A surreptitious ploy to jail Puigdemont, perchance?
Toni Strubell is a former MP in the Catalan Parliament, journalist, and author of What Catalans Want
Núria Bassa Camps is a Catalan writer and photographer
Llegeix en català aqui
As the on-going judicialisation operation against the Catalan independence movement drags on, the issue of the possible suppression of “sedition” as a punishable offence in the penal code has come to the fore on the Spanish policial scene. With the backdrop of the preposterous “dialogue table” between the Spanish and Catalan governments –who today can imagine that this contraption might solve the conflict between Catalonia and Spain?– the Spanish government seems to have opted for a scheme to save face before Europe while continuing to apply harsh repressive methods against the independence movement. And we say “save face” because, however much the EU leaders may have blessed Madrid’s handling of the Catalan issue until the present day, the fear now is that the contrived irregularities that led to the convictions of Catalan leaders and activists will one day prove embarrassing to them. The question is, will the EU courts really approve prison sentences for Catalan leaders of up to thirteen years –for sedition, of all accusations– when this has been perpetrated by a justice system run by a jurisdictional council affected by a scandalous 4-year member renewal delay and which has ostensibly hosted the world’s largest case of Pegasus spyware abuse known as #Catalangate?
Indeed, there are reasons to believe that doing away with “sedition” as a juridical concept might well be part of the reform the EU authorities have beckoned Sánchez to introduce in exchange for continuing to turn a blind eye to his ultimate and confessed objective: the long-cherished extradition and imprisonment of Puigdemont. For that is the burning obsession of unionist politicians all across the board, from Francoists to “socialists”. And make no mistake, simply eliminating sedition from the penal code –a step the Spanish right furiously oppose– in no way obstructs the extradition of Puigdemont as one may be led to think. In this sense it cannot be overlooked that, in recent statements, both Sánchez and vice-President Calviño have confessed that these very changes in the law are primarily designed to enable Puigdemont’s extradition. Not surprisingly, critical observers have thus pointed to a tailor-made ad hoc operation which would once again point to the lack of separation of powers in today’s Spain.
Most pro-independence parties have insisted on this interpretation of the operation, claiming that the so-called elimination of sedition from the penal code, far from being a step in the direction of moderation and good sense, simply means that offences committed by Catalan politicians and activists could now be made punishable via other articles of the penal law or, what is worse, via new articles that have so far been put forward, such as one slyly introducing the cryptic term “aggravated public disorders”. Thus Jordi Turull, secretary general of Junts per Catalunya –now in opposition to the current single-party government– sees the step as a way to “gain an alternative juridical basis for the imprisonment (of Puigdemont)”. His party mistrusts any steps taken by the Spanish government in this field at a time when any form of lenience shown towards Catalonia is penalized by a a heavily weighted Spanish public opinion. As a significant exemple of this, mention can be made of actor Antonio Banderas scoff of Catalan voters injured during the Referendum day police attacks. But perhaps the most shocking factor in this sense is the revelation that at a recent meeting of Roberta Metsola (EU president and EPP party member) with colleagues of Spain’s PP leadership, she is alleged to have shown a willingness to facilitate an operation that would lead to the extradition of Puigdemont (as reported by El Mundo newspaper. https://www.elmundo.es/espana/2022/11/21/637bbfb421efa038678b456e.html. No wonder alarms have gone off amongst Puigdemont’s followers.
The wider implications
Needless to say, the introduction of the idea of “aggravated public disorders” –whatever that is meant to mean– is not the only novelty being toyed with in the current operation. Neither can the envisaged reforms of the penal code be seen in abstraction of the general tightening of the law affecting so many “democratic” countries worldwide. In public statements, Podemos leaders are having to cling to the obvious benefits of eliminating sedition –only the Spanish right denies that– but they tend to shy away from openly questioning the other plans Sánchez is ostensibly proposing as part of the deal. Nor do they protest very loudly about the fact that the government they form part has made no move to remove the famous “gag law” introduced by the former conservative government, a law they had so bitterly slanged when in opposition. When closely analysed, the whole of the operation suppressing sedition, far from showing signs of slackening the penal code, can be seen as one designed to do just the opposite. It is what one news web describes as “a tailor-made dress aimed at converting the events of 2017 into penable offences”, with the obvious objective of fooling the EU courts into handing over Puigdemont –a step they had not previously conceded– and subsequently allowing his imprisonment, as pointed to by Sánchez, Calviño and Metsola.
But just what are the hidden loopholes in this “tailor-made dress”? The proposed text includes a series of additional ammendments that extend repression against types of protest that are rarely seen as penable offences in democratic societies. Lawyers, unions, and anti-repressive organizations in Catalonia, and also in the Spanish State, have pointed to the risk there is that some aspects of the reform could facilitate interpretations offering no guarantees. It is feared that there is too vague a definition of the article that allows what a lawyer has defined as “the game of the Supreme Court” to condemn activists who have merely exercised their right to peaceful protest. Among the most controversial elements subject to the arbitrariness of a judge there are concepts such as “intimidation” or “the protection of buildings and installations”, involving penalties of up to three years in prison for those who are accused of acting “against the public peace” or carrying out acts of intimidation or obstructing public roads or invading facilities or buildings. Who will define exactly what all this means? If it is to involve the judges of the Supreme Court who have judged the Catalan activists until now, what will change? There will be no implementation of the “dejudicialization” policy that the pro-independence parties have so insistently demanded. As Benet Salellas says, the new definitions “allow for a very wide range of arbitrariness in the incrimination of conducts associated with the right to protest”. Likewise, anti-repressive organizations Alerta Solidària and Irídia warn of the danger of subjecting all to the omnipotent concept of “security” in line with the conservative legal trends that are being widely imposed, thus further encouraging arbitrariness and authoritarian control. The Permanent Secretariat of the CGT union of Catalonia also has its doubts about the interpretation that the Spanish judiciary will make of these issues and wonders “how many conservative prosecutors and judges will see almost all forms of collective action as “intimidation”?” It is also pointed out that, from now on, the participation of elected politicians and officials in what are termed “public disorders” and “aggravated offences” may well lead to their permanent disqualification and suspension. It threatens to be used as a further excuse, in addition to already existing ones, for the elimination of political opponents as has already occurred with hundreds of Catalan politicians and officials, including the last three presidents of the country.
We are therefore faced with a reform bill that it would be a mistake to see as well intended because, despite appearing to defuse sedition, it is an invitation to farm out the activities associated with sedition to other articles of the law which refer to offences that are in some way similar or comparable. It also calls for greater penal action against those participating in protests and empowers judges to make arbitrary interpretations of the law and facilitate repression against democratic activities such as the October 1st 2017 Referendum on Catalan independence or the non-violent rallies of recent years. Who can doubt that Puigdemont continues to be the ultimate target?
As the on-going judicialisation operation against the Catalan independence movement drags on, the issue of the possible suppression of “sedition” as a punishable offence in the penal code has come to the fore on the Spanish policial scene. With the backdrop of the preposterous “dialogue table” between the Spanish and Catalan governments –who today can imagine that this contraption might solve the conflict between Catalonia and Spain?– the Spanish government seems to have opted for a scheme to save face before Europe while continuing to apply harsh repressive methods against the independence movement. And we say “save face” because, however much the EU leaders may have blessed Madrid’s handling of the Catalan issue until the present day, the fear now is that the contrived irregularities that led to the convictions of Catalan leaders and activists will one day prove embarrassing to them. The question is, will the EU courts really approve prison sentences for Catalan leaders of up to thirteen years –for sedition, of all accusations– when this has been perpetrated by a justice system run by a jurisdictional council affected by a scandalous 4-year member renewal delay and which has ostensibly hosted the world’s largest case of Pegasus spyware abuse known as #Catalangate?
Indeed, there are reasons to believe that doing away with “sedition” as a juridical concept might well be part of the reform the EU authorities have beckoned Sánchez to introduce in exchange for continuing to turn a blind eye to his ultimate and confessed objective: the long-cherished extradition and imprisonment of Puigdemont. For that is the burning obsession of unionist politicians all across the board, from Francoists to “socialists”. And make no mistake, simply eliminating sedition from the penal code –a step the Spanish right furiously oppose– in no way obstructs the extradition of Puigdemont as one may be led to think. In this sense it cannot be overlooked that, in recent statements, both Sánchez and vice-President Calviño have confessed that these very changes in the law are primarily designed to enable Puigdemont’s extradition. Not surprisingly, critical observers have thus pointed to a tailor-made ad hoc operation which would once again point to the lack of separation of powers in today’s Spain.
Most pro-independence parties have insisted on this interpretation of the operation, claiming that the so-called elimination of sedition from the penal code, far from being a step in the direction of moderation and good sense, simply means that offences committed by Catalan politicians and activists could now be made punishable via other articles of the penal law or, what is worse, via new articles that have so far been put forward, such as one slyly introducing the cryptic term “aggravated public disorders”. Thus Jordi Turull, secretary general of Junts per Catalunya –now in opposition to the current single-party government– sees the step as a way to “gain an alternative juridical basis for the imprisonment (of Puigdemont)”. His party mistrusts any steps taken by the Spanish government in this field at a time when any form of lenience shown towards Catalonia is penalized by a a heavily weighted Spanish public opinion. As a significant exemple of this, mention can be made of actor Antonio Banderas scoff of Catalan voters injured during the Referendum day police attacks. But perhaps the most shocking factor in this sense is the revelation that at a recent meeting of Roberta Metsola (EU president and EPP party member) with colleagues of Spain’s PP leadership, she is alleged to have shown a willingness to facilitate an operation that would lead to the extradition of Puigdemont (as reported by El Mundo newspaper. No wonder alarms have gone off amongst Puigdemont’s followers.
The wider implications
Needless to say, the introduction of the idea of “aggravated public disorders” –whatever that is meant to mean– is not the only novelty being toyed with in the current operation. Neither can the envisaged reforms of the penal code be seen in abstraction of the general tightening of the law affecting so many “democratic” countries worldwide. In public statements, Podemos leaders are having to cling to the obvious benefits of eliminating sedition –only the Spanish right denies that– but they tend to shy away from openly questioning the other plans Sánchez is ostensibly proposing as part of the deal. Nor do they protest very loudly about the fact that the government they form part has made no move to remove the famous “gag law” introduced by the former conservative government, a law they had so bitterly slanged when in opposition. When closely analysed, the whole of the operation suppressing sedition, far from showing signs of slackening the penal code, can be seen as one designed to do just the opposite. It is what one news web describes as “a tailor-made dress aimed at converting the events of 2017 into penable offences”, with the obvious objective of fooling the EU courts into handing over Puigdemont –a step they had not previously conceded– and subsequently allowing his imprisonment, as pointed to by Sánchez, Calviño and Metsola.
But just what are the hidden loopholes in this “tailor-made dress”? The proposed text includes a series of additional ammendments that extend repression against types of protest that are rarely seen as penable offences in democratic societies. Lawyers, unions, and anti-repressive organizations in Catalonia, and also in the Spanish State, have pointed to the risk there is that some aspects of the reform could facilitate interpretations offering no guarantees. It is feared that there is too vague a definition of the article that allows what a lawyer has defined as “the game of the Supreme Court” to condemn activists who have merely exercised their right to peaceful protest. Among the most controversial elements subject to the arbitrariness of a judge there are concepts such as “intimidation” or “the protection of buildings and installations”, involving penalties of up to three years in prison for those who are accused of acting “against the public peace” or carrying out acts of intimidation or obstructing public roads or invading facilities or buildings. Who will define exactly what all this means? If it is to involve the judges of the Supreme Court who have judged the Catalan activists until now, what will change? There will be no implementation of the “dejudicialization” policy that the pro-independence parties have so insistently demanded. As Benet Salellas says, the new definitions “allow for a very wide range of arbitrariness in the incrimination of conducts associated with the right to protest”. Likewise, anti-repressive organizations Alerta Solidària and Irídia warn of the danger of subjecting all to the omnipotent concept of “security” in line with the conservative legal trends that are being widely imposed, thus further encouraging arbitrariness and authoritarian control. The Permanent Secretariat of the CGT union of Catalonia also has its doubts about the interpretation that the Spanish judiciary will make of these issues and wonders “how many conservative prosecutors and judges will see almost all forms of collective action as “intimidation”?” It is also pointed out that, from now on, the participation of elected politicians and officials in what are termed “public disorders” and “aggravated offences” may well lead to their permanent disqualification and suspension. It threatens to be used as a further excuse, in addition to already existing ones, for the elimination of political opponents as has already occurred with hundreds of Catalan politicians and officials, including the last three presidents of the country.
We are therefore faced with a reform bill that it would be a mistake to see as well intended because, despite appearing to defuse sedition, it is an invitation to farm out the activities associated with sedition to other articles of the law which refer to offences that are in some way similar or comparable. It also calls for greater penal action against those participating in protests and empowers judges to make arbitrary interpretations of the law and facilitate repression against democratic activities such as the October 1st 2017 Referendum on Catalan independence or the non-violent rallies of recent years. Who can doubt that Puigdemont continues to be the ultimate target?
Núria Bassa, Toni Strubell
“Please contribute to Brave New Europe, a media offering direct insight into the Catalan and Scottish people’s struggle for self-determination and democracy against neo-Francoist Spain and neoliberal Europe. We cannot afford to lose it, so please join us in donating”
Donate HERE
Be the first to comment