Human Security Centre Human Rights and International Security Research
By Sam Biden, Junior Fellow
17 March, 2025
Italy has sparked outrage over their renewed proposal to pass previously criticized regulations aimed at strengthening the protections of Italian police and security forces while simultaneously dampening the freedoms of human rights activists.
Increasingly heated protests have plagued Italy for several years, rising noticeably since the Covid-19 pandemic and the full-scale conflict between Israel and rival armed groups. Tightened regulations restricting the movement of people during the pandemic caused nationwide protests with among the most notable taking place in northern Italy. Police forces were targeted by large groups of agitating protesters while the surrounding businesses were attacked and looted, causing a violent police response against an originally peaceful protest by a separate group. Major protests also gathered in Milan, Rome and Genoa that caused emergency police responses after petrol bombs were used. Following the attacks on 7 October, anti-Palestinian sentiments began to resonate across the nation. With the Italian police once again at the forefront, accusations of beating pro-Palestinian child protesters, injuring pro-Palestinian demonstrators in Pisa, Florence and Rome became a pressing issue. In defence of this, Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni condemned the violence, yet eventually became a target herself as she leapt to defend the Italian police forces against claims of racism regarding targeting pro-Palestinian protesters.
Bill 1660
Originating as Bill 1660 last year, a number of major concerns were raised by various human rights and judicial bodies over the restraints some of the proposed regulations imposed. One such amendment is Article 11, designed to allow for greater sanctions against people blocking traffic as a form of protest, something popularized in recent years by Just Stop Oil, a disruptive environmentalist group. The amendment proposes a sentencing range of 6 months to 2 years for offences, a stark increase from the previous administrative offence format, often occurring through fines. This imposition is heightened when multiple offenders are involved, categorizing this form of organization as an “aggravating factor”, pushing judiciaries to consider harsher sentences for collective protests. This amendment has been questioned as incompatible with rulings at the ECtHR, citing a certain degree of tolerance state authorities must allow in order to respond proportionally to peaceful assemblies, with disruption to traffic being a common result. Similarly, the shift to a criminal offence model poses further contradictions, citing that this would require a particular justification and cannot be applied liberally across varying contexts. For example, a small group of people daisy-chaining themselves together and disrupting traffic for 5 minutes carries the same criminal sanctions as a large disruptive group of potentially thousands of protestors, regardless of the varying degrees of disruption caused. This allows for a disproportionate, blanket response to be applied to any form of protest regardless of their involvement in disruption that can cause issues relating to public safety and order.
As the rights of protestors diminish, protections for police and public security were increased. Article 10 imposed a number of key rules regarding responses to the actions of police and public security, granting an extra one-third over the normal criminal penalty while concurrently citing both resistance to orders and violence against officials as aggravating factors. While these factors already exist in Articles 336/337 the Criminal Code, Article 10 placed a greater punitive importance on aggravating factors over mitigating factors. In short, mitigating factors, such as self-defence, error of fact and force majeure will not carry as much legal weight in court, allowing for a maximum sentence of 16 years for even the most straightforward self-defence cases.
Ramy Elgami and Bill 1236
One catalyst for the reintroduction of these regulations was the death of Ramy Elgami, an Egyptian man involved in a high-speed police chase on 24 November last year. Fares Bouzidi, a man accompanying Elgami on their moped during the chase, claims the police car hit the moped moments before the fatal crash, leading to accusations of murder against the Italian police. The death of Elgami sparked protests hosted by the Italian Anti-Racist Coordination, taking place across Rome, leading to eight police officers being injured. Meloni once again leapt to the defence of the Italian police forces, claiming to stand in solidarity despite developing evidence that they’d caused the death of an innocent civilian.
The reintroduction of Bill 1660, under the new title of Bill 1236, has sparked similar widespread concern over its continual effort to ensure the significant expansion of state authority in public assemblies. Among the most contentious provisions, Article 14 reclassifies the offences under the previous Article 10, transitioning traffic disruption from an administrative offence to a criminal one with the same 2-year maximum sentence. Article 11 covers other forms of transport interference, citing the same criminal penalties relating to public transport such as trains, carriages and presumably buses. Alongside this, new provisions under Article 13 broaden the authority of the Police Commissioner to directly ban individuals from accessing designated areas near key infrastructures, including roads, railways, and airports for a maximum period of one year. Additional criminal penalties can be similarly applied to direct harm to “institutional prestige” via defacing (such as graffiti) under Article 24. While “institutional prestige” has not been fully clarified, its phrasing suggests anti-government sentiments or criticism of the Italian government’s public bodies shall become a crime. For prisoners and new convicts, these restrictions extend into the prison network itself with even “passive resistance”, such as protesting, carrying the same further sentencing as violent uprisings under Article 26. Migrants and asylum seekers travelling from conflict regions are also targets of the new provisions, with a maximum prison sentence of 4 years for direct resistance to government officials.
The same critiques of the original bill are held for its successor with major risks to legitimate freedom of assembly and expression being made. A noticeable lack of distinction between violent protests and peaceful assemblies underpins the primary issue with Bill 1236, coming at a time when the UN has recently highlighted the already strained respect for civil rights many young human rights defenders currently face.
UN Report on Young Human Rights Defenders
Although young human rights defenders face many of the same repressive tactics as their older counterparts, younger protestors (such as the environmentalists the Bill is said to target) frequently lack access to national and international protection mechanisms specifically designed for human rights defenders. While international human rights instruments recognize the rights of all defenders, including children and youth, there remains a significant absence of tailored provisions addressing their unique vulnerabilities and challenges.
Young people are typically the most frequently targeted groups facing restrictions on their fundamental freedoms regarding assembly and association. However, existing legal frameworks for the protection of human rights defenders often fail to account for the specific needs of youth defenders. As a result, some states have begun to incorporate legislative changes that directly incorporate child rights into protective legislation on freedom of assembly and association. One such example occurred in Moldova, aimed at enhancing child participation, the Moldovan government sought to integrate child rights perspectives into legislative protections for defenders, the first nation to do so. Freedom of thought, religion, conscience, assembly and even right to an opinion have all been codified alongside human rights protections aimed at adults.
Despite progress in Moldova, many states impose arbitrary restrictions on young human rights defenders that heavily restrict their ability to fight for their rights. For example in Turkey, under Article 3 of the Associations Act, children must be at least 16 years old to establish associations, with Lebanon ensuring association membership is limited to individuals over 21 years old. Russia’s 2019 law prohibits adults from encouraging minors to participate in unauthorized protests, alongside the US where some school districts have begun threatening disciplinary action against students who participated in demonstrations advocating for gun law reform following the 2018 Parkland shooting. In more extreme cases, governments have forcibly dissolved NGOs under vague national security and counter-terrorism provisions, effectively preventing them from accessing funding or organizing activities.
Assembly itself is still a pressing issue for young human rights defenders. Blanket bans and intimidation tactics by law enforcement, including arbitrary arrests have caused some activists to be detained for extended periods without access to legal representation. As civil disobedience increasingly becomes a key strategy for young human rights defenders, governments have responded with harsher legal consequences. This remains a key issue in environmental activism, where authorities have employed administrative, misdemeanor and criminal laws to penalize protesters. For example, New South Wales in Australia enacted legislation in 2022 introducing severe penalties for protesters obstructing roads or ports, with fines reaching AU$22,000 and prison sentences of up to two years, similar to Italy. As a result, civil disobedience, even within the bounds of the law, has resulted in similar penalties to violence against government officials, effectively criminalizing anyone exhibiting their own civil rights.
Conclusion
The reintroduction of Bill 1236 highlights an ongoing global struggle between state security measures and fundamental civil liberties. While governments often justify such laws as necessary to maintain public order and prevent violence, the broad and vague provisions within such legislation risk suppressing legitimate activism. By treating civil disobedience as a criminal offense on par with violent crimes, states risk discouraging public participation in social and political movements, silencing voices that are essential to democratic debate and progress. This growing protest criminalization, particularly targeting youth and marginalized communities, further raises serious concerns about the erosion of democratic values and the right to freedom of expression. The ability to assemble, demonstrate, and advocate for change is a cornerstone of any democratic society, yet restrictive measures such as Bill 1236 create a chilling effect that deters individuals from engaging in activism entirely.
Image: The Italian police (Source: Jollyroger via CC BY-SA 2.5)
