A-Infos (en) Italy, FDCA, Cantiere #42 - Rape Bill: A Political Choice to Maintain Control Over Women's Bodies - Stefania Baschieri (ca, de, fr, it, pt, tr)[machine translation]

In a context where sexual violence remains a profound scourge in the 
country, the recent debate on the sexual violence bill, known as the 
Rape Bill, has sparked a wave of criticism from jurists, anti-violence 
organizations, and especially from the feminist movement. It's worth 
noting that last November, the Chamber of Deputies unanimously approved 
a bill that completely replaces the wording of Article 609-bis of the 
Criminal Code, explicitly linking the crime of sexual violence to the 
concept of free and actual consent, a principle already established by 
the Court of Cassation and the Istanbul Convention. All this occurred 
just days before the International Day for the Elimination of Violence 
against Women, and the Prime Minister, with great emphasis, presented 
this as proof of how much this government cared about women's rights. 
Unfortunately, however, on the scheduled date of approval in the Senate, 
the majority decided to block the vote, postponing the examination and 
requesting "further investigations" into the bill.
On January 22, the League, through Senator Bongiorno, presented a 
proposed amendment to the Senate Justice Committee. The amendment was 
voted on and approved in the Senate on January 27. This amendment 
radically altered the previously unanimously approved text, distorting 
its meaning. The new draft replaces "consent" with "intent against the 
sexual act," introducing the concept of dissent and returning the legal 
system to an obsolete and patriarchal framework.
It is worth remembering that the Istanbul Convention (Article 36), 
ratified by Italy in 2013, clearly establishes that "consent must be 
given voluntarily, as a free expression of the person's will." Without 
it, every sexual act is considered violence. The dissent model, on the 
other hand, presupposes that the victim must demonstrate an active 
"reaction"-screaming, pushing, attempts to escape-to prove their lack of 
will. This approach completely ignores phenomena such as freezing, the 
psychological paralysis that blocks many victims during assault, thus 
shifting the burden of proof from the aggressor to the victim, who would 
then also suffer the widespread phenomenon of so-called secondary 
victimization, thus discouraging reporting.
It must be clearly stated that building a law on sexual freedom starting 
from "no" rather than "yes" means continuing to reason as if the bodies 
of women-and anyone else who suffers violence-are available by default.
The bill deliberately ignores a basic truth: silence is not consent. It 
isn't in everyday life, it isn't in romantic relationships, and it 
isn't-or shouldn't be-in criminal law. Yet, focusing on dissent means 
precisely this: if you didn't say no, then perhaps you agreed.
The bill, in its formulation, seems to say: "Prove to me you said no," 
but those who work in the courts know well that this means more 
difficult, longer, and more painful trials; It means interrogations that 
delve into the victim's private life, her emotional reaction, and her 
behavior before and afterward. It essentially means shifting the focus 
from the perpetrator to the victim.
It's a huge step backwards, reintroducing a chauvinistic and patriarchal 
model that, moreover, fails to take into account the reality of violence.
It must be emphasized that dissent is not always possible. It isn't 
possible when there's a power relationship; when there's fear; when the 
aggressor is a family member, a partner, or a superior; when the victim 
is in shock. Yet the bill seems constructed as if all assaults occurred 
in a dark alley, among strangers, with a "no" shouted at the top of 
their lungs.
While other European countries have chosen the positive consent model, 
as explicitly stated in the Istanbul Convention, Italy remains anchored 
to an outdated paradigm. A simple principle is affirmed there: any 
sexual act without a "yes" is violence and is legitimate only if 
consensual throughout its duration. Here, however, we continue to reason 
as if the responsibility lies with the victim, who must demonstrate 
their opposition.
In essence, the issue of consent replaced by dissent isn't a 
technicality. It's the litmus test of a vision of sexuality and power; 
it's maintaining an idea of sexuality according to which women's bodies, 
and those of all other subjects historically subjected to violence, are 
always available unless they express dissent. It's a clear political 
choice: to maintain systemic control over women's bodies.
Finally, it should be noted that the bill focuses heavily on harsher 
penalties, once again demonstrating the security-minded vision of this 
majority, which believes everything can be solved by increasing 
penalties without addressing the root of the problem. But a society 
doesn't change by increasing the numbers in the penal code. It changes 
when the roots of violence are addressed, when measures are implemented 
to promote sexual, emotional, and sentimental education in schools 
(something this majority strongly opposes), when prevention, training, 
and a culture of consent are implemented. All of these things are 
completely ignored by this bill.

https://alternativalibertaria.fdca.it/wpAL/
_________________________________________
A - I N F O S  N E W S  S E R V I C E
By, For, and About Anarchists
Send news reports to A-infos-en mailing list
A-infos-en@ainfos.ca
Subscribe/Unsubscribe https://ainfos.ca/mailman/listinfo/a-infos-en
Archive: http://ainfos.ca/en