The CGPJ, Vox, the 'Battle of the Bulge' and the possibility of knowing different opinions

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

Members close to the PP grant 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 Lt. Col. Kiley and Col. Pritchard

In the last few hours I’ve been thinking a lot about a scene from that movie, in which Lieutenant Colonel Daniel Kiley (played by Henry Fonda) disagrees with Colonel Pritchard (Dana Andrews) to 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 responds that all the officers in his section have the same information but come to the opposite conclusion, and adds: "When 10 men tell you you're drunk, you'd better lie down!"

Then, 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 hint: "One tiger doesn't make a jungle." Eventually, events prove Kiley right, and the German Ardennes offensive arrives, catching the American forces in the area off guard.

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

Yesterday we learned of the election of Isabel Perelló as the new president of the General Council of the Judiciary (CGPJ) of 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 comments on Twitter in the last few hours. However, all the media close to the PP have made an effort to present this election 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 that election

For many years now, 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 catch my attention 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 about 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 had 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 of Vox, since obviously, this blog has much less audience than that social network.

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

There is currently a curious debate about freedom of expression. The left openly uses censorship against opinions other than its own, simply dismissing any disagreement under the misleading claim that it is "hate" speech. It is logical to get the impression that in reality the left intends 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 issues. Some are well argued and others are based on premises that I consider erroneous. Of course, the existence of different opinions is what is characteristic of a democracy. If you do not like an opinion, what you should do is propose a better idea and make an effort to argue it in a correct way. This is what I have been trying to do with this blog for 20 years. What is inappropriate for a democracy is wanting to impose censorship and a single way of thinking, violating fundamental rights such as freedom of speech, 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. Today, social networks and tools such as blogs allow us to learn about 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 restrained by political power through subsidies, is a feeling that today generates monsters, such as 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 the freedom to do so. Things like what we saw yesterday, with the vast majority of the media silencing the third most voted party in Spain, 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.