When the world gets closer.

We help you see farther.

Sign up to our expressly international daily newsletter.

LA STAMPA

'All Dogs Allowed!' Italian Proposal Would Forbid Housing Restrictions On Pets

The eternal battle that pits animal lovers v. landlords could take a decidedly pet-friendly turn in Italy, where the Parliament is set to debate a bill that would outlaw any building regulations banning home pets.

A pooch peers out from a Rome apartment (Metro Centric)
A pooch peers out from a Rome apartment (Metro Centric)

Worldcrunch NEWSBITES

ROME – "No pets' not allowed! That is the spirit of a new bill put forth by a member of the Italian Parliament that would erase all building regulations that forbid tenants from keeping pets at home.

The bill was drafted by Gabriella Giammanco, an ally of Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi, and has now made its way to Parliament's Justice Committee. "The new law will not allow for keeping all animals at home, but just the ‘family's animals," owned to provide company, not for feeding purposes," Giammanco says.

Italian families own some 45 million pets, including seven million dogs, eight million cats, 16 million fish and 12 million small-bird species and snakes. Currently, building regulations can clearly state that pets are not allowed. The bill aims to erase this option for landlords.

And what would happen if the owner of a pet has health problems? If approved, Giammanco's bill will allow everyone to bring their animal friends with them to hospitals and nursing homes.

Read the original article in full by Antonella Mariotti in La Stampa

photo - Metro Centric

You've reached your limit of free articles.

To read the full story, start your free trial today.

Get unlimited access. Cancel anytime.

Exclusive coverage from the world's top sources, in English for the first time.

Insights from the widest range of perspectives, languages and countries.

Geopolitics

The Shah's Son Paradox: Why Iran Needs Its Exiled Crown Prince To Achieve Democracy

Iran's exiled and surprisingly popular crown prince Reza Pahlavi can help unite opponents against the country's brutal regime. But he can only do that by reaffirming his royal status, rather than responding on calls to renounce his title.

Photo of a man holding a picture of Reza Pahlavi, the exiled Crown Prince of Iran, during a protest in his support in London.

Protesters in London against the current Iranian regime and in support of Reza Pahlavi, the Crown Prince of Iran, as he visits the House of Commons for a discussion on the future of Iran

F. Haqiqatjou

-OpEd-

As a sociologist, I have one thing in common with Iran's former crown prince and exiled heir apparent, Reza Pahlavi. We both support a republic in Iran, while understanding the utility in present conditions, of restoring the constitutional regime that ended with the 1979 Iranian Revolution that overthrew the monarchy and installed a theocratic regime.

It's an inexplicable contradiction though in my case, it's merely a personal conundrum. Not so with the prince: for he must bear a burden of responsibilities born of the hopes and expectations of numerous Iranians, especially those inside Iran who have been protesting against the ayatollahs — and often chanting support for the Pahlavis — at great personal risk to themselves.

Every time he speaks in the media or responds to calls to become the nation's representative, he prompts criticisms, indignation and controversy. Opponents of the monarchy are worried that anything enhancing the prince's public profile will also strengthen the prospects of a restoration. They want him to formally renounce his succession rights and distance himself from the monarchy he would, in other conditions, have inherited from his father, Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi.

The prince seems to be doing this distancing, stating his support for a republic with increasing clarity, and even renouncing use of the title of prince.

He recently told the BBC on the sidelines of the Munich Security Conference that he personally favored a republic in Iran, for its meritocratic nature. As he sees debates around a monarchy or republic as a source of discord among all those who want a democracy in Iran, he has sought to proceed in public as a civil and political activist, alongside other exiled opponents. This of course has prompted the ire of royalists, who do not see such postures as impartial or fair.

I personally believe the prince's bid to work as a "simple" activist, at this juncture, is neither practical nor beneficial to Iran's mass opposition movement.

Keep reading...Show less

You've reached your limit of free articles.

To read the full story, start your free trial today.

Get unlimited access. Cancel anytime.

Exclusive coverage from the world's top sources, in English for the first time.

Insights from the widest range of perspectives, languages and countries.

The latest