Vox appeals the judge’s decision to file the case against Monedero

September 14, 2021 by archyde

Vox appeals the judge’s decision to file the case against Monedero

© Provided by Vozpópuli
Vox appeals the judge’s decision to file the case against Monedero

The politic party Vox has appealed the provisional file of the investigation against the co-founder of Podemos Juan Carlos Wallet understanding that according to Penal Code the party cannot be allowed to identify “with the most serious and bloody crimes of humanity such as the Nazi death camps, the hitmen of the Medellin cartel, and the nazis tried by the Nuremberg Tribunal “.

In this way, the legal representation of the party of Santiago Abascal Responds to the order of the holder of the Court number 16 of Madrid, Margarita Valcarce, who agreed to dismiss the case against Monedero. Vox understands that this resolution must be revoked and the investigation must continue for hate crimes, insults and slander against the co-founder of Podemos.

Valcarce’s decision came by order of July 27, when the instructor assured that “It is necessary to order the provisional dismissal of the case” because “there are no indications of the commission of any of the crimes referred to in the complaint brief.” It ruled out possible crimes of slander and hate and a serious crime of libel carried out with publicity.

The magistrate considered that it was “evident” that there was not a crime of slander as Vox intended given that in the demonstrations made by Monedero in a video posted on social networks “No criminal act was being charged against the political party or its supporters, representatives or affiliates.”

But now, from Vox they insist that all the necessary elements are present to appreciate the commission of a hate crime, a crime of insults and one of slander, and they put the focus on that Monedero before the instructor “He has not only ratified” his statements but has explained that he made them “with all his conscience, previously thought out.” “That is to say, the intentionality is accredited and with it the fraud that this party appreciates,” they indicate.

In this sense, they blame the judge who does not see the statements made by Monedero in a video reprehensible, and warn her that in a situation of escalation in attacks on training de Abascal (they remember the rally in Vallecas or the reproaches leveled against them after the false homophobic aggression of Malasaña) they hope not to have to regret anything else because then they will not be able to “not indicate responsibility for showing high tolerance against these demonstrations.”

Vox’s “real and absolute defenselessness”

“It leaves in the real and absolute defenselessness, not only legal, to the members and supporters of Vox, by consenting to these statements with a high diffusion as accredited in the complaint, despite the fact that no diligence has been carried out to corroborate it”, they regret. And they point out that the crime of slander occurs because Monedero accused the party of break the human rights. “We can admit that it insults us, but we must not be identified and spread such an identification with a forbidden ideology – the Nazi-, condemned by the international community for genocidal and against humanity – in the same way as the communist one – all over the world. the European community “, they indicate.

On the hate crime, they recover several phrases expressed by the left-wing gathering, “we forbid them to breathe, directly exist”, and they emphasize that “Vox voters and all those people who belong to the party are the protected group, they can be victims of the hate crime, or violence, and therefore deserving of legal protection “. And they remember that the argument offered in the judge’s order to support the file cannot be admitted. “It cannot be useful that ‘everyone does it’, when such a statement is not true and when, in his case, the person who commits it should be liable for the acts he performs”, affect.

In line, from Vox it is pointed out that the statements of Monedero have no protection in the freedom of expression, since although it can harshly criticize their political positions, what it cannot do is hold them responsible for the crimes and human rights violations they are accused of. “Seeks the discredit, humiliation and contempt of citizens in front of voters or supporters of Vox and related people, and therefore based solely on their ideology and the defense of their values, in short, developing a true hate speech that it should be investigated first and condemned later “, they add.

Crime of insults

After analyzing the hate crime and that of slander, Vox recalls that the court itself and the prosecution understood that the “only criminal type in which the conduct of the investigated could, in his case, be framed” was that of insults. However, they add that the judge agreed to the dismissal because “the intention of the defendant is none other than to criticize within the social and democratic state of law, the proposal [parlamentaria] of Vox “.

But from Vox they don’t see it that way, and they influence that in the face of the existing collision of the right to honor of the party and its supporters and their right to their dignity, compared to Monedero’s right to freedom of expression, “the bulk of his words means that he cannot be protected, because he goes beyond that limit of confrontation of rights and escapes the freedom of expression to attack deeply the honor and dignity “.

For all this, and after noting that in their opinion the judicial resolution is manifestly arbitrary, they see that there is a reason for the annulment of the order. And they add to the letter the Twitter video of Monedero that gave rise to the complaint, the statement of the tertullian before the investigating judge, the report of the Public Prosecutor’s Office requesting that the procedure be continued for a crime of insults, and the allegations presented by Vox in which it is requested to continue the procedure for hate crimes, insults and slander, in addition to the order that decreed the provisional dismissal of the proceedings.

PUT 1xbet
Natasha Kumar

By Natasha Kumar

Natasha Kumar has been a reporter on the news desk since 2018. Before that she wrote about young adolescence and family dynamics for Styles and was the legal affairs correspondent for the Metro desk. Before joining The Times Hub, Natasha Kumar worked as a staff writer at the Village Voice and a freelancer for Newsday, The Wall Street Journal, GQ and Mirabella. To get in touch, contact me through my