This time the media progress is clear

The progressive and left-wing press echoes this Monday the sentence that protects the slander against Iglesias with pieces and opinion columns in various newspapers. Look: Public: “The Court of Madrid does not see a crime in lying to link Pablo Iglesias with drug trafficking and terrorism.” The country: “The Court of Madrid does not see it as insulting to link Pablo Iglesias with drug trafficking and terrorism without evidence.” “The Court of Madrid justifies that a military link Pablo Iglesias with drug trafficking “because of the political and social context””. As you can see, they are headlines with clearly critical approaches to the decision of the Madrid justice system.

In fact, I am going to analyze those two articles, the one on The vanguard and the one of Because they position themselves in a way that, although it should not be surprising, the truth is that it is interesting to read certain things (also said forcefully) in these two newspapers, taking into account the precedents.

One of these two articles is signed by marius carolmember of the Editorial Board of The vanguardin that same newspaper. It is entitled: “The country of Anacleto”. And among other things he says: “After hearing the sentence, one believes that, after suppressing sedition from the Penal Code, now it is time to eliminate slander. The ex-spy’s accusations were collected The mail and in them he boasted of knowing that Iglesias collected money from embezzlement and Venezuelan drug trafficking, that he provided false passports to Hezbollah terrorists and that his financing of Iran was verified. What should these illustrious togados understand by honor? What do you suppose is a slander? By the way, the court rapporteur had been a former public officer of the Community of Madrid with the PP. But this bias is irrelevant. At least in the country of Anacleto”.

The vanguard “pointing to judges” and clearly stating that a sentence, as is the case, can be based on an erroneous interpretation of the law or directly go against what it says in the Civil Code or the Penal Code. “What do these illustrious robes suppose is a slander?” he says.

The other article is signed Inigo Saenz de Ugarte in eldiario.esand is entitled “Did Iglesias receive money from drug trafficking? No, but in Madrid it is legal to say so. The Madrid judges rule that there is carte blanche to link Pablo Iglesias with Hezbollah or drug trafficking because “the convulsive climate” of politics does not leaves sequels in the honor of its protagonists”.

“The troubled climate”. If there are clouds and the wind is higher than 20 km/h, Iglesias can be slandered freely. Here some parts of the text of “Since 2014, various media outlets have tried to link Pablo Iglesias and Podemos to financing from Venezuela and Iran based on police information originating from the circle of commissioners who collaborated with the Popular Party to attack their political rivals. None of these complaints “It has come to trial for lack of evidence, which has not prevented very long judicial instructions that fed headlines for years. And then there were the far-right digital media that had even less scruples. The judges in Madrid are also willing to protect the latter”.

“As always with sentences, the arguments used to support the verdict are as important as this one. It is there that the magistrates confirm that there is a free hand to impute crimes to some politicians – surely not all – without the need for evidence “.

The article that provoked the complaint was signed by Diego Camacho, a former colonel who was part of Cesid, the espionage service prior to the CNI. Camacho was not shy when referring to Iglesias and Podemos: “They have collected money from embezzlement and from the Venezuelan drug trafficker, Pablo Iglesias provided false passports to Hezbollah terrorists.

Yet another example: “What has been verified is the connection of Mr. Iglesias with drug trafficking in Venezuela. That is, right now there is a vice president in Spain who has been in the pay of two foreign powers.” What do judges have to say to these criminal charges? “They are mere insinuations or generic personal attributions,” says the sentence. Delivering fake passports to a terrorist group is not exactly a generic attribution. The National audience I would damn you for that help if I could prove it. On whether the case could involve a crime of insults by affecting the right to honor, the court wants to make it clear that Iglesias is obliged to swallow what is thrown at him. Whether it’s true or false doesn’t matter.

“You have to marvel at the level of contempt these judges have for politics.” “They believe that disqualifications are so frequent that they leave no stain on the honor of politicians. It does not diminish their credibility at all that they are associated with Hezbollah or drug trafficking. There is no doubt that these magistrates do not live in our world.”

the article of “When politicians or journalists criticize sentences or accuse judges of partiality, they riot in indignation and sometimes ask the CGPJ for protection to protect them from those attacks that they consider unfounded. But if someone accuses Pablo Iglesias of collaborating with a Lebanese terrorist group or have any links to drug trafficking, no one should be upset or believe that their honor has been compromised. The conclusion we can draw is that it matters a lot who you are talking about when making these accusations.” and concludes “What matters is not the Penal Code, but the objective of the attacks. At least, the Court of Madrid is very clear about it.” I repeat: “What matters is not the Criminal Code, but the objective of the attacks. At least, the Madrid Court is very clear about it.”

First of all, and go ahead, I believe that we must greet and thank and applaud with total sincerity that so much The vanguard What dare to say this. It is very important that they do. But having said that, I also have to say (and there are also those who think that it is unfair to say this or that it is mixing different things, but that is the feeling I have), that I was surprised to read this, because these same newspapers and in general the media progress until yesterday defended that saying the same thing, exactly the same thing that they are saying today (that there are judges who pass sentences against what the wording of a law says) was “pointing out judges” (to all judges in addition) and that it is something that is very wrong and that it is also “victimism”.

We might remember a few articles and hear a few media figures from that space saying that. So, it is a little contradictory and some of us are a little angry to read this today, which I insist is great, but having to read at the same time in those same newspapers, and in the middle of a crucial political battle for feminist laws, which if there are judges campaigning against the law only yes is yes issuing sentences against what the law says, the problem is not with the judges, the problem is with the feminist laws.

Related articles