World News
A community for discussing events around the World
Rules:
-
Rule 1: posts have the following requirements:
- Post news articles only
- Video links are NOT articles and will be removed.
- Title must match the article headline
- Not United States Internal News
- Recent (Past 30 Days)
- Screenshots/links to other social media sites (Twitter/X/Facebook/Youtube/reddit, etc.) are explicitly forbidden, as are link shorteners.
-
Rule 2: Do not copy the entire article into your post. The key points in 1-2 paragraphs is allowed (even encouraged!), but large segments of articles posted in the body will result in the post being removed. If you have to stop and think "Is this fair use?", it probably isn't. Archive links, especially the ones created on link submission, are absolutely allowed but those that avoid paywalls are not.
-
Rule 3: Opinions articles, or Articles based on misinformation/propaganda may be removed.
-
Rule 4: Posts or comments that are homophobic, transphobic, racist, sexist, anti-religious, or ableist will be removed. “Ironic” prejudice is just prejudiced.
-
Posts and comments must abide by the lemmy.world terms of service UPDATED AS OF OCTOBER 19 2025
-
Rule 5: Keep it civil. It's OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It's NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
-
Rule 6: Memes, spam, other low effort posting, reposts, misinformation, advocating violence, off-topic, trolling, offensive, regarding the moderators or meta in content may be removed at any time.
-
Rule 7: We didn't USED to need a rule about how many posts one could make in a day, then someone posted NINETEEN articles in a single day. Not comments, FULL ARTICLES. If you're posting more than say, 10 or so, consider going outside and touching grass. We reserve the right to limit over-posting so a single user does not dominate the front page.
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
Lemmy World Partners
News !news@lemmy.world
Politics !politics@lemmy.world
World Politics !globalpolitics@lemmy.world
Recommendations
For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.
https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/
- Consider including the article’s mediabiasfactcheck.com/ link
view the rest of the comments
Does that make hate crime murder against men less worth prosecuting as such? Why shouldn't the legal definition be symmetrical?
How many hate crime murders of men are there in Italy?
Idk probably less and so the law against hate crimes for men would be used less than the one against them for women. Again, why would you not treat them the same in each individual case? If 80% of thievery was committed against women, would you not also prosecute the 20% committed against men just the same?
At no point did anyone suggest that they weren’t prosecuting murder against men, nor did they suggest they would do so with less effort. All this law does is allow the courts to take misogyny into account so that motive isn’t ignored or downplayed during the charging proces.
Yes, they prosecute murder for both genders. I'm asking why the hate crime aspect that increases the sentence is not the same.
To be clear, I think the femicide change is a good thing, just unnecessarily restrictive.
It doesn’t necessarily increase or decrease the sentence.
Are you asking why genders are different, and why violence isn’t equal? That’s a very deep topic the law is attempting to partially address.
You are incorrect. The relevant laws can be found in the Italian penal code. Article 575 sets the minimum punishment for homicide at 21 years. Article 577 lists circumstances that would upgrade this sentence to a life sentence, and the suggested change is to add femicide to this list. So yes, it necessarily increases the sentence.
I am not asking why genders are different and violence is not equal (this should be obvious to anyone listening to the women's rights movement in the last 30 years). My argument has nothing to do with the relative frequency of crimes against different genders. I'm asking why a murder motivated by hate for someone's gender would not be treated the same in any case, as it is with most identity-based hate crime laws. Do you think that because one identity group has more crime of a certain type done against them, they should be treated differently in each individual case about that crime?
Yes, and when somebody murders a woman because they’re a woman, now there’s a charge where the relevant jurors can take into account state of mind etc.
That’s why I used the wording I did. They both potentially carry life sentences. It should go without saying that femicide is a type of murder with a portion of the culpability “baked into it”.
The reason is because the genders aren’t the same. If there was (functionally) anyone being murdered because they were a man, then the law would also cover men. It’s curious you mention “other identity-based hate crime laws”, because Italy happens to not have categories for homosexual people like other jurisdictions might - for example.
Yes, I believe that gender-based crime is a different crime and it should be treated as such. Ideally there would be a category for the infinite potential culpabilities for murder, but that’s not realistic. I think femicide is realistic because the crime is relatively common.
Interesting
I guess I just don't get the reasoning for not making the law cover all genders. It's good that we covered one, but why not the rest? Yes, there are infinite motivations for murder, and we can't cover them all; but that doesn't mean we should exclude certain motivations when it would make sense to cover them. The impossibility of making a perfect law should not prevent us from makingg obvious improvements.
It’s not an “improvement” to remove language from people at risk, and add language from people functionally not at risk. Then you’d have a case where the law is potentially pointless, since it duplicates an existing law.
In other words: being motivated to murder somebody because they’re a woman is different to being motivated because they’re a man. You can advocate for a law that protects men, if you’re actually interested in parity…but legislatures don’t tend to pass laws to protect something that figuratively doesn’t happen.
It wouldn't duplicate an existing law, it would provide additional protections to people who are murdered because of their gender. Again, this would not remove a single protection from women. Stop making zero-sum arguments when they don't apply.
I'm saying it would be better if they did.
I don't think this discussion is going to be much more useful, I think we've said everything we need to at this point.
Sure, advocate for that, then…I don’t see the value in arguing against a law that, at worst, does nothing legally and creates awareness…like this conversation. I’m sure neither of us knew as much about the issue before as we do, now.
True! I'm glad for this thread. (And, to be clear, I'm not arguing against protections for femicide-- just arguing for extending those protections to cover more scenarios). I think my response to you in the other comment chain conveys my feelings well.
As I said somewhere many replies ago…I wouldn’t spend my energy advocating to take care of a problem that figuratively doesn’t exist, but rather for a problem that does. If men are top of your mind, sexual violence against men is underreported and a huge issue…that, ironically/tragically is tied to this issue.
Because the situation is not symmetrical. Acknowledging that there is an oppressed side is not the same thing as denying the privileged one. Pretending murder will not be prosecuted in Italy if the victim is male is just you larping and not at all what enshrining feminicide in law means. It's just aggravating circumstances. Murderers of males will be prosecuted for murder without the aggravating circumstances of misogyny as a motive because it wouldn't make any sense. And misandry is not the societal problem that misogyny is, so it would be kind of insulting to make them a protected class.
You're acting like a four year old whose disabled brother got a wheelchair and who wants one of his own, saying "it's not fair". It is.
Perhaps I was not clear. I am referring to the prosecution being "the same" in the sense that a gender-based motivation in the murder of a man would qualify it as a hate crime. Of course men can still be prosecuted for murder either way; surely you didn't think that's what I was saying?
Not nearly on the same scale, no. But should it not be protected against at all? Femicide is certainly a more pressing matter to enshrine into law, but we might as well make it as comprehensive of a protection as we can/should while we're doing this. As far as I know, most hate crime laws (at least in the US) actually are symmetrical in this way. If one of the identities being protected is more vulnerable to crime, the hate crime protection will be used to protect them more often. Seems logical to me.
Is there a need for insults here?
It's not an insult, it's an apt analogy. This argument is childish. In an unjust reality, law should strive for equity, not equality. The US is not a model for how hate should be treated.
Ok so you responded to none of my actual points, cool.
Your wheelchair analogy doesn't even make sense in the context of this discussion. It would be more like if my brother was more prone to being injured, so in the event that one of us does get injured, only he gets the wheelchair. That's the argument you're making-- basing the appropriate solution to an individual's situation on the frequency of how likely that situation is to occur. Which makes no sense.
A law which helps all genders fight hate crime here DOES provide equity because it will help the genders more affected by hate crimes proportionally more than the ones that are less affected!
You're avoiding the question. I haven't seen you give a real reason why it shouldn't be symmetrical yet. I know that the motivation is greater to prosecute more common crimes, but ideally why would it not be symmetrical?
Not really, I just enjoy arguing against things that I don't think make sense and for things that do.
A user elsewhere in this thread has made me see the point that you're trying to make. I'm still not sure it makes sense to enshrine these differences in crime frequency towards different groups into law, but I do see the value in trying to tackle the problem from a gendered perspective in terms of trying to change the culture. So I am now split on whether the value of the law being better (symmetrical) outweighs the value of changing the culture by making a law targetted specifically for women.
How about you tell us why the legal system should be symmetrical if the situation isn't? Why do the rich pay proportionally more tax than the poor? People are trying to make an unjust factual reality more just by acknowledging injustice is why.
Being rich is not an unchangeable identity nor a protected class; it is the result of one's actions, and actions, unlike identity, must be treated differently by the law.
The legal situation should be symmetrical because for any individual victim, the frequency of crime done to various identity groups does not matter.
Related example: Rape is more commonly done to women. But male victims of rape should still be protected against it.
Unrelated hypothetical: Let's say 80% of thievery was committed against women. Should men not also be protected against this crime just because it happens more often to another group of people?
I suppose you could make the argument that "the situation" is still not symmetrical, because women face more hate in their daily lives. But I fail to see how this should apply to the crime of murder or the punishment for its motivation.
It's certainly true that femicide is a more important protection, as the majority of gender-motivated murder is committed against women (I have no proof for this, but it seems everyone here agrees on this). But that is not a good argument not to provide other genders with the same protections from hate-motivated murder in the form of longer sentences as well.
I have provided my argument, as asked. So again, I ask: Why in your opinion would it be worse to provide this protection to all genders?
If you look at the rates of social class transitions, you'll find being rich or poor is not much less of an unchangeable identity than gender... But that's not the point, you keep saying you don't get the reasons why this law should be asymmetrical, so I'm trying to explain by analogy. The answer is equality is a bad foundation for lawmaking, equity is a better one.
Your hypotheticals and examples are very bad for someone who says elsewhere that
I'll answer a better analogy : in a world where 80% of [insert any act of violence] is committed against women, should [insert any act of violence] against men still be prosecuted? Yes. Now, assuming a lawmaker believes that the harshness of punishments deters from crimes*, should that lawmaker make the punishment harsher for [insert any act of violence] committed against women? Also yes, that's what's happening here. That's the definition of an aggravating circumstance such as a motive of hate: a reason for worsening the punishment. It's still murder, only worse to account for the asymmetry.
*If you don't assume that, then the reasons for punishing anything more or less are mostly symbolic anyways, so by making an asymmetric law you're only acknowledging symbolically that there's an asymmetrical problem, but it's mostly just posturing.
I appreciate you sticking with your arguments; this is the first one in the whole thread that's actually made sense to me. I'm not sure if it makes more sense as a goal to equalize the crimes between two groups than to lower the overall crime, but 1. It does still make sense and 2. Making the law symmetrical would draw less attention and probably result in less of a drop in net crime anyways, so... yeah, ok, I get your point now. Thanks.
You have this backwards. The poor pay proportionally more than the rich.
On a different note, I'd argue that the situation in question (murder) IS symmetrical.
yes, yes, I meant income tax specifically, proportionally to the aforementioned income.
Argue all you want though, factual reality is just there if you want to look at statistics, both for perpetrators and victims. If you meant like anyone can kill anyone, then money is also symmetrical in that anyone can get it and spend it in precisely the same way.
In terms of symmetry, I mean that specific to the outcome of murdering an individual. One death = one death. The end result of the act of murder is genderless.
Yes and 1$=1$. If you look at stuff in a vacuum everything is symmetrical, that's a nothing statement.
Are you daft or just wanting to be combative?
$1 has absolutely nothing to do with the context of this conversation.
One death does. There should not be variations in criminal penalties based on the victim’s gender. It’s textbook sexism.
Fighting sexism with more sexism; par for the course of conservative governments. I just thought people on Lemmy were smarter. I guess not.
Yes. Violence from the oppressed is not the same as violence from the opressor. In an unjust reality, law should strive for equity, not equality.
I don't think my model of morality is compatible with yours.
What would give you that idea? What is it with folks who think equality is ignoring an actual problem?
If the hate crime part of the law were symmetrical, not only would that still handle the problem of femicide like the current law does, it would also handle hate crimes against other genders. Not making it symmetrical ignores more problems.
The currentl law doesn’t appropriately “handle” the problem of femicide…or else it wouldn’t be an outsized problem.
Symmetry is the problem. The justice system anywhere isn’t “one size fits all” for murder. There are already categories for infanticide, assisted suicide, accidental death, indirect murder, etc. It would be very very nice if there was an appropriate category for the infinite motivations for murder…but that’s not realistic.
Femicide is a problem in Italy so they passed a law. If males being targeted was a problem…they’d pass that law. Making an appropriate category for an existing phenomenon doesn’t mean it “ignores” anything else, as you’re claiming.
Yes, femicide is clearly a larger problem that has greater motivation to address it. But would it not be equally easy, and overall better, to address all categories of gender-motivated murder?
No it would not be “easier” to pass laws against categories that functionally dot exist, for example.
I said above that, in perfect world, all manners of culpability would be handled differently - but that’s not realistic. What’s realistic is passing a law against something that happens frequently.
You could pass a law simultaneously against all gender-based hate-motivated murder by just specifying any gender in the law. You don't need to enumerate every category.
Again, making the law non-gender specific would be trying to protect a category that functionally doesn’t exist…and it would remove specific protections for the very people it’s trying to protect. It would actually do what some opponents are incorrectly speculating this law does to existing murder laws.
Are you advocating that we protect men from gender-based physical violence? Is this important to you? Your argument appears to be semantic and performative…rooted in a so-called “men rights” argument. The logical argument wouldn’t be to remove a law that’s needed, but rather add a law that specifically protects men…because women and men aren’t the same and they require unique approaches.
My approach, the humanist approach, would be: yes this is forward movement, and we can look at other categories that are also at risk. For example, if you were concerned about the safety of men you wouldn’t spin your tires on something that figuratively doesn’t happen and advocate for, say, additional laws to protect men from sexual violence (a category that is often ignored and woefully under-reported).
Does it matter whether the protections are specific to that gender? General protections would still apply to women.
My argument is not performative or based in a "men's rights" movement, but yes, it is somewhat semantic. I think the law would be more "complete" and overall better if it protected all genders, and so that is what I am arguing for. Although codifying punishments for femicide is good, adding protections for all genders doesn't remove any protections for women, it just extends them to everyone else. Giving someone something doesn't have to take it away from someone else.
If you are right that men and women require unique approaches to gender-based protection though, then yes that would be a barrier to making the law gender-agnostic. What do you believe would need to apply differently to men vs women?
I think your humanist approach makes sense, but that doesn't mean that improving the completeness of the laws is not also worth pursuing. I am concerned about the safety of men and do advocate for improved sexual assault laws; but in this case I am also concerned that the law appears incomplete. Maybe that's why I've been arguing in here so much; my view of the problem does not align with how others are approaching it, and that creates a mismatch of assumptions.
Edit: To elaborate on what I mean by "complete", I think that the law should always provide equality. Equity should be sought through other (primarily social) avenues. The purpose of the law is to be an impartial judge of what is acceptable, not just to solve the current issues in society. Of course those issues have the greatest motivation to create laws to solve, but the ideal (and, unfortunately, unreachable) form of the law solves not only these problems but many others as well. It should be a solid framework upon which we build, not a series of patches to address single issues.
Yes, it matters. Women are different from men as are the motivations to murder each gender…given that men and women don’t always have the same power or role in western society, for example.
I’m just repeating myself at this point: generalizing a law designed to protect women could make it pointless. It’s just word games, and we’re talking about a very serious issue.
I don't think it's valid to pretend my arguments are entirely pointless and then dismiss them because it's a serious issue. Of course it's a serious issue; that's why I'm arguing about it. I'm not calling your arguments hysteria or illogical just because they're motivated by different reasons than mine are. I am perfectly willing to know why you believe generalizing the law would make it less effective; I explicitly asked, even. But if you do not feel that it is worth it to go into detail then I don't think there's anything to be gained by continuing this discussion.
Take note that I never called you hysterical…that came from you.
Up until point I don’t really know what you’re arguing, is all. Apparently coverage for a problem that doesn’t exist.
I’ve said it a few times, but at minimum the law highlights an existing legal and social problem. Generalizing the law implies that the problem is equal, and removes language specific to who it’s trying to protect.
I think I just see the purpose of creating laws differently than you do. To me, there is an abstract ideal law that we should aim for. The relative necessity to current society of different potential laws is not something I consider important to what laws shpuld be added; if we are adding the femicide protections, it makes sense to also add them for other genders, even if those protections are not currently needed to the same degree, and the urgency to add them is therefore lower. But it seems like you are viewing the act of adding a law as something meant to address the problems in current society, and that we should focus on the laws that are most immediately helpful now, because that will do the most good, regardless of if those laws could be improved before passing to cover lesser issues like I am pushing for. I think that's a sensible enough way to operate-- you can't make the laws perfect before passing them, so doing the most good you can by passing the most important laws first and coming back later to fix lesser issues that may still exist afterwards makes sense-- but since it's not the perspective I'm coming from, it took me a while to realize how you are thinking about this issue.
(Sorry for wall of text)
Edit:
This is a good example of a disagreement caused by how we view the act of passing laws. To me, modifying a law to cover more scenarios makes it "more correct" and should always be done. But if you believe that more important laws should be passed first rather than revised to be more complete for theoretical future scenarios, me claiming that the law should be extended to all genders is implying that all genders have the same need for the law to be passed, and therefore that the issue is equal across genders, which is clearly incorrect.
Laws have never been passed to address issues that don’t exist, and have always been passed as a deterrent to an existing problem. You can wish it were another way.
I do, it bothers me lol
The obvious irony here is that if society were equal towards genders…we could pass one-size fits-all-laws, because it wouldn’t matter.