On March 4, 2026, the Italian Senate approved the text of the bill to combat anti-Semitism, better known as the "Romeo bill" after its proponent. The approved version differs significantly from the original, which contained connotations that, at best, can be described as critical, or very critical, regarding the fundamental general principles of the national legal system.
It's rather pointless to retrace the 11 propositions that make up the text; it's a list of guidelines that should guide public administrations and private entities in the difficult navigation of what can and cannot be said about the State of Israel, or rather, what can and cannot be said about it and what can be defined as "anti-Semitic." The verification is simple and can be easily done on the text of the law itself.What is more interesting, and in my opinion, revealing, is trying to understand the underlying reason for this urgency, which isn't actually a physical one, since the text will return from the Senate to the Chamber of Deputies, where, if further amendments are made, it will be sent back to the Senate, etc., with all the implications of the famous "shuttle" inherent in the Italian legislative system. But beyond this, the question remains: why, at this very moment in history, is a Parliament that has long limited itself to approving government decrees, effectively renouncing its legislative role (institutional and constitutional), engaging in a debate that is fueling contradictions and divisions, even across all parties?
Before attempting an answer, I'd like to make a preliminary observation, which draws on a highly problematic and complex definition proposed by the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance, the organization dedicated to preserving the memory of the Holocaust. The definition is somewhat peculiar, as it defines "anti-Semitism" as "a certain perception of Jews, which can be expressed as hatred toward Jews." That is, "rhetorical and physical manifestations of anti-Semitism are directed against Jewish and non-Jewish individuals and/or their property, and against Jewish community institutions and religious structures."
So, what does the Romeo bill ultimately aim to do? To introduce a shared definition of anti-Semitism and establish measures to combat the phenomenon. The primary objective is to prevent and combat forms of hatred and discrimination against Jewish individuals and Jewish institutions. The bill also aims to promote knowledge, respect, and appreciation of Jewish history, culture, and life, as well as strengthen social cohesion and ensure adequate security measures for Jewish communities and their gathering places. The approved bill does not provide for financial allocations, nor does it introduce new criminal offenses. This, however, is rather obvious, as specific and highly effective laws already exist in our legal system to protect against the spread and perpetration of forms of racial hatred: Articles 604bis and 604ter of the Criminal Code, which respectively punish the propagation of ideas based on racial, ethnic, or religious hatred, and the aggravating circumstance for any other crime committed with the intent of discrimination; Mancino Law 295/1993, which punishes all forms of racial discrimination. I emphasize once again that, once approved by Parliament, the law does not have operational implications as traditionally understood. Once it enters into force, the Prime Minister's Office is responsible for appointing a national coordinator who will disseminate the guidelines, the new message for combating anti-Semitism in schools, universities, and among the police force.
A lengthy but necessary introduction to better understand the substance of the issue at hand, before moving on to an attempt to answer the unanswered question: what is the purpose of this 11-step guide explaining how to evaluate what is and isn't anti-Semitism? Weren't the excellent laws already in place in the Republic sufficient, from the CdP to the Mancino Law, which also have the merit of not discriminating, with enhanced protections, against a particular religious group compared to other minorities, even though they are present in our republic?
My starting point centers on a very interesting term: repression. A term of Freudian origin, it refers to that unconscious defense mechanism by which we push away images and facts that are unacceptable. The second consideration focuses on a concept related to the first: the repression of truth through propaganda, which sets in motion processes such as justificationism ("It's true, tens of thousands of innocent people died in Gaza, but until there's an agreement, it's inevitable"...), as well as the creation of a truly ad hoc language: "population exchange" for ethnic cleansing, "collateral damage" for massacres of civilians, "population transfer" for deportation, "physical pressure" for torture. It follows that using these semantic formulations will never incur the stigma of anti-Semitism. But even criticism of the policies of totalitarian states will prove, at best, ineffective.
But there's another aspect that shouldn't be overlooked. We mustn't forget that Israel is a major political, industrial, and military partner for Europe and Italy. After the deaths and destruction, the deal at stake for the reconstruction of Gaza is a multi-billion dollar affair, as it is for all the other areas devastated by the war. The hypothesis, perhaps far-fetched but perhaps not, is that the Italian Parliament wants the country to be in good standing to be at the table of this multi-billion dollar deal, within the next twenty years. Thus, in effect, we arrive at the elimination of what the State of Israel has done so far and continues to do, using the shield of anti-Semitism.
But there is yet another aspect in which the Romeo bill is interesting, namely the reconstruction and re-semanticization of the concept of responsibility, which was discussed at a conference on the topic held in early May at the University of Naples Federico II. In particular, Professor Gianluca Attademo's contribution allows us, in my opinion, to reconstruct the meaning of this bill within a broader, systemic framework. The question is whether this proliferation of rules, regulations, protocols, and guidelines is truly effective in leading, in a simple, transparent, and shared manner, to the person in whom the responsibility for action lies. Or whether, paradoxically, this plethora of rules and regulations leads to the construction of a concept of responsibility that goes no further than the mere execution of protocols, excluding any individual initiative and assuming, as the quality of action, strict observance of rules rather than the creative originality of the human being. That is, in an extreme paradox, reducing responsibility to the execution of what "must be done as dictated" ultimately means diluting responsibility itself, dispersing it, allowing people to take refuge in the excuse valid in all times and places: "I did what I was supposed to do." This echoes the sinister "I obeyed orders" of the Nazi leaders at Nuremberg. This system, however, adds another dimension: control. And so we arrive at the bill in question. Having implemented a handbook to follow to avoid being accused of anti-Semitism, which ignores the real issue-that of dispelling confusion between anti-Semitism and legitimate criticism of the current Israeli government and its actions-entails a certain degree of control, which, in this case, is social, political, and cultural. Returning to both the bill and the norms and rules dictated by protocols, registers, standard procedures, etc., of which the Romeo bill seems to be a chosen part, the real crux that emerges is the dependence between compliance with the rules and continuous observation. The guardians of the system, in turn controlled, ensure that everything runs according to the rules. But in this way, as anyone familiar with the Panopticon knows, ultimately the only solution is to control Thought, to achieve perfect compliance, or rather, quality of action. Very useful for the new world of artificial intelligence, a little less so, perhaps, for humanity.
Sauro Poli - Criminal Lawyer - Florence
https://umanitanova.org/sorvegliare-e-garantire-losservanza-a-proposito-del-ddl-romeo/
_________________________________________
Source: A-infos-en@ainfos.ca
Geen opmerkingen:
Een reactie posten