The Supreme Court (TS) has rejected the complaint filed by the PSOE against the leader of Vox, Santiago Abascal, for alleged hate crimes, slander, and threats. This accusation stemmed from remarks he made in an interview published in the Argentine newspaper ‘Clarín’ on 10 December 2023, in which he stated that there would come a time when the Spanish people would want to hang the Prime Minister, Pedro Sánchez, by his feet.
Supreme Court’s Ruling
In a ruling presented by Judge Javier Hernández, the Criminal Chamber has dismissed the complaint, stating that “the correction, suitability of discourse, and desirable levels of confrontation in political debate are issues that cannot, and should not, be addressed under the Penal Code, nor by the court responsible for assessing whether a particular expressive conduct deserves criminal reproach.”
“It does not seem compatible with the very foundations of political pluralism that criminal limits can be imposed on the speeches of elected public representatives who, even in stark or exaggerated terms, seek to challenge and delegitimize the political management of the government and its president from the opposition,” it established.
Assessment of Language Used
The Court further explained that, although “the expressions used” by Abascal “highlight a frontal and radical opposition to both the person and the political management of Mr. Sánchez,” they “do not meet the levels of criminal illegality.”
It elaborated that “it is not possible to predict that the complainant’s express conduct has generated a significant risk of serious harm to the foundations of peaceful coexistence or the citizenship status of which the Prime Minister and the members of the Socialist Party hold.”
This assessment remains valid despite “the indicators of confrontation present in our socio-political reality and their projections, in the form of protests and concentrations outside the complainant’s party headquarters, as described in the complaint.”
Thus, the Court dismissed the notion that, through these statements, “or by characterising the political management of the Government as a mechanism for the abolition of the rule of law, an assault on the Constitution, or the suppression of the Judiciary,” Abascal “is promoting, encouraging, or inciting violence against the Prime Minister and the Socialist Party in the terms required for criminal intervention.”
Defence of Freedom of Expression
Regarding crimes against honour, the Court found that criminal intervention is also not warranted because Abascal’s words “occur in a context of political debate, and are therefore strongly protected by the rights to freedom of expression and political participation.”
It noted that the level of protection of this right is heightened when the recipient of the criticism or derogation holds public responsibilities. In such cases, it emphasised, “the margins of acceptable criticism are much broader than if the recipient were a private individual.”
The Supreme Court stressed that “criminal reaction cannot be activated simply because the discourse induces or reinforces feelings of aversion towards the political opponent,” rather it “undeniably requires the degree of harm asserted by the penal type.”
Without this, the judges reasoned, “there would be an unacceptable risk in a democratic society of excluding from public debate, through the application of criminal law, extremely adverse discourse solely because it may inspire deep rejection of the political opponent among the audience.”
In advanced democracies, they continued, “confrontational discourses among democratic political forces, even if they contain hateful expressions, form part of the public debate space, and therefore deserve constitutional protection.”
“It is the responsibility of these forces, and not the courts through the application of criminal law, to provide citizens with reasons and proposals that can mitigate or neutralise the undesirable ‘Schmittian’ logic (friend-enemy) that appears to be framing the political climate,” they added.
Moreover, they noted that “when the expressive conduct of elected representatives occurs in the context of political debate and revolves around criticism of the Government’s management of matters of general interest or management proposals made from the opposition, it becomes extremely risky for the penal norm to intervene as a means of easing hostility indicators that may arise.”
Agencies EP
