Diana Raznovich’s cartoons accompanied those who crossed the Palma Intermodal Station on March 14th. They did it as an exhibition dedicated to the memory of March 8 and was organized by the Balear de la Dona Institute with funds from the State Pact against Sexist Violence. That is why the logos of various public agencies, including the Ministry of Equality, appeared on all the posters and vignettes. The exhibition lasted for several weeks, when the spread of one of the cartoons on the network – a judge who does not believe in a woman who condemns an insult – forced all court associations and representatives of other organizations and administrations to shout to heaven. . Controversy and pressure eventually forced the Institut de la Donna to remove this vignette from the exhibition, which will last until the scheduled closing date, in two weeks.
The Professional Association of Justice, the Francisco de Vittoria Judicial Association, the Judges of Democracy and the Independent Judicial Forum issued a joint statement in which they rejected the mockery of justice, which they considered unfair and also counterproductive for the victims. This is what the Progressive Union of Prosecutors (UPF) and the General Council of the Court themselves have done. Justice Minister Pilar Lop wrote on Twitter his “vigorous denial of the unfair image of judges fighting #MachodzaladobaWhile obviously no one asked for the vignette to be removed, the effect ended that way. Diana Raznovich herself condemned what she considers censorship.
Judge Lucia Aviles, a judge who specializes in sexist violence and a member of the Women Judges Association, said it was “unfortunate” the way this vignette treats justice. Although it was not an institutional campaign, Aviles believes it is a public entity action, “disrupting part of the institutions, the justice system.” “The part that obviously has a lot of weight and that has repeatedly had a well-deserved reputation for patriarchal justice, but in gender-based violence is probably not the most appropriate way to portray this picture like that. This is not a critique. “Criticism of a particular action is healthy and compels us to move forward, but it tells women who are experiencing it, especially people who doubt that justice is ineffective and that this message is very damaging,” she said.
This argument that the vignette is a harmful message to women experiencing sexist violence has been widely repeated in recent days. Lora Makaia, an expert on direct attention to gender-based violence and public policy-making, categorically denies it: What is known to many, even the victims themselves: non-recognition of the victims, degrading treatment, institutional racism, lack of protection for “wrong” victims, for example, not talking to the attacked woman. She is of other cultural backgrounds, or is particularly skeptical of her testimony or the continuity that a woman intends to give to the process. This is evidenced by the associations and the people who accompany the recovery process from the field of rights guarantee: teachers, lawyers, psychologists, etc. “
Makaya recalls an Amnesty International report assessing the first ten years of the Gender-Based Violence Act, in which the organization acknowledged, for example, shortcomings in the ex officio investigation, lack of adequate protection for victims, or prejudice when they decide. Report.
Ines Herrero, president of the Progressive Union of Prosecutors, argued that the cartoon’s message was “very inappropriate”. “When we talk about gender-based violence, we are talking about the lives of women and their sons and daughters. “Since it is very serious about the case, I do not seem to be sending the right message, which violates the work and which may lead to them not being notified,” he added. Herreros emphasizes that much progress has been made in recent years in the judicial and legislative spheres and that Spain is leading the fight against gender-based violence, although there are aspects that are “polished and improved”. “There are a lot of colleagues who are doing a special job. What worries us is what it might mean as a barrier to reporting for women.”
For feminist journalist June Fernandez, the idea that the cartoon is inappropriate because it undermines women’s confidence in justice is “perverted.” “There are many examples of sexist punishment, and any lawyer, psychologist, specialist social worker or any victim can prove that there are speeches in support of the fact that if sexist violence is not carried out in a physical and extreme way, it is very difficult to access protection. “Mechanisms and find magistrates so that they understand that this is violence,” he explained. Specialized journalists, he notes, are very often exposed to these types of stories.
The result of court discomfort and pressure was the removal of the vignette. “This is the first time a cartoon has been censored. There may have been people who felt more or less influenced by this or that cartoon, but these are nothing but episodes that happen to all comedians. But before the cartoon was censored. By Diana Raznovich The writer demanded the return of her vignette and persuaded her that she meant a judge, but not all judges.
The removal of the poster from Jaume I University law professor, Marisa Queerda Arnau, is “nonsense.” “As long as the Donna Institute stands behind it, it is not an institutional advertising poster (in this case, it must be qualified; first and foremost, as far as it can prevent denunciation). But this is an art exhibition. They will be, are they from now on in the borders of humor and graphic art? “- he asks.
“Many times censorship and attacks on freedom of expression are linked to political correctness, and feminists are accused of repealing it. However, what we are seeing is that in other sectors this approach is much more restrictive and they are finally observing what. “It is done from a feminist position and we try to blow it up,” said June Fernandez, who supports the feminist premise that humor goes “from the bottom up in social hierarchies” and serves to appeal and challenge those who have power as well as symbolic power. “By what measure do we measure which jokes or vignettes are acceptable?” The journalist asks.
The question concerns Raznovich’s cartoon, Chris Rock’s joke about Jada Pinkett’s baldness, and many other works and artistic expressions that may deserve social or collective reprimand. In the case of the picture on display at the Palma exhibition, the reprimand ended with a retreat. Makaia says: “For ideological reasons, abolition seems to be problematic for our critical, intellectual and democratic health, but it also means that in this case, it is not censorship of opinion, but denunciation. A fact that is quite contrasting and objective. “What the institute is doing seems to me to be a democratic health exercise.”
Ines Herreros argues that this vignette needed clarification and that is why his organization came out to “tell the victims that we are there to help them, because where there are more lives to be saved, there are courts of sexist violence.” The president of the Progressive Union of Prosecutors did not comment on his speech, which the association did not ask for in a statement issued this week. He believes that official logos and campaigns under his auspices should be aimed at “improving the quality of life of victims”, and this action, in his opinion, did not happen.
“The judiciary and its representatives cannot become inviolable members of society, as this not only worsens our democracy, but also leaves room for the abuse of power, which is very common on the other side of the judiciary,” Makaya said. . The fact that the official logos of the organizations that sponsor the action appear on the vignette does not change the development, he believes. “Institutions should be able to intervene in any way in the event of abuse of power by the judiciary. In fact, we often find ourselves in very serious situations of institutional violence when we take women to court to condemn or prosecute domestic violence, gender, and in response, we sometimes refer to municipal or regional political leaders who have no means of intervening in conflicts. Inviolability “Judges, which may seem reasonable to me, if their control mechanisms worked and were available.”
Judge Lucia Aviles admits that at other times the court reaction was not so strong. This was not the case, for example, when Judge Ricardo Gonzalez published his dissenting opinion on the “herd” case, a text that was full of superstitions and statements about the victim. So there was no consensus among the four associations of judges to circulate the statement.
“It is true that it radiates a certain corporatism, but I still wonder how it can affect the victim. This must be contextualized, we are at a time when the denial of gender-based violence is growing and if a woman suspects and understands that there is no gender-based violence and sees a similar picture, a publicly funded campaign organized by a public institution … that’s what “It bothers me beyond the image of a judge,” he admits. Moreover, it reflects the extent to which women can or should be effectively “protected” from this type of content.
June Fernandez is skeptical about how much he cares about what has happened to the image of the judiciary “more than to the reality that women tell us.” “It’s also a big contradiction for feminism: we firmly believe that violence should be condemned and that justice should be an element of reparation and at our disposal, but it clashes with the reality of many sentences and judges who are not. A one-time thing. “
Source: El Diario
I am Ida Scott, a journalist and content author with a passion for uncovering the truth. I have been writing professionally for Today Times Live since 2020 and specialize in political news. My career began when I was just 17; I had already developed a knack for research and an eye for detail which made me stand out from my peers.
