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.
I would have to disagree. The quantity is irrelevant, the existence of the hate crime is all that really matters.
I can understand what they are doing here (bringing attention to the rampant mysogony), but I do think that could have been done better by having it be a hate crime law with a definition on sex/gender as the motivation, but call it out or name it to address the rampant mysogony.
But a hate crime is a hate crime, and should be treated as a hate crime regardless.
Edit: Just to say, I don’t get the impression that what I suggested is the case here, but maybe I’m misinterpreting things. Feel free to point out if it addresses hate crimes based on identity more generally, I’d be happy to hear it. Doesnt seem to be the case from the article though.
To take the example to its most extreme, you believe that a law that focuses on something that does happen regularly (in my country it’s the leading cause of murder in women) should be expanded to something that happens rarely. And the reason is optics? Am I misinterpreting your point?
Yes.
Frequency isnt relevant.
No… And I don’t understand how youre arriving at that in any way, shape, or form.
It would seem you are completely, and I have no idea where you are misinterpreting things so wildly to suggest the reason is optics for me to even begin to clarify.
The reason I landed on optics is because no one has laid out an argument for any other reason. If you have one I’d love to see it. Simply asserting that frequency is irrelevant doesn’t prove it.
I made another comment to explain in a different way.
Let’s try it this way.
Hate crimes based on sexual orientation occur many times more often than those based on gender expression.
By your logic, we don’t need hate crimes based on gender expression.
Hate crimes based on sexual identity are drastically higher for black people than Hispanic or white people.
By your logic we would only need to have hate crime legislation for sexual orientation of black people.
Does that make more sense to you as to why I say a hate crime is a hate crime?
You are saying that only the more frequent crimes require legislation.
I am saying the particulars (sexual identity, gender, race) aren’t as relevant as the fact that its a hate-based crime. How often it happens doesnt matter. The fact that its based on hate is what matters.
You’re unduly expanding the scope of the argument. I’m just arguing that laws should be based in reality and not based on how it makes people feel about them, and the reality is that the leading cause of murders in women are based on misogyny. The same is not true for men and thus the expansion of hate crimes doesn’t need to be extended to them. I never once suggested only the most prevalent hate crimes should be put forward in exclusion of others. We should start from a standard of not expanding hate crimes unnecessarily and move forward from there.
No, I’m contextualizing.
Frequency, irrelevant.
And in reality, murdering anyone based on who they are born as is an entirely different thing than anything else.
The same WHAT.
You are referring to frequency. Repeatedly. I’m sorry, but either there is a fundamental language barrier at play, or I can only consider you as being incredibly exclusionary.
The gender identity of the person should have zero bearing on this. The fact that its a crime based on hate of someone’s gender identity should.
Thats it. Full stop.
We will simply keep going in circles until you explain why frequency is irrelevant.
See my comment full of examples of why.
If you need further explanation than that, I don’t know what to tell you. I hope one day you expand your view to accept that others can be at risk, and are no less at risk because others like them aren’t killed more often.
Even having to write that sentence seems absolutely insane to me.
Enjoy your day. I’m done.
Thank you for staying the course here, I agree wholeheartedly that the frequency should not affect which hate crimes are illegal.