Non-discrimination

CSOs working on the rights of women described the challenges in Italy as deeply rooted in cultural bias. It was described how the perception of violence against women was low compared to the reality, and too often approached through the prism of conflict within the couple. Access to justice for female victims of violence was considered to be insufficient. It was mentioned that the European Court of Human Rights had ruled against Italy in 2017 for having failed to protect victims of domestic violence. It was also considered that the country was lagging behind in terms of implementation of the EU Directive on Victims’ Rights and that the courts were not granting adequate compensation. More generally, CSOs working on women’s rights considered that the financial support in this area was insufficient, especially in support of shelters for victims of violence. It was said that some of these centres could be faced with a risk of closure, or be managed instead by local authorities. A CSO working on LGBTI rights presented a situation in which, despite some advances in social perceptions and law, significant challenges remained. Following the adoption of the law on same sex civil union in 2016, a series of hate speeches and hate crimes illustrated that progress was still needed. It was explained that bullying of LGBTI pupils at school was still a major problem and that it came both from schoolmates and from teaching staff. Other challenges which were mentioned included the lack of media visibility for LGBTI persons and the absence of important debates, for example on the offer of solutions to transgender children. The Italian authorities indicated that they were in permanent contact with LGBTI CSOs through the consultation table devoted to the topic.

Concerning the rights of persons with disabilities, it was considered that despite Italy’s ratification of the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities in 2009, de facto discrimination remained widespread. This was particularly the case in terms of economic and social inclusion. It was hoped that the recent adoption of a law to favour the inclusion of persons with disabilities in the education system would address the fact that only a third of persons with disabilities finished advanced educational studies, which led to a similarly low proportion of these persons having a job. A consequence of this central problem is that very few persons with disabilities take an active role in civic, cultural and political life, which reinforces a situation of de facto marginalisation in society.

The situation of Roma, Sinti and Camminanti persons was described by several CSOs as being a humanitarian emergency. It was explained that the previous government had a clear anti-Roma narrative and policy, which included the order for local authorities to map out informal Roma, Sinti and Camminanti settlements in order to facilitate their destruction. According to these CSOs, this added to existing practices of forced evictions that did not respect procedural safeguards, and adequate relocation was not proposed. More generally, CSOs explained that Roma, Sinti and Camminanti persons suffered from strong discrimination in the area of housing and education and that their marginalisation kept them in extremely bad health, economic and social conditions. A CSO questioned the adequate use of EU funds allocated to policies on Roma, Sinti and Camminanti persons in Italy. The Italian authorities indicated that they were in permanent contact with Roma CSOs through a consultation table devoted to the topic.

The protection and perception of migrants’ rights was considered as particularly problematic by several CSOs. They stressed the gap that existed between the reality of the societal challenge and the perception of the situation in the mind of a great part of the population. It was explained that a feeling of “invasion” was fuelled by some media and some politicians who always associated migrants with crime. This narrative was presented by two CSOs as encouraging a “war of the poor against the poor” instead of addressing issues through the proper use of resources. CSOs described how the two ‘Security Decrees’ adopted by the previous government had led to an abolition of humanitarian protection for asylum seekers. The impossibility for asylum seekers to obtain legal address was also presented as a factor keeping them on the margins of society, as such a requirement was necessary to get access to rights and to work. It was also explained that the prevalence of undeclared work amongst migrants put them in a situation of dependence on employers. A trade union representative explained how they worked together with humanitarian CSOs to help migrants become integrated. It was mentioned that while migrants could not vote in political elections, they could still get representation in the workplace as trade unions did not distinguish between workers.

The Italian authorities indicated that so far the bulk of financial allocations to address the migration challenge in Italy had come under the Italian rather than the EU budget. The Italian authorities indicated that Italy had clear channels for asylum, through resettlement, humanitarian corridors and humanitarian evacuation. In their view, an adequate response to the Italian people’s frustrations with regards to the migration challenge would involve an increase in support by other EU Member States and a collective EU response to tackle these challenges. According to the Italian authorities, this would notably entail more cooperation on disembarkation of search and rescue ships, the revision of the Dublin regulation and the allocation of sufficient resources in the next Multiannual Financial Framework (MFF) for the integration of migrants in Italy.