Ahhhh what a nice coincidence that my 69th post (noice!) is about a possible bill here, in Italy, that will threaten freedom of expression and speech despite the core principle is noble: fighting antisemitism. The Italian government decided to adopt the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) definition of antisemitism. The European Parliament adopted the IHRA definition in 2017, and many EU member states have followed suit since then.

This is the bill: https://www.senato.it/leg/19/BGT/Schede/FascicoloSchedeDDL/ebook/57902.pdf

The IHRA definition of antisemitism, drafted in 2016, states that “antisemitism is a certain perception of Jews, which may be expressed as hatred toward Jews. Rhetorical and physical manifestations of antisemitism are directed toward Jewish or non-Jewish individuals and/or their property, toward Jewish community institutions and religious facilities.”

So basically the Italian Parliament is considering a proposed law against antisemitism that raises questions about freedom of expression. Presented by Lega Senator Massimiliano Romeo, this initiative aims to introduce specific measures against acts considered anti-Semitic. How funny that of all parties Lega is the one proposing this bill considering their high islamophobic stances towards Middle Eastern Muslim countries (minus Iran ofc) and they are Semitic people too. The irony that makes me want to punch Lega politicians right in the face...

The law is based on the controversial definition of antisemitism developed by the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA), which could lead to the criminalization of legitimate criticism of Israel. This bill, which reached the Constitutional Affairs Committee on August 5, was drafted in January 2024 by League senators. Romeo stated that the primary objective is to adopt the IHRA definition of antisemitism and implement effective countermeasures. Among the planned initiatives are the creation of a database of anti-Semitic incidents, monitoring of social media platforms, and training programs for educators and law enforcement.

But what worries me very much is the potential denial of permits for demonstrations that could be considered anti-Semitic. This provision raises questions about the right to protest and where the line between legitimate criticism and anti-Semitism should be drawn. Romeo stated, "We expect discussions to proceed rapidly in September," suggesting the law could potentially be passed soon. I still want to copy-paste again the definition of antisemitism according to IHRA:

Antisemitism is a certain perception of Jews, which may be expressed as hatred toward Jews. Rhetorical and physical manifestations of antisemitism are directed toward Jewish or non-Jewish individuals and/or their property, toward Jewish community institutions and religious facilities.

What do you see in this definition? First the strong sense of vagueness, what the fuck do you mean by "a certain perception of Jews"? And it also offers no clear boundaries, but it describes a range of behaviors and attitudes ("rhetorical and physical manifestations") that could be considered anti-Semitic. Among these is criticism of the State of Israel, a factor that could lead to the criminalization of legitimate political demonstrations.

And we come to the most alarming point of bill number 1004 (DDL): the right to demonstrate. The bill proposes to amend public safety regulations, allowing a demonstration to be banned not only because of the risk of violence, but also based on an "assessment of serious potential risk" that slogans or messages deemed antisemitic, according to the new, very broad definition, might be used during the demonstration. In practice, this would move from a physical security check to a preventive control over the content of ideas. An authority could ban a demonstration based on suspicion of what might be said. This form of preventive censorship directly conflicts with Article 17 of the Italian Constitution:

I cittadini hanno diritto di riunirsi pacificamente e senz’armi.

Per le riunioni, anche in luogo aperto al pubblico, non è richiesto preavviso.

Delle riunioni in luogo pubblico deve essere dato preavviso alle autorità, che possono vietarle soltanto per comprovati motivi di sicurezza o di incolumità pubblica. 

In English:

Citizens have the right to assemble peaceably and unarmed.

No previous notice is required for meetings, including those held in places open the public.

In case of meetings held in public places, previous notice shall be given to the

authorities, who may prohibit them only for proven reason of security or public safety.

and here the whole Constitution: https://www.senato.it/documenti/repository/istituzione/costituzione_inglese.pdf

Context in which this bill was born

Sadly as we know antisemitism is a real problem and it re-emerges in current far-right groups which commit hate crimes using the typical elements, symbols, gestures and images of Nazi propaganda and directly or indirectly defend fascism, due to ideology or for commercial reasons. Nazi-fascist racist and supremacist theories are still present and dangerous, although they are often hidden, within politically and socially active groups on the far-right. Faced with a resurgence of hate crimes, often linked to international tensions, legislators are seeking new tools to curb the phenomenon. And this is very good, it's important to fight off every form of hate and discrimination, but the problem arises from the need to fight hatred and the danger of unduly suppressing dissent and political criticism. It's a delicate balance that is very difficult to achieve especially if the real reason is to simp Israel during this genocide. The CDEC Foundation has documented almost 900 episodes of antisemitism in Italy in 2024, many of which involve expressions of solidarity with Palestine, highlighting the potential for the law to be exploited to repress dissent.

Objective

The objective of the bill is to strengthen the tools to combat acts of anti-Semitism. The explanatory memorandum accompanying the bill explicitly links this need to the conflict in the Middle East and the spread of anti-Semitic outbreaks "under the guise of anti-Zionism, hatred of the Jewish state, and its right to exist and defend itself."

How it's made this bill

Article 1, subsection 2 (see the link to the bill I posted above if you understand Italian, here I will translate some parts)

Adoption of the IHRA definition:

This law, implementing Resolution 2017/2692 (RSP) of the European Parliament of 1 June 2017 on combating antisemitism, adopts the operational definition of antisemitism formulated by the Plenary Assembly of the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) on 26 May 2016, including the related indicators necessary for the application of this law. According to the operational definition in the previous paragraph, anti-Semitism means a certain perception of Jews that can be expressed as hatred toward them, manifestations of which, verbal or physical, are directed toward Jewish and non-Jewish individuals, their property, community institutions, and Jewish places worship places.

Article 2, subsections a, b, c, d, e, f, g ,h (I won't list them all)

Countermeasures:

In order to counter any act of anti-Semitism, as defined in Article 1, paragraph 2, and to consolidate a culture free from prejudice and stereotypes towards Jews as a people, the Prime Minister shall adopt, by decree, within sixty days of the date of entry into force of this law, provisions aimed at:

a) create a database on incidents of anti-Semitism, as defined in Article 1, paragraph 2, covering both hate crimes and incidental acts, in order to gain a comprehensive overview of the phenomenon in Italy and to promote the coordination of monitoring activities among the organizations involved in data collection;

b) establish specific measures to counter the spread of anti-Semitic hate speech online, including by updating the rules for accessing social media platforms and implementing uniform and efficient reporting and removal systems for related content;

[...]

d) implement, also in conjunction with the initiatives planned for Holocaust Remembrance Day pursuant to Law No. 211 of July 20, 2000, a training program for teachers and educators regarding the phenomenon of anti-Semitism, as defined in Article 1, paragraph 2, as well as prejudices and stereotypes against Jews, including any conspiracy theories that may arise from it;

e) emphasize intercultural education and respect for diversity within the civic education curriculum and, more generally, in the school context, in order to combat the stereotypes and prejudices referred to in subparagraph d);

Article 3, subsection 1

Restriction of the right to assembly:

The denial of authorization for a public meeting or demonstration for reasons of morality, pursuant to Article 18 of the Consolidated Law on Public Safety, as per Royal Decree No. 773 of 18 June, 1931, may also be justified in the event of an assessment of a serious potential risk due to the use of anti-Semitic symbols, slogans, messages, or any other anti-Semitic act pursuant to the operational definition of anti-Semitism adopted by this law.

Here, in this article, the objective is to amend the Testo Unico delle Leggi di Pubblica Sicurezza (TULPS), allowing authorization to be denied for a public demonstration if there is an "assessment of serious potential risk" that anti-Semitic slogans or messages will be used, according to the new legal definition. TULPS was issued with the royal decree of 18 June 1931, n. 773, it was followed by the related implementing regulation set out in the royal decree of 6 May 1940, n. 635, which is also still in force.

Elephant in the room: Article 21 of Italian Constitution

As some of you may know the Constitution of the Italian Republic was ratified on 22 December 1947 by the Constituent Assembly, with 453 votes in favour and 62 against, before coming into force on 1 January 1948, one century after the previous Constitution of the Kingdom of Italy had been enacted. The Constitution is composed of 139 articles (five of which were later abrogated) and arranged into three main parts:

Principi Fondamentali, the Fundamental Principles (articles 1–12); Part I concerning the Diritti e Doveri dei Cittadini, or Rights and Duties of Citizens (articles 13–54); and Part II the Ordinamento della Repubblica, or Organisation of the Republic (articles 55–139); followed by 18 Disposizioni transitorie e finali, the Transitory and Final Provisions. 

Our article in question can be found in Rights and Duties of Citizens (articles 13–54) and states:

Tutti hanno diritto di manifestare liberamente il proprio pensiero con la parola, lo scritto e ogni altro mezzo di diffusione.

La stampa non può essere soggetta ad autorizzazioni o censure.

Si può procedere a sequestro soltanto per atto motivato dell'autorità giudiziaria nel caso di delitti, per i quali la legge sulla stampa espressamente lo autorizzi, o nel caso di violazione delle norme che la legge stessa prescriva per l'indicazione dei responsabili. In tali casi, quando vi sia assoluta urgenza e non sia possibile il tempestivo intervento dell'Autorità giudiziaria, il sequestro della stampa periodica può essere eseguito da ufficiali di polizia giudiziaria, che devono immediatamente, e non mai oltre ventiquattro ore, sporgere denuncia all'Autorità giudiziaria. Se questa non lo convalida nelle ventiquattro ore successive, il sequestro s'intende revocato e privo di ogni effetto. La legge può stabilire, con norme di carattere generale, che siano resi noti i mezzi di finanziamento della stampa periodica. Sono vietate le pubblicazioni a stampa, gli spettacoli e tutte le altre manifestazioni contrarie al buon costume. La legge stabilisce provvedimenti adeguati a prevenire e a reprimere le violazioni.

English version:

Anyone has the right to freely express their thoughts in speech, writing, or any other form of communication

The press may not be subjected to any authorisation or censorship.

Seizure may be permitted only by judicial order stating the reason and only for offences expressly determined by the law on the press or in case of violation of the obligation to identify the persons responsible for such offences. In such cases, when there is absolute urgency and timely intervention of the Judiciary is not possible, a periodical may be confiscated by the criminal police, which shall immediately and in no case later than 24 hours refer the matter to the Judiciary for validation. In default of such validation in the following 24 hours, the measure shall be revoked and considered null and void. The law may introduce general provisions for the disclosure of financial sources of periodical publications. Publications, performances, and other exhibits offensive to public morality shall be prohibited. Measures of preventive and repressive measure against such violations shall be established by law.

The particular moment in which the Constituent Assembly operated, at the end of a twenty-year period in which freedom had been postponed, had prompted a large majority of the Constituents, with broad agreement between progressive and moderate forces, to identify freedom of the press as one of the cornerstones of the new democratic state. The only reservations were those regarding the control of demonstrations contrary to morality.

In light of all this, you can see the main constitutional criticality concerns the potential restriction of freedom of expression. But what are potentially antisemitic actions according to the IHRA?

1) denying the Jewish people the right to self-determination, for example, by arguing that the existence of a State of Israel is a racist initiative

2) applying double standards, demanding from Israel behavior not expected or required by any other democratic nation

Consequences?

If implemented as law, this would lead to chilling effect which is the inhibition or discouragement of the legitimate exercise of natural and legal rights by the threat of legal sanction. According to NGOs, the application of these criteria has already led to cases of self-censorship among students, academics, and human rights activists. The Constitution and jurisprudence broadly protect political criticism, even when harsh or unwelcome. Legislatively equating anti-Zionism (a political position) with anti-Semitism (racial hatred) risks upsetting this delicate balance to the detriment of free speech.

Second elephant in the room: Article 25

This article of the Constitution shows another problematic element of this bill. This article requires that laws, especially those that may lead to penalties, be clear and precise, to allow everyone to understand what is permitted and what is prohibited.. The article states:

Nessuno può essere distolto dal giudice naturale precostituito per legge.

Nessuno può essere punito se non in forza di una legge che sia entrata in vigore prima del fatto commesso.

Nessuno può essere sottoposto a misure di sicurezza se non nei casi previsti dalla legge. 

English version:

No case may be removed from the court seized with it as established by law.

No punishment may be inflicted except by virtue of a law in force at the time the offence was committed.

No restriction may be placed on a person's liberty save for as provided by law.

The core point to understand is that IHRA definition was created as an "operational" tool for monitoring and educational purposes, not as a legislative text. Expressions such as "a certain perception of Jews" or the use of the verb "may be expressed" are inherently vague and open to subjective interpretation. And this clashes with Article 17 mentioned above which allows public demonstrations to be banned only for proven reason of security or public safety". This restriction is aimed at preventing physical disorder, violence, and damage. This bill, however, introduces a completely new criterion: the "assessment of serious potential risk" that certain content, namely anti-Semitic messages, might be expressed during the demonstration. This shifts the focus of control from physical security to preventive control of the content of opinions. Basically we are reaching a state where we condemn intentions and opinions, not to mention the dangers of applying IHRA definition even to countermeasures described in Article 2 of this bill (school trainings, law enforcement agencies, the creation of databases, online monitoring, etc.) because in this case everyone can be accused of being anti-Semitic even in the case they are rightfully critic of how Israel is behaving and are disapproving its politics. It would be ironic seeing an Italian Jew being accused of antisemitism just because they criticised Israel in a respectful manner with no hate speech.

Final thoughts

I personally think it's very hypocritical of Italy to pass a law against anti-Semitism when it is directly complicit in the genocide in Gaza thanks to the weapons it sends, weapons produced by Leonardo the Italian company controlled by Italy's Ministry of Economy and Finance. A report published by the monthly magazine Altreconomia has highlighted Italy's involvement in the Gaza genocide, despite Rome having declared on numerous occasions that it had stopped sending weapons to Israel since October 7th, 2023. The report revealed that Leonardo has admittedly supplied weapons components and logistics to Israel in 2024.

Leonardo has been providing logistics support to the Air Force's M-346 jet trainers it had sold Israel nine years ago. Among other things, the Italian weapons firm has also supplied Tel Aviv with protection systems and tactical radars mounted on armored bulldozers used in Gaza to help raise Palestinian homes and infrastructures to the ground.

According to the report by the Italian magazine, the country's foreign ministry, contrary to what Foreign Minister Antonio Tajani has repeatedly stated, has authorized the transfer of weapons from Leonardo to Israel over the past months.

Remember kids, Italy is the third largest supplier of military equipment to Israel, following the US and Germany contributing around 1% of Tel Aviv's total arms imports. Here the report (it's in Italian though):

https://altreconomia.it/le-forniture-di-leonardo-a-israele-dopo-il-7-ottobre-smentito-il-governo/

and here the exports to Israel in the "arms and ammunition" category, always from the same article:

I want to puke looking at this....

I also strongly suggest to read the United Nations Special Rapporteur on the occupied Palestinian territories made by Francesca Albanese (thank you for everything you do, Francesca!), it's long I know, but it's also important to know more in depth:

https://www.un.org/unispal/document/a-hrc-59-23-from-economy-of-occupation-to-economy-of-genocide-report-special-rapporteur-francesca-albanese-palestine-2025/

She is a great woman who is providing vital info about the lucrative aspect of this genocide and how US is treating her? In July 2025 the United States Department of the Treasury under the Trump administration imposed sanctions on Albanese under Executive Order 14203 naming her a "specially designated national", thus forbidding all U.S. persons and companies from doing business with her, except as necessary to the wind down of any transaction involving Albanese until August 8, 2025

How curious from US, if even in December 2022 sixty-five scholars of antisemitism, the Holocaust, and Jewish studies stated: "It is evident that the campaign against [Albanese] is not about combating today's antisemitism. It is essentially about efforts to silence her and to undermine her mandate as a senior UN official reporting about Israel's violations of human rights and international law."

Well, I end here but not before leaving some links where you can support Palestinian population if you can:

Medical Aid for Palestinians donation page:

https://www.map.org.uk/?form=FUNFXHDCJPK

United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East donation page:

https://donate.unrwa.org/int/en/general

Palestine Children's Relief Fund donation page:

https://pcrf1.app.neoncrm.com/forms/general

Take care everyone and stay strong.

References:

https://www.laleggepertutti.it/739028_sara-vietato-criticare-israele-la-nuova-proposta-di-legge-contro-la-palestina

https://it.wikisource.org/wiki/Italia,_Repubblica_-_Costituzione,_testo_originale#21

https://www.senato.it/documenti/repository/istituzione/costituzione_inglese.pdf

https://www.notizie.it/en/Anti-Semitism-Bill%3A-An-In-Depth-Analysis/