There are times when you realize you can take a breather. The people who are against you, if you want your "enemies", are so stupid that they commit suicide before the match. It is a bit like General Diaz, who begins the advance against the Austro-Hungarian Empire, the next day Prague declares independence, the next day the Boers do it, and then the Croats. And Diaz does NOT win because the enemy no longer exists. It is limited to advance among the stragglers.

In the same way, this morning at breakfast I made my spin on the Italian and German newspapers (I have a TV Box with Android that gives me the press review with a nice application) and I found myself faced with these two news items.

Already the first news is interesting because of its implications. Let's go in order. There's a lot to unpack here.

The first interesting statement is that the lawyer "does not defend someone because he is on the women's side". It involves some interesting things.

1. the lawyer who defends a mafia is on the side of the mafia.
2. the sex of the victim determines the ethics of the lawyers.

Now you will ask me if by chance I am exaggerating in attributing these positions to all lawyers, but I remember that the Bar Association and the Criminal Chambers have NEVER sanctioned this kind of attitude. So yes, it is a shared and supported position, until proven otherwise (that is, until the order expresses itself differently. For now it is silent, therefore it agrees).

Now there are interesting questions. If the sex of the other party in the trial determines the ethics of the lawyers, is it convenient for me as a man to go to a female lawyer? The answer is: in 50% of cases. If the opponent is a man maybe yes (unless other arbitrary ethical discriminants), if he is a woman no. 50% of the time.

They are basically saying to men: if you want to make sure your lawyer does everything he can, he has to be a man. And if you are a Juventus player, he must be a Juventus player, if you are a Milan fan he must be a Milan player, and so on. In short, he must somehow identify himself in the same way you identify yourself.

The obvious solution is, of course, to have a lawyer in the family. In that case, the identity of the family clan would prevail over the others, and you are safe. But I didn't invent it, already in the Godfather (I mean the movie with Marlon Brando) there was the family lawyer who was a para-kin.

The second news comes from another lawyer who clearly admits that she did the same thing, but puts forward as a justification that she cannot defend a defendant for her "personal history". Which casts other shadows on the profession, because now I can definitively write that:

• a lawyer who defends the mafia is on their side because of his personal history.

I will be told that the crime of killing a woman is particularly horrendous for a woman, so it is legitimate to do this. Which implies: whoever defended Brusca in the trial for dissolving a child in acid after strangling him somehow did not consider the crime "particularly horrendous".

The question arises spontaneously: should the lawyer Antonella Cassandro, Giovanni Brusca's defender, be considered as a woman who does not consider, "for her personal history", particularly horrible to dissolve a child in acid after having strangled him? Isn't she "on the side of the children", having agreed to defend Brusca? Reading this news one would say yes, but I'm not sure you would agree.

I would also ask myself some questions about Riina's lawyer, and about Pacciani's.

Obviously, lawyers don't need to be defended by me, since they defend themselves very well and (but only if they like the victim) they also defend others. But the problem is: what does a person, particularly a man, have to do to make sure his lawyer defends him adequately.

And I make a general case of it, because I ask myself: yes, but if a lawyer has to pay the mortgage installments and has no money, can he have this scruple? Probably not, but now the second question is "and a lawyer who is not on my side is what I would like, even if he agrees to defend me? _". For example, how would a civil lawyer who has similar thoughts behave in a divorce case?

Consequently, we can already write a kind of vademecum for those who need lawyers (civil and criminal lawyers):

• if you have a close family member as a lawyer, you are on horseback.
• always privilege same-sex lawyers.
• investigate the lawyer's "personal history". The town is small, people murmur.
• look for a lawyer with the same bias. if you are a Juventus player a Juventus player, if you are a vegan a vegan, if you are on the right one on the right, one on the left if you are on the left, etc.

Of course, if you are a Senegalese man this is a problem. The low number of Senegalese lawyers puts you in a bad situation. You will never be defended well, as far as I can see, because the quality of the defense essentially depends on whether the lawyer believes he is "on your side" or not, due to his "personal history". (And no, blacked.com doesn't text.)

Even if you are a Venezuelan transsexual it becomes complicated, because at a guess the number of Venezuelan transsexuals who are lawyers is similar to zero.

But the problem also arises in an exclusive way. If you go to court against a woman, the lawyer you can trust is just a man. (I guess this also applies to accountants, who are often lawyers, but they might make some difference). If you are in litigation against a Juventus player, exclude any lawyer who is a Juventus player. When in doubt, a vaguely Turin accent is already suspect.

Now back to the point: as a man, do I have to worry?

The answer is no.

First, I live in a country where if a lawyer (of any sex) says bullshit like that, he is no longer a lawyer, from the next day, 9:00 in the morning. The second point is that, if I lived in Italy, I would notice that the number of male lawyers, and also of judges, is very high.

But the point is "who are the customers". Apparently, in the world of criminal offenses the majority of clients are male. In doing so, these two lawyers have sown the belief that when a lawyer is a woman, you cannot trust her.

And not only in the case of femicide: we have read that it all depends on the "personal history" of the lawyer. But in this case, even if the crime is the accused, what do we know about the relationship that our lawyer has with the sheep? Maybe she's vegan and she'll defend me badly.

The problem is more general: to be such, justice must be abstract, impersonal, and it is not for nothing that the Enlightenment also invented the codes of procedure, to be sure that everyone is treated equally.

In medieval Italy, however, the procedure fails and is replaced by "my personal story" or "I'm on the side of women". Ok. So it becomes an "ad personam" judicial system, defense becomes a relative problem and the process will be different depending on who you are, what sex, ethnicity, football supporters, political faith, [insert random group here], and how if that weren't enough, it also depends on the lawyer's "personal history".

The distrust of most of the clients (who are men), for the lawyers, will be a great victory for women. I'm sure.

With such enemies, who needs to fight? It is like being anti-fascist and reading in 1919 that Mussolini committed suicide.

Being buried by laughter was already embarrassing, but being buried by popcorn….

The problem in the SJW world is just that: they talk about fighting here and fighting there, but all they do is shoot themselves in the foot. If they weren't pathetic, they would at least be funny.