Catalan separatist trial judgement: illogical tales
1. Let us continue with the judgment. Last night there were riots and the burning of skips and barricades in Barcelona. This morning the five separatist marches have set off for Barcelona, where they will arrive on Friday. What will happen today? (Photo: Anonymous Catalonia,
Published: Oct 16, 2019, 10:03 am | On Twitter
2. Spanish Home Secretary has this morning during a radio interview ruled out activating the National Security Act or taking direct control of the Mossos but the PM says he will meet Casado (PP), Rivera (Ciudadanos) and Iglesias (Podemos) this morning.
Published: Oct 16, 2019, 10:09 am | On Twitter
3. Before we get going with the judgement, let's try to estimate how many people there might be in one of the ANC separatist marches that left this morning towards Barcelona, by cross-referencing a couple of sources.
Published: Oct 16, 2019, 10:43 am | On Twitter
4. Anonymous Catalonia has uploaded the following photo of one of the ANC marches to its Telegram channel. They are on a road somewhere in Catalonia, but where…?
Published: Oct 16, 2019, 10:47 am | On Twitter
5. Several observant readers, with knowledge of the area, confirm that it is likely the area around the town of Malla, south of Vic. Here is that area on Google Maps:
Published: Oct 16, 2019, 10:48 am | On Twitter
6. Traffic authorities in Catalonia, known as Trànsit, confirm there is a "slow march" near the town of Malla, one kilometre long, between kilometres 57 and 58, in the southerly direction, towards Barcelona.
Published: Oct 16, 2019, 10:51 am | On Twitter
7. There is even an official traffic map that roughly outlines that hold up due to the slow march between the towns of Vic and Malla:
Published: Oct 16, 2019, 10:53 am | On Twitter
8. Note in the photo of the march the following landmarks: the white building just across the road, the lane leading to that building, the other brown building behind, a third building with a reddish roof in the background, and the bridge.
Published: Oct 16, 2019, 11:11 am | On Twitter
9. And let's get the big map tool out…
Published: Oct 16, 2019, 11:12 am | On Twitter
10. Here you have exactly the same point on the map that appears in the photo Anonymous Catalonia has posted on their Telegram channel, referenced with the traffic authorities official data point about the place of slow march hold up.
Published: Oct 16, 2019, 11:17 am | On Twitter
11. We just need to estimate with the big map tool how many people there might be in that ANC column. Traffic data tells us there's just one kilometre of slow-march hold up. The Anonymous Catalonia photo in Telegram shows us that they are in one lane only…
Published: Oct 16, 2019, 11:21 am | On Twitter
12. In the image, one kilometre gives us from the bridge until about where the curve begins…
Published: Oct 16, 2019, 11:24 am | On Twitter
13. The surface area of one lane of one kilometre of that road at that precise spot in Catalonia is: 7,868 m2. Given they are walking at a normal pace, and not squashed like sardines, that suggests there might be up to 7,000 people in that column from Vic to Barcelona.
Published: Oct 16, 2019, 11:33 am | On Twitter
14. Vox formally asks the Speaker's Committee in Congress to convene the election period parliamentary standing committee to petition the Spanish government to urgently apply Article 116 of the Constitution and declare a state of exception in Catalonia.
Published: Oct 16, 2019, 11:40 am | On Twitter
15. After a night of violence and riots in Barcelona, Tsunami Democratic announces that in theory it has no new protests planned until October 26, but that everyone should have the mobile app installed to continue with “the long road of non-violent civil disobedience”.
Published: Oct 16, 2019, 12:01 pm | On Twitter
16. No comparison at all possible with Canada, says the Supreme Court: “no similarity can be proclaimed between the historical origin of Quebec's claim and the unilateral act of secession attributed to the defendants” in Spain.
Published: Oct 16, 2019, 12:53 pm | On Twitter
17. "The court is aware that the criminal case now before us contains elements that make it singular and attribute to it a historical dimension […] It is not for us to offer—or even to suggest or insinuate—political solutions to a problem with deep historical roots".
Published: Oct 16, 2019, 12:56 pm | On Twitter
18. The Spanish Supreme Court quotes the Canadian Supreme Court: "Quebec does not reach the threshold of a colonial or oppressed people, nor can it be suggested that Quebec people have been denied significant access to government to pursue their development…".
Published: Oct 16, 2019, 1:02 pm | On Twitter
19. The Supreme Court on the analogy of Catalonia with:
- Montenegro: "a preventively constitutionalised secession process"
- Scotland: "there was no constitutional obstacle"
- Kosovo: "the uniqueness of this ethnic and political conflict"
Published: Oct 16, 2019, 1:08 pm | On Twitter
20. "The construction of an independent republic requires the FORCED alteration of the subject of sovereignty, that is, the prior MUTILATION of the original subject of the constituent power, which expresses the sociological basis of any civilised state".
Published: Oct 16, 2019, 1:11 pm | On Twitter
21. P. 60: "They did not know that the 'right to decide' had mutated and become an atypical 'right to pressure'" government and judges
P. 211: The right to decide is “a permanent political challenge that […] repeatedly attacks the essence of the CONSTITUTIONAL COVENANT"
Published: Oct 16, 2019, 1:20 pm | On Twitter
22. Before continuing further, we must read again that last paragraph of the proven facts for a moment. The Supreme Court offers us a narrative—THE narrative, for sure, after hearing all the parties and witnesses—but still A narrative, with protagonists, antagonists and actions.
Published: Oct 16, 2019, 2:11 pm | On Twitter
23. The protagonists are the defendants and we are told that they had a certain state of mind ("they were aware of", "they knew", "they had knowledge of") and that they carried out certain actions ("they promoted", "they fostered") for certain purposes ("for" [in order to]).
Published: Oct 16, 2019, 2:17 pm | On Twitter
24. The antagonists are the central government and judges, whose role in the tale told by the Supreme Court is reduced to being the object of pressure exercised by the protagonists. The defendants want to best their opponents, but why? "…in order to negotiate a popular vote".
Published: Oct 16, 2019, 2:22 pm | On Twitter
25. According to the Supreme Court, the role of the two million separatists not on trial is reduced to that of obedient sheep, an infantile tool ("hopeful citizens", with "a longed for horizon", "were unaware"), almost secondary victims of the defendant protagonists.
Published: Oct 16, 2019, 2:29 pm | On Twitter
26. And what did the protagonists know…?
- "the manifest legal infeasibility of referendum on self-determination"
- "that the mere adoption of legal statements […] could not lead to a space of sovereignty"
- that the right to decide was "a decoy"
Published: Oct 16, 2019, 2:34 pm | On Twitter
27. But if they were aware of "the manifest legal infeasibility of a referendum on self-determination", why were they pressuring "the Government of the Nation for the negotiation of a popular vote"? The Constitution does not allow it. The only path to reform is Article 168.
Published: Oct 16, 2019, 2:39 pm | On Twitter
28. The Supreme Court says their ultimate goal was to achieve something from the government that they themselves knew—according to the Supreme Court's own version—was unworkable and "in open contradiction to democratic rules". Their aim was to enter an illogical logic loop.
Published: Oct 16, 2019, 2:43 pm | On Twitter
29. And I wanted to go over that last paragraph of the proven facts again because when we get to page 213 the Supreme Court gets back on the same subject for a few pages: defendants transmitted to the public "the false belief" the laws would support "an unattainable claim".
Published: Oct 16, 2019, 5:42 pm | On Twitter
30. "Law 19/2017, of Sept 6, on the self-determination referendum, contains such an inequivocal and inviable derogation of the Constitution" says Supreme Court. So a law that breaks the law is never going to be legal or legally achieve its purpose. Is that not obvious?
Published: Oct 16, 2019, 5:46 pm | On Twitter
31. Again, the Supreme Court tells us that the defendants "were—and still are—aware" that passing a law that said Catalonia was sovereign and independent was not enough to turn the idea a reality. So why, then, did they persist in doing so in such a planned manner?
Published: Oct 16, 2019, 5:53 pm | On Twitter
32. On the next page, the Supreme Court, after explaining again that defendants knew the laws of disconnection could not lead anywhere, describes them as "a TRUE constituent process" that "DYNAMITES the constitutional bases of the system" and requires correction by criminal law.
Published: Oct 16, 2019, 5:57 pm | On Twitter
33. So where does that leave us? Did the defendants know that the disconnection laws would lead nowhere but manipulated sheep-like citizens only to pressure on the government (pages 60, 213) or did they DYNAMITE the very foundations of the constitution (page 214)?
Published: Oct 16, 2019, 6:02 pm | On Twitter
34. Or again on page 215, the Supreme Court talks of the “totalitarian preeminence” of the laws of disconnection, with which they sought in a “stubborn” manner to violate “legal assets of the highest axiological level”. Tricksters or totalitarian destroyers of constitutions?
Published: Oct 16, 2019, 6:08 pm | On Twitter
35. "Peaceful coexistence would be mortally wounded if […] any regional government could transform the structure of the state by placing its identitary dreams in a legal text, outside the legal channels for reform".
Published: Oct 16, 2019, 6:12 pm | On Twitter
36. And it's there again on page 216: again the defendant protagonists "knew", "had knowledge of" of the legal-political trap TO PUT PRESSURE THE GOVERNMENT and the poor separatist sheep citizens "did not know", "had no knowledge of", "were not informed of" it.
Published: Oct 16, 2019, 6:18 pm | On Twitter
37. Did the defendants know it was not legal and set up the whole plan and challenge just to put pressure on the government? Did the two million separatist citizens who took part in their own way know NOTHING, were they INNOCENT FOOLS as regards the legal-democracy trick?
Published: Oct 16, 2019, 6:24 pm | On Twitter
38. Supreme Court appears to mix narratives. Either it was a legal trap to pressure the government or they wanted blew up the foundations of the Constitution. Another logical option, I suppose, would be to pressure the government by blowing up the Constitution…
Published: Oct 16, 2019, 6:27 pm | On Twitter
39. And if, as we have said so many times, the only way for them to perhaps achieve independence is Article 168 of the Constitution but they did what they did anyway, to what end? Just to pressure the government, or were they off with a fifth of Spain's GDP?
Published: Oct 16, 2019, 6:33 pm | On Twitter
40. These issues of the defendants' ultimate ends and the narrative roles have now come up twice in the first half of the judgement, and the Supreme Court gets into a mess both times.
Published: Oct 16, 2019, 6:35 pm | On Twitter
41. Replying to the point on the repeal of the crime of convening an illegal referendum in Spain's Criminal Code, Supreme Court returns to the version of the story in which the defendants wanted to "DESTROY THE BASES established by the constituent power". Just a bit of pressure?
Published: Oct 16, 2019, 6:44 pm | On Twitter
42. I mean, on a logical level in real life, if one's goal is to pressure another to get something from him WITHIN an existing system, it makes no sense to BLOW UP or DESTROY (both expressions used by the Supreme Court) that same system.
Published: Oct 16, 2019, 6:46 pm | On Twitter
43. Parliamentary immunity protects "opinions and votes cast during the exercise of parliamentary functions", not "actions that the prosecution classes as constituting a crime of rebellion or sedition".
Published: Oct 16, 2019, 7:00 pm | On Twitter
44. “…the parliamentary action that deviates from its genuine functionality and becomes the vehicle for disobeying the decision of the Constitutional Court is not an act protected by the right [...] parliamentary immunity”.
Published: Oct 16, 2019, 7:06 pm | On Twitter
45. Disobedience is "a reaction to the exhaustion of orthodox mechanisms of political participation", not "a vehicle" for legitimate political leaders "to employ an attitude of devastating disobedience to the constitutional foundations of the system".
Published: Oct 16, 2019, 7:58 pm | On Twitter
46. On page 240, the narrative returns: the sheep citizens, with their "hopeful belief" that their participation on Sept 20 or Oct 1 would serve to create a Catalan republic, and the defendant protagonists who used them to SHOW THAT JUDGES WERE POWERLESS in Catalonia-
Published: Oct 16, 2019, 8:05 pm | On Twitter
47. On page 242, after stating on page 240 that the ultimate goal was to prove that judges in Catalonia were powerless, the Supreme Court once again—while praising Cuixart and Sánchez's commitment to non-violence—talks about "the annihilation of the constitutional pact".
Published: Oct 16, 2019, 8:11 pm | On Twitter
48. The Supreme Court notes that secessionist ideas "continue to give life to the regional government of Catalonia" but that the object of the criminal reproach is "to have PULVERISED the constitutional covenant".
Published: Oct 16, 2019, 8:37 pm | On Twitter
49. And in that specific paragraph they mix two ends: first, to oppose judges, and then, if it gets to that, "the definitive break with the structures of the state".
Published: Oct 16, 2019, 8:37 pm | On Twitter
50. So, which is it? Did they intend to DESTROY, DYNAMITE or PULVERISE the Constitution or were they aware of "the manifest legal infeasibility of a referendum on self-determination" and it was all a hoax on sheeplike citizens to put pressure on the central government?
Published: Oct 16, 2019, 8:38 pm | On Twitter
51. "…they have even been able to take part in election campaigns during their time in prison on remand. They have been able to broadcast their ideas and it is those ideas that, today, support the action of the government of Catalonia".
Published: Oct 16, 2019, 8:45 pm | On Twitter
52. And so we come to the end of the fundamental legal arguments in the judgement. Tomorrow we shall continue and see how the Supreme Court fits the facts to the crimes, and what they do with this business of the illogical narratives. Thank you for reading today.
Published: Oct 16, 2019, 8:56 pm | On Twitter
53. I was going to end today with a little comment about how we might rest from the protests a bit, but reality has disproven that already: Catalan riot police are tonight charging again in Barcelona.
Published: Oct 16, 2019, 8:59 pm | On Twitter
Get original, detailed, independent reporting and analysis of the stories changing Spain. Full-text articles delivered right to your inbox, in English. You can also choose to get them in Spanish. No ads, no spam. Just readers.