At this point in the controversy, the question is no longer whether the law of ‘only yes is yes’ It will be reformed to prevent it from facilitating lighter sentences in the future for those convicted of crimes of sexual assault located in the lower range of this criminal type. Not even if the retouching will be very different from the proposal registered alone by the PSOE. A series of precautions to avoid new downward revisions of the sentences and increase the sentences, explicitly in the case of violence. Yes, a path has been opened for the PP, and not Unidas Podemos, to join their votes with those of the Socialists (and other external partners of the Executive). First to process the proposal. Then, to approve it with the absolute majority necessary in all regulations with the character of an organic law. It cannot be ruled out that even at the last minute PSOE and UP redirect the situation. But in election yearand although this type of calculation can even be offensive when talking about the right of women to sexual freedom, a hitherto unusual agreement between the two largest parties is no longer so. It gives the PP a necessary plus of centrality and the possibility of brandishing a victory against Pedro Sánchez. It can help the PSOE to ignore wear and tear suffered from the undesired results of what should have been a star measure and from the stubbornness in the error of his government partners. To these (perhaps discounting Yolanda Díaz) it would reinforce their self-image of being the only left without concessions.
The cracks contained in the drafting of the law are already undeniable, and it does not matter what judgment one has of the attitude of the magistrates who have used them. Beyond this objective consideration, however, the debate has been tainted by other misunderstandings to which the Minister of Justice, Pilar Llop, has certainly contributed, regarding the ease or not of proving violence in a sexual assault. Collecting the justified indignation after the unfortunate first sentence of La Manada and international conventions, the law made it clear that it was not necessary to prove that the victim had been subjected to violence to prove that there had been no consent. And that this lack of explicit consent was already more than enough to justify forceful criminal punishment. But at no time was the need to prove that non-consent obviated. Nor was it renounced that a rape accompanied by even greater violence had a greater punishment if proven. Raising the law, and the debate on its reform without taking it into account could lead to misunderstandings. And you can keep doing it.
At this point, it would be possible to criticize why the internal balances of the Government prevented this situation from emerging before. The political and social consensus that surrounded its approval, however, has a sufficient explanation: We cannot forget the clear advances that the law represents in many aspects. Avoid revictimization during the judicial process. Penalize more harshly the chemical submission or other forms of prevalence of the aggressor over the victim. Establish support and help mechanisms for this and send an unequivocal message about the inexcusable respect for sexual freedom. A message that the rude opposition that the regulations already found even before its defective fringes became evident showed that it is still absolutely necessary.