Of the initial text of the Comprehensive Guarantee of Sexual Freedom standard, which was approved yesterday by 201 deputies, the only thing that has remained unscathed are the four times that it is accused in the preamble to the society of being “patriarchal” and, therefore, for those who justify it, ‘the evil of all women‘. Not even the epicenter of the so-called ‘law of yes is yes’ or the woman’s consent to an intimate encounter with another person is the same: at the request of the General Council of the Judiciary, the Council of State and at the request of the Supreme Court gave flipping the definition around and moving from a system that requires the victim to refuse and resist to one that requires the affirmative consent that he wanted.
If it seems convoluted, this legal ‘mess’ is resolved in the norm in this way: “It will only be understood that there is consent when it has been freely expressed through acts that, in view of the circumstances of the case, clearly express the will of the person”.
Despite the mediation of the highest judicial spheres, the problem has only just begun, because many jurists see a reversal of the burden of proof and the elimination of the presumption of innocence. In the event of a complaint, it will be the judge who weighs these explicit manifestations of the woman, so many jurists and experts have already spent two years since the processing of the law glimpsing the possible avalanche of complaints and the difficulties in the case of the man to demonstrate a thing or the opposite. It will be left to the discretion of each magistrate who applies the norm with a gender perspective.
Yesterday, in Congress, only Vox and the PP made these extremes ugly and voted against. The CUP abstained due to the absence of proposals for prostitution, a reason for perpetual confrontation in the tortuous path through which this legislation has passed.
The “soflama” of Podemos
Martha Gonzalez, a popular deputy, warned that the burden of proof continues to be reversed and it is presumed that the accused man is presumed guilty and not presumed innocent, the basic pillar of the rule of law. The PP spokeswoman in this debate criticized that “the explanatory statement of the law is already an electoral slur for Podemos”, knowing that this rule is a copy of the proposal that the purple party carried in its electoral program in 2018. “They are saying who put the ‘yes’ of the victim of a sexual assault at the center so that she does not have to be subjected to interrogations and judges who question her, but they are lying to society, because they are going to keep asking questions and they are not released the victim of re-victimization,” he said.
The Rosetta stone on which Criminal Law is based is at stake, which is why many jurists do not like it. To the legal envelope of consent, other voices such as the professor of Criminal Law at the Carlos III University of Madrid James Dopico They add another big problem that he sees coming and that was also reported yesterday on the platform of Congress.
Dopico studies the reformulation of the Penal Code that iwill imply the entry into force of the ‘Montero law’, promoted by the Minister of Equality and which now only has its processing in the Senate. The unification of abuse and sexual assault in a single crime means reducing the range of penalties, by narrowing them on the sides, so that a serious sexual assault can have a lower sentence than it had now. “Another deception, they are going to lower the penalties for the aggressors when they are saying that they are going to finish them off,” said the PP spokeswoman.
For Dopico, the Ministry of Equality, in its fight against violence against women, «puts in the same criminal framework the sobón of the Metro and the aggressor of knife and corner» in the determination of the penalty, in its upper half, which is triggered for the sobón and lowered for the aggressor. «The project breaks with the idea of separate steps (homicide-murder, mistreatment-torture) and introduces a very broad common framework that brings about these problems. But as it is aware that this comparison can open the gates of hell, it introduces an optional attenuation: the judging body, as it understands, may reduce the penalty for a sexual assault, even imposing a simple fine for a sexual assault.
It’s not abuse anymore, it’s aggression
It should be remembered that the conception of the law was inspired by the cry of ‘it is not abuse, it is rape’ chanted by thousands of women in the outburst of indignation after learning of the case of the San Fermín Herd in 2016. There will be no more The concept of abuse with this rule disappears and all of them will be classified as sexual assaults, without taking into account the previous aggravating factors of violence and intimidation that were required and judged in the sentence that the Supreme Court imposed in his sentence to
the five rapists of a young woman from Madrid in Pamplona
. Yes, an aggravating circumstance is introduced in this law and it is that of chemical submission, because one in three rapists drug their victims before forcing them, which achieved the consensus of all the parliamentary forces.
During her speech in the Lower House, Minister Montero was proud that the law “is going to be a reality despite the reactionary noise, despite the right and extreme right and despite patriarchal justice.” “They make a lot of noise, but we have shown that feminists are more,” she snapped at the spokespersons for PP and Vox, although she starred in the biggest confrontation with Laura Berja (PSOE), which was unnerved because the law leaves out the issue of prostitution.
As of today, he announced, “all sexual violence is sexist violence: aggressions, street harassment, exhibitionism, femicide, genital mutilation, forced marriage, digital violence and sexual exploitation are recognized as forms of violence against women. To follow Dopico’s example, the Metro sobón will be a sexual aggressor.
Other measures of the law, such as the creation of 24-hour centers for the attention of victims of aggression or compulsory sexual education in classrooms, did obtain the support of all forces.
Innocent compliment or rudeness
The third time this norm came to Congress, it passed with a less harsh debate. He wanted to put the note of humor Carla Toscano (Vox) when he reproached the minister for snatching compliments such as ‘that is a body and not that of the Civil Guard’, a show of “popular ingenuity” that Toscano is sorry to lose. Others are rude, he agreed, but “rudeness is not a crime. Don’t tell them that he is taking you to jail.”
George is Digismak’s reported cum editor with 13 years of experience in Journalism