A couple—she Australian, he English—decided to make a radical life change and settled in Italy, in a house in the woods where they lived with the bare necessities and raised their children in a way that was unconventional for most. Now, the Italian courts have decided to remove their custody of the children, alleging that the children—six-year-old twins and an eight-year-old girl—are not in school, lack basic services, and live in isolation. The children are in a foster care center while they await a judge's final decision on what is best for them. family It has been shown, with data from the Italian Ministry of Education, that a teacher continues her education at home and that her children play with other boys and girls in the area. They use solar panels for energy and draw drinking water from a well. The children show no signs of abuse. They don't have cell phones or television. They are not vaccinated. Everyone is entitled to their opinion, but what exactly is being judged?
In Italy, it's the hot topic of the moment. So much so that politicians have seized the opportunity to weigh in. The far right, especially. Matteo Salvini has defended the parents and taken the opportunity to point out that there are children living in worse conditions, such as those in the Romero community settlements, and that no one says a word to them. It would be interesting to see if Salvini would have been so supportive if the couple in question had come from sub-Saharan Africa. Giorgia Meloni, for her part, is studying the case with the Minister of Justice. And Italian society has largely sided with the family. But why do they think a united family is best, whatever kind of family it may be? Why do they believe they're doing nothing wrong? Italian authorities only heard about them because of mushroom poisoning that landed them all in the hospital. Is it contradictory to want to live an alternative lifestyle and end up in a conventional hospital? Is it more contradictory than being poor and voting for the far right? Or more so than working for a multinational corporation and being vegan? I'm cheating a bit. But it's just to prepare our minds to think before we judge. Among other things, because we are all children, and there are no perfect parents.
In our country, there are many families who belong to a Catholic sect, who have many children whom they bring into the sect, and social services not only don't take custody from the parents but also allow them to open schools and youth centers where everyone can meet. Their ideas are profoundly retrograde, sexist, and anti-democratic; their representatives have been denounced for abuse in various countries, yet they continue to operate. On the other hand, our economic system fosters inequality and leaves many children without basic necessities. And yet, the system doesn't change. Just as it allows couples to buy children for money.
Regardless of our opinions, vaccinating children isn't legally required everywhere, and homeschooling It's not prohibited. These children lived surrounded by nature, not isolated; they lived with their parents and the animals they cared for. They had no cell phones or television, and for many, they represent an ideal life, free from the dependencies that the modern world has created. Is this what's being punished? Many people will say: neither extreme. The question is: who decided which is the extreme? Who decided, and based on what criteria, that some are more untouchable than others? And seriously: does anyone believe that the real concern is the well-being of the children?
