Is Italy's "DDL Sicurezza" Bill Harmful to Climate Activits?
What Could Be the Consequences If It Gets Passed? - Blog Post
Photographer Sir Simo June , 2024 , via www.unsplash.com
On September 18th, 2024, the Italian Chamber of Deputies gathered together to decide whether to pass a bill called “DDL Sicurezza”, and by the 19th of September the bill was passed onto the Senate, where it’s now waiting to be discussed. DDL in Italian stands for “Disegno di Legge” which literally translates to “law design” and refers to the fact that the bill is only a proposal. This means it can still be modified or blocked as it passes through both sides of the legislative branch, the Chamber of Deputies and the Senate. In Italy, DDLs can be created by different political actors; this specific proposal was pushed forward by the Prime Minister, Giorgia Meloni, and her government. The government has stated the objective of the bill is to guarantee safety for Italian citizens by pushing for tighter security measures in different sectors; however, many fear that its contents may actually end up limiting public dissent against government actions.
Photographer Falaq Lazuardi , 2022 , via www.unsplash.com
Within its original proposal, many articles of the bill consist of adding clauses to the already existing penal code, and worsening repercussions for certain crimes. More specifically, limitations aimed at blocking certain types of protests are included, and due to the restrictiveness of their nature, they’ve aroused some controversy. In fact, if protesters are blocking railroads as a group, they could be sentenced with up to 2 years of jail time. If disfigurement and soiling of a public work were to happen along with the use of violence and threatening language, the sentence could consist in up to 5 years of jail time, with fines going up to 15-thousand euros. Protesting against strategic public works also would become a crime with the passing of this bill.
The propositions stated above have the goal of presumably increasing safety for citizens, but many clauses would actually limit expression of dissent, and make it harder especially for activist groups to protest. While it’s fundamental to guarantee that protests are held in a safe way for all those involved and the surrounding public, heightened repercussions for such protests can discourage citizens from expressing dissent, as they might fear that the manner in which they express their opinions could result in trouble with authorities. Furthermore, a more practical way of guaranteeing everyone’s safety would be to support protesters by organizing demonstrations beforehand, and providing the right personnel to deal with such possible safety hazards. While safety is key, it shouldn’t discourage citizens from exercising any of their rights.
Photographer Alex Radelich , 2017 , via www.unsplash.com
To create a common consciousness around the topic of climate change, it is fundamental to reach high public engagement. Peaceful protests are one of the most effective ways of raising awareness, because the discomfort they cause, as long as it is done in a safe and peaceful way, draws a significant amount of attention to the topic that is the object of the protest. When protests become an inconvenience that people cannot avoid, those disrupted are forced to face the matter that is at the center of these protests. This gives a chance for protesters to spread their message to a wider audience in a more effective way, and reach a target that goes well beyond people already interested in the cause. Protesting also emanates a sense of urgency that is fundamental in pushing government action, and effectively communicates the demands of citizens to their respective representatives. Protests are one of the most democratic ways of expressing citizens’ needs and emphasizing the imperativeness of those needs: they are a key component of systemic change.
The DDL Sicurezza, if it were to get passed, would compromise Italian citizens’ right to protest, and would limit the ways in which citizens could express their dissent. Against the urgency of the climate crisis, in a moment of time when demanding radical actions from governments and raising public awareness on the matter of climate change is essential, the passing of this bill would present a huge setback. Climate protests are a crucial part of pushing to resolve the crisis, and they are a leading factor to spreading information on the subject. For climate activists, this bill could become a significant obstacle. With limited possibility to peacefully protest, the opportunity of reaching such audiences would sharply fall. At the same time, the bill would also be harmful to citizens not directly involved in the cause. Without protests, many people wouldn’t be forced to come to terms with the ongoing crisis, leading to a reduced public apprehension about climate change. Being able to have access to information that regards everyone’s lives is a fundamental right, and the denial of said access, which would come with the passing of this bill, would be harmful to all. Both for climate activists aiming to spread the cause and for people just now learning about the issue, discouraging protests could mean discouraging the creation of a platform in which information can be shared in an effective and stimulating way, depriving people from a chance to learn more about climate change. A certain political attitude against the spreading of knowledge that is valuable to all citizens can truly make an impact when it comes to how the public perceives an issue as urgent as climate change. To create lasting impact and strive for our future, it is important that governments allow citizens to express their needs and that they adjust their actions based on those needs. Citizens need to be able to express their urgency for change, and they need to be able to do so now more than ever: the climate crisis is not an emergency that can wait.
Written by Beatrice Bos
Edited by Ava Langridge
