The level of toxicity of American imports is becoming unbearable, even if some countries resist better than others. Obviously, it is the more provincial ones who most frequently adopt the most violent American moves, and therefore it does not surprise me if Italy is always in first place in following fashions.

I refer, in particular, to a bill filed in the Senate, which decreases the penalty for sexual harassment, but makes their definition completely arbitrary.

The bill is this:

https://www.senato.it/japp/bgt/showdoc/18/DDLPRES/0/1132786/index.html?part=ddlpres_ddlpres1-articolato_articolato1

There are several absurdities in this article.

The first is that it does not increase penalties at all, but reduces them. Let's take for example the fan who patted the journalist on the ass after a Fiorentina match. The sentence he received is that for sexual assault, which is a rather serious crime, punished quite harshly (it's been seven years and broken, and if you consider that Omar and Erika got 11 for having gutted mother and brother, you understand which is a harsh sentence, at least from the point of view of the jurist)

Could it have been different? Well, by removing the sexual intention from the gesture, it could become "aggression and beatings", mitigated by the tenuousness of the injuries, or if the journalist was forced to continue to stay there, private violence.

Usually aggression and battery is not used, in the case of harassment, depending on the seriousness, it oscillates between private violence and sexual violence.

In a nutshell, if this law is passed, the aggressor of Florence could, under certain conditions, ask that his "sexual assault" be reduced to "sexual harassment", with a tremendous reduction of the sentence. Consider that under the age of three and a half you don't go to prison, in fact it is enough to negotiate for house arrest, and having to go to work and at least to do the shopping, you are practically free, with the annoyance of a trial.

Legally harassing an aggressor who then goes free is NEVER a good idea. And I wonder how many "feminicides" are still needed to understand this simple tactical concept.

And since the law fits BETWEEN the two crimes "private violence" and "sexual violence", https://www.senato.it/japp/bgt/showdoc/18/DDLPRES/0/1132786/index.html?part= ddlpres_ddlpres1-relpres_relpres1 , actually IMPROVES the situation for male abusers.

This law DOES NOT protect anyone but harassers. It certainly doesn't protect women. Point.

---

Once the argument according to which the new law would protect women has been eliminated, it is good to move on to the stupidity of the law. Simply put, there are some terms that are written in a way that makes the law a joke.

Let's disassemble them:

1. causes harassment to someone
2. or disturbance
3. violating
4. the dignity of the person

Now, the problem is in defining the terms. Anglo-Saxon law has a real dictionary of legal terms, in the sense that it is a "normal" dictionary in the sense that it contains almost all the terms of a normal dictionary, except for the fact that it explains the meaning of the terms IN THE COURTS. Sometimes this meaning seems ridiculous when compared with the physics we know, but it is the exact way to interpret the terms inside the courts. This sometimes produces comical effects, but the main benefit is that the meaning of the terms of the laws is the same for everyone (except when they begin to broaden with "reasonable", "logical", "arguably", "evident" and other adjectives which make everything smoother).

The problem with Italian law is that it doesn't have such a book, so now we need to understand what "harassment" is. And it must be demonstrated that it is aimed at someone.

Case in which a woman walks down the street, and is heard shouting from behind her shoulders "abundant, blessed is he who mounts you!". Apparently it is a devastating assault, which must be punished (according to newage feminists) with the culprit thrown into some pit of flames, blood and impalement.

Then the blonde denounces and is in court. The culprit arrives in court with a yellow-haired witness friend, who says "we are very good friends, this thing within the joke, in the friendship relationship we have, is very acceptable and for this reason I have not filed a complaint". In short, on the street it becomes "difficult" to prove that the verbal harassment is aimed at you. Ditto for gestures. I can always tell that there is a friend of mine in the café across the street.

Will the law work this way? Of course it will, because as happens in civilized countries, the system is guaranteed. And if there is a witness who claims that the sentence was addressed to her, the part "goes to someone jumps", and if the witness also says that she has a relationship with the accused such that the sentence is a joke acceptable, even “harassment” sinks into nothingness.

Basically, he has to shout it to you while you're in the elevator alone.

As for verbal harassment, "it goes to someone" is difficult to prove if you wear cell phone headsets, and the law will proceed, in the absence of a dictionary, to acquit anyone with headsets: "I wasn't saying to you, but to a person I was phoning”. Amen.

Let's go to the item "disturbance". In the absence of a dictionary, "disturbance" has such a broad possible definition that we are asking the judge to evaluate an imaginary, or at least subjective, damage. Apart from the fact that I could feel "disturbed" by anything sexual (even clothing or make-up have sexual connotations), one wonders what the judge will do if a person receives a compliment from the boss such as "you look beautiful today ”.

This is continually pointed out as "harassment at work", but for the judge who is faced with a clean record it will be practically impossible to convict a person who has given a compliment, however inappropriate in the context. (and I don't think rudeness can be criminalized).

In general, asking the judge to evaluate a "nuisance", when it is a subjective thing, does not seem like a good idea. Even dinner invitations or courtships can appear as "annoying", but to establish this the judge will have to ask the "victim" if he has specified clearly enough that he was not welcome, and this is where the lawyers come into play.

---

"Violating people's dignity" poses two problems. The first is that by "violating" it assumes that there is a clear legal limit. I violate domicile when I am in a space that the law defines as domicile, and the law is very verbose in establishing how far domicile extends (for example, it also includes your e-mail, the closed mailbox that is at the ground floor, etc.), but in speaking of a violation the judge will have to establish that, if there are no limits established by law, there can only exist (apart from obvious cases) a shared knowledge of the limit. And he would be faced with the problem of not knowing how to interpret the phrase "but if I invited you to dinner, would you perceive a violation of your dignity?".

In general, once again, to establish that this "violation" has occurred, the judge will have to establish, in less evident cases, how the victim has clearly established the boundary of his dignity: if a person comes to work with an obvious decolletee, is complimenting a violation? Is it possible to violate an already open space?

And when the going gets ambiguous, lawyers enter the field. Wishes.

If we then go to the concept of "dignity of the person", since the concept is also lost in common feeling (by now slavery is almost legitimate, insults have entered politics and television, thousands of deaths at work are ignored , etc.) the judges will find themselves discussing human dignity with the lawyers. Wishes.

---

In summary, this law does this:

1. It mitigates the penalties for assaults that today are considered sexual violence, even though sexual intercourse does not exist. (for example, the slap on the journalist's ass by the Florentine fan).
2. It creates a series of new complexities to be defined (the Cassation can remain on the front page of the newspapers for years, with this stuff), and introduces "annoyance" as a subjective damage to be evaluated.
3. He assigns the judge a job that in big companies HR already does, often better than the judges, and in small companies the judge won't be able to do it because in those working conditions he won't sue anyone.

Honestly, one wonders why such nonsense is written, which beyond the intentions go IN FAVOR of the harassers. And there is an answer:

newage feminism is trying to translate a pure ideology into many laws. In doing this, she NEVER considers the practical aspect, with the result of writing laws that go against the interests of women, in this case in favor of the abuser.

Why, exactly, do they find it so urgent to purposely create a case for things that were already being punished more harshly such as "sexual assault"?

Sexual violence is already punished, it seems, (art 609-bis of the criminal code) with a sentence of between five and ten years, depending on the seriousness. Indeed, the Criminal Cassation (Cassation pen. n. 1818/2011), says:

“The declarations of the offended person, victim of the crime of sexual violence, can be taken, even by themselves, as proof of the accused's responsibility, as they do not require external evidence. (In the reasoning, the Court specified that, in this matter, precisely because the fact is not witnessed by witnesses, the confidences given by the victim to third parties in non-suspicious periods can nevertheless acquire the value of external feedback)".

in practice, dear Italian males, since 2011 if a woman accuses you you are guilty by definition. (I don't know why the hell you still insist on living in that country, frankly).

With the new text, however, new crimes are created, without such pronouncements, with a maximum penalty lower than the minimum penalty of sexual violence. You can now continue to live in Italy. I therefore softens a whole spectrum of actions that previously fell under "sexual violence". For harassers, that's good news.

In general, however, what can be said is simple:

“I smell the air, and I smell hate”.