The Zan Bill: what it was and why it was defeated

The Zan Bill — formally bill no. 2005 of the XVIII Legislature, titled “Measures for the prevention and combating of discrimination and violence on grounds of sex, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, and disability” — represents the most comprehensive attempt ever made by the Italian Parliament to provide the country with a law against homotransphobic hate crimes [2][10]. Approved by the Chamber of Deputies on November 4, 2020 with 265 votes in favor, 193 against, and one abstention [1], the text was killed in the Senate on October 27, 2021 through a secret procedural vote that prevented discussion [3][4].

Its defeat left Italy without a specific law against discrimination and violence motivated by gender identity and sexual orientation — a legislative gap that, as of 2026, has not yet been filled.

Who proposed the Zan Bill

The bill takes its name from its rapporteur, Alessandro Zan, a Democratic Party deputy elected in Padua. Born on October 4, 1973, a telecommunications engineer by training, Zan has a long history of civil rights activism: president of Arcigay Padua, organizer of the 2002 national Pride, city council member and assessor in Padua, and finally a member of Parliament since 2013. In the XVII Legislature, he had been rapporteur for the civil unions law (Cirinna law), approved in May 2016.

The Zan Bill was not an isolated proposal. The unified text arose from the merger of five bills filed at the Chamber: no. 107 (Boldrini and Speranza), no. 569 (Zan and others), no. 868 (Scalfarotto and others), no. 2171 (Perantoni and others), and no. 2255 (Bartolozzi) [10]. The topic had already been discussed in the XVII Legislature with the Scalfarotto bill, which was never approved by the Senate.

Timeline of parliamentary proceedings

At the Chamber of Deputies (2018-2020)

The various bills were filed between 2018 and 2019. Floor debate at the Chamber began on August 3, 2020 and concluded on November 4, 2020, when the unified text was approved by secret ballot with 265 votes in favor, 193 against, and one abstention [1].

Voting in favor were PD, Five Star Movement, Italia Viva, and LeU. Against were Lega, Fratelli d’Italia, and the majority of Forza Italia, though five Forza Italia deputies voted in favor in dissent from their own party. The opposition had filed over 800 amendments with clear obstructionist intent [1].

In the Senate: being buried in committee (2021)

The text that arrived in the Senate as S. 2005 was assigned to the Justice Committee, chaired by Lega senator Andrea Ostellari. The committee chair also assumed the role of bill rapporteur — a choice contested by the PD and supporters of the law, who saw it as an attempt to slow proceedings.

For months, the text remained blocked. Ostellari promoted hearings, proposed alternative texts, and repeatedly postponed scheduling. On April 28, 2021, the committee voted by majority (13 in favor, 11 against) to schedule the bill, but without setting a specific date for floor debate.

The summer 2021 debate

Between June and July 2021, the political debate intensified. Three articles became the center of the controversy: Article 1 (definitions, particularly the concept of “gender identity”), Article 4 (the so-called “ideas safeguard clause” on freedom of expression), and Article 7 (the establishment of a National Day against Homotransphobia).

July 6, 2021 represented a crucial moment: political forces failed to find a compromise on revising these three articles. Italia Viva, through Senator Ivan Scalfarotto, proposed a mediation involving a rewrite of the contested articles, starting from the text of the old Scalfarotto bill. The PD and Five Star Movement refused, maintaining that the text approved by the Chamber should not be modified. The center-right demanded the removal of the reference to gender identity from Article 1.

The secret vote of October 27, 2021

On October 27, 2021, the Zan Bill finally reached the Senate floor. But not for discussion of the articles: Lega and Fratelli d’Italia submitted a request for non-passage to the examination of articles, the so-called ”tagliola” (guillotine) — a procedural motion that, if approved, prevents discussion of the text and causes its parliamentary death.

The vote was by secret ballot. The result: 154 votes in favor of the guillotine, 131 against, 2 abstentions [3][4]. The Zan Bill died.

The secret ballot revealed the presence of at least 16 crossover voters — senators belonging to parties that officially supported the law (PD, Five Star Movement, Italia Viva, LeU) but who voted against. On paper, the center-left would have had the numbers to block the guillotine, but internal defections reversed the outcome [4].

The approval of the guillotine was greeted in the chamber with applause and jubilation from the center-right benches — images that remain among the most controversial of the legislature.

What the Zan Bill provided: the ten articles

The text comprised ten articles, divisible into two blocks: the criminal-repressive portion (Articles 1-6) and the proactive and preventive portion (Articles 7-10) [2][9].

Article 1: definitions

Article 1 established the definitions of terms used in the text [2][9]:

• Sex: biological or registered sex
• Gender: any outward manifestation of a person that conforms to or conflicts with social expectations connected to sex
• Sexual orientation: sexual or emotional attraction toward persons of the opposite sex, the same sex, or both sexes
• Gender identity: the perceived and manifested identification of the self in relation to gender, even if not corresponding to sex

This article was the most contested. Critics argued that the definition of “gender identity” was too broad and legally imprecise. Supporters responded that the definition was aligned with Italian Constitutional Court case law and international law.

Articles 2 and 3: extending criminal protection

The core of the law. Articles 2 and 3 amended Articles 604-bis and 604-ter of the penal code — the existing provisions punishing propaganda and incitement to crime on grounds of racial, ethnic, and religious discrimination (introduced by the Mancino Law of 1993 and later incorporated into the penal code) [2][9].

The Zan Bill added to these provisions the grounds of sex, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, and disability. In practice, the same criminal protections already existing for racial and religious discrimination would have been extended.

Prescribed penalties:

• Imprisonment up to one year and six months or fine up to 6,000 euros for those who propagate discriminatory ideas or incite discriminatory acts on these grounds
• Imprisonment from six months to four years for those who incite or commit violence for the same reasons

Article 3 also extended the aggravating circumstance of Article 604-ter (penalty increase up to half) to crimes committed with the purpose of discrimination on grounds of sex, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, or disability.

Article 4: the ideas safeguard clause

Article 4 represented the attempt to balance criminal protection with freedom of expression. The text read [2][9]:

“The free expression of convictions or opinions as well as legitimate conduct attributable to the pluralism of ideas or the freedom of choices remain protected, provided they are not likely to create the concrete danger of discriminatory or violent acts.”

This clause, known as the “Costa amendment” after the Forza Italia deputy who proposed it, established a clear principle: expressing an opinion did not constitute a crime. The offense was triggered only when the expression was likely to cause a concrete danger of discriminatory or violent acts. Critics nonetheless argued that the wording was insufficient to protect freedom of expression.

Articles 5 and 6: ancillary penalties and victim condition

Article 5 amended Decree Law 122 of April 26, 1993, extending ancillary penalties (such as the obligation to perform unpaid community service) to crimes motivated by discrimination on grounds of sex, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, and disability [9].

Article 6 amended Article 90-quater of the code of criminal procedure, including among conditions of particular vulnerability of the victim those related to gender identity, sex, gender, sexual orientation, and disability [9].

Article 7: the National Day

Article 7 established May 17 as the National Day against Homophobia, Lesbophobia, Biphobia, and Transphobia, coinciding with the existing international day. The date commemorates May 17, 1990, when the World Health Organization removed homosexuality from the list of mental disorders [2].

The article provided that schools of all levels could organize awareness initiatives on that day, in keeping with school autonomy and the three-year educational plan. Critics saw this provision as a risk of “gender propaganda” in schools; supporters responded that these were optional, not mandatory, initiatives aimed at combating bullying.

Articles 8, 9, and 10: strategy, centers, and monitoring

The final three articles concerned prevention [2]:

• Article 8 provided for the development of a national strategy for preventing and combating discrimination on grounds related to sexual orientation and gender identity, on a three-year cycle
• Article 9 established anti-discrimination centers, distributed across the national territory, capable of offering legal, psychological, health, and social assistance to victims
• Article 10 tasked ISTAT with conducting, at least every three years, statistical surveys on discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity, providing the legislature with updated data to calibrate public policies

The political debate: arguments for and against

Arguments in favor

The bill’s supporters — PD, Five Star Movement, LeU, and part of Forza Italia — presented legal and social arguments:

• Italy lacked a specific law against homotransphobic hate crimes, unlike most of Western Europe
• The Mancino Law (1993) protected against racial, ethnic, national, and religious discrimination, but not against discrimination based on sexual orientation or gender identity: a gap the Zan Bill would have filled following the same normative logic
• The bill did not create new crimes, but extended existing protections to new categories of victims
• The ideas safeguard clause in Article 4 expressly guaranteed freedom of expression

Arguments against

Opposition to the Zan Bill — Lega, Fratelli d’Italia, the majority of Forza Italia, and sectors of the Catholic world — focused on several points:

• The definition of “gender identity” in Article 1 was considered too vague and subjective, with the risk of creating uncertainty in criminal application
• Article 4 did not offer sufficient guarantees for freedom of expression, particularly for those expressing religious positions contrary to homosexuality or gender transition
• Article 7, with initiatives in schools, was seen as an intrusion into the educational sphere and as a possible vehicle for what was called “gender ideology”
• The Senate proposed starting from an alternative text that would have simply extended the Mancino Law without the definitions in Article 1 and without Articles 7 and following

Some, like Italia Viva, were not opposed to the principle of the law but believed the text could be improved and that the PD had been wrong to refuse all mediation.

The Vatican intervention: the verbal note of June 2021

On June 17, 2021, an unprecedented event in the history of Italy-Holy See relations marked a turning point in the debate. Paul Richard Gallagher, Secretary for Relations with States of the Vatican Secretariat of State, delivered to the Italian embassy to the Holy See a verbal note — an official diplomatic document — stating that the Zan Bill would violate the Concordat between Italy and the Holy See [5][6].

The note referenced Article 2 of the 1984 Concordat Revision Agreement, which ensures the Catholic Church “freedom of organization, public worship, and exercise of its teaching and episcopal ministry” (paragraph 1) and guarantees “Catholics and their associations and organizations full freedom of assembly and expression through speech, writing, and any other means of communication” (paragraph 3) [5].

According to the Vatican Secretariat of State, the criminalization of discriminatory conduct on grounds of gender identity could negatively impact these freedoms, limiting the ability of the Church and Catholics to express their doctrinal positions on topics such as homosexuality and gender transition [5][6].

The intervention was unprecedented: never before had the Holy See invoked the Concordat to intervene in the legislative process of an Italian law [6].

The reaction from the government and institutions was immediate. Chamber Speaker Roberto Fico declared that “Parliament is sovereign and does not accept interference.” Prime Minister Mario Draghi, responding in Parliament, stated: “Italy is a secular state, not a confessional state. Parliament is free to discuss and legislate” [14]. At the same time, Draghi specified that Concordat guarantees must be respected.

The debate over the Vatican note further polarized the political front. For the bill’s supporters, the intervention confirmed the Church’s interference in Italian politics. For opponents, the note demonstrated that the text was problematic and needed to be modified.

The Senate vote: anatomy of a failure

The “tagliola” procedure

The tagliola (technically: vote of non-passage to the examination of articles) is a procedural mechanism that, if approved, prevents article-by-article discussion of the bill and causes its parliamentary death. The text cannot be reintroduced in the same form for at least six months [3].

The request was submitted by Lega and Fratelli d’Italia. The vote was by secret ballot.

The numbers of October 27

The result: 154 in favor of the guillotine, 131 against, 2 abstentions [3][4].

The groups supporting the Zan Bill had approximately 147 senators on paper; the center-right had approximately 138. The secret ballot allowed at least 16 crossover voters to vote against without being identified [4]. Accusations focused on Italia Viva, but also on internal dissidents within the PD and Five Star Movement. Matteo Renzi declared that the crossover voters were “at least 40” and accused the PD and Five Stars of “arrogance” for having refused all mediation.

The reactions

Alessandro Zan spoke of “a pact of civilization betrayed by those who chased sovereigntist sirens” [4]. Ivan Scalfarotto, of Italia Viva, countered that the PD had sunk its own law by refusing any compromise. PD Secretary Enrico Letta called the day “a dark page for Parliament.” Matteo Salvini (Lega) and Giorgia Meloni (FdI) spoke of a “victory for common sense.”

What remains without the Zan Bill: the legislative gap

The Mancino Law and its limitations

In Italy, criminal protection against hate crimes is entrusted to the Mancino Law (Law 205 of June 25, 1993), which sanctions incitement to hatred, violence, and discrimination on racial, ethnic, national, and religious grounds. The law provides a special aggravating circumstance (penalty increase up to half) for crimes committed with discriminatory intent on these same grounds.

The crucial point is that the Mancino Law does not include sexual orientation, gender identity, sex, or disability among its protected grounds. This means that an attack motivated by racial prejudice benefits from enhanced criminal protection, while an attack motivated by homotransphobic hatred does not.

Victims of homotransphobic hate crimes can resort to ordinary criminal provisions (battery, threats, coercion), but without recognition of the discriminatory motivation as a specific aggravating circumstance. There is no official national day, no prevention strategy, and no state-funded anti-discrimination centers — all elements the Zan Bill would have introduced [2].

Italy and Europe: a comparison

The lack of an anti-homotransphobia law places Italy in an anomalous position in the European context. Most Western European countries adopted specific regulations years ago [7][8][13].

Countries with specific laws

• France: since 2003, the French penal code considers homophobia an aggravating circumstance. Incitement to hatred based on sexual orientation is punishable by one year of imprisonment and 45,000 euros in fines [7]
• Spain: since 1995, hate crimes based on sexual orientation and gender identity are punishable under the penal code. The homophobic or transphobic motive is a general aggravating circumstance applicable to any crime [7]
• Sweden: discrimination based on sexual orientation has been punishable since 1987; in 2009, protection was extended to gender identity. Incitement to hatred based on sexual orientation has been a constitutional crime since 2002 [7]
• Belgium: the penal code punishes incitement to hatred and discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity [7][8]
• Ireland, Portugal, Denmark, Netherlands, Croatia: all have criminal provisions that include sexual orientation and, in most cases, gender identity among protected grounds [7][13]

The German approach

Germany represents an intermediate case: it does not explicitly mention sexual orientation or gender identity in hate crime provisions, but Article 130 of the German penal code punishes those who “incite hatred or violence against segments of the population” — a formulation broad enough to be applied to cases of homotransphobia [7].

European numbers

In eleven EU member states, hate crime provisions explicitly cover both sexual orientation and gender identity. In twelve member states, it is a crime to incite hatred, violence, or discrimination based on sexual orientation [7][8]. Italy is among the few Western European countries without any specific legislation in this area.

What happened after the defeat

The 2022 attempt

On May 4, 2022, PD Secretary Enrico Letta, together with Zan himself and Senators Malpezzi and Monica Cirinna, reintroduced the Zan Bill text in the Senate in the exact same format approved by the Chamber in 2020. The proposal was never examined and lapsed with the early end of the XVIII Legislature in September 2022, caused by the fall of the Draghi government [11].

The new version without contested articles

In the XIX Legislature, Alessandro Zan filed at the Chamber a new bill that mirrors the content of the original, but with two substantial differences: Article 1 (definitions, including that of gender identity) and Article 4 (the ideas safeguard clause) were removed [11]. The intent was to overcome the two points that had fueled objections from the center-right and the Vatican, while maintaining the extension of criminal protections.

However, with a center-right parliamentary majority (Fratelli d’Italia, Lega, Forza Italia) and a government led by Giorgia Meloni, the proposal has no chance of being discussed. As of March 2026, it has not been scheduled in any committee.

Regional laws: a fragmented mosaic

In the absence of a national law, some regions have introduced local anti-homotransphobia laws: Liguria (2009), Marche (2010), Sicily (2015), Piedmont (2016), Umbria (2017), Emilia-Romagna (2019), Campania (2020), and Puglia (2024) [12]. The Puglia regional law, approved on July 9, 2024, is the first to explicitly include protection against homolesbitransphobia and ableism.

These regional laws, however, have structural limitations: they do not provide criminal sanctions (a matter reserved to the state), do not apply across the national territory, and, as noted by various analyses, often remain “flags” without concrete implementation tools [12]. The result is variable-geometry protection that depends on which region one lives in.

Alessandro Zan at the European Parliament

In 2024, Alessandro Zan was elected to the European Parliament on the PD ticket and appointed vice-president of the Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs (LIBE). His work has shifted from the national to the European stage, where issues of discrimination and hate crimes based on sexual orientation and gender identity are addressed at the community level.

The Zan Bill in the context of trans rights in Italy

The defeat of the Zan Bill is not an isolated episode, but fits within a broader picture of rights still missing for transgender people in Italy. The absence of an anti-homotransphobia law adds to the lack of gender self-determination, difficulties in accessing gender-affirming healthcare, and the recent introduction of the Gender Dysphoria Bill that risks further limiting access to care for trans minors.

The Zan Bill had the merit of addressing the issue systemically: not only punishing hate crimes, but creating tools for prevention, monitoring, and support. Its defeat demonstrated that political consensus on these issues remains fragile and that the secret ballot can overturn apparently consolidated majorities. In 2026, Italy remains one of the few Western European countries without a specific law on the subject — a gap that continues to leave LGBTQIA+ people, and particularly transgender people, without adequate protection.