

The prosecutor of the prison refused to extend the time to meet with our child while they are aware of everything and insist on one hour per month, a decision directly against the child itself as it completely discredits our meeting. Potentially with 1 hour it is desired to completely cancel the meetings with our child.

In order to achieve even the bare minimum to meet the needs of our child to communicate with us due to the inability to visit us often we request:

· Visiting with our child to last at least three hours.
· Visiting between us two hours.
· Similar arrangements are provided for similar cases and should be extended to the minimum time for parents’ meetings with their children.

During the hunger strike we must be given a telephone conversation with our child and our lawyers.

We state from the outset that we will not receive serum when hospitalized, we will only receive water throughout the strike and do not think of force feeding us.

Pola Roupa – Nikos Maziotis,

Members of Revolutionary Struggle

[1] Type C prisons: maximum security prisons introduced in 2014 under the Samaras government which placed prisoners, mainly political prisoners, in special isolation units. Elements of these prisons were removed in 2015.

[2] 187A is the article of the Greek criminal code on the formation of criminal organizations, it is the main charge brought against members and suspected members of guerrilla groups.

[3] Paraskevopoulos law was brought in during the prisoners’ hunger strike in 2015 and grants early release for some prisoners in the hope of easing prison overcrowding.

https://325.nostate.net/2017/11/13/pola-roupa-and-nikos-maziotis-imprisoned-members-of-revolutionary-struggle-on-hunger-strike-greece/

Greetings to and Solidarity with the Militant Revolutionary Prisoners

The biannual conference of the RHI took place from 11. to 12. November 2017.

We currently face adverse conditions as the system implements war, repression and a reactionary mobilization of the masses. This hardship coerces us to reconnect and recompose class forces so that they can be comprehensible in immediate struggles and demonstrate a perspective. Concerning this, the RHI sees itself confirmed in its work and role. Even more than this, the RHI is currently experiencing a phase of development and progress.

More and more frequently, the sections of the RHI find themselves in the midst of junctions of class confrontations when conducting their campaigns. The campaign for the liberation of Georges Abdallah experienced a leap of quality in this year with the participation of the Palestinian organization Samidoun. This allowed mobilizations from Palestine to New York during the international week of actions between the 14. and 21. October. Many cities in Europe and the Middle East participated. Georges and his actions in Palestine, Libanon and Europe are illustrative for the confrontation with imperialism. A confrontation that reaches into the banlieues of the megacities.

This phenomenon is reproduced in the revolutionary process surrounding the resistance of the progressive Turkish and Kurdish forces. A process of freedom and socialist nature. It is also the only alliance that stands against the hell which the imperialist forces and the local reactionary regimes have unleashed. The experience of the International Freedom Bataillons is a wonderful expression and representative of this. They stand in a historical line with the international brigades of the Spanish Republic. The RHI supports them and has a constructive and dialectic relationship with them. The RHI does not conceal the contradictions or the limitations which are founded in the balance of power (pressure by all imperialists and the reactionary regimes of the region), but aims to support the development of the revolutionary forces. The campaign for hemostatic ‘Celox’ developed this way. It is a very successful campaign with a lot of potential in the development of solidarity with a progressing revolution. It is under these circumstances that the relationship with a Turkish organization that has long been part of the RHI has become even stronger.

Near this bubbling cauldron, the Greek revolutionary movement is another point of reference. During the tumultuous crisis that unfolded across the country it could participate in the wavelike mass struggles and contribute radical elements for a revolutionary perspective. The movement could not yet make a qualitative leap as a union to equip the determination for confrontation with programmatic and adequate strategic elements. The field remains fruitful and the imprisoned comrades are exemplary for this. The RHI has a very good and dialectic political relationship of solidarity with them. Just now, as we write these lines, Nikos Maziotis and Pola Roupa (militants of ‘Revolutionary Struggle’) have begun a hunger strike to highlight the conditions of their imprisonment and discuss them in a political document.

A campaign has begun in Italy in support of militants of the BR-PCC who are imprisoned under the conditions of article 41bis. A lot has been done by antagonistic groups against these conditions of imprisonment because they are a heavy form of torture and aim to destroy the prisoners. The RHI will focus on the application of this article against advanced revolutionary forces and organizations of struggle. It is a necessity to support these prisoners and transport their value back to reality to create a connection with the forms of repression against mass struggles which are employed systematically today. The RHI can intervene to the benefit of a class front which stands against repression and for the development of the movement.

The days in Hamburg were a huge moment of development and experience. With all of the confrontation on the streets, on the squares and later in the prisons against a broad repression by the German state, the leader of all European counterrevolutionary and imperialist politics. Here too a field for contacts and closeness opens between imprisoned militants from different levels of organization. A diversity that reflects the different steps which are necessary for the development and construction of a revolutionary force to be able to confront the current situation.

To summarize, this confirms that the prisoners represent the interior of the class movement and the revolutionary tendency. The RHI is proud to continue this work, to support and guarantee the struggle for this connection and the contributions of the militant prisoners.

We send them our warmest hugs and all our closeness and solidarity! 

THE RESISTANCE OF THE REVOLUTIONARY PRISONERS STRENGTHENS THE CLASS MOVEMENT!

THE SOLIDARITY OF THE CLASS MOVEMENT STRENGTHENS THEIR RESISTANCE!

TOGETHER TO REVOLUTION!

Conference of the Red Help International

Zürich November 2017