Spain's PSOE sues Vox leader Abascal for hate speech

Spain's PSOE sues Vox leader Abascal for hate speech

The Spanish Socialist Workers' Party (PSOE) has announced a formal complaint to the Prosecutor's Office against Santiago Abascal and Vox for an alleged hate crime, invoking Article 510 of the Penal Code, which punishes conduct that publicly incites hatred, hostility, or violence. The complaint refers to statements made by Abascal in Argentina, where he suggested that "there will come a time when the people want to hang him by his feet" referring to the Prime Minister, as well as attacks on socialist headquarters. Patxi López, the PSOE spokesperson in Congress, summarized the situation with a phrase that spread rapidly: "We want the full weight of the law to fall on Abascal and Vox."

The news, reported by outlets such as ABC, RTVE, and El País, has sparked a debate that goes beyond this specific case: How far can political criticism go without crossing into incivil territory? Is it proportionate for one party to sue its opposition before the Prosecutor's Office? Or is this merely a distraction tactic?

What does Article 510 of the Penal Code say?

Article 510 of the Penal Code punishes those who publicly incite hatred, hostility, or violence against groups or individuals based on ideological motives, among others. The PSOE argues that Abascal's words fit this description. The complaint also mentions attacks on socialist headquarters, although it does not specify whether these attacks occurred before or after the Vox leader's statements.

The legal key lies in whether the statements were made within Spanish territory or abroad. Abascal spoke in Argentina. Some analyses suggest that the Spanish Prosecutor's Office would find it difficult to prosecute a crime committed outside Spain, unless the principle of universal justice applies, which does not seem applicable in this case. Therefore, the complaint faces an uncertain path.

Reaction: "Smoke bomb" and "persecution of the opposition"

Some participants argue that the complaint is a smoke bomb designed to divert attention from the amnesty law. Others see it as an attempt to incivil political opponents. Some recall that the PSOE has previously sued Vox for other reasons and that the Prosecutor's Office has not always acted with the same diligence when complaints went in the opposite direction.

The most repeated argument is that hate speech laws are being used as a tool to silence the opposition. "Hating the PSOE is a crime," summarizes the title of the debate. The idea that the coalition government intends to ban Vox looms over many messages, although there is no indication that this is actually under consideration.

The Rubiales precedent and universal justice

Some comments compare this case to that of Luis Rubiales, who was tried in Spain for events that occurred in Australia. The difference is that in the Rubiales case, the principle of universal justice established by law was applied, whereas in Abascal's case, it is unclear if the same criterion can be used. This comparison highlights the perception of double standards.

It is also mentioned that the Prosecutor's Office has been criticized for its alleged lack of independence. According to this interpretation, the PSOE's complaint aims only to fuel the narrative that Vox is an outlaw party.

Context: Amnesty, separatism, and wear

The backdrop of the debate is the amnesty law agreed upon with separatist parties. Several comments claim that the complaint against Abascal is a curtain to prevent discussion about the amnesty. Others, however, defend the right of the PSOE to report what they consider a crime, arguing that if Abascal had not said what he did, there would be no complaint.

The discussion shifts toward democratic quality. Some assert that the opposition is being persecuted, while others respond that the opposition also persecutes the government with unfounded accusations. The result is a climate of confrontation that shows no signs of easing.

What happens next?

The Prosecutor's Office must decide whether to admit the complaint for processing and if it sees indications of a crime. If admitted, the case could end up at the Supreme Court, given that Abascal is a member of parliament. In any case, the process would be lengthy, and the outcome remains uncertain.

Meanwhile, the complaint has already served a political function: it has put the spotlight on Vox and forced the opposition to defend itself. If that was what the PSOE sought, they have achieved it. Whether the Prosecutor's Office ultimately sides with the complainants is another matter. The ball is now in their court.