Why we talk about “criminalization of dissent” in relation to the Security Decree
“The government has placed its confidence in the ‘Security Decree’ by invoking a non-existent urgency and effectively preventing any debate or possibility of amendment: I would say that this is a procedure consistent with the intent of the law: to criminalize and repress any form of dissent ”. Alba Bonetti , re-elected president of Amnesty Italy in recent days, does not mince words when speaking about the decree that is causing so much protest in Parliament and in a part of public opinion. After all, Amnesty International is very attentive to the right to freedom of expression, and has been running the “Protect the protest” campaign for three years.
How and when did this initiative begin?
“Since 2020, our research offices around the world have reported an alarming increase in attempts by governments that are not very democratic or not at all to repress or completely suppress demonstrations of dissent and in defense of human and civil rights, which are increasingly widespread due to the extreme inequality, racism and discrimination that are rampant in many countries. We have therefore decided to launch an ad hoc campaign to protect a fundamental right that we feel is threatened. History teaches us that the evolution of individual and collective rights has almost always been the result of battles by the most courageous and aware part of civil society, and not the spontaneous initiative of enlightened governments. We can therefore say that the right to protest is the father of all rights”.
What do you think is the fundamental intent of the Security Decree?
"Delegitimizing and demonizing dissent, comparing it to organized crime or even terrorism. For example, young people who commit sensational acts (but never violent or permanently damaging to heritage) to raise public awareness of the urgency of climate change mitigation measures are defined in the decree as 'eco-vandals' when they try to protect the environment and certainly not vandalize it. In this regard, I would like to launch an appeal: if in Italy we have a generation so scared of the future that it defines itself as 'last', a serious government should listen to it, and not punish it".
As part of the “Protect the Protest” campaign in Italy, Amnesty has prepared and distributed a leaflet entitled “Know Your Rights! Your Guide to Demonstrating”. Don’t you think that some practical advice (such as: carrying your daily medications or writing emergency numbers on your arm) could lead people to give up demonstrating out of fear?
"It is important that citizens are prepared for any eventuality and know their rights and those of the police. After all, even recently in Italy there have been violent clashes with the police caused by small groups infiltrating peaceful marches or by unjustified aggressive actions by the police, and young people who had done nothing wrong were involved, beaten with truncheons or arrested in an illegitimate manner".
Let's talk about the innovations introduced by the Security Decree for the police force...
“Uniforms become untouchable: the State will protect them and pay for their defense even when they are accused of serious crimes, according to a principle whereby the law is not equal for everyone. The use of bodycams does not always protect citizens and it is not known what use the authorities will make of the images. They could be used to identify protesters, exposing them to subsequent intimidation and retaliation: it happened in the US during the 'Black Lives Matter' protests, and Amnesty reported and won the case against the New York police. The increase in penalties and the possibility of arrest in 'deferred flagrante' for damage 'with violence to the person or threat' also go in this direction. And who evaluates threats and violence when protesters find themselves involved in the fray during a charge by the police? Instead, nothing is said about the identification codes on the helmets of the officers, which would allow those who suffer abuse to trace the person responsible (does anyone still remember the G8 in Genoa in 2001?)”.
What other measures do you oppose?
“The extension of the use of the Daspo, for example. It can be used against those who have had reports or non-definitive convictions in the last 5 years. This means that the police can prevent access to a city to a person who has not committed any crime but is considered potentially dangerous or in any case unwelcome. If that person lives for example in Sesto San Giovanni but works in Milan, they will no longer be able to go to their workplace and will be fired without any real reason”.
An iron fist also against those who demonstrate by blocking roads or railways...
“People’s right to get to their workplace is invoked, but it is clear that a protest, in order to be visible, must cause some inconvenience, or no one will notice. There have been many cases in the past where people stuck in line because of a roadblock have shown solidarity with those who were protesting, because they understood the importance of the reasons for the demonstration. The fundamental principle must be non-violence. Everything else can and must be the subject of negotiation between the organizers and the police, who are required by law to facilitate and not repress the rights to freedom of peaceful assembly and expression guaranteed by the Constitution.”
Let's talk about civil disobedience.
“The Security Decree has also been called the 'anti-Gandhi law'. In an increasingly unjust and authoritarian world, strong with the weak and weak with the strong, this is very dangerous for human and civil rights. From now on, anyone who tries, for example, to hinder the executive eviction of a family, or opposes laws deemed unfair or discriminatory, is at great risk. Not to mention what could happen in prisons and CPRs (Repatriation Centers), where no one will be able to protest non-violently against abuses or unacceptable living conditions (considered such by national and international courts of justice) without risking an increase in their sentence or an extension of their illegitimate detention, in the case of people locked up in CPRs even though they have not committed any crime. This latest crackdown claims to want to increase freedom while sacrificing it in the name of a misunderstood concept of security”.
What can civil society do to oppose it?
“Do not be intimidated, continue to demonstrate and raise awareness among others on the importance of ‘protecting the protest’, the mother of all rights.”
Luce
