Conference Agenda

For the past decades, there has been increasing legal recognition of the rights of LGBTIQ people in Europe. Moreover, there has also been an increasing social acceptance of LGBTIQ people, even if with significant differences among social groups, with young, educated, urban, and non-religious people being more accepting of LGBTIQ people, as the latter results of the European Values Study indicate.

Despite these increasing levels of social and legal acceptance, in the past decade there has also been a growing mobilisation against the rights of LGBTIQ people, particularly trans people, manifested through hate speech, physical attacks and attempts to remove or block the recognition of legal rights. Such mobilisation has been related to the rising support of populist far-right parties and conservative civil society movements/associations, which often use the “gender ideology” and “cultural war” arguments, as well as to more traditional right-wing political actors also adopting such discourses.

Portugal has been a recent example of such dynamics. Although there is still some social conservatism towards LGBTIQ people, Portugal has been having a good performance on the legal recognition of the rights of LGBTIQ people, as revealed by the 2024 Rainbow Index.

Although the parliamentary debates between 2001 and 2018 on the issues related to the family rights of LGBTIQ people and recognition of gender identity had generated a division between conservative and liberal political parties, there was not much discussion on the issues after the approval of the respective laws. Moreover, the parliamentary approval of prohibitions against discrimination occurred without much opposition.

This scenario changed, nevertheless, in 2019 when a populist extreme-right political party was able to elect MPs and brought to the mainstream political debate the concept of “gender ideology”, particularly when addressing education issues. These discourses were then also addressed by other more traditional conservative right-wing political parties and new or already-existing social movements/associations.

One of the most expressive examples of these dynamics took place when the government approved in 2021 a regulation concerning how schools should deal with trans students, which faced huge political and social criticism. Some MPs even requested a constitutional review of this regulation, ultimately leading to its termination. This episode was then followed by an intense attack on the school subject named “Citizenship Education”, which, among other issues, addresses topics related to sexual education, gender identity, and sexual orientation.

These attacks have nevertheless propelled the mobilisation of a progressive coalition that has been trying to approve new legislation regarding trans students and to advocate in defence of the “Citizenship Education” school subject.

This paper aims to study the dispute between progressive and conservative coalitions on these topics related to education, namely, to map which actors are part of each coalition and their main arguments and strategies of involvement. Thereunto, we will analyse media pieces, news and opinion articles, in two mainstream centrist newspapers (Publico and Diario de Notícias) and parliamentary debates and questions related to these issues.

Socio-economic inclusion is the process of improving the terms on which individuals and groups take part in society, improving the ability, opportunity, and dignity of those disadvantaged on the basis of their identity. The paper explores the potential of sport policy as socio-economic inclusion strategy of society through literature review and some international cases.

The most basic element of sport is people coming together to play. Sports break down barriers and build bridges where boundaries usually exist. Sport can be understood across cultures, languages and religions. Sport can create a feeling of inclusion in society, no matter what age, sexual orientation, gender expression, whether you are able-bodied.

Sport organisations and governments can increase their settlement programmes that focus on sport as a facilitator for integration. Sports can provide a big opportunity to make friends and connections on a team, helping newcomers establish roots in their new home. Settlement agencies are often unaware of the benefits that sport and physical activity programming/partnerships can have in helping integrate newcomers into new lives.

Making this a policy will keep youth in structured programmes that provide spaces to express themselves in safe ways and learn important life skills. Policies like these will help social inclusion for those in underserved communities, helping marginalised groups in our cities and towns. Athletes, coaches and volunteers need to be able to participate in sports without fear. This will provide a platform from where inclusion can start.

The paper explores first the literature on sport policy aiming at inclusion and then several case studies, which showed occasions of sport events, contributing on inclusion.

This paper aims to explore the relationship between equality and differentiation from the perspective of the protection of the right to health into the Italian Legal System, which is guaranteed by the Constitution as both a fundamental right of the individual and a fundamental interest of the community.

In addition to personal circumstances, a crucial aspect of health protection is the way in which each State organizes its healthcare system, as this determines both effective access to healthcare services (prevention, treatment, rehabilitation, medication) and the delivery of related benefits.

Since 1978, Italy has adopted a healthcare system inspired by the Beveridge model, adapted to the principles of a decentralized, region-based State.

The territorial organization of the National Health System (NHS) can be positively assessed for at least three reasons: first, equality is emphasized both with respect to individuals accessing healthcare services and to the different territories that make up the State; second, greater proximity allows subnational governments to respond more effectively to the health needs of their residents, by ensuring better distribution and organization of facilities and making more efficient and effective use of financial resources; third, the autonomy granted to regional authorities in the organization and delivery of healthcare services fosters a closer relationship between voters and local institutions.

Pursuant to Article 117, par. 2, letter m) of the It. Constitution, the State is responsible for defining the essential levels of healthcare services (LEA) in order to ensure equal enjoyment of the right to health throughout the national territory. The regionalization of health protection through Regional Health Services is part of, and instrumental to, ensuring the unity of the NHS, by guaranteeing the provision of the LEA.

However, when situations arise in which the response to fundamental health needs depends on the region of residence, this results in a condition that is incompatible with Art. 32 of the Constitution and with the principles upon which ordinary legislation has shaped the Italian NHS.

More recently, law No. 86/2024 on differentiated regionalism pursuant to Art. 116 Const. appears to have jeopardized the unity of the NHS. However, the recent Constitutional Court Judgment No. 192/2024 seems to have realigned that law with constitutional principles, including those related to the protection of health. With reference to Judgment No. 192/2024 and other recent rulings, particular attention will be devoted to three aspects that may challenge the delicate balance between equality and differentiation in the context of health protection: the concept of differentiated regionalism and that of asymmetric regionalism; the notion of Essential Levels of Care (LEA) as a broader or narrower measure of equality, and their funding as a «constitutionally necessary expenditure» aimed at ensuring the fundamental right to health enshrined in Article 32 of the Constitution (Judg. No. 195/2024); and the provision by regions of services beyond the LEA, seen both as an expression of regional autonomy and as a potential source of discrimination among individuals residing in different regions in terms of access to essential healthcare services.