Meritxell Batet announced the result of the vote on the reform of the law of the only yes is yes with a large majority. 233 votes in favor, 59 against. The Socialist deputies decided that it was not a victory they could boast of. They chose to offer the image of defeat. They did not applaud. They remained seated with faces of circumstances. The ministers María Jesús Montero and Pilar Llop made a face as if they wanted to be anywhere but in the chamber. On the contrary, the PP bench applauded furiously and even rose from their seats to celebrate what they considered a victory. Considering that most of the investiture had been torn to pieces, they were right.
With the intention of doing some damage control, Patxi López tried to put out the fire with a glass of water. “What we have done has been to correct a kind of errata that the law itself had,” said the spokesman for the socialist group later. It doesn’t seem like it was like putting the tilde in ‘solo’ or not.
The air of funeral on the left was accentuated with the intervention of Irene Montero, at times with a disjointed gesture: “Today is a sad day, surely the most difficult day that I have lived in this Chamber as a minister.” Another reason for the right to party.
The differences between the PSOE and Unidas Podemos were not just a matter of sensations or feelings. At times, it seemed that they were not talking about the same law. “The PSOE does not change even a comma in the definition of consent,” commented the socialist Andrea Fernández. It is found in article 178 of the Penal Code that includes this sentence: “It will only be understood that there is consent when it has been freely manifested through acts that, in view of the circumstances of the case, clearly express the will of the person.”
Irene Montero went up to the rostrum to respond: “Since December you have only made one proposal, the key of which is to return to the previous criminal scheme under the premise that it is easy to prove violence, that one wound is enough, as the Minister of Justice”. According to Podemos, that is what inspires the reform now approved. “It is a step backwards regarding the centrality of consent,” said Lucía Muñoz, from Podemos.
Both Montero and Muñoz used the same example to denounce the changes. They referred to the case of Dani Alves, in prison accused of rape. It has returned to “a system that allows defenses, such as that of footballer Dani Alves, to say that there has been consent because there are no marks of violence”, in the expression of the minister.
A defense attorney can say what he wants when exploring any argument that might favor his client. That does not mean that the examining magistrate or the court will listen to him. In fact, the Court of Barcelona has rejected his request for release with those arguments that arose in plenary. In addition, this is the fourth version that Alves has given about the events that have led him to jail, with which his credibility has been considerably damaged.
What cannot be denied is that the law of only yes is yes in its original wording has led to a thousand sentence reductions and that has put unbearable pressure on the PSOE. His electorate was not going to take it well, basically because benefiting sex offenders doesn’t get good press. It would be different if the discussion on the penalties had been part of the speeches of the promoters of the law in both parties in the parliamentary debate. It was not so.
Accusing judges by default may have a way out among Podemos voters, but not among PSOE voters. That was also going to separate the two formations.
Sánchez assumed the responsibility of apologizing this week for the “undesired effects” of the law. Everything has a limit and he did not want to take the risk of participating in the vote on the reform in Congress. He spent the day in the Doñana National Park. He made a statement about the reason for his visit to reporters, but did not take any questions.
The Socialists tried to go head-to-head with the PP to try to alleviate the burden of the morning, which Andrea Fernández called a “bittersweet feeling.” She thanked the two PP deputies with whom she has negotiated for her work, but she charged against that party for having sought to obtain “political revenue” from all the controversy, generating fear in public opinion.
“They have promoted morbid campaigns on social networks, all in the purest OK Diario style,” accused Fernández. Yes, a whole parade of unpleasant characters with an interest in attacking feminism entered the fray and did so through a door that the PSOE and Podemos had opened.
Another of the consequences of this convulsive legislative process has been its influence on the debate on the penalties for sexual crimes and the punitive offensive that occurs periodically under the never proven idea that these crimes will be reduced if prison sentences are increased. . That is the field in which the right has always moved comfortably. The crimes of rape have been harshly punished for centuries. The problem was what surrounded this crime: the social stigma suffered by the assaulted woman, which made it more difficult to report it, the lack of support in her family and in the State security forces, the fact that she would not be believed if the rapist was someone from a higher social class, the impunity that these aggressors ended up having.
In the end, the debate has been dominated by penalties when it was not initially a central point in Parliament. But with the irruption of the controversy, they only talked about penalties. The PSOE wanted to introduce changes that would prevent the reduction of sentences caused by the end of the distinction between sexual abuse and assault. Podemos presented an amendment that raised the criminal punishment to such an exaggerated point that it exceeded the penalties for homicide in the worst cases. Montero highlighted in plenary session the paradox that the PSOE asked them for higher penalties and then rejected their amendment that precisely called for higher penalties.
Podemos began to talk about the “Penal Code of the Pack”, when in reality the Supreme Court imposed heavy prison sentences on the members of that criminal group based on that same legal text. The Socialists have reacted as if the necessary changes were minor corrections that should not bother anyone.
The only thing they should agree on is hoping that voters will not remember this whole legislative episode very much when the elections come around.
