Neither Included, nor excluded: The paradox of government approaches towards the Romanies in Italy

.

Neither Included, Nor Excluded: The Paradox of Government

Approaches Towards the Romanies in Italy

Riccardo Armillei

The Centre for Citizenship and Globalisation, Deakin University, Australia

Correspondence: C Edwards Faculty of Arts & Education, Deakin University [email protected] Citizenship and Globalisation Research Papers, Vol. 5 No. 3, October 2014, pp. 1-22 ISSN 1838-2118 print/ISSN 1838-2126 online

Published by Centre for Citizenship and Globalisation, Faculty of Arts & Education, Deakin University, Australia

http://www.deakin.edu.au/arts-ed/ccg/

mailto:[email protected]

http://www.deakin.edu.au/arts-ed/ccg/

2

Citizenship and Globalisation Research Paper Series Vol. 5, No. 3, October 2014

Disclaimer: The contents of the articles published within the CCG Research Paper Series are of the author’s sole responsibility. They do not represent the views of the Centre for Citizenship and Globalisation or its staff. Any inquiries related to the article’s content and all permission to cite should be directed to the author.

ISSN 1838-2118 print ISSN 1838-2126 online

About Citizenship and Globalisation Research Papers The Citizenship and Globalisation Research Papers are peer-reviewed online and print publications that promote original and scholarly research on all aspects of citizenship and globalisation. The topics covered are diverse and represent the breadth of research excellence in this multidisciplinary academic field. Submissions for publication consideration may be sent to the following emails: [email protected]

Series Editors: Prof. Fethi Mansouri & Dr Vince Marotta Centre for Citizenship and Globalisation Deakin University, 221 Burwood Highway Burwood 3125 VIC Australia

mailto:[email protected]

3


Neither Included, Nor Excluded: The Paradox of Government Approaches

Towards the Romanies in Italy

Abstract

Romani peoples currently live at the margins of the Italian society, particularly those living in the so

called “nomad camps”. The government has only recently focused attention on the situation of this

minority group. In 2011 a “National Strategy” was launched introducing a number of measures to

enhance their social inclusion. This commitment, though, was a cynical response to a larger

European Union initiative designed to address the causes of their marginalisation, and was not

supported by any real intention to introduce change. In 2008, in fact, the Italian government

introduced an extraordinary intervention, the “Nomad Emergency”, as a response to a number of

supposedly threatening situations which occurred among the Romani communities living in

“camps”, but also as part of a larger anti-immigrant national campaign. At the end of 2012, when

fieldwork for this study was conducted, the negative effect produced by the state of emergency

was still clearly visible. Instead of building capacity and autonomy among the Romanies, the Italian

institutions chose to adopt highly contradictory approaches which neither included, nor absolutely

excluded them. They now have a distinctive place within the Italian society. Millions of euros are

spent every year on Romani-related issues, and it has become a huge business both in public and

private sectors. The aim of this paper is to examine the contradictions embedded in the production

of Romanies as “nomads”, a term which positions them as being unwilling or unable to settle within

the host society. My analysis highlights the approach adopted by Italian institutions in terms of

“inclusive exclusion” of the Romanies, instead of thinking about it as mere “othering”,

marginalisation or exclusion. On the one hand, the government makes significant investment in

schooling and employment projects; on the other, it keeps promoting the “camp policy”, forced

evictions and emergency measures. Public funds are used in this way to promote a “fake” inclusion,

which creates and perpetuates a system of “welfare dependency”.

Key Words: Romanies, Italy, Nomad Emergency, National Strategy, “inclusive exclusion”.

4


Introduction

In Italy Romani peoples have been subjected to social exclusion and marginalisation for centuries. In

2008, in clear continuity with previous left-wing governments (Clough Marinaro, 2009; Lunaria, 2011),

the Berlusconi right-wing coalition implemented an extraordinary measure, the so called “Emergenza

Nomadi” (nomad emergency)1. This state of emergency aimed to solve an issue that, in the 1970s had

been categorised as the “problema nomadi” (nomads problem) (Ministero dell’Interno, 2006, p. 16),

but was now described and handled as a “natural disaster” (Fiorucci, 2010, p. 34). Being mainly directed

to the Romani “camp inhabitants/dwellers”, this approach turned Romani peoples into a “security

issue” and a specific ethnic category, fuelling widespread racism and reinforcing the stereotypical

binomials “nomad/foreign” and “Romani/crime”.

In November 2011, the “emergency” was declared “unfounded and unsubstantiated” by the Italian

Council of State (Amnesty International, 2012, p. 8). But since February 2012 a new government, led by

Mario Monti, has been trying to re-enact the same decree that in May 2008 had introduced the

intervention (Associazione 21 Luglio, Associazione per gli Studi Giuridici sull'Immigrazione [ASGI],

Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, & Open Society Justice, 2012). This obviously contradicts

the fact that the the Monti government had previously launched a National Strategy for the inclusion of

the Romani communities with the declared aim to overcome the emergency approach adopted during

the past years (UNAR, 2012b, p. 3).

Instead of building capacity and autonomy among this minority group, the Italian institutions keep

adopting an approach that produces and reiterates the opposite effect. Inclusion policies are still

centered on the institutionalisation of the Romanies into “camps” (Piasere, 1985; Sigona, 2002, 2005,

2009). In 2011 the European Commission launched the EU Framework for National Roma Integration

1 In the context of “emergency” policies it is interesting the parallelism existing between Italy and Australia. In 2007 allegations of sexual abuse of children in Aboriginal communities in the Northern Territory brought Indigenous issues to national attention (Anderson & Wild, 2007, p. 7). This case was strategically used by the Howard government as a way to implement an extraordinary measure, also known as the “Northern Territory Intervention” (NTER). Not only this policy failed to meet the requirements and obligations set by international laws (Amnesty International, 2011; Martin, 2012), but three years later, James Anaya, the Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights and fundamental freedoms of indigenous people, declared the NTER to be illegitimate (Human Rights Council, 2010, p. 8).

5


Strategies up to 2020 aiming at improving the economic and social situation of this minority group

through the implementation of “common European goals”. Since then, however, Romani advocates

have strongly criticised the strategy, because it neither introduced real measures to combat a wide-

spread anti-Roma sentiment, nor did it involve the Roma community itself (European Public Health

Alliance, 2011). In this context the European Commissioner for Human Rights, Nils Muižnieks, has

criticised the Italian National Strategy for its “pompous and pretentious mumbo jumbo” (Marco

Brazzoduro, personal communication, July 21, 2012). On top of that, the UNAR, as the relevant National

Focal Point (NFP) designated for the elaboration and coordination of this strategy, not only is not able

to guarantee, both in law and in fact, the principles of independence and impartiality (European

Commission against Racism and Intolerance [ECRI], 2012), but it has no power to inflict penalties and

punish certain types of racist behaviour displayed by private or public institutions. There is thus a clear

gap between the theoretical framework and the concrete possibility to implement a real change.

Every year significant amounts are being spent ineffectively for the management of the camps, and the

great paradox is that the existence of the camp itself nullifies efforts aimed at furthering the social

inclusion of Romanies. Why does the government keep promoting and funding an inclusion strategy

based on the implementation of the “camps”? For example, Alessandro Scassellati, project manager of

Casa dei Diritti Sociali (CdS), one of the organisations working inside the camps, has raised serious

doubts regarding the Italian government’s real intention to close the gap between Romanies and

mainstream society:

the concept of ‘nomad’ is used strategically in order to adopt specific laws and implement

certain type of policies, whose aim is not actually to integrate, but rather to create the

Romani persons as ‘others’ and to marginalise them. This turns their situation into an

urgent but temporary problem, which over time becomes an endless, unsolvable question.

This way it is possible to create and maintain a system which is capable of constantly

generating money. The main aim is thus not to solve the problem, but to keep it like that

(personal communication, December 22, 2011).

This paper aims to show the existence of a paradoxical approach adopted by the Italian institutions,

defined as “inclusive exclusion”. Extraordinary measures were used by the government merely as a way

to enforce by law a “state of exception” which, as theorised by Agamben (1998), has eventually

become ‘the rule’, despite the initial announcement of its provisional aim. In turn, the enactment of an

emergency approach has allowed the government to put the blame on Romani peoples for their own

dire living conditions, while consolidating a well-rooted mechanism of control and assimilatory

practices. The contemporaneous commitment to adopt a national strategy for the improvement of the

Romani conditions not only failed to empower them but had the opposite effect. Major issues remain

6


lack of transparency and accountability. There are no independent bodies that can analyse the

performance of either tasks or functions, while providing information or justification for targeted

activities. The citizens, media, academics, and civil society, in general, have no real knowledge of what

goes on. There is very little information available and what is available is not rigorously elaborated. The

administrative structures are inefficient and unable to deliver the services mandated to them. The

decision making system about resource allocations and expenditures remains opaque. A formal process

of both internal and external evaluation is missing and corruption is widespread. Impartial and expert

decision-making and policy implementation remain unachievable.

Methodology

The present paper focuses on the city of Rome, where fieldwork was conducted between 2011 and

2012. Although data collection has been carried out using many of the classical tools that can be

identified as ethnographic (such as the use of qualitative data, based on structured and semi-structured

interviews, field notes, direct and participant observation of contexts), this did not lead to the

production of classic ethnography as theorised by authors such as Malinowski (2002) or Geertz (2001).

The object of this study was not specifically the Romani as a group or an ethnic community. My aim was

not to take up full-time residence in a ‘campo nomade’ and study its population. Rather, I was

interested in the metropolitan and national contexts as a whole, and in gaining a closer understanding

of the camps’ administrative machinery and relations among the actors operating in it. This involved

consultation with experts, institutions and associations (both Romani and non-Romani) that dealt with

Romani-related issues on the ground.

The specific focus on the capital city was chosen because this was the centre of Italian politics, and

because Rome’s local affairs assume national relevance, especially with regard to Romani-related

issues. Rome is also the area in Italy where the greatest number of Romanies reside. By focusing on the

last 20 years, the research has been able to provide historical context to policies implemented by both

left-wing and right-wing local administrations. Thus the capital city functions as a magnifying lens

through which the phenomenon of the social exclusion of the Romani people can be investigated over

a long duration. Rome was also the socio-political context the researcher had a better understanding

of, thanks to previous work experience as a social worker among Romani communities living in camps.

Statistical figures on Romani “camp dwellers”

According to the most recent figures, there are anywhere between 130,000 and 180,000 Romani living

in Italy (Commissione Diritti Umani del Senato, 2011). About half of them are Italian citizens, 20-25%

are from European Union countries, mainly Romania, while the rest are either non-EU members or

7


stateless, as a result of the dissolution of former Yugoslavia (European Roma Rights Centre [ERRC],

osservAzione, & Amalipé Romanò, 2010; Open Society Institute, 2010). The Romani population living in

camps in Italy number approximately 40 thousand people. It is important to stress, though, that there

is no precise data regarding the Romani people in Italy. Romanies, in fact, generally adopt mimetic

strategies in order to better assimilate to the rest of the population, avoiding potential forms of

surveillance and discrimination (Commissione Diritti Umani del Senato, 2011). Another important

reason for this data approximation is related to the fact that in Europe, no country gathers ethnic

information with the exception of Britain. In Italy, for instance, a census targeting the Romani minority

was conducted only under the state of emergency in 2008. In this political context, personal

information, such as photos and fingerprints, of individuals, families, children included, were collected

and stored (Amnesty International, 2012), raising serious concern within the Committee on the

Elimination of Racial Discrimination ([CERD], 2012). Based on the most recent census, the city of Rome

appeared to have the most dramatic situation in terms of numbers and living conditions of camp

dwellers.

In the city of Rome alone the operations of identification carried out by the authorities in collaboration

with the Italian Red Cross, revealed the existence of 167 encampments (Office for Democratic

Institutions and Human Rights [ODIHR], 2009). Of these, 124 were “abusivi” (illegal) while 43 were

“autorizzati” (recognised). According to the census, 12.346 people were living in these camps, almost

half of which were children (5.436). It was also estimated that at least as many people had abandoned

their dwellings since the State of Emergency had been declared (Ministero dell’Interno, 2009).

According to the “Piano Nomadi” (nomads plan) enacted by the right-wing Alemanno Mayorship in

Rome Approximately 2.200 people lived in “insediamenti abusivi” (illegal/unauthorised encampments),

2.736 in “campi tollerati” (tolerated camps) and 2,241 “villaggi autorizzati” (authorised villages),

totalling 7.177 inhabitants (Ministero dell’Interno, 2009). With a population of 2.844.821 in 2008

(Ferrazza & Menghi, 2010) the Romani community living in the camps amounted to only 0.25% of the

entire population of the capital city. And yet, despite these numbers, Rome was “the focus of various

media alarms referring to an ‘invasion’ and ‘threats’ posed by these groups” (Clough Marinaro, 2009, p.

274).

Campisation and lack of cultural recognition of the Romani people in Italy

Romani people from central and Eastern Europe have moved to and from Italy for centuries. The first

settlements can be traced to around the XIV century (Bellucci, 2007; Ministero dell’Interno, 2006;

Ufficio Nazionale Antidiscriminazioni Razziali [UNAR], 2011). Despite that, the “zingari” (“Gyspies”), as

8


they are often called in a derogatory way, have always been characterised as the “outsider par

excellence, forced to play the role of “guests” and living a condition of eternal “semi-clandestinità”

(semi-illegality) (Tomasone, 2012). Especially after the Risorgimento, the movement that brought

about the creation of the Italian Kingdom in 1861, the new unified nation-state started to introduce

policies which were specifically directed to the control of “vagabonds” and, more in general, “socially

dangerous” groups, like the Romani people (Clough Marinaro, 2009). The pinnacle of segregative

practices against this minority was reached in the 1940s. During World War II they started to be

imprisoned in concentration camps, because they were considered socially and racially dangerous by

the fascist regime of Benito Mussolini (Bravi & Sigona, 2006). According to a recent report issued by the

Commissione Diritti Umani del Senato (2011), despite the terrible price paid by this population as a

result of a widespread “anti-Gypsism” all over Europe, “the genocide of the Romani people is a

forgotten event” (p. 36).

A few decades since the end of the war “public safety approaches and the introduction of legislative

obstacles to nomadism” (Clough Marinaro, 2009, p. 273) were still in use. From the 1970s the Italian

government started to experiment with new forms of cultural protection explicitly directed to the

Romani communities. These were based on the premises that they were nomadic people. According

to Bravi and Sigona (2006), the very first form of recognition and protection of the “right to nomadism”

in Italy can be dated back to October 1973 when the Ministero dell’Interno issued the “Circolare”

(internal administrative document) MIAC no. 17/73. This document was directed to the mayors of the

Italian cities, that at that time had started to adopt “divieti di sosta” (no parking areas) against the

Romani people. Although this act required local administrations, among the other things, to abolish

these discriminatory bans and to facilitate the temporary stay of the Romani people (Maggian, 2011), it

also had negative consequences for them. Firstly, it started to address the Romani issue in terms of

“Problema Nomadi” (Nomads Problem) (Ministero dell’Interno, 2006). Secondly, the recommendations

contained in the MIAC no. 17/73 were also sowing the seeds of the future “camp strategy”. It led, in

fact, to the creation of special campsites, which had to be equipped with all modern conveniences

(Ministero dell’Interno, 2006; Sigona, 2002).

According to Piasere (1985), it is in the 1970s that all government interventions, either regarding the

education, sociality, health, or employment of the Romani people, started to be completely centred on

the existence of the “camp”. The characteristics of these early types of encampments resembled

already the modern “nomad camps”. They were delimited areas placed at the urban outskirts in

accordance with the “piani regolatori comunali” (urban planning regulations), which established their

location, size and settlement standards (Nessun luogo è lontano, 2008). In a study published in 2000 by

the ERRC, Italy was iconically defined a “Campland”, since it was the only country in Europe promoting

9


a policy of segregation of the Roma population inside “ghetto-like urban camps” (Clough Marinaro,

2009). More than a decade later the strategy of housing Romani people inside institutional camps still

represents the pivotal measure used by the Italian government to ensure the inclusion of this minority

group: “while many camps are being demolished because of their dire living conditions, others are

being built by the same authorities to continue warehousing an ethnic group for which few

alternative policy approaches are devised” (Clough Marinaro & Sigona, 2011, p. 587).

For more than 60 years a comprehensive national legislation regarding the Romani issue has been

missing in Italy (Bonetti, 2012). The ratification of a national law is thus urgently required especially in

relation to the unresolved condition of statelessness for a large number of Romani. The Romani

communities represent only 0.2% of the Italian population (Commissione Diritti Umani del Senato,

2011), but they keep being addressed as a national problem which has to be handled through the use

of emergency measures. In this context, the use of the camp has slowly become the “objectification of

the state of exception” (Bravi & Sigona, 2006, p. 858). In recent times a systematic construction of the

“Emergenza Nomadi” has eventually signed the juridical foundation for its proclamation (Clough

Marinaro, 2009). The new political conditions have decisively signed the reinforcement of an old a and

consolidated strategy to deal with the so called “problema nomadi”, with a slight difference though:

while between the 1980s and the 1990s there was a declared intention to preserve supposedly

“nomadic cultures” through the creation of settlement for Romani people inside authorised areas, in

more recent years this practice evolved into a clear “institutional segregation” (ERRC, 2000; Fiorucci

2010). The camp turned into a “no man’s land”, a place to confine the “Other” and where individuals

lose their subjectivity through their classification in bureaucratic and massifying categories (Bravi &

Sigona, 2006).

The “State of Emergency”

Between the end of 2007 and the beginning of 2008 a number of “high-profile crimes allegedly

committed by people of Roma ethnicity from Romania [were] extensively reported in the news,

exacerbating aggressive anti-Roma rhetoric by local and national politicians” (Amnesty International,

2012, p. 6). As a consequence, the presence of Romani groups was associated with crime and

consequently addressed as a security issue for the Italian population. In particular, the violent murder

of Mrs. Giovanna Reggiani, committed on the 30th of October 2007 by a Romanian Roma, brought the

“Nomads/Gypsies” issue to national attention (OsservAzione, 2008). At the same time, the EU

enlargement in January 2007, during the centre-left government led by Romano Prodi, had also

stimulated alarmism among Italians with fears of an immigrant invasion from the new entries in the

European bloc, Romania and Bulgaria (Sigona, 2010). The political turmoil was exacerbated when the

centre-left mayor of Rome, Walter Veltroni, resigned from office to become the national leader of the

10


Democratic Party (Sigona, 2009). According to Sigona, this led to “a transplant of ‘local’ issues into the

national arena” (p. 287).

Thanks to Veltroni, an urgent meeting of the Italian Council of Ministers was called in order to tackle

the alleged collective misconduct of Romani groups. This resulted in the enactment and

implementation of two governmental decrees, the “anti-Roma acts” (Lunaria, 2011, p. 13) - although

these agreements were ostensibly designed to curb criminality, some of them made explicit reference

to Romani people (ODIHR, 2009) – and, In May 2007, the “Patti per la Sicurezza” (Security Pacts) was

enacted by the Ministero dell’Interno and various local authorities, introducing a series of

discriminatory measures “aimed at facilitating the removal of EU citizens from Italy whenever they

were deemed to represent a threat to public and national security” (OsservAzione, 2008, p. 3). These

measures authorised forced evictions of abusive encampments, without conforming to procedural

safeguards required under regional and international human rights standards. At the same time, they

also had the effect of fuelling anti-Romani hysteria and violent attacks against them (ERRC,

osservAzione, & Amalipé Romanò, 2010).

A year later, on the 21st of May 2008, the initiative called “Emergenza Nomadi” was launched. Initially,

it involved only the regions of Lombardy, Campania and Lazio, but in May 2009 it was extended to

Piedmont and Veneto. The choice to implement an extraordinary approach not only misused the terms

‘nomads’ and ‘emergency’ in relation to the Romani people (Amnesty International, 2010, p. 4), but

also amplified a well-established tendency to disempower them. Romani voices were, in fact,

comprehensively ignored within the institutional framework of the emergency. They were further

institutionalised in a system of “welfare dependency” with government policies focused on control and

assimilatory practices2. Only with the rise of national and international criticism was the government

forced to reframe the rationale of its intervention. New guidelines for the implementation of the

ordinances of the President of the Council of Ministries of 30 May 2008, nos. 3676, 3677 and 3678 were

then issued. The government thus reiterated that the extraordinary measures did not target any

particular ethnic groups, but were actually motivated by the official aim to improve the living

conditions of the Romani people (Ministero dell’Interno, 2008).

The supposed existence of an issue of urgent national significance had determined the enforcement by

law of a “state of exception”. As theorised by Agamben (1998), despite its initial provisional character,

it slowly became the rule, extension after extension:

2 Quite interestingly, in Australia the NTER, while containing Indigenous rights to autonomy through and beyond the law (Moreton-Robinson, 2009), had also the effect of reinforcing a “culture of dependency” based on a subtle underlying prejudice and the perception of Aboriginal socio-cultural deficit (Gorringe, Ross, & Fforde, 2011; Macoun, 2011).

11


On 21 May 2008, the Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi decreed a state of emergency until 31

May 2009. […] On 28 May 2009 yet another decree was issued, extending the state of

emergency to 31 December 2010. […] On 17 December 2010 the Prime Minister issued yet a

further decree extending the state of emergency to 31 December 2011. (Associazione 21

Luglio, 2012e, p. 32)

Sigona (2002) also notes how the “emergency” became a “new permanent political category”, an

approach designed to contain a problem rather than to solve it definitively. In other words, this

category allowed the government to ignore the complexity of the Romani issue and its structural

causes, while establishing a permanent practice of exclusion and marginalisation. Using a 1992 law3 the

Italian government was able to transform the presence of Romani settlements into a threat to public

order requiring the adoption of extraordinary means and powers. By Decree of the Council of Ministers,

DCPM 21 May 2008, special powers were conferred to Prefects (permanent representatives of the

national government in a particular territory), allowing them to suspend existing laws (Amnesty

International, 2010).

The presence of the Romani community was thus compared to a sort of “natural disaster” while,

paradoxically, “the emergency didn’t relate to the shameful conditions that Romani people have been

forced to endure, but rather to their presence itself” (Fiorucci, 2010, p. 34). Even though the

government denied it, the Nomad Emergency was ethnically motivated. It introduced:

The monitoring of formal and informal camps, identification and census of the people (including

minors) who are present there, and taking photos (‘mug shots’); the expulsion and removal of persons

with irregular status; measures aimed at clearing ‘camps for nomads’ and evicting their inhabitants; as

well as the opening of new ‘camps for nomads.’ (ERRC, osservAzione, & Amalipé Romanò, 2010)

Since the majority of the camp dwellers were of Romani background this automatically made them the

sole target of the measures adopted by the government, thus replicating the same type of premises

underlying the previous Security Pacts. As Favero (2010) has argued, the main concern for the

authorities was the protection of the “good” Italian local population against the allegedly

“bad/dangerous” Romani people. The Italian government, supported by a condescending public

opinion, pushed for the implementation of restrictive measures which reflected a widespread

conception of the Romanies as an “exogenous” threat, or even a “degenerate” group, that had to be

kept separate from the rest of the society (Clough Marinaro, 2009). This approach was clearly in line

3 Article 5(1) of Law No 225 of 24 February 1992 authorised the President of the Council of Ministers to declare a state of emergency in a specified area for a specified period of time. This was to enable a swift response to natural calamities, catastrophes or other events requiring exceptional measures and powers.

12


with the expulsions enacted in France by then president Sarkozy since 2007 (Severance, 2010). Despite

international criticism, a number of human rights organisations have recently maintained that

collective expulsions are still occurring under the new president Holland (Martin, 2013).

Following a legal action which began in 2008, on the 16 of November 2011, the Nomad Emergency was

eventually declared “unfounded and unsubstantiated” by the Italian Council of State, the highest

administrative court (Amnesty International, 2012; UNAR, 2012b). However, despite this annulment, its

legal and practical consequences persisted (Amnesty International, 2012, p. 9). This left a legacy that

continued to affect the way public policies were specifically targeting Romanies. For instance, following

Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi's resignation on 16 November 2011, the new Prime Minister Mario

Monti re-enacted the “nomad emergency” (Sina, 2012). On 15 February 2012 the Monti government

appealed the decision of the Council of State before the Court of Cassation. As a result, a few months

later, on 9 May 2012, the Council of State suspended the implementation of its previous ruling, pending

the decision from the Court of Cassation (Associazione 21 Luglio, ASGI, Amnesty International, Human

Rights Watch, & Open Society Justice, 2012). The new Prime Minister’ policy was unclear, however. On

28 February 2012, in fact, the Monti government had also launched a National Strategy for the

inclusion of the Romani communities with the declared aim “to definitively overcome the emergency

phase, which has characterised the past years” (UNAR, 2012b, p. 3). In July 2012, as noted by

Commissioner for Human Rights of the Council of Europe Nils Muižnieks after his visit to Italy, the

emergency approach was yet to be discontinued (Commissioner for Human Rights, 2012).

The inadequacy of the National Roma Integration Strategy

During the last decade a number of international institutions have condemned the Italian government

for implementing a discriminatory approach towards the Romani people. One of the obvious points of

contestation was the policy of establishing camps. These are seen as isolated areas deprived of basic

facilities that reproduce systematic ghettoisation and exclusion (CERD, 2000, 2008; European

Committee of Social Rights, 2010; ERRC, 2000). Under pressure from EU institutions, the Italian

government has recently made an effort to develop, with prior consultation with Romanies

spokespersons, a unified policy and approach. This approach focuses on four pillars: access to housing,

employment, education, and health care (ODIHR, 2009). It is a major departure, and until 2008, as

stated by Clough Marinaro (2009), “no explicit policy concerning Roma existed at the national level and

different practices and regulations were applied in different cities and regions” (p. 274). It was only

since February 2011, when the publication of a report by a special human rights commission of the

Senato della Repubblica, that things begun to change.

13


This document, entitled the Final report on the condition of Roma, Sinti and Camminanti in Italy and

released with bipartisan endorsement, constituted the very first instance of research commissioned by

the Italian Parliament on the situation of the Romani population in Italy. This study explicitly criticised

the “politica dei campi” (camp policy) adopted by the government and raised concern about the

precarious conditions of the 40 thousand Romani living in camps. With regard to the city of Rome, the

report recognised the failure of the Piano Nomadi, stating that “in order to solve in an efficient way the

Romani issue, both in terms of national security and social integration, exploring new solutions which

go beyond the so called ‘campizzazione’ [campisation] would be useful” (p. 59). It also made reference

to the fact-finding mission conducted by ODIHR in Milan, Naples and Rome in July 2008, indirectly

confirming the conclusions drawn by this OSCE delegation: “The measures adopted by the government,

starting with the declaration of a state of emergency, were disproportionate in relation to the actual

scale of the security threat related to irregular immigration and the situation the Roma and Sinti

settlements” (p. 42).

Based on this document the Italian government elaborated its own national plan for the social inclusion

of this minority group (Mercenaro, 2012). The launch of the National Strategy for the Inclusion of

Roma, Sinti and Camminanti communities: European Commission Communication no. 173/2011

signaled, as argued by one of the members of the Commissione Diritti Umani del Senato, the beginning

of a new “counter-culture” in terms of government attitude (Di Giovan Paolo, 2012). In line with the

Europe 2020 growth strategy, this action was part of a larger initiative designed on a European level to

address Romani needs with a targeted approach directed at incorporating and adapting the National

Romani Integration Strategies within the EU framework (European Commission, 2011a). The growing

interest in the situation of the Romani people marked “an unprecedented commitment by EU Member

States to promoting the inclusion of Roma on their territory” (European Commission, 2012, para. 1).

But despite the declared commitment of the Italian government to introduce a new way of dealing with

the social inclusion of the Romani people, its implementation fell short. A number of factors were still

in place preventing the existing gaps between the theoretical framework of the strategy and the

concrete possibility to implement a real change from being closed.

The Italian National Strategy was adopted as part of an inter-ministerial approach, a systemic effort

involving all the main subjects involved in the four axes of intervention (UNAR, 2012b). The greatest

innovation of this new initiative was that it envisaged for the first time the participation of the

representatives of the Romani communities living in Italy. Romani organisations were actually

consulted during the design phase. But very little space was granted to them, and they ultimately had

little influence on the decisional process. Romani representatives were thus assigned a mere

14


consultative role. UNAR, as the relevant National Focal Point (NFP), was the institutional body

designated by the Italian government for the elaboration and coordination of the entire strategy.

Together with a series of initiatives directed at the prevention of episodes of racial hatred, one of the

main goals of this governmental body was to include the Romani people in the process for the

elaboration of the National Strategy (UNAR, 2012b). UNAR elaborated a document of around 100 pages

as a first preliminary draft and on the 17th of February 2012 forwarded it to all Romani associations.

Only a few days later, though, they were asked to participate to a meeting at the UNAR head office, in

which they were given the possibility to present their comments or to apply for some modifications (U

Velto, 2012). The time limit that the Romani organisations were allowed to prepare a response was

thus revealing of the type of involvement that was offered to them.

This is how Federazione Rom e Sinti Insieme described this draft during the meeting organised by UNAR

the 22nd of February:

It is too heavy and illustrates a number of measures that are too hard to analyze in only a few

hours. […] If it would be possible to remove from the document all the references to what was

already done, suggested or written in the past, then the strategy would be more original, less

heavy and the positive proposals would be recognised more easily (U Velto, 2012, para. 4).

On the 30th of May the president of Fondazione Romani Nazzareno Guarnieri organised a meeting to

discuss the new national strategy. The representatives of several organisations working on Romani

issues, academics and political personalities participated to the event:

Some defined [the national strategy] as redundant, while others saw in it a new control

instrument over Romani people. As a matter of fact [the proposed consultation with Romani

organisations] represents a mere advisory forum. The main national Romani organisations were

given little time to elaborate their response during the planning stage. As for our future

involvement, we will keep being subjected to the decisions dictated from the top” (personal

communication, May 30, 2012)4.

Guarnieri argued that Romani people need a governing body rather than a consultative one, but they

are still relegated to having a mere token role.

4 In a similar way Ian Anderson (2007) puts the approach adopted by the Australian government in the category of “new paternalism”, framing it as a top-down crisis intervention. Lack of consultation with Indigenous communities about the proposed measures is an issue that had been emphasised by the Australian Human Rights Commission (2007) with regard to the Howard government’s NTER.

15


The business of the nomad camps

In 2012 Carlo Stasolla, president of Associazione 21 Luglio, published a book, providing a precise

measure of the entire cost sustained for the strategy of integration of the Romani people in Rome.

According to Stasolla, the “Piano Nomadi” (Nomads Plan), introduced by the right-wing Alemanno

Mayorship, was a business of at least 60 million euro (p. 61). It gave jobs to approximately 450 people

who were involved in the management of the camps and the running of all the services, either directly

or indirectly, attributable to the implementation of this policy. In the preface of Stasolla’s book,

Leonardo Piasere, Professor of Anthropology at the University of Verona and one of the most

prominent scholars of Romani issues, explained the main characteristic of the “late modern Anti-

Gypsism”: It means segregating the Romani people in camps, with the excuse that this is for their own

good. This new version of Anti-Gypsism presents itself by using the “good face” of the associationism.

Together with that, the government keeps displaying its power, through army or police force, when it is

needed. Piasere described the associationism as a “machinery” that, in order to guarantee an

employment to its own members, was somehow forced to support the government approach towards

the Romani people (pp. 7-8).

The fact that every year a huge amount of money is spent for the management of the camps has

constantly attracted the appetites of different subjects, both private and public (Bonaccorsi & Vazzana,

2011). The Romani issue turned into a huge business in which it is really hard to know exactly how the

available fundings are being used. Monica Rossi (2010) used the definition “mercato della solidarietà”

(the market of solidarity) when referring to it (p. 219). This expression gives an immediate idea of the

rise of the social sector’s monetary value. As a Romani intellectual pointed out, “nobody is really

interested in improving the conditions of minority groups. Everyone consider us as a mere business”

(Nazzareno Guarnieri, personal communication, April 12, 2012). The only visible thing was that the

results of the actions that both government and NGOs implemented were very poor and that the

situation of the Romani people got worse instead of improving.

According to Dijana Pavlovic (as cited in Cugusi, 2011), a Romani actress and activist from Serbia, who

has been living in Italy since 1999,

there are no Romani people who are enabled to speak up for their interests with the

institutions. Public administrations keep delegating Romani issues to the Third Sector and to

Catholic organisations, instead of Romani representatives. […] Social workers have their own

convenience in using a charitable approach to deal with the Romanies. Many of them would be

without job if there were no “Gypsies” to take care of. (para. 5)

16


As a consequence, the relationship occurring between Romani people and institutions/Third Sector

appear to be more a monologue, rather than a dialogue. A similar claim was made by Santino Spinelli,

an internationally renowned Romani musician and Professor of Romani Language and Culture, at the

University of Chieti:

Millions of euros were wasted in the last thirty years, in the name and on behalf of Romani

people. This created welfare dependency and their segregation inside camps, with all the

inevitable consequences that are for the all world to see today. (Associazione Thèm Romanó,

2010, para. 4)

One of the main issues regarding the existence of the camp policy is that it actually created the basis

for “racialised” interventions. It generated, in fact, the need for the introduction of a number of ad hoc

services specifically directed to Romani people. The interview with the administrative official of the XII

Municipal Hall in Rome can provide an interesting perspective on the local government’s approach in

relation to a specific case study, the former “tolerated camp” Tor De’ Cenci.

Millions of euros have been spent on Romani issues. Unfortunately these were mainly used either for

keeping alive the camp policy or to carry out forced evictions. This approach does not aim to solve the

problem, but to move it temporarily somewhere else. Two of the main projects supported by the

government in Tor de’ Cenci, the so called “borse lavoro” (paid traineeships) and the project of “pulizia

del campo” (camp cleaning), were not a way of promoting inclusion. They were rather bribes used to

convince the alleged “portavoce” (spokesperson) of the camp to move from one place to another.

Basically, the main message that the government wants to convey is that these people will not

integrate. This camp has been left to deteriorate to such an extent that its closure would become more

justifiable (personal communication, April 24, 2012)

As for the education of Romani children, projects have been in place since 1992. After a preliminary

experimental phase, in 1999 the “Progetto di Scolarizzazione” (Schooling Project) went under the

competence of the Department XI of the City Council, with a cost of approximately 2 million of euro

every year (Romano Lil, 2007). Contemporaneously, a number of other services, connected to the

running of the camps brought over the years to a growing public expenditure. Especially during the

enactment of the “Piano Nomadi” the entire cost for the management of the “camps system” has

almost double compared to 2006 under the left-wing Veltroni administration. In the course of the

interview with a representative of the Education and Schooling Policies Office of the City of Rome the

awareness of the above mentioned issues clearly emerged.

The city council invests 2 million euro each year for the all schooling project, but more than a half goes

for the transport, instead for actions that should promote the school attendance, the learning

17


opportunities, extracurricular activities, individual educational projects, etc. (Personal communication,

May 19, 2012)

As observed by the European Committee of Social Rights in 2010, one of the main obstacles which

deprived the Romani people in Italy (particularly those living in camps) of the capacity to formally

exercise their rights to take part to the decision-making processes was the “lack of personal status or

denial of citizenship or a residence permit” (Council of Europe, 2012b, p. 209). The lack of personal

documents and residence permits, which are a key priority for “foreign Romanies”, becomes also a

political tool which can be used to threaten individuals with expulsion (Sigona & Monasta, 2006).

According to Romani intellectual Nazzareno Guarnieri the fact that there are still many Romanies from

former Yugoslavia (around 15 thousand) without documents is a form of extortion. Without

documents, not only these people cannot do anything legally, but all the projects run within the camps

are useless and meaningless. (Personal communication, April 21, 2012)

One of the main consequences of the implementation of the “camp policy”, is that today a relevant

part of the Romani population, mainly those living in institutional or informal camps, are forced to

submit to a condition of “welfare dependency”, which doesn’t really eliminate or undermine the main

causes of their marginality, and to adapt themselves to survive by using their own wits (informal and

occasional employments, or, in the worse cases, criminal activities).

The highly criticised policy of housing Romanies in authorised camps, their poor education and a

consequent high illiteracy rate, are all factors which, together with an undefined judicial position, and

the consequent impossibility to be employable following standard procedures or to have access to

social security and the health system, contribute to marginalise the Romani communities and to

exclude them from public and political life.

Conclusions

The analysis of the Italian context during the “Emergenza Nomadi” emphasises the dichotomous

approach adopted by the Italian government in relation to the Romani issue. On the one hand, the

application of extraordinary measures, which was disproportionate to the real degree of the threat,

involved the suspension of democratic rules, the curtailment of human rights and the dis-

empowerment of the Romani people, leading to the worsening of socio-economic gaps between them

and mainstream society. On the other hand, the National Strategy was launched, but an official

commitment to enhance the inclusion of Romanies was not supported by the intention to introduce a

real change. Both these actions thus contributed to reproduce and reinforce a well-established

condition of welfare dependency.

18


A brief reconstruction of the most relevant events can help to make this point more clear.

The emergency decree n.181/2007, also labelled “Pacchetto Sicurezza” (security pacts) was enacted by

the left-wing Romano Prodi government.

A year later, on the 21st of May 2008, a state of emergency was enacted under

the right-wing Berlusconi government.

In February 2011 the Commissione Diritti Umani del Senato officially criticised

the “politica dei campi” (camp policy).

On the 16th of November 2011, the Nomad Emergency was declared

“unfounded and unsubstantiated” by the Italian Council of State.

On the 15th of February 2012, the newly instated Monti government appealed

this ruling which, a few months later, will push the Council of State to suspend its

previous decision, thus allowing the government to continue the Emergency

approach.

On the 28th of February 2012, the Monti government launched the National

Strategy for the Inclusion of Roma, Sinti and Camminanti Communities with the

main aim to overcome the emergency phase.

As argued by the president of Associazione 21 Luglio, Carlo Stasolla, all this was evident proof of

unresolved ambiguity:

Just like the previous ones, the new government’s policy was contradictory: at first it declared certain

things, but then later it did the complete opposite. This shows a clear political continuity with the

previous administrations. The shift from Left to Right didn’t bring any change. This is particularly true

when considering the case of the city of Rome. There was no difference between the left-wing Rutelli

and Veltroni administrations, and the new right-wing mayorship under Alemanno (personal

communication, April 4, 2012).

A gap between declared intentions and actual implementation of an innovative approach was thus

quite visible. On the one hand, concepts such as “camps”, “emergency”, “nomadism” were officially

rejected by a number of institutional bodies, on the other hand, though, the Italian government

maintained a type of intervention based on these now disendorsed notions.

After many years from the end of the II World War, “public discourse about the ‘problema Zingari’ still

revolves in Italy around the same three key concepts of ‘nomadism’, ‘asociality’ and ‘re-education’”

(Bravi & Sigona, 2006, p. 858). No serious policies have ever been enacted in order to guarantee a real

social inclusion of the Romanies within the Italian mainstream society. Decay and abandonment, which

19


by now constitute a common feature in these encampments, are generally the result of the

institutional immobility and indifference to the living conditions of those who have been once defined

as “popoli delle discariche” (peoples of the dumps) (Piasere, 2005). It is thus a “vuoto istituzionale”

(institutional/political vacuum) which created the “emergency” and the premises for extraordinary

measures.

References

Agamben, G. (1998). Homo Sacer: Sovereign power and bare life. (Daniel Heller-Roazen,

Trans.). Stanford: Stanford University Press. (Original work published 1995) .

Amnesty International. (2010). The wrong answer. Italy: The “Nomads Plan” violate the

housing right of the Romani people in Rome. Retrieved from www.amnesty.it

Amnesty International. (2011). The Northern Territory intervention: Where to now?

Retrieved from http://www.amnesty.org.au/news/comments/26031/

Amnesty International. (2012). Italy: Briefing to the UN Committee on the Elimination of

Racial Discrimination 80th session February 2012. Retrieved from

http://www2.ohchr.org/english/bodies/cerd/docs/ngos /AI_Italy_CERD80.pdf

Anderson, I. (2007, June 29). Unexplained differences. Australian Policy Online. Retrieved

from http://apo.org.au/commentary/unexplained-differences

Anderson, P., & Wild, R. (2007). Ampe Akelyernemane Meke Mekarle ‘Little Children are

Sacred’: Report of the Northern Territory Board of Inquiry into the Protection of

Aboriginal Children from Sexual Abuse. Retrieved from

http://www.inquirysaac.nt.gov.au/pdf /bipacsa_final_report.pdf

Associazione 21 Luglio. (2012e). Memorandum per il Comitato per l'Eliminazione della

Discriminazione Razziale dell'ONU [Memorandum to the United Nations

Organisation Committee for the Elimination of Racial Discrimination]. Retrieved

from

http://www.21luglio.org/images/Memorandum_richiesta_protezione_def.pdf

Associazione 21 Luglio, Association for Juridical Studies on Immigration, Amnesty

International, Human Rights Watch, & Open Society Justice. (2012). Italy: Leave

20


“Nomad Emergency” in the past. Retrieved from

http://www.statewatch.org/news/2012/may/italy-nomad-emergency-press-

release.pdf

Associazione Thèm Romanó. (2010). Un evento da non sottovalutare [An event which is

not to be underestimated]. Retrieved from

http://www.associazionethemromano.it/albumquattrosettembre.htm

Australian Human Rights Commission. (2007). Social Justice Report 2007. Retrieved from

http://www.hreoc.gov.au/social_Justice/sj_report/sjreport07/chap3.html#part1

Bellucci, P. (2007). Rom e Sinti in Italia: Profili storici e culturali [Roma and Sinti in Italy:

Historical and cultural profiles]. Urbino, Italia: Università degli studi di Urbino.

Retrieved from http://academos.ro/content/rom-e-sinti-italia-profili-storici-e-

culturali

Bonaccorsi, M., & Vazzana, R. (2011, February 18). Sui rom si fanno i milioni [Making

Millions out of Roma]. Left. Retrieved from

http://www.arcisolidarietaonlus.eu/content/sui-rom-si-fanno-i-milioni

Bravi, L., & Sigona, N. (2006). Educazione e rieducazione nei campi per “nomadi”: Una

storia [Education and re-education inside camps for “nomads”: An overview].

International Journal of Migration Studies, 43(164), 857-874. Retrieved from

www.osservazione.org/documenti/Sigona-Bravi.pdf

Clough Marinaro, I. (2009). Between surveillance and exile: Biopolitics and the Roma in

Italy. Bulletin of Italian Politics, 1(2), 265-287.

Clough Marinaro, I., & Sigona, N. (2011). Introduction anti-Gypsyism and the politics of

exclusion: Roma and Sinti in contemporary Italy. Journal of Modern Italian Studies,

16(5), 583-589. doi: 10.1080/1354571X.2011.622467

Commissione Diritti Umani del Senato. (2011). Rapporto conclusivo dell'indagine sulla

condizione di Rom, Sinti e Camminanti in Italia [Final report on the condition of

Rom, Sinti and Camminanti in Italy]. Retrieved from

http://www.programmaintegra.it/modules/news /article.php ?storyid=5691

Commissioner for Human Rights. (2012). Report by Nils Muižnieks Commissioner for

Human Rights of the Council of Europe following his visit to Italy from 3 to 6 July

2012. Retrieved from

21


https://wcd.coe.int/com.instranet.InstraServlet?command=com.instranet.CmdBlo

bGet&InstranetImage=2143096&SecMode=1&DocId=1926434&Usage=2

Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination. (2000). General Recommendation

No. 27: Discrimination against Roma. Retrieved from

http://www.unhchr.ch/tbs/doc.nsf/%28Symbol

%29/11f3d6d130ab8e09c125694a0054932b?Opendocument

Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination. (2008, March). Seventy-second

session. Consideration of reports submitted by states parties under article 9 of the

convention: Concluding observations of the Committee on the Elimination of Racial

Discrimination: Italy. Retrieved from

http://www.unhcr.org/refworld/pdfid/4885cfa1d.pdf

Council of Europe. (2012b). Human rights of Roma and Travellers in Europe. Retrieved

from

http://www.coe.int/t/commissioner/source/prems/prems79611_GBR_CouvHuma

nRightsOfRoma_WEB.pdf

Cugusi, M. C. (2011, May 18). “Generazioni rom rovinate dall’assistenzialismo”: Intervista a

Dijana Pavlovic [Romani generations damaged by welfare dependency: Interview

to Dijana Pavlovic]. Diritto di critica. Retrieved from

http://www.dirittodicritica.com/2011/05/18/rom-pavlovic-assistenzialismo-

57035/

Di Giovan Paolo, R. (2012, April). Presentazione del volume “La condizione giuridica di Rom

e Sinti in Italia” [Book launch “The legal status of Roma and Sinti in Italy”]. Speech

presented at the Fondazione Adriano Olivetti, Rome, Italy.

European Commission. (2011a). An EU framework for national Roma integration strategies

up to 2020. Retrieved from

http://ec.europa.eu/justice/policies/discrimination/docs /com_2011_173_en.pdf

European Commission. (2012). National strategies. Retrieved from

http://ec.europa.eu/justice/discrimination/roma /national-

strategies/index_en.htm

European Commission against Racism and Intolerance. (2012). ECRI report on Italy (fourth

monitoring cycle). Retrieved from

22


http://www.coe.int/t/dghl/monitoring/ecri/country-by-country/italy/ITA-CbC-IV-

2012-002-ENG.pdf

European Committee of Social Rights. (2010). Centre on Housing Rights and Evictions

(COHRE) v. Italy Complaint No. 58/2009. Retrieved from

http://www.coe.int/t/dghl/monitoring

/socialcharter/complaints/CC58Merits_en.pdf

European Public Health Alliance. (2011). European Commission adopts EU Framework for

National Roma Integration Strategies. Retrieved from

http://www.epha.org/spip.php?article4500

European Roma Rights Centre. (2000). Campland: Racial segregation of Roma in Italy.

Retrieved from http://www.errc.org/cms/upload/media/00/0F/m0000000F.pdf

European Roma Rights Centre, osservAzione, & Amalipé Romanò. (2010). Submission of

the European Roma Rights Centre, osservAzione and Amalipé Romanò concerning

Italy for consideration under the universal review by the United Nations Human

Rights Council at its 7th session February 2010. Retrieved from

http://www.errc.org/cms/upload/media /04/29/m00000429.pdf

Favero, P. (2010). Italians, the “good people”: Reflections on national self-representation

in contemporary Italian debates on xenophobia and war. Outlines - Critical Practice

Studies, 2, 138-153.

Ferrazza, D., & Menghi, B. (2010). La popolazione di Roma. Retrieved from

http://www.comune.roma.it/PCR/resources/cms/documents/Doc_Dati_demografi

ci.pdf

Fiorucci, M. (2010). Un’altra città è possibile. Percorsi di integrazione delle famiglie Rom e

Sinte a Roma: Problemi, limiti e prospettive delle politiche di inclusione sociale.

[Another city is possible. Integration trajectories of Rom and Sinti families in Rome:

Problems, limitations and perspectives of social inclusion policies]. Roma, Italia:

Geordie onlus.

Geertz, C. (2001). The Interpretation of cultures. New York: Basic books.

Gorringe, S., Ross, J., & Fforde, C. (2011). ‘Will the real Aborigine please stand up’:

Strategies for breaking the stereotypes and changing the conversation. AIATSIS

Research Discussion Paper No. 28. Retrieved from

23


http://www.aiatsis.gov.au/research/documents /AIATSISDiscussionPaper28.pdf

Human Rights Council. (2010, February). Report by the special rapporteur on the situation

of human rights and fundamental freedoms of Indigenous people, James Anaya:

Observations on the northern territory emergency response in Australia. Retrieved

from http://www.un.org.au/files/files/United%20Nations%20Special

%20Rapporteur%20-%20Feb%202010.pdf

Lunaria. (2011). Chronicles of ordinary racism: Second white paper on racism in Italy. (D. Di

Pietro & C. Marshall, Trans.). Rome: Edizioni dell’Asino.

Macoun, A. (2011). Aboriginality and the Northern Territory Intervention. Australian

Journal of Political Science, 46(3), 519-534.

Maggian, R. (2011). Guida al welfare italiano: Dalla pianificazione sociale alla gestione dei

servizi [A guide to the Italian welfare: From social planning to service

management]. Santarcangelo di Romagna, Rimini: Maggioli Editore.

Malinowski, B. (2002). Argonauts of Western Pacific. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul Ltd.

Martin, L. (2012, June 27). Amnesty slams govt on NT intervention. The Sydney Morning

Herald. Retrieved from http://news.smh.com.au/breaking-news-

national/amnesty-slams-govt-on-nt-intervention-20120627-210zo.html

Martin, M. (2013). Expulsion of Roma: The French government’s broken promise.

Statewatch Journal, 22(4), pp. 1-10.

Mercenaro, P. (2012, February 08). Rapporto conclusivo dell'indagine sulla condizione di

Rom, Sinti e Camminanti in Italia [Final report on the condition of Rom, Sinti and

Camminanti in Italy]. Retrieved from

http://www.pietromarcenaro.it/index.php?option=com_content&task

=view&id=1029&Itemid=247

Ministero dell’Interno. (2006). La pubblicazione sulle minoranze senza territorio [The

publication on the stateless minorities]. Retrieved from

http://www1.interno.gov.it/mininterno/export/sites /default/it/assets/files/13

/La_pubblicazione_sulle_minoranze _senza_territorio.pdf

Ministero dell’Interno. (2008). Linee guida per l’attuazione delle ordinanze del presidente

del consiglio dei ministri del 30 maggio 2008, n. 3676, 3677 e 3678, concernenti

24


insediamenti di comunità nomadi nelle regioni Campania, Lazio e Lombardia

[Guidelines for the implementation of the ordinances issued by the President of

the Council of Ministries of 30 May 2008, nos. 3676, 3677 and 3678]. Retrieved

from http://www.interno.it/mininterno/export/sites/default/it/assets

/files/15/0095_censimento_campi_nomadi_le_linee_guida.pdf

Moreton-Robinson, A.M. (2009). Imagining the good Indigenous citizen: Race war and the

pathology of patriarchal White sovereignty. Cultural Studies Review, 15(2), 61-79.

Nessun luogo è lontano. (2008). Rom e Sinti, dalla legalità alla coesione sociale. Appunti

Arancioni, 4. Retrieved from

http://www.nessunluogoelontano.it/nuovosito/index.php?option

=com_docman&task=searchresult&order =dmname&ascdesc=ASC&Itemid=48

Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights. (2009). Assessment of the human

rights situation of Roma and Sinti in Italy: Report of a fact-finding mission to Milan,

Naples and Rome on 20-26 July 2008. Retrieved from

http://www.osce.org/odihr/36374

OsservAzione. (2008). The ‘latest’ public enemy: Romanian Roma in Italy. The case studies

of Milan, Bologna, Rome and Naples. Retrieved from

http://www.osservazione.org/documenti /OSCE_publicenemy.pdf

Piasere, L. (1985). Les pratiques de voyage et de stationament des nomades en Italie

[Travel and short stay practices of the nomads in Italy]. In A. Reyniers (Ed.), Les

pratiques de deplacement, de halte de stationament des populations tsiganes et

nomades en France (pp. 143-195). Paris, France: Centre de Recherches Tsiganes.

Piasere, L. (2005). Popoli delle discariche: Saggi di antropologia zingara (2nd ed.) [Peoples

of the dumps: Essays in Gypsy anthropology]. Rome, Italy: CISU.

Romano Lil. (2007b, September 8). Spinelli e Guarnieri: Il pre-giudizio degli “zingari”

[Spinelli and Guarnieri: The prejudice of the “Gypsies”]. Romano Lil. Retrieved from

http://romanolil.blog.tiscali.it/2007/09/08

/spinelli_e_guarnieri__il_pre_giudizio_degli__zingari__1797483-shtml/

Rossi, M. (2010). The city and the slum: An action research on a Moroccan and a Roma

Xoraxanè community in Rome. (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from

http://etheses.bham.ac.uk/1263/

25


Severance, K. (2010, October 21). France's Expulsion of Roma Migrants: A Test Case for

Europe. Migration Policy Institute. Retrieved from

http://www.migrationpolicy.org/article/frances-expulsion-roma-migrants-test-

case-europe

Sigona, N. (2002). Figli del ghetto: Gli italiani, i campi nomadi e l’invenzione degli zingari.

[Sons of the ghetto: Italians, Nomad Camps and the invention of the Gypsies].

Civezzano, Italy: Nonluoghi.

Sigona, N. (2005). Locating ‘The Gypsy Problem’. The Roma in Italy: Stereotyping, labelling

and ‘Nomad Camps’. Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies, 31(4), 741-756.

Sigona, N. (2009). The 'Problema Nomadi' vis-à-vis the political participation of Roma and

Sinti at the local level in Italy. In N. Sigona & N. Trehan (Eds.), Romani politics in

contemporary Europe: Poverty, ethnic mobilization, and the neoliberal order (pp.

viii-xiii). New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan.

Sigona, N. (2010). “Gypsies out of Italy!”: Social exclusion and racial discrimination of Roma

and Sinti in Italy. In A. Mammone & G. Veltri (Eds.), Italy today: The sick man of

Europe (pp. 143-157). London, UK: Routledge.

Sigona, N., & Monasta, L. (2006). Imperfect citizenship: Research into patterns of racial

discrimination against Roma and Sinti in Italy. Retrieved from

http://www.osservazione.org/documenti/OA_imperfectcitizenship.pdf

Sina, Y. (2012, April 3). Rom: Il governo ci riprova [Roma: The government tries again]. Il

Manifesto. Retrieved from http://www.giustizia-

amministrativa.it/rassegna_web/120403/1d3exz.pdf

Stasolla, C. (2012). Sulla pelle dei Rom: Il Piano Nomadi della giunta Alemanno [On the skin

of the Romani People: The Nomads Plan of the Alemanno’s administration]. Rome,

Italy: Edizioni Alegre.

Tomasone, M. (2012). Il genocidio nazista dei Rom [The Nazi Genocide of the Romanies].

Retrieved from www.istoreto.it/amis/micros/rom_micros.rtf

Ufficio Nazionale Antidiscriminazioni Razziali. (2011b). Vai oltre i pregiudizi, scopri i Rom:

Go beyond prejudice, discover the Roma. Retrieved from

http://www.cominrom.it/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2011/11

/Volume_Campagna-Dosta_UNAR.pdf

26


Ufficio Nazionale Antidiscriminazioni Razziali. (2012b). Strategia Nazionale d’inclusione dei

Rom, dei Sinti e dei Caminanti: Attuazione comunicazione commissione europea

n.173/2011 [National Strategy for the Inclusion of Roma, Sinti and Camminanti

Communities: European Commission communication no. 173/2011]. Retrieved

from http://ec.europa.eu/italia/documents/attualita

/aff_sociali/roma_italy_strategy_it.pdf

U Velto. (2012, February 28). L'Italia presenta la “Strategia nazionale d’inclusione dei Rom,

Sinti e Camminanti” [Italy presents the National Romani Integration Strategy]. U

Velto. Retrieved from http://sucardrom.blogspot.it/2012/02 /litalia-presenta-la-

strategia-nazionale.html

Neither Included, nor excluded: The paradox of government approaches towards the Romanies in Italy

Documents

Transcript of Neither Included, nor excluded: The paradox of government approaches towards the Romanies in Italy