This Tuesday, Congress took into consideration a bill to reform the Penal Code, presented by Sumar, to eliminate the crimes of insult to the Crown, insult to national symbols, glorification of terrorism and offense to religious feelings.
The decision to debate the initiative was carried out in the Plenary Session of the Lower House with 177 votes in favor and 169 against. PSOE, Sumar and the pro-independence parties supported the procedure, while PP and Vox rejected it.
The proposal was presented by Sumar’s Interior and Justice spokesperson and IU spokesperson in Congress, Enrique Santiago, who described the crimes that the initiative aims to eliminate as “a democratic anomaly” caused by the reform of the Penal Code of 2015. Therefore, He asked all groups to “lose fear” of behaviors that have “no purpose other than comedy” or are “simple criticism.”
He recalled that in democracy “the minimum intervention of Criminal Law prevails”, when “there are other civil means of defending the right to honor or rectification”, and that “debate or political participation cannot be restricted”. He also called “integrity” punishing offenses against religion and cited sentences from European courts that have condemned Spain for applying sentences against insults to the King or the country, which he considers inevitable in the democratic debate.
Santiago criticized that all these penalties are “imprecise” and, therefore, have given rise to an “erratic application”, and asked to end the “permanent shame” of international condemnations of Spain and adapt the Penal Code to those of other countries. Westerners, who do not contemplate these crimes. Finally, regarding the glorification of terrorism, he stressed that it has been applied to rappers and that it can also collide with freedom of expression, much more so when ETA no longer exists. According to what he said, the former Minister of the Interior Jorge Fernández Díaz used it to “cover up the misdeeds of his Ministry.”
Sumar’s spokesperson ended by pointing out that the authorities cannot limit freedom of expression, assembly or political participation because it makes the head of state uncomfortable, and asking the deputies that Spain establishes itself in the scenario of protection of rights and freedoms, in which he assured that “all the countries around us” are already there.
Vox requested the turn against, and on its behalf, the deputy José María Figaredo, ironically said that Santiago, with the “face of a slaughtered lamb”, had given a “master class in tolerance and understanding” when he is a communist defender of terrorist groups like the FARC, in whose peace process he participated. He attributed it to him wanting to apply a funnel law with which to silence the opposition and, instead, have the right to all types of statements.
Figaredo stressed that the crimes of religious offense or glorification of terrorism only apply to those who have the “intention of humiliating” another person, and doubted that Spain would be a better country if these behaviors are allowed. He criticized that Sumar tries to present Spain as a totalitarian country, when it is one of those that least protects its own symbols; In Germany, he confirmed, there is prison for those who defile its flag, with an aggravated crime for those who hold public office.
The Vox deputy accused Sumar of defending tributes to ETA members or attacks on police officers, while “rending his clothes” with peaceful demonstrations like those in Ferraz or when someone prays in front of an abortion clinic. “To the adversary, prison, and to mine an open bar,” he summarized, placing the PSOE alongside Sumar in a supposed attempt to create a new regime in which they have “omnimode power”; an attempt with which they are “colonizing all State institutions” and silencing all voices that disagree with the “single thought” in a “coup d’état from La Moncloa”
Santiago replied to Figaredo that the “personal attack demonstrates the lack of a single argument” and that “anyone who can offends.” He assured that the reform proposed by Sumar will be very good for Vox himself when he criticizes the monarchy and the Constitution, he insinuated that the European institutions must also be Bolsheviks with their Spanish sentences for these crimes. “We are people of order,” championed the initiative’s speaker, asking for more rigorous arguments to enrich the debate.
Figaredo countered by calling on the Government to persecute the “true criminals”, and, faced with the accusation of personal attacks, he blamed the attacks on judges by Junts, while Santiago, from his seat, made gestures that he had not had any nothing to do with that. When repeating the accusation that he was a lawyer for the FARC, Santiago asked for allusions to deny it and clarify that he was only an advisor in a process that won a Nobel Peace Prize.
The rest of the parliamentary groups limited themselves to establishing a position. For the PP, Sergio Sayas interpreted that Sumar wanted to “give impunity to hate,” because freedom of expression is “fully guaranteed in the Constitution.” “The problem that democracy has is not the law, it is you,” he assured, reproaching the Government for the pardons, the amnesty, the attacks on the judges and the pacts with EH Bildu.
Sayas said that in European countries there are crimes of insult to State institutions, while what there is not are governments with communists and supported by coup plotters and terrorists. “The PSOE has become the protagonist of indecency,” he stated, lamenting that “the novelty” is that the attack on democracy that in his opinion represents the attack on the State is sponsored by the Government itself with the “applause” of “the criminals”, because that party has remained in ‘PS’, “the party of Pedro Sánchez”.
Isaura Leal intervened on behalf of the PSOE, who defended that freedom of expression is “inherent to democracy,” but clarified that it is not an absolute right, but is limited by truthfulness and other rights with which it may collide. It entails, she pointed out, “rights and responsibilities,” and she appealed to European jurisdiction, but she also cited it to recall the condemnations of Spain that Santiago had spoken of.
Leal called for a “calm debate” on the issue, and set consensus and distance from extremist and maximalist positions as criteria for this. Along these lines, he called on the PP to distance itself from Vox, which in his opinion this party contaminates the public debate, since the Constitution does not protect the right to insult or incite hatred, violence or the humiliation of victims. In short, he announced support for admission to the process, but advanced that the PSOE will defend in its processing respect for the institutions and the victims, whose protection “must prevail over another objective.”
On behalf of ERC, Pilar Vallugera was surprised that there had been a vote against the initiative and said she detected a “double standard” when those who engage in these behaviors. She also mocked the right when they ask to remove some criticisms from the Session Diary. She assured that she does not care if someone burns a Catalan flag, instead of a Spanish one, or criticizes the president of the Generalitat. Regarding the prayers before abortion clinics, he assured that they are not freedom of expression, but harassment, and that is why they are in the Penal Code, and, finally, he pointed out that, the higher and more powerful an institution is, the more they have to be subjected. to public criticism.
Eduard Pujol, from Junts, said that “democracy is an attitude that should permeate everything” and criticized the PP and PSOE for preventing the 1-O referendum. Along the same lines, he refused to put on the “superhero cape” to save Spain, where “democracy is in regression,” because he prefers to defend only Catalonia.
However, he compared the crimes that the proposal seeks to eliminate as “legal censorship,” and listed those that in his opinion should have been imputed to King Juan Carlos, but that if pronounced are a crime. “Now it’s time, we are clear. “He asked the PSOE deputies, given the socialist doubts about carrying out this reform. He asked Sumar and Podemos, for their part, where they were when they left the independentistas “alone” in defense of freedom of expression, but he guaranteed them his vote in favor of the initiative.
From EH Bildu, Jon Iñarritu started from the fact that the Spanish Penal Code is one of the harshest, and pointed out that the test of a democracy is the freedom to express unpleasant opinions. Therefore, approving the initiative would allow Spain to comply with international standards, because “we are late.” Furthermore, he interpreted that there is an “authoritarian drift” in the State that is reflected in the ‘gag law’, in “police raids” and “artists in exile” or in prison.
Iñarritu asked the PP if “something doesn’t bother them” when these things happen and other artists “censor themselves.” Regarding the insults to the Crown, he adhered to the two European rulings that have condemned Spain for putting the monarchy before freedom of expression, and denounced that it is “overprotected” and has prevented the creation of parliamentary investigation commissions. But about it he denounced the “double standard” when those who criticize the monarchy are from the right.
On behalf of the PNV, its deputy Mikel Legarda compared the recurrence with which this initiative is presented with the myth of Sisyphus, since in each legislature it gets stuck in the amendment deadlines and ends in nothing due to the dissolution of the chambers. His training, he recalled, has always been in favor, because “freedom must be prevalent” in a liberal democracy, although without ignoring the limits indicated in article 20.4 of the Constitution. He encouraged “an in-depth technical and legal examination” of the matter, recognizing that the issue is not without doubt. For this reason, he asked the Government to request a preliminary report from legal experts on the content of the proposal, but advanced the vote in favor of admitting the initiative for processing.
For the Mixed Group, Podemos deputy Martina Velarde started from the point that “full democracy does not exist,” an expression coined by former party leader Pablo Iglesias. In this sense, she cited some that have been made by Vox to the institution, where “insults come for free.” She accused that party of offending and outraging the rest of the parties by using the flag, so she asked for freedom of expression also for the left. In the same sense, she criticized the fact that religious offenses are reported while religion is used to accuse women who have abortions, and for all this she asked to eliminate these “obsolete” crimes and repeal the ‘gag law’ to “close the circle.”
For the same Mixed Group, the BNG deputy, Néstor Rego, regretted that the proposal “remains half done”, for not eliminating insults to the Cortes Generales or in general terms, for which he requested a “deeper reform” of the Penal Code and repeal the ‘gag law’. Furthermore, he clarified that these crimes of freedom of expression are not from the Rajoy Government, but “inherent to the regime of ’78”, since in 1980 a Galician singer-songwriter was already sentenced. Therefore, he will support taking into consideration to improve the initiative with amendments.
