In a context where sexual violence remains a profound scourge in the country, the recent debate on the sexual violence bill, known as the Rape Bill, has sparked a wave of criticism from jurists, anti-violence organizations, and especially from the feminist movement. It's worth noting that last November, the Chamber of Deputies unanimously approved a bill that completely replaces the wording of Article 609-bis of the Criminal Code, explicitly linking the crime of sexual violence to the concept of free and actual consent, a principle already established by the Court of Cassation and the Istanbul Convention. All this occurred just days before the International Day for the Elimination of Violence against Women, and the Prime Minister, with great emphasis, presented this as proof of how much this government cared about women's rights. Unfortunately, however, on the scheduled date of approval in the Senate, the majority decided to block the vote, postponing the examination and requesting "further investigations" into the bill.
On January 22, the League, through Senator Bongiorno, presented a proposed amendment to the Senate Justice Committee. The amendment was voted on and approved in the Senate on January 27. This amendment radically altered the previously unanimously approved text, distorting its meaning. The new draft replaces "consent" with "intent against the sexual act," introducing the concept of dissent and returning the legal system to an obsolete and patriarchal framework.It is worth remembering that the Istanbul Convention (Article 36), ratified by Italy in 2013, clearly establishes that "consent must be given voluntarily, as a free expression of the person's will." Without it, every sexual act is considered violence. The dissent model, on the other hand, presupposes that the victim must demonstrate an active "reaction"-screaming, pushing, attempts to escape-to prove their lack of will. This approach completely ignores phenomena such as freezing, the psychological paralysis that blocks many victims during assault, thus shifting the burden of proof from the aggressor to the victim, who would then also suffer the widespread phenomenon of so-called secondary victimization, thus discouraging reporting.
It must be clearly stated that building a law on sexual freedom starting from "no" rather than "yes" means continuing to reason as if the bodies of women-and anyone else who suffers violence-are available by default.
The bill deliberately ignores a basic truth: silence is not consent. It isn't in everyday life, it isn't in romantic relationships, and it isn't-or shouldn't be-in criminal law. Yet, focusing on dissent means precisely this: if you didn't say no, then perhaps you agreed.
The bill, in its formulation, seems to say: "Prove to me you said no," but those who work in the courts know well that this means more difficult, longer, and more painful trials; It means interrogations that delve into the victim's private life, her emotional reaction, and her behavior before and afterward. It essentially means shifting the focus from the perpetrator to the victim.
It's a huge step backwards, reintroducing a chauvinistic and patriarchal model that, moreover, fails to take into account the reality of violence.
It must be emphasized that dissent is not always possible. It isn't possible when there's a power relationship; when there's fear; when the aggressor is a family member, a partner, or a superior; when the victim is in shock. Yet the bill seems constructed as if all assaults occurred in a dark alley, among strangers, with a "no" shouted at the top of their lungs.
While other European countries have chosen the positive consent model, as explicitly stated in the Istanbul Convention, Italy remains anchored to an outdated paradigm. A simple principle is affirmed there: any sexual act without a "yes" is violence and is legitimate only if consensual throughout its duration. Here, however, we continue to reason as if the responsibility lies with the victim, who must demonstrate their opposition.
In essence, the issue of consent replaced by dissent isn't a technicality. It's the litmus test of a vision of sexuality and power; it's maintaining an idea of sexuality according to which women's bodies, and those of all other subjects historically subjected to violence, are always available unless they express dissent. It's a clear political choice: to maintain systemic control over women's bodies.
Finally, it should be noted that the bill focuses heavily on harsher penalties, once again demonstrating the security-minded vision of this majority, which believes everything can be solved by increasing penalties without addressing the root of the problem. But a society doesn't change by increasing the numbers in the penal code. It changes when the roots of violence are addressed, when measures are implemented to promote sexual, emotional, and sentimental education in schools (something this majority strongly opposes), when prevention, training, and a culture of consent are implemented. All of these things are completely ignored by this bill.
https://alternativalibertaria.fdca.it/wpAL/
_________________________________________
Link: (en) Italy, FDCA, Cantiere #42 - Rape Bill: A Political Choice to Maintain Control Over Women's Bodies - Stefania Baschieri (ca, de, fr, it, pt, tr)[machine translation]
Source: A-infos-en@ainfos.ca
Geen opmerkingen:
Een reactie posten