JB: Elpidio José Silva, good morning. EJS: Good morning.
JB: You read the Supreme Court's order, right? I guess?
EJS: Well, I think that... JB: You read it, right? EJS: Yes, yes... Well, let's see...
This script has... been written already.
We have seen it right from the beginning, there is a precedent:
a Statute of Autonomy voted by the Catalan people
and a Constitutional Court sentence that completely ignores
the will of the Catalan people and two parliaments,
that was a coup against
the balance of the Spanish territorial constitution,
stemming from the idea,
and that is an idea from the 1978 Constitution,
about the constituent power remaining open,
remaining permanently open regarding
the configuration of statutes of autonomy,
which are a part of the constitutionality block,
that is, so to speak, that belong to the Constitution.
EJS: When that is broken... PR: Pepe, can you tell us...
JB: Please let him finish. EJS: Of course, let's see, this is very simple.
PR: What does it mean for the constituent power to remain open?
EJS: The Constitution... Well, it means that,
when the Constitution was approved in 1978, there was no political capacity,
there was no consensus on setting a federal state
and a state had to be built so that, even if not as a federation,
had open competencies and the possibility for the configuration of a federal and plural state.
At that time, among the political unrest,
and situations which, we should remember, were quite complicated at that time,
and where we had to, somehow,
move on, generating a Trojan horse for Francoism…
Well, so the Constitution starts walking.
The Trojan horse of Francoism is inside.
At the beginning, the Constitution works,
with more flaws as time goes by,
until 2010, when the movie ends.
And we start a new period, that is, a different way to see the Constitution,
which is the one typical of the dictatorship. The regime suddenly takes over the Constitution
and says 'Look, it suits my needs, because I shall seize it,
because we shall construe it however I wish.'
And once you construe the Constitution the way they tell us,
what we had never thought before, and start seeing since 2010 and 2011,
when judges start being fired from
their judicial career in the most unjustified way,
what we didn't know is that they would also seize the Criminal Code.
And what we see with Junqueras and the court order
is the regime having seized the Criminal Code.
EJS: We have a Criminal Code that does not match…
JB: But Llarena, Llarena, you are telling me that it belongs to the Regime? So to speak?
EJS: The Regime is just made up of those agents,
officials, magistrates, prosecutors, politicians,
that work in a way alternative to that of democracy.
EJS: I mean, you cannot read the Criminal Code however you want…
JB: With whose approval? Because someone has…
EJS: Well, political movements are like hormones, right?
They move depending on clouds of people who participate in an idea.
They are bands, gangs, groups, and…
XS: With judges, as well? EJS: political parties
EJS: With all sorts of people that side with that ideology.
XS: With judges as well? EJS: That is, if I see a judge…
XS: Are there judges who pervert justice? EJS: … that tells me… tells me…
EJS: No, that is in the sentences,
there are sentences for perversion on every judge,
some of them just and others unjust, but the main idea is:
we all know about criminal doctrine,
we all know about criminal conduct
and we all know when there is violence and when there's not,
let alone when it constitutes an uprising that can be labeled as sedition or rebellion.
Why? Oh well, because Spain is a professional at that.
Spain knows more than anyone else about uprisings,
and we all know what an uprising and what sedition are like.
EJS: Sedition is… a smaller kind of rebellion…
JB: Well, tell the people, which is the great majority,
who have no idea of what they are being accused of.
That is, they are told of disobedience, sedition and rebellion.
Let's see, if I may ask: disobedience. Do you think there was disobedience or not?
EJS: Well, disobedience would be the only offense that we could consider here,
although in a quite contested way,
well, then the Constitutional Court's requirements are ill-made,
because the Court doesn't know how to do that, because that is not their job
and they can't be blamed for not perfectly and incontestably meeting the requirements
so that the disobedience offense can be attributed…
Assuming that this criminal offense existed,
it would exist with very obscure evidence,
and certainly, throughout the history of Spain
nobody goes to prison for a first disobedience.
EJS: If that had been… if that had been… JB: When we talk of disobedience…
EJS: If that had been the way, things would be quite different.
If you want to enforce the law, when Puigdemont, Junqueras
and the members of the Catalan Government have disobeyed for the 6th time, then they go to jail.
But, certainly, the Regime cannot endure 6 consecutive disobedience attempts.
EJS: In order to meet those 6 requirements… JB: But the disobedience offense…
EJS: … while the Regime keeps doing as it… JB: What does the criminal code say on disobedience?
JB: How much would we be talking about?
No, no, we would never get on to sentences, none that would allow for preventive custody, never.
There would have to be a reiteration of 5 or 6,
then we would be talking of more than 3 years, and then we could say,
also for the sake of legal assets, that they could be sent to prison… However…
EJS: Regarding sedition and rebellion… JB: Let's get on to that
JB: When we talk of sedition, what are we talking about, exactly?
EJS: Well, sedition is a small sort of rebellion.
It is an act of rebellion that does not go against the state's core, that is, La Moncloa.
It goes against a peripheral part of that state or essential elements of the state structure.
A judge intending to take a legal proceeding,
a tax inspector trying to do something, that is...
sections of the state that are indisputably potential violence targets
by means of an uprising, that could be called sedition,
PR: Macià... EJS: which is a smaller form of rebellion.
PR: Macià's revolt at Prats de Molló, would that be labeled as sedition?
PR: When a group of...
JB: Of course. PR: When Francesc Macià and a part of the army
PR: rise from Prats de Molló EJS: Well, here there is a force...
there is a force display because there is an army.
PR: It would be rebellion. EJS: Here we could speak of rebellion or sedition
but what is clear is that the uprising must involve a foreseeable or updated violent action
EJS: where somebody takes hold of the institutions JB: Always by violent means? We mean... always?
EJS: You always need evident violence.
PR: Upheaval... EJS: Otherwise...
EJS: Because an uprising typically involves this violent action,
and turmoil implies the display of this violent action.
By the way, this violent action has to be controlled by the suspect.
I mean, if I set up a demonstration
and three or four people have messed around,
there must be a causal relationship
between what these 3 or 4 people did and what I wanted to do.
If 3 or 4 people did something that was not within the causal circle under my control,
I am not responsible.
That is, you cannot accuse someone, on an arbitrary basis,
of everything that happens to someone, because if that were the case,
hospital directors would be directly responsible for everything that happened in the hospital,
and the President of the General Council of the Judiciary would be automatically accountable
for all the perversions and mischief that the judges committed, I mean...
That is elementary.
In order for you to charge someone for rebellion or sedition,
that individual has to be able to control all the causal course of action,
especially in the case of rebellion and sedition, more than for any other offense,
because that is an offense of a political strategic nature,
that is, it is like murder, it moves along the same lines,
it's a very severe offense, the consequences are disastrous,
you must do it deliberately, you must have planned it with a careful strategy,
EJS: and this, here, it's not that... PR: That'd be Tejero.
EJS: That cannot be construed, it's just out.
PR: That would be Tejero. EJS: Indeed, that would be Tejero.
JB: OK. EJS: That is, the alleged key of rebellion or sedition
is the presence of an armed group, of an extremely violent element,
because it has to be totally capable to remove the institutions.
JB: Under your point of view, have the Generalitat and the Parliament
JB: committed some or any sort of offense?
EJS: There might have been disobedience,
but not to my understanding, because everything is moving within the political sphere
of the Constitution breakup from 1978 to 2010.
How are you supposed to negotiate when you have disposed of the entire political consensus?
That is, within what framework are you supposed to work?
EJS: So here, there was a symbolic... XS: Disobedience.
EJS: ... display of this breakup. JB: No, no, he says no,
JB: he says nothing. EJS: It might...
XS: It might, it might, it might...
EJS: Let's see...
XS: but... EJS: First of all, in order to call some act an offense...
JB: He said no. EJS: In order to call some act an offense,
the first essential element of the offense is that it is investigated by the suitable judge,
which is not the Supreme Court.
I mean, so that we can talk of offenses clearly,
because the thing is I, right now, honestly, see offenses on all sides,
I mean, if the natural judge determined by the law is the one that's fitted,
and if it's not that one, it is arranged', it's 'rigged'
And when it is 'rigged', of course, you get what suits the needs of the other part best.
And I don't see the Supreme Court's competence. There is none.
This competence is just not valid. To whom does the competence belong?
EJS: It belongs to the High Court of Justice of Catalonia. XS: Even when you believe that...
XS: Even when you believe that there is no crime. That the Generalitat and the Parliament...
XS: have committed no crime. EJS: I think that if there must be a crime,
that would be disobedience JB: Hold on, hold on...
JB: That is interesting. EJS: There could be a disobedience offense.
I think misappropriation of funds would be quite arguable, because...
Anyway, the misappropriation offense could be a good idea,
but then the whole People's Party would be immediately annihilated, of course, if...
if we define that as misappropriation of funds, we'd better not get started on the use of the bank rescue that was found.
I... I would rather not get involved in that, okay?
Especially because almost nothing was given back.
I think there are political activities, in a broad sense,
that cannot be subject to the strict rules of misappropriation
because then we'd get confused between what belongs to administration and what belongs to politics.
There could have been disobedience, we should study requirements one by one...
that is, we should work as people work every day at a court.
Because what happens here is that, when the Regime is annoyed by history,
everything is subverted, magistrates lose their way
and they start doing something... And that is not just me claiming this,
there is nobody in the judicial community right now that would charge rebellion and sedition,
which are the reasons why they are being held in prison.
Because it is them, and besides with... with a display element,
that calls one's attention, thinking because..
we must take into account that the three magistrates of the Supreme Court together
amount to more than 100 years of experience, which means:
his sentencing you depends on him agreeing ideologically with what?
I'm sorry, I don't understand. That means, that if he signs 'Hey, I agree,
yes, yes, the Regime, whatever you will... then he is set free.
But if he says 'No, I do not agree with the Constitution,
that is, article 16, which states that I have the right of freedom of ideology,
and article 2, which says that there are nationalities...'.
But we cannot just chop the article off.
Article 2 has two sections that are very well-defined!
On the one hand, there is the Spanish State,
on the one hand there is a matrix reference in the Spanish Nation strictly speaking,
and then there are nationalities, nations, territories, regions,
and two peculiar ones, Ceuta and Melilla.
And out there there is Gibraltar.
Which, by the way, if we asked Gibraltarians today:
Do you want to join Spain?'
What a referendum they would have there, oh, my God! I mean, this is the situation of this country,
which is a very old one, and is evidenced in article 2.
I want to sign this for you': You shall remain in prison. I... I don't get it...
This is not... this is not the 1978 Constitution that I started studying.
JB: But why? One question... EJS: Hey, it's not that one! This is another one.
EJS: You have to explain it to me.
JB: Fortunately, Elpidio José Silva finishes everything off!
No comments:
Post a Comment