In 2004, 37 men and 3 women formed the Royal Academy of Language (RAE). In March of that year, the PSOE of José Luis Rodríguez Zapatero had won the elections with a promise: that the first norm that its executive, the first common in history, would send to Congress would be a law against gender violence . It therefore included a demand from the feminist movement, which had been calling for global measures for more than a decade. But the RAE didn’t like the name.
Without anyone asking, the cultural institution published a report in which it criticized the use of the word “gender” and proposed that the standard be called “against domestic violence or gender-based violence.” Their unsolicited advice was ignored: Zapatero, under pressure from women’s organizations, ordered that the law contain the phrase “gender violence.” This is how a pioneering law was born that made Spain an international reference: it was the first specialized law in all of Europe and delegations from dozens of countries continue to visit our country to know up close the functioning of the different resources.
“Every law has a front,” summarizes the socialist politician Micaela Navarro, who in the early 2000s occupied different positions related to equality and who led the bill against gender violence that the PSOE, always in the opposition, presented in 2001. That’s before. , fundamentally, feminism leads the way. Since the first feminist mobilizations after the death of Franco, the conquest of the right to abortion, divorce or work, to the care of women victims of violence at the hands of their partners, the creation of the Women’s Institute and the construction of a discourse which emphasized the social and the political agenda, an issue until then totally neglected and normalized.
We did not have decent official statistics, they arrived late and of poor quality, they did not include the murders committed by exes… We had to take stock of the problem and we started counting to find out the extent of it. magnitude. It was a success, it allowed us to work better. We have always tried to do a certain pedagogy
Charo Nogueria
— El País journalist
In 1991, the Federation of Associations of Separated and Divorced Women, founded by the historic activist Ana María Pérez del Campo, managed to open its comprehensive rehabilitation center for women, girls and boys. At the same time, the resources of cities and autonomous communities grew thanks, above all, to the impetus of associations and feminists who had joined the “side” of institutional and partisan politics. Throughout the decade, pressure grew for government action on this issue. The assassination of Ana Orantes in 1997 marked a definitive turning point: after appearing on television to recount the violence she had suffered, her ex-husband murdered her.
The government of José María Aznar has taken several measures in this regard, such as approving protection orders for “victims of domestic violence”. However, the PP voted against the bill presented by the socialist group in 2001. “Women’s organizations managed to convince the left to take up the challenge.
Since the case of Ana Orantes, we have created more social alarms, there is a change”, remembers journalist Charo Nogueira, pioneer of information on equality, who worked in The country. It was in this newspaper that, at the initiative of the Society section and in collaboration with Documentation, they created their own homicide statistics in 2001 to compensate for the lack of data.
Three principles had to be taken into account for the law to be effective: the centrality of women, due diligence to investigate, punish and repair victims, and restitution of the life project.
Marie Duran
— feminist lawyer
“We didn’t have decent official statistics, they arrived late and of poor quality, they didn’t include murders committed by exes… We had to measure the problem and we started counting to find out the extent. magnitude. It was a success, it allowed us to work better. We always tried to do a certain pedagogy,” recalls Nogueira, who explains that she and her colleagues chose to characterize the violence as “sexist” “as opposed to the restrictive term” of domestic violence. In The countryhe continues, there was no consensus at the time to use the term “gender violence”. The media coverage of journalists engaged in the written press and on television has succeeded in positively influencing the social debate.
The debates
In this first Zapatero cabinet, the feminist sociologist Soledad Murillo held the position of General Secretariat of Equality Policies at the Ministry of Labor and Social Affairs, the first political position specialized in equality. Once the government was formed, the group drafting the future law began work. Although they started from the bill that the socialist group presented to Congress in 2001, not everyone agreed with all of its proposals. The name was part of the debates. The field of action, another. Also whether or not to include the “instrumental purpose” of this type of violence. What they didn’t expect when it was drafted was how many constitutional questions would later arise regarding the law. Up to 180.
Encarnación Orozco was part of that drafting group and says that at first they considered the best choice was for the law to be “against violence against women.” “We believed that the use of gender could blur the norm, make it misunderstood. It was 2004 and the goal was to bring the law closer to the people to change the social fabric, which is ultimately what sustains this violence ” says Orozco. The term “sexist” did not seem appropriate to them either. What was clear to them was that the word “women” had to appear in the plural, “to emphasize the substantial nature of this norm, which is directed against women because they are women and denotes this structural discrimination” , explains the one who She then became the first government delegate against sexist violence. The preposition “against” was also a conscious choice: they wanted to clarify the intention of the rule, which was combative.
Charo Nogueira remembers that the news of the RAE report which criticized the choice of the word “gender” caused a sensation. Women’s organizations lobbied and, ultimately, the president agreed. “They wanted to make it clear that the ultimate cause was roles, gender, and they felt it had to appear that way from the start. This is a political decision taken directly by the president thanks to pressure from associations,” confirms Encarnación Orozco. Among the key associations to advance the law are the Federation of Associations of Separated and Divorced Women, the Thémis Association of Women Lawyers, the Feminist Network against Gender Violence or the Platform of Artists against Gender Violence.
We verified how the gender perspective introduced by the law is used today to interpret the laws, the Constitution itself.
Immaculate Montalban
— former president of the Observatory against domestic and gender violence of the judicial power
One of the most crucial questions was deciding what the scope of the law’s expansion was. “There were three principles to take into account for the law to be effective: the centrality of women, the diligence necessary to investigate, punish and repair the victims and the restitution of the life project,” recalls feminist jurist María Durán. The drafting group clarified that the law would focus on the crime committed by the couple or the ex-spouse to distance itself from the notions of domestic violence and intra-family violence, and although it named the women’s children in the preamble of the law, in the sense that Firstly, it did not include them among the direct victims. “At that time, it is true that the objective was to put women at the center and what we did was to lay the seed for this mention so that in the future there would be recognition of minors as victims. “, says Orozco. What they ultimately did not include was the mention of the “instrumental” nature of the violence to avoid that, during trials, the accusations would have to prove the sexist intention of the aggressors.
127 appeals admitted for processing
Once approved at the end of 2004, all the organizations and changes contained in the standard had to be implemented. And no less than 180 cases of unconstitutionality had to be resolved, of which 127 were admitted for treatment. “They gave us headaches, they are obstacles to progress towards equality,” says now the one who was then appointed first government delegate against gender violence, Encarnación Orozco. The current vice-president of the Constitutional Court, Inmaculada Montalbán, who was president of the Observatory against domestic and gender violence of the judicial power, highlights that this is one of the regulations that has received the most support. questions of unconstitutionality, but emphasizes that its legal character The imprint has been strong: “We have verified how the gender perspective introduced by the law is used today to interpret the laws, the Constitution itself. »
It was necessary to put in place the machinery for 016, the electronic bracelets to control attackers, the Viogen system, the specialized courts, the prevention plans, the institutional protection… There was nothing, everything had to be done. . My team and I were leaving when the ministry’s lights were already out.
Orozco Incarnation
— drafter of the bill
The main criticism was that the law violated the principle of equality by providing for increased penalties for men in cases of injury, mistreatment, threats and light coercion. However, in 2008 the Constitutional Court approved the article which envisaged this change. Encarnación Orozco remembers that there were those who questioned other aspects, for example, such as the withdrawal of widow’s pension for the murderers of their partners. Because the rule, beyond the modification of the Penal Code, included education and prevention measures, in the workplace or in Social Security.
After its approval in December 2004, it was necessary to put in place the mechanisms for 016, bracelets for telematic monitoring of attackers, the Viogen system for assessing the risk of victims, specialized courts, prevention, institutional protection, etc. . “There was nothing, everything had to be done. My team and I left when the lights of the ministry were already out,” remembers Encarnación Orozco. The Government Delegation against Gender Violence also began to operate at this time: “We were able to forge this coordination network between ministries, distribute work between departments; Education, Justice, Interior, the coordination units of Government delegations and sub-delegations…”.
What was the end of one story, the fight for Spain to have a comprehensive law, was the beginning of another: putting in place an entire system that would guarantee that the standard was more than just a piece paper. From then until today, 20 years later, there have been changes, improvements, extensions, criticisms. Despite the threats, the tensions between advances and setbacks, Spain is different. Of course, two decades later, the RAE has 33 men and eight women.
