The political party Sumar has decided to take action to overcome a pending issue: the reform of the Citizen Security Law – known as the gag law – that the PP approved with its parliamentary majority in 2015. Their parliamentary group has presented a bill in Congress aiming to resume negotiations among the parties that almost reached an agreement in the last legislature but ultimately failed due to differences on four articles, including the use of rubber bullets by police or the “hot returns” of irregular immigrants. The goal is for groups to propose amendments on this “blank page” to reach an agreement and address what they see as attacks on democracy by the PP and Vox.
The reform of the citizen security law, which is approaching its fifth anniversary, has been a long-standing aspiration of left-wing parties, who even appealed it to the Constitutional Court – which ultimately upheld it – along with other groups like the PNV and organizations like Amnesty International. The Ombudsman has also called for changes to the most controversial aspects to strike a balance between security and freedom. Previous negotiations involving parties like the PSOE, PNV, Podemos, ERC, EH Bildu, and Junts had reached agreements on 95% of the reform, which serve as the basis for the current proposal. Changes include adjusting fines based on economic capacity, reducing penalties for cannabis possession, and allowing protests without prior notification in urgent situations.
The new bill presented by Sumar does not address the controversial articles that derailed previous negotiations, with the hope that this approach will facilitate reaching a final text. However, past disagreements, especially regarding the use of rubber bullets in policing, may make reaching an agreement challenging. Disagreements on articles like disobedience or disrespect towards authorities may still pose challenges, as parties have differing opinions on the severity of penalties. The issue of “hot returns” of immigrants was also a point of contention, with some parties insisting on specific commitments to protect human rights in these situations.
The parties involved in previous negotiations had differing views on how to address key issues such as police use of force, disobedience towards authorities, disrespect towards police, and hot returns of immigrants. While there were agreements on most of the reform, disagreements on specific articles remained a roadblock to reaching a final agreement. The proposal presented in Congress aims to revive discussions and reach a consensus in a changed political landscape after the recent elections. The hope is that the urgency of the situation, with ongoing attacks on democracy, will push parties to find common ground and repeal what they see as a restrictive law.
