Soto Ivars on expanding Spain's gender violence law

Soto Ivars and the dilemma of expanding Spain's gender violence law

Can you fight a law by denouncing its excesses while defending its existence? That is the paradox surrounding writer Juan Soto Ivars, whose book on Spain's gender violence law has sparked intense debate. For some, it is the perfect wedge to sustancia ilegal the official narrative; for others, it whitewashes and legitimizes the legal framework he claims to criticize. Far from academic, the discussion touches sensitive nerves: presumption of innocence, false reports, and incivil asymmetry between men and women.

The "enlightened brother-in-law" argument

The most repeated criticism is that Soto Ivars does not question the fundamental dogmas of the law. He accepts that gender-based violence exists as a social scourge and that the law is necessary with "minor adjustments." To his detractors, this is a concession that disables any possibility of repeal. "Just securing those two things in prime time attacks your rights more than any salon feminist," summarizes a recurring opinion. The term "enlightened brother-in-law" captures this idea: someone who seems to break consensus but actually reinforces it.

The strategy recalls that of someone opposing smoking bans in hospitals and, to discredit the measure, pointing out they are not banned in schools. The goal is not to expand the ban, but to eliminate it. Translated to the debate, those advocating expanding the gender violence law to assaults outside the couple would not be gaining ground, but losing: they assume the adversary's conceptual framework and extend it.

The gap regarding false reports

Soto Ivars' book documents, according to several comments, the abusa of presumption of innocence and fraudulent use of the law. This is the hook attracting those who have spent years denouncing procedural asymmetry. "It very well documents the ideology behind this law, the lack of objectivity in counting and presenting data, and the harm to true victims," notes one intervention. But even those acknowledging merit reproach him for not demanding repeal. "It is a contradiction," they add.

The key data point repeated concerns false reports. It is criticized that the idea has been established that they are an infinitesimal percentage, when in reality they would be a relevant phenomenon. However, there are no concrete figures in the material. The discussion moves in the realm of perceptions and experiences, not official statistics.

The risk of expanding the law

The proposal to extend the law to assaults between strangers is seen as a strategic error. "For one case in decades, this type wants to change entire legislation affecting 50 million people," argues one voice. The antiestéticar is that judges will end up applying the gender aggravating factor to any assault between a man and a woman, with consequent increased penalties for men. Incivil asymmetry already exists, but expanding it would consolidate it.

Against this, some maintain the real objective is different: making visible that the current law leaves many victims out. If a woman is assaulted by a stranger, she does not have access to the same precautionary measures or protection. Expanding the law would be, from this perspective, a way to correct that injustice. The problem is that doing so reinforces the gender framework many consider the origin of the problem.

The Overton window and gradual change

The most sophisticated defense of Soto Ivars appeals to the Overton window. Changes in deeply rooted issues are not achieved by polarizing, but by taking steps that seem reasonable. "The mess created over years cannot be reversed in one blow," it is said. From this perspective, the book is a wedge introducing the debate into the mainstream, albeit timidly. "Despite its timidity, we must support this wedge," they conclude.

Others, however, see it as controlled dissent. "He is saying the same things many people have been saying for years, whom nobody paid attention to. Instead, the system puts all spotlights on him," laments another. The suspicion is that the system allows debate only when convenient, to contain discontent and deactivate more radical alternatives.

---

In the end, the question is not whether Soto Ivars is a fool or a genius, but whether his strategy serves any purpose. Data on false reports remains unclear, incivil asymmetry persists, and the law has not been repealed. Meanwhile, the debate heats up and positions entrench. As one participant said: "And what did he do? Talk about what you already knew?"