Commentary
With its ‘Security Bill,’ the government wants to take Italy back to the Dark Ages
What is no longer tolerated are expressions of criticism of authority. Their goal is to reaffirm the principle of the superiority of the state, while citizens are supposed to simply believe and obey.
The so-called “Security Bill” is just the latest act in an overarching project that aims to abandon the principles of our constitutional system and embrace others that come straight from the history of the right-wingers currently in government.
In a nutshell: the goal is to move away from any notion of solidarity and guaranteed and protected rights and towards the primacy of individual selfishness, iron-fist populism and the ideal of public order around which the authoritarian mentality is built.
Thus, on the one hand, we have the Constitution, which prohibits violence but legitimizes conflict and the freedom to dissent, and on the other, a government that represses social protest and is now creating more criminal offenses. In particular, what is no longer tolerated are expressions of criticism of authority.
With every step in this direction – from the Cutro Decree to the Security Bill – their goal has been to reaffirm the principle of the superiority of the state, while citizens are supposed to simply believe and obey.
It’s the ones in power who are the people’s guardians. It’s their prerogative to guarantee rights and to determine who are the “friends” and who are the “enemies.” The government casts itself as the guarantor of “defending the borders” (as if we were at war), and it assumes the power to exclude “the others.”
In this context, the rule of law and international treaties are mostly a hindrance, and thus can be put into question altogether. Then, if a judge claims to enforce them, they can always cry conspiracy. Power cannot be put on trial; it is legibus solutus (not subject to law). The principle of authority prevails over the principle of legality.
It’s enough to look at some of the measures contained in the Security Bill to get a clear idea of where things are going.
If ordinary legality is an obstacle and the power of judges is a hindrance, it follows that the public security authorities should decide on preventive measures limiting individual freedom.
After the Caivano Decree, which extended the application of the “Urban DASPO” [banning individuals from public spaces for reasons of broadly-defined “public safety”] to minors, local police chiefs will be able to apply these removal orders against anyone who has even been reported for a crime against persons or property, waiving the need for a concrete assessment of “social danger.” How this can be reconciled with what the Constitution stipulates in Articles 13 and 25 remains a mystery.
The measures to restrict the right to protest paint an even clearer picture, going so far as to punish blocking traffic “with one's own body” and providing for a specific aggravating circumstance if the protest actions are aimed at preventing the realization of a major public work (which specifically puts environmentalists and No Bridge activists on notice). One wonders what will be left of the freedom of assembly and expression.
Likewise, the proposed measures on terrorism seem to be moving away from the principles proper to classically liberal criminal law. The previous provision, punishing “behavior unequivocally aimed at the commission of acts with the purpose of terrorism” (Art. 270 quinquies, Penal Code) is no longer seen as sufficient; now, those who procure or possess material potentially suitable for carrying out acts of terrorism are also criminalized. Such preventive criminal law is highly doubtful in terms of effectiveness, but it certainly has symbolic impact.
Regarding occupations of property, the utmost ideological simplification is forced onto the issue. Any consideration of the real conditions of hardship that can lead to occupying properties is explicitly disregarded.
A dramatic situation – the housing shortage and the ineffectiveness of the right to housing – is shrouded in a smokescreen, with all distinctions erased. This is evidenced not only by the absence of any measures to combat the housing shortage, but also by the criminal penalties (up to seven years in prison!) being extended to anyone who aids and abets occupation – thus introducing the “crime of solidarity.”
No one will be able to support those in extreme hardship anymore: those living in occupied housing must be left to their fate, and woe to those who want to help with the basic needs of the dispossessed.
One has to wonder if the Pope will also be indicted, since he has expressed solidarity on several occasions and his top aide in charge of charity for the poor even went so far as to reconnect the electricity supply to an occupied building himself.
In the past, prison has been viewed as a totalizing institution, inhumane and aimed at humiliating the dignity of imprisoned people. The Italian Constitution, on the other hand, stipulates that those who must serve a sentence should be treated with a sense of humanity and that the purpose of imprisonment is the re-education of the convicted person.
The new measures introduced by the Security Bill take us back to the conception of prison as a place of dehumanizing alienation. This is shown by two particularly outrageous measures.
The first removes the mandatory deferment of prison for pregnant women or mothers with children up to one year old. It is thus decreed that imprisonment comes before everything else. “The best interests of the child,” a principle that informs the legislation of all countries that consider themselves civilized, gives way to a vision that respects no one, not even the rights of those who are not only innocent of any crimes, but are only babies in the cradle. Innocent victims – “collateral damage,” one might say, in the obscene language of war.
The second measure punishes anyone inside prison facilities who refuses to obey an order by passively resisting. Once again, this equates the behavior of those who refuse to submit to an order – perhaps an illegitimate one – and those who take part in a riot, committing acts of violence or making threats (already punishable by current law). It has been called the “anti-Gandhi” provision: indeed, Gandhi might well be given a hefty prison sentence today.
It’s hardly surprising that similar treatment is provided for migrants detained in CPR or CAS detention centers.
The fear of the foreigner – an “enemy” by definition – cannot allow for respect for the rights of people who have not committed any crimes, but are still forced into detention centers that are very often worse than prisons.
Another demonstrative measure pointing to the subordinate status of migrants is the one prohibiting the sale of SIM cards to those who don’t have residence permits.
Even leaving aside the fact that it is unconstitutional, this provision is utterly surreal. Who could possibly think this will work? Preventing communication in the Internet age is like wanting to return to the Dark Ages. In the end, this might be exactly the direction they’re going for.
Originally published at https://ilmanifesto.it/il-governo-e-chiaro-lo-stato-di-diritto-e-solo-un-intralcio on 2024-09-25