You explain it to us, because we just aren’t capable of it, if you change the text of a law like you change programs on TV: at the speed of light. Explain it to us, because we really aren’t capable of it, if a woman herself is the one changing that text that serves (served) women.
The content of the bill on the new rules on sexual violence was modified by the president of the Senate Justice Commission, Giulia Bongiorno, shifting the focus to an unspecified “will contrary to the sexual act“, in defiance of the Istanbul Convention and the associations that defend women’s rights. And how can you not say that these are dark times?
Those in which you first make a “deal” (the text was approved unanimously in the Chamber, with the agreement between Prime Minister Meloni and PD secretary Schlein) and then you back out to please your party.
What does the new text provide?
The changes arrived during the passage in the Senate Commission and the text will be put to the vote next week.
If in the document that had been approved at Montecitorio there was mention of the need for a “free and current consent” for a sexual relationship (without which the crime of violence was triggered), now, in the reformulated text, the terms change and we speak of “vwillfulness against the sexual act“by a person. Specifically in the second paragraph, it is said that that “must be assessed taking into account the situation and context in which the crime was committed”.
Furthermore, it is said that “the sexual act is contrary to the person’s will even when it is committed by surprise or by taking advantage of the person’s inability, in the circumstances of the specific case, to express his or her dissent”.
As for penalties, the range of 6-12 years of imprisonment remains if “the crime is committed through violence or threats, abuse of authority or by taking advantage of the physical or psychological inferiority of the offended person”.
Penalties in any case reduced by no more than 2/3 for less serious cases.
What the opposition says
The Democratic Party speaks bluntly of a slap in the face to women and of an affront even to the prime minister. From the centre-left the reaction is very harsh and compact.
It is an offense to women, to victims and also to the Prime Minister – accuses the Democratic Party -. An unscrupulous way of acting that highlights all the tensions within the majority and the weight of the pressure from the League, which never really believed in this proposal.
Even for Avs the new formulation is unacceptable: “We move from consensus to dissent. The right-wing vetoes won.” Even more clear-cut is the 5 Star Movement, which defines the changes as “a huge step backwards”, accusing Bongiorno of having broken the political agreement and of having betrayed women.
On the majority front, however, Fratelli d’Italia suspends any evaluation. Forza Italia, however, supports the overall structure of the text and suggests that, at most, there may be small adjustments through targeted amendments.
What do we think? That replacing a word may seem like a detail, but it isn’t at all. All words have weight and it is always a question of gaze, perspective, responsibility. Here the way in which violence is read changes and, above all, the subject on whom the burden of demonstrating it falls changes.
With consent the question is simple: was there a free, clear, conscious yes? With dissent the question is reversed: did you manage to say no? And those who really know violence know that often that no doesn’t come out. The body freezes, the voice shuts down, fear takes up all the space. Silence is not consent, it is a defense mechanism, it is survival.
Consensus served precisely this: to remove ambiguity, to close every gray area. To say that a relationship is legitimate only when it is chosen, desired, wanted. Without a free and conscious yes there is no room for interpretations. It’s violence. Not because a no is missing, but because freedom is missing.
Read also:
