The First Section of the Provincial Court of Madrid has ruled to acquit a former Podemos leader, who had been accused of a hate crime. The judicial decision stems from a message the politician disseminated on the social media platform X on May 10, 2024. The ruling rejects the request for conviction filed by the Spanish Foundation of Christian Lawyers, which sought a year in prison, a fine, and disqualification from public office.
The court concluded that, although the former leader's message was “misguided” and “unbecoming” for a public figure, it does not fit the definition of inciting hatred, hostility, discrimination, or violence, as outlined in Article 510.1 of the Penal Code.
Statistically, it is much more likely for a priest to commit a sexual assault crime against minors than for a migrant person to commit a crime. From a public safety perspective, it would be more effective to deport priests than to toughen immigration policy.
This message was a response to a news report about statements made by an archbishop regarding immigration, in which he warned that “within this well-meaning openness, undesirable people could slip in.” The Court considered this context crucial for evaluating the penal scope of the words, noting that the comment was an immediate reaction and not part of a continuous campaign.
The magistrates also emphasized that priests are not considered a particularly vulnerable or historically discriminated group in the Spanish context, a key requirement for the existence of a hate crime. While acknowledging the possibility of isolated episodes of hostility, they do not deem them sufficient to establish structural vulnerability.
The ruling highlights the absence of the “subjective element of injustice,” meaning the specific intent to promote hatred. The Chamber distinguished between generic intent and the specific intent required for such crimes, concluding that the former leader did not act with the intention of inciting hatred, but rather with an ironic and critical purpose. During the trial, the accused explained that his intention was to highlight, through what he called an “absurd” comparison, the exaggerated nature of certain statements about immigration, expressing “deep respect” for the social work of the Church.
The sentence validates this explanation, interpreting the message within the framework of a political and media response, even if ethically reprehensible. For the magistrates, the comment “is the paradigm of what political actors should not do” and reflects a degradation of public debate. However, the court stresses that moral reproach does not automatically translate into penal reproach, and that freedom of expression, the context, and the lack of intent to promote hatred prevent the existence of a crime. The ruling is not final and can be appealed before the Superior Court of Justice of Madrid.
