The majority of PP and Vox in the City Council of the Murcian municipality of Jumilla (27,000 inhabitants) recently approved a motion that will prevent the town's Muslim community from – around 1,500 neighbors – can continue to use the municipal sports facilities to celebrate festivities such as the end of Ramadan and the Lamb party. The initiative shows how the Islamophobic discourse of the extreme right begins to join the institutions. And it also opens questions in the legal level by affecting the right to the cult of a religious minority, which leads jurists consulted by Eldiario.es to express doubts about their lace in the Constitution.
The finally approved text is the result of an amendment presented by the PP to an initial text of the extreme right -wing formation containing an alleged defense of the “traditions” of the Spanish people and that was a clear example of the most radical xenophobic discourse. The maneuver of Alberto Núñez Feijóo's party consisted of presenting an amendment that although it is not explicit in its rejection of these Islamic acts, does maintain the spirit of the initial text and advocates the specific restriction of the use of municipal sports facilities in purposes outside the City Council.
The motion approved with the votes of the ten mayor of the PP and the abstention of Vox addresses two issues. On the one hand, it urges the City Council to “promote cultural activities, campaigns and proposals that defend Spanish identity and protect traditional religious values and manifestations”. And, on the other, it asks the municipal government to initiate the necessary procedures to modify the regulations of the municipal sports facilities so that its use is “exclusively for the sports field or acts and activities organized by the City of Jumilla, and in no case for cultural, social or religious activities outside the City Council”.
According to the PP, the eliminated passages pursued “the legitimate purpose of protecting” the Spanish “traditions and customs”, but could “give rise to interpretations that do not fully adjust to the current legal framework.” Experts consulted by eldiaria.es, however, they even raise doubts about the accommodation to the constitution of the “sweetened version” finally approved and described as “democratic aberration” the text presented by Vox, which described as “cultural recoil” and “comparative grievance towards those who retain Spanish traditions” public ”.
The Spanish Constitution, in its Article 16guarantees the right to “ideological, religious and cult of cults of individuals and communities without further limitation, in their manifestations, than necessary for the maintenance of public order protected by law.” The jurists admit that the PP has sought an supposedly “neutral” writing that, on paper, does not prohibit that in these spaces a particular religious act cannot be celebrated, but all. However, these experts put the focus on how that reform can be applied and in the “context” in which it has been forged.
Germán Teruel, Professor in Constitutional Law at the University of Murcia, affirms that he does not see a constitutional lace problem in the literal of the article that makes a specific restriction of the use of these facilities to sports or municipal activities. However, he warns about the consequences of its application in a discriminatory way. “If the City Council came to sign an agreement with the Catholic entity to use that space and denied it to a Muslim association we would be faced with a discriminatory application,” he emphasizes.
Joaquín Urías, a professor of constitutional law at the University of Seville and ex -led of the Constitutional Court, believes, however, that there may be a constitutional problem determined by the context in which the initiative has been set. “From there it follows that the text finally approved, although it seems neutral, is actually oriented to hinder or prevent the exercise of a single religion simply by the fact that it disagrees with it,” he says
“The cults of worship of all religions can be prohibited when they affect the common good. That is, you can ask that the public space is not occupied, that some bells do not make excessive noise or that a moving does not sing very high. But what cannot be done is a measure oriented and trimmed for a specific religion,” adds this jurist. The Muslim was the only confession that until now had requested for the use of these sports facilities for great festivities.
Identity and religion
In addition to the possibility of preventing the Muslim community from continuing to use municipal sports facilities to celebrate festivities, the motion also urges the government team to “promote cultural activities, campaigns and proposals” that defend Spanish “identity” and protect the “traditional religious values and manifestations” of our country. In this regard, the Constitution affirms that “no confession will have a state character” and that “public authorities will take into account the religious beliefs of Spanish society and maintain the consequent relations of cooperation with the Catholic Church and the other confessions.”
In Teruel's opinion, this motion article also raises a constitutionality problem since “although the Constitution recognizes the religious phenomenon and that political powers can collaborate positively with the different confessions, especially with the Catholic, they can never do so exclusive or discriminatory.” This expert sees unconstitutional what in his opinion is “an attempt to link the idea of national identity with certain religious traditions.” “That confronts the ideal of aconfesionality of the State and with the duty that public authorities have to collaborate with all religious confessions, especially with the Catholic, but not only,” he adds.
Urias, however, considers that this point is not contrary to the Constitution because it includes a mention to the Catholic Church that has established a certain preeminence of that confession. In addition, this expert affirms that allusion to “traditional religious values and manifestations” seems to be sent more to traditional events such as Holy Week than to eminently religious manifestations.
Beyond the implications in the legal field, the experts consulted put the focus on the consequences that it has in terms of democratic coexistence that this type of initiatives are approved. “It is a local anecdote that is part of a speech that we have been listening in Europe and that is the attempt to build a national identity idea on the basis of an identification with a religious confession to, from there, develop an exclusive political program and that attacks individual freedoms,” says Teruel.
This expert argues that the original text presented by Vox, which qualifies as “constitutional and democratic aberration”, could have been signed by ultra leaders such as Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan or Russian Vladimir Putin. “It is a speech that are naturally assuming European democracies and that should worry us a lot,” says this lawyer.
