‘The security bill will have far-reaching implications for the right to protest’
CIVICUS discusses Italy’s new anti-protest law with Erasmo Palazzotto, activist and member of ARCI, a civil society organisation (CSO) that promotes democracy, active citizenship and human rights.
Italy’s far-right government, led by Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni, is pushing through a repressive security law that seeks to criminalise peaceful protests such as road blockades with prison sentences of up to two years. The bill also includes restrictions on migrants’ access to SIM cards, a ban on light cannabis and a measure for the voluntary chemical castration of convicted rapists. It was passed by parliament’s lower house, the Chamber of Deputies, in September and now awaits Senate approval.
What are the stated aims of the new security bill?
The bill reflects a markedly punitive approach that has increasingly characterised Italian legislation in recent years. The Meloni government has sought to resolve important issues, including social, moral and ethical concerns, through the application of criminal law. This has often led to the codification of new offences and the introduction of excessive penalties for minor offences that would normally be dealt with by administrative fines.
The draft security law is just another example of this philosophy. It proposes some 30 Criminal Code amendments, introducing new offences and increasing the penalties for existing crimes, with a focus on restricting the right to protest. Although this is potentially unconstitutional, the government uses such regulations to stifle dissent. This is similar to the way it’s been using strategic lawsuits against public participation against activists and journalists, imposing fines and professional suspensions on those who expose powerful people involved in unethical activities.
The most alarming trend is the criminalisation of peaceful, non-violent protest, which under the new law, if passed, will be punishable with up to two years in prison. Activists opposing major public works projects could face up to 20 years behind bars. This is why the bill has been dubbed the ‘anti-Gandhi’ bill: under its provisions, Gandhi’s methods of peaceful resistance would have been severely punished.
How has civil society reacted to the draft law?
Civil society and opposition parties have strongly criticised the bill, but many seem to have underestimated just how restrictive and undemocratic the government could be. As a result, efforts to limit the bill’s scope have fallen short. While there is concern about its impact on democratic freedoms, the response has not yet matched the seriousness of the situation.
Some organisations have begun to work together to oppose the bill and prepare for the likely crackdown if it is passed. They are planning joint actions and looking at ways to protect those who might be affected. Although the law appears to target specific activist groups, there are growing fears that it could be used more widely to silence dissent, including from trade unions, professional associations and even opposition parties.
Legal challenges are expected, as many parts of the bill may violate constitutional rights. However, these battles could take years, and in the meantime activists and civil society would remain in a vulnerable position.
What will happen if the bill is passed?
The bill is expected to pass the Senate without amendment and become law by the end of the year. Climate activists and social movements will feel its immediate impact most strongly. Housing rights campaigners will also be particularly affected, as they’ll face prison sentences of two to seven years for occupying unused public buildings for housing purposes. Peaceful tactics used by climate justice groups such as Extinction Rebellion and Last Generation, including road blockades, will be criminalised, with penalties of up to two years in prison.
The new law will also extend the penalties introduced under the so-called ‘eco-vandal’ decree, which criminalises symbolic actions by climate activists. Now, activists who deface public property can face up to three years in prison, even if the damage is minor and easily repairable.
These measures are clearly designed to target specific movements but will have far-reaching implications for the wider right to protest. They are part of a broader deterrence strategy aimed at curbing social unrest, which is likely to increase as social cohesion continues to deteriorate and opportunities for civil discourse diminish. By imposing such harsh penalties and subjecting organisations and activists to lengthy and costly legal battles, the government is attempting to stifle dissent and deter activism.
Is this part of a wider trend of repression of civic space?
This bill is one more in a series of regulations introduced in recent years to restrict civic space and criminalise some CSOs. Such regulations have often been preceded by media campaigns aimed at delegitimising activism, with prominent government figures playing a key role. These campaigns have particularly targeted climate activists, labelled as ‘eco-terrorists’, and migrant rights activists and CSOs, which are falsely accused of human trafficking.
Previous regulations that targeted rave parties introduced restrictions on public gatherings and set the tone. Subsequent decrees, such as those targeting CSOs engaged in search and rescue operations at sea, have created operational hurdles such as complicated disembarkation procedures, hefty fines and seizure of vessels. These measures have forced organisations to incur higher costs and delayed life-saving actions.
Taken together, these actions reveal a worrying trend of systematic suppression of civic space and democratic freedoms, particularly the right to dissent, which is undermining civil society’s ability to function.