If today you asked a "leftist" what his party does to be "leftist" you would not hear the answer with "defense of workers", "emancipation of the weak social classes", "protection of income", "emancipation of women ", But you will be answered with" battles for gays ".
And it happens because in the end it is the only topic on which the left differ from the right: it is no coincidence that the PD is the party that has always had an entirely male ruling class, it is no coincidence that there is migrants a wing of the PD that intends to negotiate other agreements with Libya (which they already did with Minniti when they were in government), etc.
So in the end what changes, the identity battle, the real difference lies in the attitude towards gays. But the important thing is that this also applies to the right: a DC politician would NEVER have been photographed at the Papeete with dancers, precisely because it would have been too “liberal”, too left-wing. Aldo Moro also went double-breasted on the beach because he was convinced that a politician, if he militates for a party of sexophobic clerical bigots, must be a sexophobic clerical bigot even on the beach.
And so if I took the programs of Meloni and the League and asked what distinguishes them from the PD, the answer would always be the same: “the fight against gender and gays”.
But now there is a problem. You know Benigni's film where, in Palermo, it is said that the big problem in Palermo is “traffic”? Here it is.
Let me be clear, I do not want to belittle the problem of respect for rights. But things have a dimension. When we talk about transsexuals we are talking about about 27 people per ten thousand. And when we talk about gays, we are talking about a minority that cubes 1/2% of the population.
For this reason, gay protection laws should pass without even discussion:
- low costs
- non-existent risks
- impact on the economy: minimal
- impact on foreign relations: minimal
- percentage of the affected population: minimal.
it is therefore a question of laws that should pass in those days of parliament when not even journalists show up to film with cameras. No politician has an interest in starting a fight if you win so little, right? I mean, even if you were homophobic and in government, given the negligible material dimension of the problem, you would have already made this Zan law on a Saturday morning, with an amendment. Simply to say to the PD: “and now what are you fighting for? What do you all agree on? "
Why then does it seem so important? Why has Trump been discussing public restrooms and transsexuals for MONTHS, when there are NO police reports or reports of such problems in the US?
Let's take an example. Let's say we are a government (right, center, left, whatever) and that one Friday evening we pass the ZAN bill. Virtually nothing would change given the small numbers involved, and zac: now the PD no longer has any identity. If you were on the right it would be the right move because without gays the PD would have to find another workhorse and would end up disintegrating.
What happens now?
Well, we need to solve some POLITICALLY RISKY problems. Not in an ethical sense, but as a risk of losing allies and financiers. And even the PD is forced to talk about RISKY problems, or risk losing the support of some industrialist, or someone who maneuvers so many votes.
But here we start to go to shit.
Because if I want to deal with a POLITICALLY RISKY problem, such as 1100 deaths / year at work, I find myself clashing with Confindustria. It's not Arcigay. It's Confindustria. It's a whole other kind of opponent.
If I want to deal with a POLITICALLY RISKY problem, that is the precariousness of young people and their income, I am clashing, once again, with… Confindustria.
If I want to deal with foreign policy, I have to explain to the Russians and Turks that Syria is a neighboring country, and to the French that the colonial period is over.
If I want to seriously deal with the environment, or with energy, I have to clash with the real estate lobby, the one that does not want the fields of solar panels and wind turbines so as not to make villas in the countryside fall in value.
If I intend to tackle the problem of drugs or its liberalization, I have to clash with the mafia. Ditto for any economic policy in the south.
Anything POLITICALLY RISKY one has to do in a country like Italy requires:
- you clash with someone BIG who is fine like this.
- the risk of losing TAAANTI voters moved by that "someone".
So, do you know what I'm telling you? The country's problem is "gender".
The same is true if you are a left-wing party, except that the problem of the country will be, once again, the Zan decree. End.
In practice, one thing must be understood:
the struggles for gay rights in Italy are not struggles made to be won. They are struggles made to last forever.
I mean, let's look at the risks of the Zan law. What would the risk be? According to critics, it means that some extremely minority circles and some fanatics should use paraphrases in public, and then continue to sow hatred inside their premises when no one hears them.
Others say that there are already laws about it: good. So what's the risk? To duplicate a law? To grant "too many" rights? And what would be the “too much” right, since we keep repeating that “existing laws are enough”? And finally: are there really "too many rights?". And is there a PROBLEM of "too many rights"?
But even if those I have listed were problems, do we realize that we are talking about purely legal problems, which can be managed between the cassation and subsequent adjustments?
What are the "material" problems? What are the economic risks? And the social risks? And the risks of public order? Risks in the security of the country?
I don't want to minimize the suffering of those who are attacked on the streets, or insulted on the street. On the contrary: that is the problem.
FOR MORE REASON, it is not clear why it is so difficult to hit the problem with a law that has NO detectable costs, which has NO detectable risks, which has NO impact on large percentages of the population.
And that's why there is only ONE explanation for the persistence of the problem:
the problem of the GLBT world is the perfect problem for the politician who does not know, does not want, or IS AFRAID of facing POLITICALLY RISKY problems.
This thing, for the GLBT community, is a disaster: because the result is that their problems, in themselves "inexpensive" in economic and investment terms, become eternal struggles that have a completely different purpose. :
- keep alive the identity of parties that have nothing more to say.
- to make amends: it would seem that a demanding struggle is underway for an epochal reform, when in the end the ZAN law has practically no economic costs, has no risks and impacts only very small minorities.
- avoid talking about more politically risky problems, such as economic and youth policies.
but if this is the goal, we are in the same situation as couples who are together because divorce costs too much. You argue about the cap of the toothpaste because you do NOT want to talk about the plumber who passes every Saturday or the nice personal trainer.
I repeat: I do not want to minimize the existential dimension of the problem "being beaten by the fascists" or the problem "being publicly insulted without anyone lifting a finger".
But we must also make a breakdown of the law:
On the other hand, however, I would like to ask myself from whom help is expected: from the same police that allow fascists to hold arm-raised demonstrations? Is that the police who are supposed to arrest anyone who insults transsexuals in public?
So: 18 months or a fine will almost always be “a fine”, and as if that weren't enough 18 months means that the person remains at liberty. For people who are afraid of being beaten, a lot of stuff.
The prison exceeds three years (that is, it becomes a real prison) only in the most serious cases, and in the end you do not go to prison if you volunteer.
So, seriously, this is a decree to discuss MESI? And I repeat: I am not saying that the matter is not important: but if there are practically no costs, there are no risks and there are no impacts to manage (already existing laws are changed, as you read in the original text), because discussion lasts months?
- The PD does not find an identity agreement on any other issue. In fact, there are no other issues on which there is complete consensus, and even on this the TERF have come to say that gender identity does not suit them.
- The issue of women would remain, but even on this the PD gasps and struggles.
- On the problem of work, the PD is identical to the League.
- On the issue of income, the PD is identical to the Lega and Forza Italia.
- The Lega at work is like the PD.
- The League on taxes thinks like the PD: only the prospect of establishing a 0.2% equity has received a chorus of "NO" from the PD, as well as from the League.
- When it comes to migrants, the “agreements with the Libyans” solution sees everyone more or less in agreement, together with “Europe must take care of it” and “we must help Africa”.
If there were no Gays, all the Italian parties could easily be united in a single party, and there would be virtually no internal conflicts.
On any other non-LGBT topic, the differences of views (in Parliament) between parties are less than the differences of views between two currents of the old DC.
And it is for this reason that, unfortunately, the problems of the GLBT world will be stretched over time, until the catastrophic LACK OF CONTENT and the monstrous COWARDING of the parties in facing the risk persists.
Because ultimately, the main function of the political debate on GLBT issues is to act as a fig leaf. But not a fig leaf to hide "shame":
to hide the fact that there is NOTHING under the leaf.
A whole group of people is being held in the balance FOR YEARS, for the sole purpose of hiding the real fact that the parties, on other issues, are all equally EMPTY and equally COWARD, or equally…. EQUAL.