First you need to say that there is a willingness on our part to blame.
Survey and we hope the law take their course and do not want to replace these.
The second point is that we do not accept you to become spokespersons thought Alfred.
What is not thought Alfredo or our property or yours.
So let's not talk about this and move the discourse on real events that took place.
Our decision to continue to talk about what happened on Feb. 5 in Dijon is not motivated by the fact that we feel some perverse pleasure in a move that will ensure coal is very painful, but the fact that we believe are of profound importance to the choice of how to act in front of the incident.
Your position on that frightens us.
We therefore believe that the important focus is to ask how this accident at work.
frightened us with your words, in addition to not show respect for opinions different from yours.
During the meeting with the public occurred at Fnac, Genoa, March 12, you have confirmed your position, already declared during the funeral, about a death in your eyes that seems to include an awareness and a deep union with your ideals by Alfredo but this is not real.
know that that day at the funeral, many have bit my tongue not to mention many others destroyed and lost, after days where confusion reigned, including news, prematurely announced a physiological death and conflicting testimony, have not had even the strength to respond to the letter that you had the courage to read.
read words and fly away, of which nothing remains to reason, So we have come to Genoa to ask.
We have repeated that you are willing to talk with us privately, but we do not believe that this is a private matter but a public issue, which should make everyone think.
A death in the workplace is not a game. And a death at work that is not recognized as such is dangerous.
Alfredo worked as a technician for you had not married your ideals.
We are surprised that we asked if the machine had been patented, scenic course that machines can not be made safe, pointing to the fact that everything can be dangerous, as if the context of art and theater could or should be exempt from regulation Security, which will impact on freedom of expression. As if art and drama could all ...?
Many artists have challenged the boundaries of the most dangerous, and those who estimate they have done with their skin, their ideals, we think that it takes a lot of prudence and respect for the others.
So we do not accept you to call the game the lack of prudence.
No one is pulling the stones as mentioned Chiara Guidi ("If you want to pull the stones"), this is not what interests us, but we intend to question the principles and justifications that leak from all sides.
repeat that this is a death at work and do not accept that it is differentiated by the death of a worker on the job at a construction site, even hinting at a aestheticization of death on the stage!
We do not want everything in the context of art can be, and that this idealization can dissolve every ethical responsibility.
continue to talk about this story, many of us, we believe that we should teach, write to let you know that your ideal of theater and life is personal.
safety at work in an environment like the theater there is too vague, fleeting, do not just work environment within which people ideologically similar to your idea of \u200b\u200btheater, but also men, arms, legs beautifully simple, that does not suck what you aspire to, but perhaps simply an expression of respect for life is that first of all, they have the right to work in a safe condition.
Guia and lots to write the names ... but who wants to sign
can do it below ...
0 comments:
Post a Comment