For about a year now, feminism and others have been calling for changes to the Zan bill: here are the demands, always the same.
Unfortunately The position of the PD has become increasingly rigid. Initially, only Zan and Cirinnà were opposed to any change in the text. Subsequently, Secretary Letta and the Democratic Party's representative in the Senate's Justice Commission, Franco Mirabelli, have expressed their opposition. closed to any possibility of mediation. Currently, the work of the Justice Commission is paralysed in a discouraging wall to wall.
Perhaps there is an honourable way out.
Observe the sociologist Luca Ricolfi: "The two old proposals Scalfarotto-Zan and especially Zan-Annibali are completely exempt from the criticism that is being levelled at the Zan bill today... Up to a certain point, the main legislative proposals have moved in a reasonable directionor at least limited to the objective of extending to new subjects protection hitherto provided for too few situations and categories. Then, I don't know why, the proponents decided to go overboard, and end up distorting the original objectives. Ihe Zan ddl, instead of just protecting the weak, has become a Trojan horse to impose on everyone a particular conception of the common good, of education, and even of the appropriate uses of language. All of this was done by simply rewriting the original texts in the Justice Commission, and without a public debate, as was the case in other countries.".
Indeed it is. In text of the Scalfarotto billwhich was stalled in the Senate at the time - it was 2013 - there was no mention of education in schools, no mention of misogyny-misandry, and above all no mention of gender identity, the cornerstone of the Zan dossier.gender identity, which is the subject of attempts at legislation - with related feminist resistance - all over the world.
The text signed by Scalfarotto was supported not only by Zan himself but also by centre-right representatives such as Brunetta, Carfagna and Prestigiacomo. Antonio Leone of the PdL was one of the rapporteurs in the House and spoke about it like this: "agreement has been reached on a civilisation standard.". Therefore, a part of the centre-right did not fail to give its active support.
Well, if the Zan bill were to be amended on the basis of the criticism levelled at it by feminism - no to gender identity, no to extending the law to the fight against misogyny, no to compulsory LGBT education in schools - we would in fact be back to the Scalfarotto bill.
That same text was resubmitted by Scalfarotto and Annibali in this legislature, in 2018. A single article, as you can see, very clear and sharp in its simplicity.
So the discussion on a law against homotransphobia has restarted from the Scalfarotto text. But In the House Judiciary Committee, the Zan text eventually prevailed. As Ricolfi writes, the proponents decided to go overboard.
Why did the PD, instead of supporting that first, simple and reasonable text, decide to promote such an ambiguous and divisive law?
The comparison between the two texts has a somewhat historical value and shows the rise of the ideology of gender identity. Until a few years ago, the issue was not only not central, but also did not appear on the LGBT agenda. As he reconstructs in detail Jennifer Bilek, the ideology of gender identity was beginning to take hold at that time in the United States, in the early years of the Obama presidency (see here).
It is therefore clear that the real goal of the Zan ddl, as we have repeatedly observed, is precisely gender identityconveyed by the softer content and agreeable (the Trojan horse) of the just and necessary protection of homosexual and transgender people. This is the case everywhere: the battle is over free gender identity in Spain, Germany, the UK, Japan, Peru and so on. Why should it be any different here?
If the Scalfarotto bill were approved today, our country would have an effective tool against homophobic crimes. Probably there would be no shortage of cross-party support also from the centre-right front - from Forza Italia, but perhaps not only - that would give the law an solid majority and place it under the protection of revisions and/or possible repeals by a possible future centre-right majority.
Without boring us with technicalities, there is a possibility to take up the Scalfarotto bill again either by proposing it again as an amendment to the Zan text or by retrieving the full text and putting it up for discussion when a single text is formulated in the Senate Justice Committee. We know, in all cases, that a strong political will always counts more than any regulation.
So why not go back to that old bill, a possible way out of the wall-to-wall?
If you really want a law to protect homosexuals and transsexuals - and nothing else - this possibility should perhaps be considered.
Marina Terragni
Much of the news published by Feminist Post you will not read elsewhere. That is why it is important to support us, even with a small contribution: Feminist Post is produced solely by the voluntary work of many people and has no funding. If you think our work can be useful for your life, we would be grateful for even the smallest contribution.
Please send to: BLU BRAMANTE CULTURAL ASSOCIATION
OBLIGATORY REASON: FEMINIST POST
IBAN: IT80C0200812914000104838541
