Italy’s parliament on Tuesday approved a law that introduces femicide into the country’s criminal law and punishes it with life in prison.
The vote coincided with the international day for the elimination of violence against women, a day designated by the U.N. General Assembly.
The law won bipartisan support from the center-right majority and the center-left opposition in the final vote in the Lower Chamber, passing with 237 votes in favor.
The law, backed by the conservative government of Premier Giorgia Meloni, comes in response to a series of killings and other violence targeting women in Italy. It includes stronger measures against gender-based crimes including stalking and revenge porn.
Does it matter whether the protections are specific to that gender? General protections would still apply to women.
My argument is not performative or based in a “men’s rights” movement, but yes, it is somewhat semantic. I think the law would be more “complete” and overall better if it protected all genders, and so that is what I am arguing for. Although codifying punishments for femicide is good, adding protections for all genders doesn’t remove any protections for women, it just extends them to everyone else. Giving someone something doesn’t have to take it away from someone else.
If you are right that men and women require unique approaches to gender-based protection though, then yes that would be a barrier to making the law gender-agnostic. What do you believe would need to apply differently to men vs women?
I think your humanist approach makes sense, but that doesn’t mean that improving the completeness of the laws is not also worth pursuing. I am concerned about the safety of men and do advocate for improved sexual assault laws; but in this case I am also concerned that the law appears incomplete. Maybe that’s why I’ve been arguing in here so much; my view of the problem does not align with how others are approaching it, and that creates a mismatch of assumptions.
Edit: To elaborate on what I mean by “complete”, I think that the law should always provide equality. Equity should be sought through other (primarily social) avenues. The purpose of the law is to be an impartial judge of what is acceptable, not just to solve the current issues in society. Of course those issues have the greatest motivation to create laws to solve, but the ideal (and, unfortunately, unreachable) form of the law solves not only these problems but many others as well. It should be a solid framework upon which we build, not a series of patches to address single issues.
Yes, it matters. Women are different from men as are the motivations to murder each gender…given that men and women don’t always have the same power or role in western society, for example.
I’m just repeating myself at this point: generalizing a law designed to protect women could make it pointless. It’s just word games, and we’re talking about a very serious issue.
I don’t think it’s valid to pretend my arguments are entirely pointless and then dismiss them because it’s a serious issue. Of course it’s a serious issue; that’s why I’m arguing about it. I’m not calling your arguments hysteria or illogical just because they’re motivated by different reasons than mine are. I am perfectly willing to know why you believe generalizing the law would make it less effective; I explicitly asked, even. But if you do not feel that it is worth it to go into detail then I don’t think there’s anything to be gained by continuing this discussion.
Take note that I never called you hysterical…that came from you.
Up until point I don’t really know what you’re arguing, is all. Apparently coverage for a problem that doesn’t exist.
I’ve said it a few times, but at minimum the law highlights an existing legal and social problem. Generalizing the law implies that the problem is equal, and removes language specific to who it’s trying to protect.