
The gap between the 75%ā80% of Catalans who uphold their countryās right to self-determination, and the Spanish elites and parts of Spanish society that do not want to know anything about it, was already very wide before October 14.
But on that day, when the Spanish Supreme Court condemned nine Catalan political and social movement leaders to a total of 99.5 years jail, it most likely became unbridgeable.
Following the sentence of the leaders for their role in the October 1, 2017 independence referendum, popular outrage in Catalonia immediately exploded in mass protests involving tens of thousands of people.
They occupied Barcelona airport, imposed road blocks on major highways, demonstrated in huge numbers outside Spanish government offices and began āMarches for Freedomā on Barcelona from five provincial cities.
Every imaginable Catalan social and sporting organisation, from Barcelona Football Club to chess associations, has issued statements condemning the sentences.
On the nights of October 15ā16, police and small groups engaged in running battles in central Barcelona, as smoke rose from burning rubbish bins.
On October 16, Spanish Socialist Workersā Party (PSOE) acting Prime Minister Pedro SĆ”nchez appeared on television to warn that security forces would act āfirmly, serenely and proportionatelyā in the face of violence.
To his right, Peopleās Party (PP) leader Pablo Casado demanded the declaration of a state of emergency in Catalonia, while Citizensā leader Albert Rivera called for an end to Catalan self-rule under article 155 of the Spanish constitution.
One of the main instruments coordinating these responses is the Democratic Tsunami platform, anonymously run by activists from the October 1 referendum, and coordinated via a Telegram channel that, at the time of writing, had attracted 300,000 subscribers.
Punishment without crime
The unanimous verdict of the seven Supreme Court judges that set off this still expanding wave of protest was that nine Catalan leaders ā seven former ministers and social movement leaders Jordi SĆ nchez and Jordi Cuixart ā were guilty of āseditionā in preparing the October 1 referendum.
For this 18th century crime, long deleted from the penal codes of many other European states, they were sentenced to jail terms ranging from 9 to 13 years.
The harshest sentence was handed out to former Catalan vice-president Oriol Junqueras as āleader of the seditionā. Former ministers RaĆ¼l Romeva (foreign affairs), Dolors Bassa (social welfare) and Jordi Turull (minister of state) came next with 12 years: along with Junqueras they were also found guilty of āembezzlementā.
Former Catalan parliament speaker Carme Forcadell incurred 11.5 years jail for allowing the chamber to vote on the referendumās enabling law, after being instructed by the Spanish Constitutional Court not to do so.
The āseditionā of former Catalan interior minister Joaquim Forn (11.5 years) consisted in undermining the ability of the Catalan police to deliver and enforce Spanish state court orders.
Former territory minister Josep Rull was found guilty of denying a Spanish Civil Guard ship mooring facilities and of making public buildings available as voting centres.
As for Ćmnium Cultural president Cuixart and former Catalan National Assembly president SĆ nchez, their āseditionā was proven by the fact that they had called demonstrations against Civil Guard searches and urged people to defend voting centres against police and Civil Guard attempts to impound ballot boxes.
Along with these nine, who have already been held in preventive detention for up to two years, the court found former ministers Carles MundĆ³ (attorney-general), Santi Vila (business) and Meritxell Borras (education) guilty of ādisobedienceā, fining each ā¬60,000 and banning them from standing for public office for 18 months.
The nine jailed leaders have been banned from standing for public office for the term of their sentences.
Why this verdict?
The verdict is the predictable result of the pressures operating on the Supreme Court and its chief judge Manuel Marchena.
The chief pressure was for the trial to produce an exemplary punishment of the Catalan leaders. They had humiliated the Spanish state by successfully organising a unilateral independence referendum after 18 failed attempts to negotiate a Scottish-style referendum with successive Spanish governments.
A measure of the viciousness of the sentences is to compare them to those arising from the failed 1981 coup attempt. The average punishment for the military and Civil Guards who tried to reimpose the Francisco Franco dictatorship then was six years jail: the sentences of the Catalan leaders average 8.3 years.
The Supreme Court judges were doing the work set out for them by the previous PP government of Mariano Rajoy.
According to a leaked WhatsApp message by PP Senate spokesperson Ignacio CosidĆ³, its Second Chamber, which heard the case, was controlled āvia the back doorā.
There was no way its judges, even their āprogressiveā minority, were going to find the Catalan leaders innocent, or guilty only of disobedience (which carries no jail sentence).
There was no ārebellionā
However, the heavy sentences the court was always going to impose have to be defensible in law, not only within Spain but especially before a European Court of Human Rights ā which in 2018 upheld nine out of ten appeals against Spanish court decisions.
This pressure to find a plausible legal foundation for their decision meant the judges had to discard the ārebellionā charge against the Catalan leaders.
This indictment was originally brought by the investigating magistrate Pablo Llarena and was backed by the Spanish prosecutor-generalās office and the āpopular prosecutionā, the ultra-right party Vox.
(The āpopular prosecutionā is a Spanish institution originally designed to allow the representation of community or public interest.)
Dropping the charge of ārebellionā, which a majority of Spanish jurists had already declared inapplicable, was also probably the price of a unanimous verdict between judges of different political temperaments.
It was also a political imperative. It will help Pedro SĆ”nchez maintain the myth that Spain is a ālaw-governed stateā with an independent judiciary and it will also help the European Union and its member states, fearful of any Catalan threat to the EU status quo, sustain the same fiction.
In the days after the verdict, spokespeople for the European Commission and the British government robotically repeated the line from Madrid.
Caught in contradiction
The dropping of ārebellionā comes at a price, however, because the whole Spanish-patriotic view of the October 1 referendum, from King Philip down, is that it was a deliberate, rebellious assault on the Constitution.
Sensitive to the angst their appeal-proofed verdict would cause, the judges devoted about 200 pages of the 493-page judgement to arguments against the ārebellionā.
Yet, in adopting the āsedition theoryā, the judges fall into a painful contradiction.
Their decision says, for example, that October 1 did not involve āpreconceived, deliberate and functionalā violence aimed at achieving Cataloniaās separation from the Spanish state, but was rather an attempt to pressure it into negotiations.
āThe over-excited citizens who believed that the positive result of the so-called referendum would lead to the hoped-for horizon of a sovereign republic were unaware that the right to decide had changed into an atypical right to bring pressure.ā
But if that argument is valid against ārebellionā, how is it not also valid against āseditionā? The only difference in Spanish law is that ārebellionā is a crime against the constitution and āseditionā a crime against public order.
The judgesā answer was to smother the contradiction in lurid fictional accounts of the events of 2017. These are based on the well-rehearsed evidence of Spanish National Police and Civil Guard officers, whom Marchena āsparedā from defence cross-examination, backed by visual evidence, during the trial.
In their decision, it is the huge peaceful demonstrations and non-violent protests of 2017 that become āseditionā. This ruling opens the door to any protest activity, like trade union pickets or organised attempts to stop evictions, being regarded as āseditiousā.
In an October 16 interview in the Catalan daily Ara, Jordi SĆ nchez said: āThe sentence unequivocally lies. It doesnāt specify any detail of the supposed strategy of sedition. Not one confirmed meeting, not one email, only declarations in public ANC [Catalan National Assembly] events and the calling of demonstrations.
āThe Supreme Court judgesā hostility towards us has betrayed them. Their animosity towards us has leaked out in the sentence in the form of false statements to justify the prison terms.ā
Offensives launched
The verdict has also been the signal for new offensives from both sides of the Catalan-Spanish State struggle.
The Spanish judiciary immediately banned convicted Catalan leaders from standing in the November 10 Spanish general election and judge Llarena reissued a European arrest warrant for the extradition of former Catalan president Carles Puigdemont from Belgium.
The PSOE government went on an offensive to persuade other countries of the immaculate character of the Spanish legal system. Cabinet members with foreign languages made themselves available for interviews on whatever international channels would have them.
On the Catalan side, the enormous, growing tsunami of mass protest started to roll.
All this is taking place three weeks out from the Spanish general election, in which Catalonia will dominate as never before. In Jordi SĆ nchezās words: āThey believe that they will terminate peopleās sentiments by beheading those they think are leaders of the process.
āThey are having the opposite effect.ā
[Dick Nichols is Ā鶹“«Ć½ Weeklyās European correspondent, based in Barcelona. A detailed update of this article will soon appear on the web site of Links ā International Journal of Socialist Renewal.]