"TIP blogger ON MEDIA REPORTING OF JUDGEMENT EXIST
Mr. Aznar, ex- Prime Minister, discussed publicly in recent days that the "state of autonomies" should be reviewed . Nothing original, as you can understand the readers of this blog, because we are legion who think along the same lines, although the nuances are different. Some want a constitutional amendment to annulling the whole moviola Title VIII of the Constitution of 1978 (not what is being proposed by Mr. Aznar, if I have not misunderstood) and others, it seems that much more realistic, we settle for reducing the size of the establishment of the Autonomous Communities and unsustainable cost argument, the latter, a very strong and very difficult to refute.
At another point, Mr. Aznar said Spain was "actually operated " economically and that remained to be seen if he was going to be "of law." I never said anything like this view, but neither is any originality because external coercive influence on the Government of Spain and, in particular, on measures taken or promised, has been confirmed by hundreds of commentators, public and private, in many dozens of "average" of all kinds .
will clarify, because it is necessary (although it should not be if there were the visceral pissed that unfortunately we get), I'm no political or personal buff D. José María Aznar, as well as many other facts that come to mind now, I have always valued his second "term" very negatively by many and I think a strong case, from the inidoneidad of many "transfers" to the governments that formed up his last appointment digital successor at the head of the Popular Party (although this was agreed by the top college of her party, which had more sin taking into account that Mr. Aznar was to test their political succession, a retired voluntary policy), from for his decision, not so much to get closer to the U.S. as it reaches the point of embarking on the Iraq adventure. Item more: Aznar's policy in education and in judicial matters, in this second term, could hardly be more wrong and more serious negative consequences.
That said, I seem to have produced two critical interesting to freedom of expression of Mr Aznar . A starred in, of course, Ms. Leire Pajin , 15 January 2011, stating that democracy is "free " to say what you think , acknowledging that could be considered "legitimate " Aznar's words regarding the intervention of Spain, scores, however, "policy simply indecent." The other criticism has issued D. Santiago Carrillo Solares to say, in presenting his book on January 18, 2011 (in which he reached 96 years D. James), that " to question the autonomous State is unconstitutional." Not limited D. Santiago Aznar, but clearly alluded to it.
The interesting of these two criticisms is not, of course, that may have occurred. Or that the recipient was Mr Aznar. Both Ms. Leire as D. Santiago are completely free to criticize those who they deem objectionable, provided that they do not engage in libel or slander, which is absent in the cases of which I speak. The interesting-or at least to me it seems, is Ms. Leire's distinction between the legitimate and decent thing and, as a Carrillo, the rationale and content of his critique : unconstitutional a critical position, an opinion.
I fail to understand how public opinion expressed by a political character can be both "legitimate" and "simply indecent." appears that the key, according to Ms. Pajín, are the words " policy." Ie one opinion could be "legitimate" if it had no political significance but would become "indecent" ("simply indecent") at the earliest politically relevant. I think this thesis of Ms. Pajín not much different from that expressed in hold a private is "legitimate" but speak the same words in a public setting may already be "indecent" . That is, that from the point of view of freedom of expression, there would be a very large difference between self-talk (alone at home or down the street muttering) or whisper to a friend and public speaking.
course there are differences between what you say to yourself or a friend of the soul, quietly and in confidence, and what one says in public. You can not slander anyone or damage the honor of anyone with something one says only to itself or in an area of \u200b\u200bundeniable privacy. But what is in itself a "legitimate", ie legal, legally impeccable exercise of freedom of opinion and expression, to become "indecent" because they tell others, involves a mutation self-reductive freedom of expression that makes this freedom, very basic, with clear limits on the rights of others that may not be injured to freely express themselves in a "freedom" very tiny and very sarcastic, very hurtful mockery of the dignity of person. It is almost, almost, as recognized freedom of opinion, but conditional expression. Given this background, I have the feeling that a little more finely, we say comes from the power " think what you want, missing more, but do not ever put it with some social relevance if you think I do not like " (and may not like it, because one, in power, would be the one to put it).
For free opinion of D. Santiago Carrillo on critiques of the "state of autonomous", it seems legitimate and very decent exercise my freedom to say that D. Santiago is completely wrong. The English Constitution in force does not establish the existence of anything that is not likely to be "questioned" that is questioned , doubtful, open to criticism. The English Constitution of 1978 should not be confused with the Movement's Fundamental Principles National or the Red Book of Mao Tse-Tung (or Mao Zedong, whatever you prefer). As has been said a thousand times, the Constitution provides for its reform, which means that it provides questioned as to reform it without question it would be improper of thinking beings. The current Constitution formally recognizes that the State-more specifically and accurately, Cortes-set offense and, among these, are criminalized conduct involving the expression of certain thoughts which very severely injured the honor or the presumption of innocence or advocate and clearly extol the commission of other crimes. But the Constitution does not allow sanctions to doubt or put into question the wisdom of a provision or collection of them. The English Constitution and declared Republican can be, being, and declare and separatist or even be declared communist the old way, which, obviously, would question the social and democratic state of law . Therefore, enables and protects question the "Statement of Autonomy."
is an ugly and sad irony that the English Constitution is used, once again, as a weapon against what it wants to protect the Constitution and in the most intense: the free expression of thought a fundamental right.
THE MEDIA NOTIFICATION OF THE DECISION DOES NOT EXIST
According
the Organic Law of Judicial Power (OLJ) (art. 266.1) and the Civil Procedure Act (art. 214.1), which is common procedural law, the firm a ruling by the judge or, for corporate bodies, by the judges, makes the decision unchanged. Until it is signed, the judge and one or more justices may change their approach. Therefore, we have far, when I write this (January 19, 2011, 19.45 hours) in the case of Mr. Saenz, still "number two" current Bank of Santander, etc., Is the news of THE WORLD, by filtering (because rule out a pure invention) of deliberation and voting, in a courtroom of the Criminal Division of the Supreme Court's decision on an appeal . According to the leak, Mr. Saenz was sentenced to imprisonment for eight months and also a special disqualification for three (3) votes to two (2), by holding it responsible for the crime of false reporting another scam trial. It is said that the sentence has not been drafted, let alone, of course, any dissenting opinions.
In recent times, has been relatively common, in some cases, notify what we call "failure" of a sentence (the part where is acquitted or convicted, in whole or in part, if any, penalty is imposed) without waiting for the entire statement was written. This practice is clearly justified if, in a criminal trial, the sentence is acquitted on someone who is in custody or restrictive precautionary measures, which should immediately rescind. But for this practice is legal, the "failure" should be signed.
In the present case, there has been no advance notification of "failure" has been a leak of result of a vote. While no firm resolution could be changed legally voted . We are, as I say in the caption to a "media reporting" of a conviction does not appear to exist.
That Mr. Saenz crime is bad and it's fine not free from a criminal conviction have been Chairman of Banesto and now be CEO of Banco Santander, etc. But that does not mean that whoever leaked the vote and the sense of failure, no details, has done well. Has done wrong, the Supreme Court into disrepute, or at least its Criminal Division. And, I believe, has committed a crime.
I remind important precedent : filtering the Constitutional Court ruling (TC) on the constitutionality of Decree-Law of Expropriation RUMASA group. On December 5, 1983, the newspaper published COUNTRY, in strict exclusive news of the vote in the TC on this tremendous issue. There had been a tie at six votes, but on the casting vote (or umpire) the President of the TC, D. Manuel García Pelayo (RIP), declaring the constitutionality of the expropriation. COUNTRY specify the names of voters in one direction and another, which was interpreted, rightly, in my opinion, as a way of impeding a change of opinion of any judge in the long bridge starting. The "leak" was the subject of prosecution instructed by the Criminal Chamber of the Supreme Court, asking justices statement to all of the TC, because of the deliberate and vote in closed session did not appear that anyone else could give you news them. As he could not determine who was responsible, the proceedings ended on file.
But
filtration was an issue with a clear criminal dimension (art. 376 of the Penal Code of 1973), as it still is now under art. 417.1 CP 1995, in force:
"The public official who reveals secrets or information of which he has knowledge by virtue of his office or position and should not be disclosed, be punished a fine of twelve to eighteen months and disqualified for public office or employment period of one to three years. "
" If the disclosure referred to above prove cause serious damage to public or third, the penalty shall be imprisonment of one to three years and specific disqualification from public office for period of three to five years. "
The violation of secrecy does not offer much doubt considering what is stated in Article 233 LOPJ the " the court proceedings are secret. It will also be the result of voting, subject to the provisions of this Act concerning the publication of individual votes . "
If you ask me if this time open the Criminal Division a prosecution for the filtration, it is reasonable to attribute to one of the five judges of that Chamber deliberated and voted, I would say that I consider highly unlikely. Hopefully I'm wrong and the "filter" (which probably only be important and have tried to "sign a bit" with the "middle") is identified. It is very well punish those who commit crimes, but is dull if you later commit an unlawful grave.Y the injured not so much Mr. Saenz, as the Supreme Court itself or, more precisely, its Criminal Division. A pity.
0 comments:
Post a Comment