The Spanish Constitutional Court confuses a leftist law appealed by Vox with another law

@ElentirENG ES 5·09·2024 · 7:02 0

The Socialist Party (PSOE) of Pedro Sánchez is appropriating all the institutions, turning them into party organs.

Abortion: the Constitutional Court of Spain misrepresents the Spanish Constitution
Constitutional Court: the Popular Party gave the key to power in Spain to the socialists until 2031

The PSOE turns the TC into a machine for crushing the Constitution

The consequence of the socialist assault on State institutions is not only their loss of prestige, but also their loss of rigor. The clearest case is the Sociological Research Center (CIS), converted by the socialist José Félix Tezanos into a mere parody of a demographic institute and whose only purpose, right now, is to guide the vote to favor to the PSOE. Something similar happens with the Constitutional Court (TC), chaired by the leftist Cándido Conde-Pumpido and which has become a machine for crushing the Spanish Constitution, which it has the duty to defend.

Just a year ago, the TC distorted the Constitution, invented something that it does not say and skipped its own doctrine in order to shield the socialist law of 2010 that took away the right to live from all boys and girls born in Spain. That display of manipulation made it clear to what extremes the socialists can go: it does not matter how obscenely unconstitutional a law they have approved is, because the TC, controlled by them (thanks to the collaboration of the Popular Party, it must be said), will twist what the Constitution says as much as necessary to hammer home the wishes of the PSOE.

The TC rejects Vox's appeal against a law that imposes fines for praying

Yesterday we had another example: the TC announced a ruling dismissing Vox's appeal against Organic Law 4 /2022, created by socialists to criminalize the pro-life movement, describing the mere act of praying or demonstrating in front of a slaughterhouse of unborn children (I refuse to call it a "clinic") as a act of "harassment" prosecutable ex officio by the State. To this end, the aforementioned law introduced Article 172 quater in the Penal Code that punishes with a prison sentence of three months to one year the act of "hindering the exercise of the right to interruption voluntary pregnancy will harass a woman through annoying, offensive, intimidating or coercive acts that undermine her freedom."

Some ambiguous terms that are not used in any other article of the Penal Code

Vox denounced the ambiguity of these terms, which can lead to violating fundamental rights such as freedom of expression and demonstration. In his note yesterday (see PDF), the leftist majority of the TC headed by Conde-Pumpido alleges that "the typical verb governing the conduct of the contested precept is not the execution, among others, of annoying or offensive acts, but the action of harassing." The fact is that this law defines harassment as the use of "annoying" or "offensive" acts. Do you know how many times those two adjectives are used throughout the Penal Code? Well, only one: in Article 172 quater introduced by the socialists with that law.

Article 172 ter of the Penal Code, which classifies harassment as a crime, does not use these two adjectives at any time. Who will define what is "annoying" or "offensive"? Well, the government, which gives orders to the Police to prevent pro-lifers from exercising their fundamental rights, even if the Justice Department later agrees with them.

The TC considers that the freedoms of pro-lifers are sacrificable ...

However, in its note yesterday, the TC alleges that "the risks of applying the challenged provision to conduct such as mere suggestions or comments contrary to abortion are not part of a normal understanding of the scope of application of the art. 172 quarter." And who guarantees that, if the TC accepts the ambiguous terms of that law?

The note also adds the following: "the ruling denies that art. 172 quater CP produces, due to its severity, an unnecessary or disproportionate sacrifice of the right to freedom of expression or the right to demonstrate, the exercise of which, Indeed, it is affected by the appealed rule." I admit that this part is the one that has been the most macabrely funny to me: the leftists of the TC recognize that two fundamental rights are affected by that law, but they suggest a necessary or proportionate sacrifice, perhaps because the rights sacrificed are those who hold ideas opposite to theirs.

... but it wants to legalize the glorification of terrorism

Would Conde-Pumpido's TC admit this "sacrifice" of fundamental rights if it affected the socialists or their allies? We will not take long to verify it, since the PSOE has announced its support for an initiative to legalize the glorification of terrorism and outrages against believers. Yes, the same PSOE that considers "annoying" or "offensive" acts in front of a slaughterhouse of unborn children as crimes.

The TC confuses the law appealed by Vox with another law

But what is no longer funny, but rather hilarious, is something that comes at the beginning of the TC note (you can see an automatic copy here in case it is deleted). I put it in bold and underlined:

The Plenary Session of the Constitutional Court, in a ruling for which Judge María Luisa Balaguer Callejón was the speaker, has rejected the appeal of unconstitutionality presented by more than fifty deputies of the Vox Parliamentary Group in Congress, against Organic Law 10/1995, of November 23, of the Penal Code, whose sole article introduces art. 172 quater of the Penal Code to penalize harassment of women who go to a clinic for voluntary termination of pregnancy.

As I said before, Vox appealed the Organic Law 4/2022, which modifies the Penal Code, and not Organic Law 10/1995, by which the Penal Code was approved. In fact, Vox could not have appealed Organic Law 10/1995 because the deadline to file an unconstitutionality appeal is three months and that law was approved 29 years ago, long before Vox existed. That is, the TC has confused the law in its note, stating that Vox appealed a 1995 law.

One more example of the degradation of institutions by socialists

With this detail it is clear that the left doesn't give a damn about rigor and seriousness when doing things: it has the power and displays it cynically. It matters little that they confuse the appealed law with another law, because in the end the TC will do what the PSOE orders it even if it has to throw the Constitution out the window. This is how democracy and the rule of law die in Spain, and this is how socialism is turning our country into a replica of Bolivarian Venezuela.

---

Photo: La Moncloa. Cándido Conde-Pumpido, president of the Constitutional Court, in a meeting with the socialist Pedro Sánchez, president of the government of Spain on January 23, 2023.