They report Ione Belarra to the Supreme Court for hate crime and insults against the police

Unified Police Union (SUP) has filed a complaint with the Supreme Court against Podemos MP, Ione Belarra. They accuse her of a possible hate crime and another of serious defamation against the National Police. According to the union, the former minister made "false and offensive" accusations against officers in national media outlets.

SUP believes that Belarra's words directly attack all State Security Forces and Corps (FFCCSE). In its submission to the Supreme Court, they warn that these statements can't go unpunished. They believe that they pose a threat to the principle of authority and to the professional integrity of the officers.

The union reports that Belarra linked police forces to neo-Nazi and neo-fascist ideologies. For SUP, these statements constitute a generic and unproven accusation. They state that this is a clear attempt to discredit an entire professional group.

According to the text of the complaint, the MP's statements can't be considered part of normal political debate. Nor are they mere opinions. The union believes that these words constitute a serious and damaging public disqualification. They add that this is not an isolated criticism, but an attack aimed at damaging the image of the institutions.

Alleged defamation by Ione Belarra against the police

The complaint is based on Article 504.2 of the Penal Code. This punishes serious defamation against State institutions. SUP claims that Belarra acted with disregard for the truth and with intent to harm. They also cite a recent Supreme Court ruling: number 252/2023, dated April 11. In it, institutional prestige is defended as a legal asset that must be protected.

For the union, Belarra's words meet all the requirements to be considered defamatory. They add that the purpose of her statements was to discredit the FFCCSE. They emphasize that extreme ideological terminology was used. They also highlight that this was done in mass media, which further aggravates the damage caused.

Alleged hate crime

In addition to the crime of defamation, SUP also believes that there is a hate crime. In this case, they cite Article 510.1.a) of the Penal Code. This punishes statements that incite social rejection of a group. According to the union, Belarra contributed to fostering contempt for the officers. They claim that her words feed a distorted ideological image of the police force.

SUP warns that these accusations may have consequences. They believe that all FFCCSE are being stigmatized. They add that this view generates distrust and hostility toward the officers. They also emphasize that this is a dangerous discourse and not only harms the institutions, but also weakens democratic coexistence.

The union insists that Belarra's statements were neither private nor marginal. They were broadcast in national media outlets. They say that gives them great reach and social impact. They add that these kinds of messages, coming from a parliamentary representative, are not neutral. According to SUP, they can encourage reactions of hostility, contempt, and rejection against police officers.

They also warn of the damage that this discourse can cause to the public image of the FFCCSE. They believe that it can generate distrust among citizens. They fear that this effect will damage the legitimacy of security institutions. "You can't put all officers under suspicion because of ideology," they state in the document.

Protection against attacks

SUP recalls that police officers, as public officials, should not be exposed to constant attacks. They assert their right to honor, just like any citizen. They add that it can't be tolerated to discredit a group that works every day to defend the rights and freedoms of all.

SUP believes that allowing this type of discourse would set a very negative precedent. In their opinion, it would open the door to new institutional attacks without legal consequences.

The union closes its statement by expressing its trust and asking that the case law protecting institutional prestige be taken into account. According to SUP, justice must "put an end to this injustice" that, they claim, affects thousands of men and women who risk their lives for the common good.

With this complaint, SUP seeks to set a limit. They believe that not everything is acceptable in political discourse. They warn that words have consequences. Above all, when they come from an MP with parliamentary representation.

Ione Belarra has not replied yet

So far, Ione Belarra has not publicly replied to the complaint. On other occasions, she has reported abuses within security forces. She has also defended the need to review certain police practices. This is not the first time her words have provoked strong reactions from police unions.

The case is already in the hands of the Supreme Court. Now it will be the court that decides whether there is sufficient basis to investigate the MP. Belarra, as a parliamentarian, has parliamentary immunity. Any criminal proceedings against her must go through the Second Chamber of the High Court.

SUP's complaint opens a new front in the tension between State institutions and certain political sectors. The complaint reopens the debate on the limits of freedom of expression. It also reopens the debate on the protection of the honor of public servants.

Meanwhile, the union calls for respect and recognition. They demand that the work of police officers not be tarnished by ideological discourse. "We're here to protect everyone, without distinction. The least we deserve is respect," they conclude.