The Government continues to advance in the repeal of the gag law. PSOE and United We can have agreed to present 50 amendments to reform the text approved by the Government of Mariano Rajoy. The two formations have agreed to introduce criteria of economic proportionality when determining the prices of fines, limit the time of detention in the police station, eliminate the penalty for photographing or disseminating images of agents, although the offense is maintained if the use of those photographs or videos affect the privacy of the police and civil guards or put “the success of an operation” at risk.
In recent weeks, the Government partners have been closing progress, culminating in the agreement of fifty amendments registered in Congress. On October 17, at the closing of the last Federal Congress of the PSOE, the President of the Government, Pedro Sánchez, reaffirmed his commitment to the repeal of these regulations. This announcement, on one of the flags that the confederal group had endorsed, caused several spokesmen for Podemos and United Podemos to insist days later on the relevance of this commitment. Since then, the confederal group has demanded that the Board of Congress put an end to the extensions and the groups could already present their partial amendments, as it finally happened this Wednesday.
Among the agreements reached by PSOE and Unidas Podemos, they advocate that “in no case” detention in the police station “may exceed two hours”, although they stipulate that “exceptionally and for justified reasons, verifiable and communicated to the affected person, it may extend up to a maximum of six hours ”. In addition, they include that the detainee “will have the right to be returned or facilitated their return to the same place where the identification could not be made by the agents”, provided that person has had to change their location to go to police stations.
One of the changes that the two formations intend to introduce is to take “into account the economic situation of the person in charge, taking into account their personal, family and social circumstances.” And they have established a weighting mechanism: “For those people who prove they receive a salary of up to 1.5 times the Minimum Interprofessional Salary, the reduction will be 50%. “” For those people who can prove that they receive a salary between 1.5 and 2.5 times the SMI, the reduction will be 25 percent. ” they propose the formations in the amendments tabled.
In addition, PSOE and Unidas Podemos are committed to modifying the article that regulates body searches to include that “the entire body will not be exposed, nor each of its parts successively.” This work “will be carried out by agents of the same sixth, except for exceptional causes.”
Another of the amendments also advocates “dissolving the concentrations of vehicles on public roads”, provided that they prevent or endanger the circulation of the roads where the demonstration is held.
The absence of communication of concentrations that are held peacefully and in response to a “rapid expression in the face of an event of undoubted social repercussion that does not admit of delay”, such as those that were held when the sentence of ‘La Manada’ was published, does not will be sanctioned, if the amendments agreed between PSOE and United We can go ahead. Likewise, the organizers of communicated demonstrations will be “exonerated of responsibility for external acts whose commission they could not prevent using the due diligence.”
Animal rights also have a greater presence in the amendments presented by the two formations. If the amendments of the two formations go ahead, the entry of agents of the State Security Forces and Bodies will be protected to evacuate them “in cases of catastrophe, calamity and imminent ruin.”
Beyond joint amendments, the two formations have submitted separate proposals. The Socialists advocate introducing an article that includes among minor offenses “the possession of toxic drugs, narcotic drugs or psychotropic substances, even if they were not intended for traffic, in places, roads or public establishments or collective transport”. For its part, the confederal group is betting that this sanction is only taken into account when “they cause serious damage to health.” United We can argue that it is not “reasonable” to punish “the mere possession of other substances that are socially mostly admitted.”