Call on the Liberals not to believe the deceptions of the Zan bill

Dear friends and dear liberal friends,
as you know, the Democratic Party is thinking of voting on the Zan bill even at the expense of amending it (a bit, they say). But they will not succeed, or they will, but it is not clear what is the limit of the changes that will be accepted as the positions seem very far apart. Then the public discussion on this text will resume, and the competition will resume to see who shoots it the biggest: already because the lies (more or less well-founded) are on the agenda of parliaments around the world, but such a flood of truth and I had seldom heard of my own falsehoods uttered by a chorus of so-called experts. With the final epilogue of that applause he mocked that he underlined the collapse in the Hall.

The main role, as often happens, is played by the center-right forces that have repeated until the exhaustion, and will continue to do so, a rain of lies equal only to those that are spread in the discussion by law. on civil unions. Barrage whose ultimate goal is to postpone the day on which the issue can be addressed with the intention of resolving it at a later date. But two of these lies are especially odious, as well as false, and coincidentally they are also the ones that attract the most followers among those who define themselves, or are defined, as liberals.

I am referring first of all to freedom of expression, which would be trampled upon by this provision. Many people forget that the political and legal knot was resolved during the discussion on the so-called Mancino law in 1993 by inventing something so difficult to apply, but necessary, which is the connection between the so-called hate speech. and incitement. to crime. It is difficult because Italian judges are not used to these assessments, and the non-application of the Mancino law but also of the transitional measures against fascism are clear proof of this until at least 3 or 4 years ago.

Reread the conclusion reached by Parliament: Do you think that the law has succeeded in preventing but also intercepting our own racism, even the violent one? Don’t you think that the law, especially criminal law, should not, in fact, not prevent a crime? And that racism in Italy has grown and declined regardless of this law?

The second lie sesquipedale that thousands of genuinely liberal people have drunk (and not just obviously) is that there is a specific category of people for the concept of gender identity, so much so that some clumsily propose to erase this definition to cancel d ‘a stroke. of pen all the problems created by those people who, in fact, do not have a gender identity corresponding to their birth sex.

Now, perhaps I will bore you with all the rulings of the Court of Justice, the European Court of Human Rights, the Constitutional Court that explain what is meant by gender identity. But no, but I ask you, seriously, but how did the concept of gender identity become synonymous with a transgender person? When and who made this assumption? Having or not having a gender identity is characteristic of all people because it is a constitutive characteristic of identity. The same words say it: millions of men and women, homosexual or heterosexual, tend to have a gender identity without question. It is those who question this identity who must be protected from discrimination and violence, because the codes say that one cannot be a victim because of one’s gender, therefore, because of one’s own identity. It doesn’t seem that hard to understand.

And all those weird examples you bring to warn that this election could cause irreparable harm are, in fact, weird: what is a right is defined by law, and it should be done with duties as well. The rules define the categories of people who, by their nature, cannot be discriminated against, but are careful to list what rights and duties can be exercised. Because they know that this is not only impossible but useless, our law is full of exceptions. Let me give you a trivial example that can serve as our reasoning: we have set the minimum age to be elected to the House to be 25, while the minimum age to vote is 18. Why this difference? Isn’t it discriminatory?

Most of us automatically respond that there is a law that defines this. Forget that the answer would be more complex but in fact the answer is correct. There is a law that says that, and to pass a law there is a democratic process that goes through the majority of Parliament. Therefore, if the majority of our Parliament believes that the age to be elected must be at least 25 years, we must all adapt because this decision represents a rule, wrong as much as you want but a rule. A rule that sets an exception but there is always a rule. Can it be changed? Of couse. And this is not discrimination!

Was it discrimination to ask for a change in the law of compulsory recruitment, or the introduction of divorce, or the recognition of equal rights for children born in or out of wedlock, in force of rules that said otherwise? Of course not, and frankly it’s kind of kind of explaining these things to those who frequent the law and practice it before me and better than me. Therefore, Parliament and the Courts will be urged to intervene in exceptional cases, as is the case with all other rights and duties. Gyms, changing rooms, sports activities and all other leisure activities included.

Finally, a very hateful lie that is widely spread, and still circulating, is the inflated with art by those who believe in this rule and believe that without it discrimination and violence against homosexuals or transgender people is not pursued. Or worse, they relate the cases recorded by the news to the lack of approval of the law, rather than the frequency of the phenomenon. It is not that he is giving the ignorant to those who support this thesis, but the bastard to those who mount it because he knows that it is false and often uses it to manipulate our emotional adherence at first (the fight againsthomobilesbotransphobia) not to mention the content of this law.

I’m not a lawyer, and I don’t want to go into too much detail. There are those who have done it before me and better than me. But a person who has been in liberal politics for years and is still an activist for the rights of LGBT + people who still does not understand why so many liberals fall into these traps. One of the things I understood is that the comparison with the law must also include a comparison with reality, and it is superior to the law, always and in any case. So the argument that our law does not provide for this type of crime makes me laugh a little: do we want to talk about the years of coexistence of our legal system with that monster of honor?

I recommend asking reality-based questions and trying to give meaningful answers about reality that is much larger than the yard we live in: Is there a connection between hate speech and crime or discrimination? And if it exists, should this instigation be pursued to safeguard the victim or even to safeguard society as a whole? And a criminal law is needed to safeguard this good: because the absence of hate speech and, therefore, of discrimination and violence is good, right?

Having answered these questions, looking at reality and not our principles (whatever they may be), comes an evaluation of effectiveness: is this rule necessary to prevent or punish such conduct? Not to prevent, and I hope not to have to dwell on the preventive use of criminal law. But punish? Do you truly believe that our right is devoid of tools to punish such behavior when it incites violence or discrimination?

If we really wanted to intervene on the existing rules, it could be an opportunity to put in order this turn of mitigating and aggravating circumstances, and its application, which exists in our legal system by establishing a simple rule, or a aggravating circumstance that derives directly. of the violation of a European Union standard: Article 10 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union. Little? Incomplete? Does the European Charter of Fundamental Rights provide more? Sure, but let’s start with that, one step at a time.

Because if we put this proposal to the test of its effectiveness, we will immediately understand that it is not at all: neither for the prevention nor for the sanction of this conduct.

One final thought: the bullets of the center-right combined with the vulgarity of behaviors and phrases, went much further than for the sole pleasure of seeing them gnaw I would like this rule to pass. But eye for eye and tooth for tooth is a lie (that too) that we bite a lot, again. And then: if the proposal passes I will laugh. Failure to do so is not a big deal.

Thehomobilesbotransphobia struggles with something else.

PS: the tools to act already exist, they have also been financed (little) by our state. And they could have been activated and funded even earlier for transgender people if only the Istanbul Convention, or the European Crime Victims Directive specifically, had been fully implemented.

PPSS: By this letter I am referring mainly to the Liberals, deferring to them the onerous task of defining this description. There is only one thing that unites us: the state must move as far away from people and their lives as possible, and when it has to intervene it is in the general interest, and never with a punitive intent. That is the illusion created by pan-penalism.

A reading (or rereading) of Tommaso Greco’s beautiful book, “The Law of Trust,” published by Laterza, can help.

* Enzo Cucco is a member of the board of aradical association Certi Rights

Leave a Comment