Why has another Security Decree almost identical to the last one been approved?
Rights — di Simone Santi
Why has another Security Decree almost identical to the last one been approved? How we got here and what has changed.
Why has another Security Decree almost identical to the last one been approved?
Why has another Security Decree almost identical to the last one been approved? How we got here and what has changed.
- The new Security Decree is law: fine, but wasn't an identical one approved less than a year ago?
- Yes, but it was a bill and the government overwrote it with a new text — a decree — effectively bypassing Parliament, following objections from the Quirinale.
- Imprisoned mothers, prison riots, SIM cards for migrants, protests against public works: here is what has changed (not much).
But the Security Decree that has been generating so much discussion, approved last week by the Chamber of Deputies amid widespread controversy — including street protests — and now awaiting a final green light from the Senate, hadn't it already been approved months ago? Yes, but no.
Here, in brief, is what happened over these past months: last September, the Chamber had given the go-ahead to the Security bill that had been passed by the Council of Ministers in April 2024, which introduced as many as 25 new criminal offences and had therefore been heavily criticised by civil society. Until the President of the Republic, Sergio Mattarella, also raised objections, calling for corrections on specific points: protests against public works; the obligation for public administrations and universities to cooperate with the intelligence services; acts of passive resistance inside prisons; and the obligation for migrants to hold a residence permit in order to purchase a SIM card.
Con 163 voti favorevoli, 91 contrari e 1 astenuto, la Camera ha approvato il ddl recante disposizioni urgenti in materia di sicurezza pubblica, di tutela del personale in servizio, nonché di vittime dell'usura e di ordinamento penitenziario.
#DLSicurezza
#OpenCamera
#DLSicurezza
#OpenCamera
Rather than pushing these amendments through the Senate's legislative process, as would have been normal procedure, the government — faced with a stalemate that had dragged on for months — decided to issue a new Security decree containing essentially the same provisions as before, with the corrections requested by the Quirinale, introducing 14 criminal offences. The bill (which, in order to enter into force, needs to be potentially amended and approved by Parliament) thus became a decree-law (which instead takes immediate effect, and therefore is already in force, regardless of parliamentary scrutiny): an unprecedented move in the history of the Italian parliamentary Republic, which has in itself attracted fresh criticism of the government, precisely for diminishing Parliament's role.
What has changed in the Security Decree compared to before
Dallo stop alla filiera della canapa alle detenute madri, passando per la criminalizzazione della resistenza passiva in carcere.
Quello che c'è da sapere sul nuovo ddl sicurezza.lifegate.it/card/ddl-sicur…
Quello che c'è da sapere sul nuovo ddl sicurezza.lifegate.it/card/ddl-sicur…
Compared to the original version, the main provisions and the overall structure of the text remain unchanged, while the rules on which the Quirinale had requested corrections change as follows:
No obligation to cooperate with the intelligence services
Public administrations, universities, research institutions and public service operators will no longer be obliged to enter into agreements or provide data to the Security Services, as was initially envisaged: cooperation remains voluntary and must comply with privacy legislation, eliminating any automatic exemptions. The provision, as it was previously worded, had been contested because it effectively introduced the possibility of intelligence services monitoring any research activity or public administration.
Prison riots
The scope of the offence of rioting in prison and in Repatriation Centres has been narrowed: the offence is constituted only if orders relating to order and security are violated. The possibility of applying the rioting offence in reception centres, which are not places of detention, has been ruled out entirely.
Vite in #carcere Susanna Marietti @AntigoneOnlus «Il #sovraffollamento è 133% ma in alcuni istituti si arriva a 220%. Nelle #carceri minorili le attività sono bloccate e i ragazzi vivono h24 in cella. La recidiva supera il 70%»
Le puntate @siamonoitv2000: play2000.it/detail/12
Le puntate @siamonoitv2000: play2000.it/detail/12
The previous version instead introduced an aggravated form of the offence of incitement to disobey the law if committed within a penal institution, and separately, the criminal offence of rioting within a penal institution, with sentences of up to 8 years in prison for participating in a riot, with aggravating circumstances if weapons are used, if personal injury or death results, with sentences of up to 20 years in prison. But above all, it also punished passive resistance — for instance that of prisoners protesting against the sometimes inhumane conditions in Italian institutions, perhaps by refusing the food provided.
Protests against public works
The sentencing aggravation is limited to violent protests alone that obstruct infrastructures of strategic interest, and only if connected to energy, transport, telecommunications and other essential public services. In practice, the Government's discretionary power to arbitrarily decide which works to protect with aggravated penalties has been eliminated. There remains nonetheless a provision capable of potentially restricting protests against controversial projects (think of the Ponte sullo Stretto di Messina, the Turin–Lyon High-Speed rail line, waste-to-energy plants, and in future perhaps new nuclear power stations…) with the risk of suppressing legitimate dissent.
SIM cards for migrants
An identity document (no longer a residence permit) will be sufficient to obtain a SIM card. The President of the Republic's objection aimed to prevent communicative exclusion for those who have just arrived and do not yet have complete documentation. In practice, however, the provision still penalises those who have just landed, who are often without any identity document at all: the risk is one of marginalisation on the one hand, or of fuelling the 'black market' for documents and SIM cards, without truly resolving a problem that does not really exist.
Offences against public officials
The first version of the decree stipulated that aggravating circumstances would always take precedence over mitigating ones in offences such as resisting or causing injury to a public official. The Quirinale requested (and obtained) that judges be able to weigh mitigating circumstances as well, in order to guarantee fairness and proportionality of sentencing.
Prison for pregnant women and mothers with newborns
The 'old' security bill made it optional, rather than mandatory, to defer the execution of sentences for incarcerated mothers — that is, pregnant women or women with young children under three years of age; under that provision, mothers could be sent to prison or to dedicated low-security facilities (Icam) together with their children.
"Mamma, che ci sarà lì dentro?"
#Madri #detenute con #figlio"
#Biani ! 😔👏
Per una #propaganda #cattivista vengono colpiti i più #fragili dei fragili.🤬
Siete il #governodegliorrori
Vergognatevi!
#Bambini fuori dal #carcere con le loro madri!
@maurobiani
@repubblica
#Madri #detenute con #figlio"
#Biani ! 😔👏
Per una #propaganda #cattivista vengono colpiti i più #fragili dei fragili.🤬
Siete il #governodegliorrori
Vergognatevi!
#Bambini fuori dal #carcere con le loro madri!
@maurobiani
@repubblica
Custody in low-security facilities, and not in prison, will now be mandatory rather than optional. The deferral of sentence execution nonetheless remains at the judge's discretion. The problem with Icam facilities is that, in addition to being prisons in every practical sense, there are only 3 of them in Italy, all located in the North — meaning that incarcerated mothers from central and southern Italy are compelled to be transferred hundreds of kilometres away from home and from their children's support network.
A law that still fails to convince
In general, the amendments introduced following the President of the Republic's objections have not been considered particularly significant by large swathes of civil society and the associative world, which is precisely why, on Saturday 31 May, they organised a major demonstration in Rome.
No al #dlsicurezza! Un decreto liberticida che il parlamento deve respingere. Se non sei in piazza, firma l'appello per proteggere il diritto di protesta amnesty.it/appelli/proteg…
According to Amnesty Italia, for instance, "after the difficulties encountered in achieving swift approval of the security bill, a decree arrives to circumvent every obstacle. Almost all of the content relating to the right to protest that had been challenged by Amnesty International Italia has been reproduced in this decree. From the provision of bodycams for police forces, without the introduction of alphanumeric identification codes, to the criminalisation of road blockades with one month in prison and a fine of up to 300 euros, and a sentence of between six months and two years where more than one person is involved in blocking the road. The toughening of sanctions against those who protest peacefully comes in a context where force is increasingly used in an excessive and unjustified manner to disperse peaceful protests, and these restrictions have been preceded by a stigmatising and criminalising narrative from the media and from politicians. Expressing dissent in Italy has become risky. But protest cannot be a privilege. Now more than ever, we cannot stand aside in