BARCELONA, 31 Oct. (EUROPA PRESS) –
The leader of United We Can in Congress, Jaume Asens, has defended this Monday deactivating the crime of sedition of the Penal Code and considers it strange, although legitimate, that the former president of the Generalitat Carles Puigdemont opposes it.
“This criminal type must be deactivated. If President Puigdemont does not like that it be deactivated, it is his problem, but I think that this crime should cease to exist as it is now configured in the Penal Code,” he said in an interview in Ser Catalonia collected by Europa Press.
For Asens, sedition must be modified because he considers that it is “an anachronistic crime, which is not typical of a democratic Penal Code”, and believes that its existence to the democratic health of the country and the right to protest.
“Maintaining this crime is a threat not only to independence supporters, but also to PAH activists, trade unionists… The Supreme Court’s conception of public order and the crime of sedition is pre-democratic and can affect the exercise of this right in the future”, he underlined.
Before discussing the penalties for the crime, Asens points out that they must first agree on what sedition is and how it should be configured, alleging that for him 1-O “was basically a demonstration in the form of a referendum” and not sedition.
“Sedition and rebellion are crimes that have to do with a person entering Parliament or Congress with a machine gun, with acts of violence with the use of weapons and force,” Asens pointed out, who believes that it would not be necessary to make this distinction but it was because, in his opinion, the Supreme Court makes an interpretation of the law.
Moreover, he considers that the Supreme Court has “abused” its functions, and sees it necessary to define what sedition is to avoid differences with other European countries and with the theses defended by human rights organizations.
He has also warned that the crime reform will not arrive before the approval of the General State Budgets (PGE) of 2023, and believes that it is “hardly credible” that the PP broke off the negotiation with the Government to renew the General Council of the Judiciary on this matter.
After defending the unblocking proposal that they proposed for the election of the judges, he has charged against the popular: “When they lose power they entrench themselves in the power of the courts and make an opposition using the judges as a counterweight, preventing the laws that are approved in Congress can be carried out”, he settled.
