Our country has made us believed articles of the Nation’s Constitution are subject to voting. This will explain why we sit to listen to Diaz, Montero and the Garcia’s, in an aim to discover new norms. Who do these names belong to? We are women in Parliament. This piece of reading remains a beauty post as we move to understanding how laws are dispensed to the population, especially, to female generations.
If you used to think codes and laws were the only norms subject to debate and parliament vote well you are not fully filled in. From our little town in Segovia we have come to discover the Nation’s Constitution is also subject to debate and voting. In a context where we vote every action, who is right? And who has the rights? To answer these two questions see below international opinion of one of our most controversial reforms of 2022_ Ley Orgánica de Garantía Integral de la Libertad Sexual_. The new law is official and we start calling it a reform once passed and released by Congress.
“After more than a year of procedures, it was approved in August 2022 by the Congress of Deputies of Spain with 205 votes in favor and 141 against and came into administration on October 7th 2022. The leftist coalition that governs Spain claims it is one of the most avant-garde laws in the world in favor of women’s rights. Its critics [being The People’s Party, a conservative and Christian-democratic political party], however, believe the reform violates the presumption of innocence and equality before the law.”
“A month after coming into enforcement, it generated a new controversy. A “legal hole” in the norm caused its application to have an undesired consequence for its promoters: the reduction of the sentence for some convicted persons.”
These opinions move forward to say
“This means a sexual assault does not necessarily imply the use of force or that the victim has tried to resist since, for example, their passivity could be conditioned by environmental intimidation or by the ingestion of alcohol or other substances. Thus, any sexual interaction without the consent of the other person will be an assault and will be punishable by a prison sentence of 1 to 4 years.”
Also, the BBC says sentence are reduced from five years.
Rather than a new verdict bringing justice to victims it began to sound like a death spiral, where our female lead is oscillating between environmental disturbance and denial. Environmental intimidation may be hard to proof, however, the ingestion of alcohol is easier to trace back.
If Parliament continue to do more of the same, having similar consequences, can we announce human rights like Freedom of Speech or Rights to a Home to modern thoughts of Montero et al.,? The writer does not believe in this form of power. Judges are not ‘machista’. The writer believes there is power in the abolition of slavery, she believes there is power in the civil war communication, and in human rights movements. Judges are elected to decide on crime. A context in which the Constitution is subject to voting should be avoided.
Women have tried to change the world at a time power is delivered via quotas and through corporate boards. Forgetting their believe. However, delivering our husband to compete at a competitive workplace, and a reform reducing sentences for some convicted felonies is not what I personally call a great world.
Thus, are we voting to live or are we living to vote?
In my opinion ‘Parliament shouldn’t vote if there are no positive outcomes.’Freedom of speech and expression and Rights to a Home shouldn’t be reduced to votes. Human rights may remain exactly as written in the Constitution. The role of women in Parliament, and in such scenario, would consist in working to make the Constitution stick in society rather than modifying our very own constitutional rights. If the Constitution doesn’t lack commas or dots…
Why have we amended the fundamental rights granted by the Constitution?
Tell us what Congress has passed in your country and what has been the change.
PS: see Real Decreto-ley 37/2020
