On the 6th of this January, the Epiphany, I published Julio González in this blog interesting postafter a piece of news (in a “newspaper with national circulation”: ab, I add so that no letter is kept to myself) in which, after something routine and almost mechanical – the opposite is miraculous – like the inadmissibility of an appeal on amparo (by the way from Palma de Mallorca, to say the end . all : “Pérez told me”, the one who, before King Juan Carlos installed his summer court there, was in the Balearic capital and loved it, as the sweet and unforgettable song of The Three South Americans says ), it was declared, with a tone of denial and even scandal, that “the Constitution guarantees that debts can be paid with oral sex”: fellatio serves the creditor – something extremely personal -, therefore, to extinguish the obligations, even without be expressly mentioned in Art. 1,156 of the Civil Code. Sure enough, the same newspaper changed the headline shortly afterwards – even though it had already become a trending topic-, in the sense of sweetening the attack on the Constitutional Court, which was no longer insulted for endorsing such a thing, except that “it does not correct the sentence it considers legal” such a strange way to end to add. debts.
For the reader to complete the placement, let’s say that on the same day, January 6, it was published in another digital medium, ie. The backarticle, signed by Alberto Sierra, with the intention of doing justice to the high interpreter – this is how Art qualifies. 1 of its Organic Law- and with the expressive headline of “Why is it not true that the Constitution supports paying debts with oral sex?“. He continued to point out: “Although it went viral on the networks, Palma’s audience and the TC did not rule on the legality of settling debt claims in exchange for sex.” Real relief: it is clarified in Article 1,156 of the Civil Code, in addition to that, that small letter.
A few days have passed and, as expected, the story, presented by the sixth wave of the covid, the controversy about the macro-farms, PP Ayuso and the other gossip, has been forgotten by the whole . world. But Julio González’s article raised substantial issues – structural, if such a pedantic position is allowed – and it is time to return to it: “The information society in which we move has its rules, which can perhaps be reduced to there are things. not what they are but what they want to show. Even more so in a country like ours where the press gives its opinion rather than reporting the facts. Undoubtedly, it is unfair, but it is the context in which we move”. In short, the -subjective- story ends up imposing itself on the object, the bare facts. And, within this general framework, it happens that, in huge sectors of Spanish society, the Constitutional Court, whether it is or not, is struck by what it is called from Verlaine’s book on poets (1884 and then 1888) . damned. Whatever you do (or don’t do), what you’re going to get in the media is a scolding. A piece that plays the party, a piece that goes fatally out of the window and badly stopped: it is a rule that proves to be infallible. There are games like Terminator. It is possible to predict about them Battleship Potemkin: They do not know the victory. The Constitutional Court is a victim of particular characteristics, although it is not the only victim.
But, in line with Julio González, let’s put an end to the specific situation – what happens in the Balearic Islands stays in the Balearic Islands – and let’s try to raise the reasoning to the level of the abstract: the information society -of immediacy, of post. -truth and all the pathologies we know and suffer daily – and their relentless codes.
The word overthrow -a verb, evidently- has up to fourteen meanings, according to the DRAE. The first nine are translated and the first is “to cause someone or something to fall or fall down.” Of the non-transitive variables we have to pay attention to the one that speaks of something like: “falling, rolling on the ground”. Off thrashIt must be remembered that the same source only gives three definitions, the first two referring to physical realities: “to shake someone or something from one side to another” and “to hit someone or something or hit again and again”. The third and last one, which has a clear metaphorical meaning, is explained as “reprimanding, criticizing or insulting someone severely”. To judge, understand each other. To disdain, insult or however you want to refer to that which is an expression of dislike, say it with Versaillesque words or even smug.
But let’s get to the point. When a judicial body refers to a Judgment upholding a regulatory invalidity claim – a Decree, for example, or an urban planning plan -, the newspaper comes forward saying that Your Honor lying down measurement. And, if they refer to the politician who made the decision, the headline is to confirm that the good guy (or he wasn’t so good, but he certainly tried his best) has been seen. hit. The Sentences, in short, it turned out that they do not annul anything, but knock down (things) or beat (people). It is a way of expressing yourself that is very different from the one used in Law Schools based on the laws and Handbooks of the various subjects. Someone will have to clarify to the students, and to the public in general, that we are talking, words aside, of the same thing, although they have chosen in legal language less fiery expressions. Tougher, if you prefer.
“The information society in which we move has its rules”: yes, Julio González, go if he has them! And not only in sports journalism that the inexplicable Fernando Lázaro Carreter (“The dart in the word”, first on ABC and then in El país) made so many criticisms about. The soccer team of my land is the team of “the Nasrids” (?), in the same way that the team of Brazil is known as “the Cariocas” – although no one comes from Rio de Janeiro – and they are called “the Cariocas” the Brazilian team. Aztecs”, as if before the arrival of Hernán Cortés there were no more people.
Those of us who work in this craft and also believe that language is everything – not words that reflect reality, but to construct, without exaggeration – must – and I say this trying to move from stories to categories, although to here it is difficult. separation from casuism and examples- serious reflection. I am not saying that we abandon overnight what we have – a whole jargon or even a language in itself, created precisely so that the devil cannot afford to reach our heights -, but we will eventually have to be aware that we are live in a parallel reality -we are like Martians- and that something must be improved in relation to the art -said without disrespect to intensity and even excellence- of circulation, where today the game is played . The alternative, as dignified as it seems, is (yes, blaming humanity: “they don’t understand me”; “it’s unfair because I’m doing it very well”) so sad to stay more and more hung up. and not to mention life. There is a risk that the whole society will end up as cursed as the Constitutional Court (which no one really and truly understands in its mechanical task of disallowing an appeal and, if anyone does, it is even worse: b ‘better not). to).understood). A real disaster.
Antonio Jiménez-Blanco Carrillo de Alboroz.