The CGPJ, Vox, the ‘battle of the Bulge’ and the possibility of knowing different opinions

Spain’s third most voted party is once again silenced in the media

In 1965, one of my favorite war films was released, whose exterior scenes were shot in Spain: “The Battle of the Bulge.”

Deputies close to the PP hand over control of the Spanish judiciary to the socialists
The PSOE refuses to depoliticize Justice: the pact signed with the PP was just smoke

The discussion between Lieutenant Colonel Kiley and Colonel Pritchard

In the last few hours I’ve been thinking a lot about a scene from that movie, in which Lt. Col. Daniel Kiley (played by Henry Fonda) disagrees with Col. Pritchard (Dana Andrews) General Grey (Robert Ryan) about the possibility that the Germans are preparing an offensive. Kiley warns that the Germans are not yet defeated and as long as they can fight, they will attack. Pritchard replies that all the officers in his section have the same information but come to the opposite conclusion, adding: “When 10 men tell you you’re drunk, you better go to bed!“

So, Kiley then shows a reconnaissance photograph showing a German Tiger tank. (In fact, Spanish M-47s were used in the filming.) Pritchard comments on this clue: “One tiger does not make a jungle.“ In the end, events prove Kiley right and The German offensive in the Ardennes arrivestaking US forces in the area by surprise.

The version of the media close to the PP on the election of Perelló

Yesterday we learned about the Election of Isabel Perelló as the new president of the General Council of the Judiciary (CGPJ) Spain. Perelló is a member of a judicial association close to the PSOE. I pointed out here that the socialists have achieved control of the CGPJ. It is an opinion shared by many, as can be seen by reading the comments on Twitter in the last few hours. However, All media outlets close to the PP have tried hard to present these elections as something very different.as if it were a success of the PP and the sector close to the PP in the CGPJ.

The silencing of Vox’s complaint about those elections

For many years, I don’t mind contradicting ten, a hundred, or a million people if the facts tell me something very different from what others tell me.. Of course, I could be wrong and they could be right or vice versa. In any case, They are free to have an opinion one way and I am free to have another.The important thing is that these opinions are well founded. What does strike me is a very significant fact: yesterday afternoon Vox accused the PP of handing over control of the CGPJ and the Supreme Court to the socialists. We are no longer talking about the opinion of a solitary blogger, but of The opinion of the third most voted political party in Spain.

Unfortunately, The vast majority of the media have silenced this opinion of Vox.For my part, in my article yesterday I recalled that Vox already denounced in June that the agreement between the PP and the PSOE to divide up the CGPJ handed Justice over to Sánchez. If it weren’t for Twitter, many Spaniards wouldn’t even know this opinion from Voxsince obviously this blog has a much smaller audience than that social network.

A fact that occurs in the midst of the debate on freedom of expression

There is currently a curious debate about freedom of expression. The left openly uses censorship against opinions different from their ownsimply dismissing any disagreement under the misleading claim that it is “hate” speech. It is logical to have the impression that in reality The left aims to impose a single way of thinking in which any opinion other than its own is criminalized.which is precisely what has happened in socialist dictatorships for many years.

On social networks like Twitter you can read opinions that are completely opposite to mine on many topics. Some are well argued and others are based on premises that I consider erroneous. Of course, The existence of different opinions is characteristic of a democracy. If you don’t like an opinion, what you should do is propose a better idea and try to argue it correctly. That’s what I’ve been trying to do with this blog for 20 years. What is not proper for a democracy is wanting to impose censorship and a single way of thinking.violating fundamental rights such as freedom of expression, ideological freedom and religious freedom.

Years ago, on a day like today, we would not even have read opinions other than those published by traditional media. Nowadays, social networks and tools such as blogs allow us to discover points of view other than those that appear in the media. Nostalgia for the times when public opinion was only expressed through traditional media, conveniently restricted by political power through subsidies, It is a feeling that creates monsters today.like Twitter censorship in Brazil.

For my part, I will continue to practice the healthy habit of disagreeing. as long as I have the opportunity and freedom to do so. Things like what we saw yesterday, with The vast majority of the media are silent about the third most voted party in SpainIt is something that alarms me much more than the possibility of reading opinions radically different from mine on Twitter, Telegram or any other social network.
—

Image: imdb.com.