National Report

Words that hurt Hate speech in Italy on 2018 Edited by Final report June 5 2019 This report has been written in the framework of Words are stones project Background This national report has been produced in the framework of Words are stones project, coordinated by Lunaria (I) in partnership with Adice (F), Antigone (GR), Grenzelos (A), Kisa (CY) and Sos Racisme (S). Nationalist, populist and xenophobic movements which instrumentally mix euroscepticism, intolerance, hate and racism in order to increase their consent in public opinion represent a danger for the construction of a democratic, united, cohesive and peaceful European society. The public debate is crossed by stereotypes and prejudices targeting immigrants and refugees that often degenerate in racist offenses and attacks. In this context, Words are stones aims to: • analyze political discourses that exacerbate xenophobia, intolerance and discriminations against migrants, refugees and minorities crossing the public debate; • enhance civil society organizations, European citizens and institutions capacity to prevent and respond to hate speech; • involve European youth in campaigns countering hate speech • sensitize European politicians promote intercultural dialogue, human rights protection and a pacific coexistence among nationals and people coming from other countries. Six national reports will be produced in all partners’ countries. The main results will be compared and summarized in an international report. This report has been produced with the financial support of the Europe for Citizens Program of the European Union. The contents of this publication are the sole responsibility of Lunaria and cannot be considered to reflect an official opinion of the European Commission. Table of contents 1.The national context 1.1 Hate speech: an increasingly phenomenon in political communication 1.2 Hate speech: a concept of difficult definition 2. Hate speech in Italy and its political spectrum 2.1 Availability of official data 2.2 Political hate speech 3. Political hate speech: some exemplary cases 3.1 Overview 3.2 The selected cases 4. Deconstructing the five main topoi 4.1.1 ʺStop the invasionʺ 4.1.2 “They cost too much” 4.1.3 “Immigrants criminals” 4.1.4 ʺItalians live in the streets, immigrants get public housingʺ 4.1.5 ʺThey are instigating us to cultural suicideʺ 4.2 Beyond the ʺrationalʺ deconstruction 5. Combating hate speech: the most significant initiatives promoted by civil society 5.1. Monitoring and mapping 5.2. The promotion of a correct information 5.3. Campaigning 5.4 Media literacy 6. Conclusions 1.The national context 1.1 Hate speech: an increasingly phenomenon in political communication The spread of hate speech in Italy has been under examination for some years. The rise of hostile and stigmatizing expressions has in fact significantly increased in the different spheres of public debate. If the iteration of discriminant subjects, statements and messages is definitely not a new phenomenon, we can easily affirm that new technologies have created new ways for the propagation of verbal violence expressions directed to specific groups of people or individuals identified as belonging to these groups. These expressions are based on some characteristics considered as marks of ʺdiversityʺ as compared to the dominant group - citizenship or national origin, somatic characteristics, religious or gender affiliation, physical conditions, status and, even, political affiliation 1. Among the most significant changes caused by the spread of new technologies on the information system, we should mention three of them. 1. The decentralization of information-production . From a hierarchical system, in which few of the most powerful information media held the control of the entire information system, we moved to an apparently democratic system, in which millions of people are allowed to produce information by means of social networks and have the opportunity to interact with political and media stakeholders; 2. The distribution of information has grown exponentially but only apparently it is independent . Users are mostly allowed to read information that social networks managers and search engines, or rather, the algorithms used by them, have selected for them. 3. The information system encourages polarization and discourages the search for the truth . The hegemony of a model of social relations built on a friend/enemy comparison has two main consequences: it tends to make social network's communication increasingly aggressive - the Web and social networks are two of the greater channels of stigmatization, spread of verbal violence, and racism. Instead of promoting democratic processes and pluralism, the mesh of social networks flows into imprisoning users in the so called echo chambers that tend to exclude ideas and opinions that are not in compliance with users’ political, gender, religious and cultural affiliations. These transformations have arisen in a context of progressive invalidation of the forms of participation and democratic representation. The crisis of the democratic representation model based on political parties has increased the trend to shift the centrality of political action from a democratic and civil confrontation between worldviews and alternative public policies proposals, to a simplified political communication, steeped in populism, focused on the leader, aimed to provoke an emotional reaction and strongly aggressive towards the opponents 2. The dialectical confrontation among different ideas and models of society has been replaced by a deeply polarized political debate, more easily inclined to use extremely violent expressions and tones and to search for scapegoats in order to acquire consensus . For that reason, communication strategies tend to identify and prefer referring to targets belonging to the weakest population groups, in order to counter them to the dominant group and to articulate a binary representation of the society, promising, simultaneously, to protect their rights and interests thanks to the reduction/denial of rights to those who, from time to time, have been identified as ʺothersʺ. In 2018 the consequences of these transformations emerged with particular relevance during the electoral campaign preceding the 4 th March general elections, but they continue permeating the public debate in the following months, enough to arouse the attention and reflection of many 1See Giovannetti M., Minicucci C., “L’hate speech sui social media: analisi e proposte”, in Scaramella (ed.), Discorsi d’odio e Social Media. Criticità, strategie e pratiche d’intervento , Arci, Cittalia, 2016, pp. 13-15. 2See Ferrajoli L., Democrazia e populismo , in Rivista AIC-Associazione Italiana dei Costituzionalisti, N. 3/2018. reporters, scholars and legal experts, on the role played by discriminatory political propaganda considered to be stigmatizing and too often denigrating and offensive, particularly towards migrants, asylum seekers, refugees and Roma. The issue continues to be relevant today, on the eve of the European elections which will take place in May 2019. It is therefore useful to analyze all the hate speech recurring characterization elements in Italian public and specifically political debate used during 2018, year in which there has been a deep change in the national political system that has led to a new Government balance. 1.2 Hate speech: a concept of difficult definition In order to proceed with the analysis, it will be useful to frame the phenomenon we are dealing with. The definition we will start from is the one proposed by the Council of Europe 3. “The term “hate speech” should be understood as including all forms of expression aimed at spreading, fostering, promoting or justifying racial hatred, xenophobia, anti-semitism or other forms of hate based on intolerance, including intolerance expressed in the form of aggressive nationalism and ethnocentrism, discrimination and hostility towards minorities, migrants and people of immigrant origin”. Hate speech definition includes thus ʺall discriminatory public expressions directed towards specific subjects or social groups, whose reaction must be carefully balanced by the legal system with the fundamental right of freedom of thought and expression. These include not only outrageous and/or defamatory manifestations of thought, but also every other type of thought manifestation having a provocative or violent meaning, as well as propaganda of ideas with a racist and/or discriminatory backgroundʺ 4. The Italian law does not provide an accurate definition of hate speech, but the art. 3 of law n. 654/1975 5 as amended by laws n. 205/1993, n. 101/1989, n. 85/2006 and n. 115/2016, offer a legal basis to punish racist ideas propaganda and instigation to commit discriminatory acts 6. According to the art. 3, paragraph 1 of law n.654 / 1975, currently in force: ʺUnless the fact constitutes a more serious offense, including for the purposes of implementing the provision of Article 4 of the Convention, shall be punished: A) with the imprisonment up to a year and six months or with a fine of up to 6.000 euros those who promote ideas based on superiority or racial or ethnic hatred, or those who instigate to commit or commit acts of discrimination for racial, ethnic, national reasons or religious; » b) with imprisonment from six months to four years who, in any way, instigates to commit or commits violence or acts of provocation to violence for racial, ethnic, national or religious reasons”. 3 Council of Europe,

Load more