Mexico, where Supreme Court is against women rights

In common perception -exactly as in general theory of law- Supreme Courts should be “the rules of the game” watchdog, that means avoid that ordinary legislative act and laws could infringe costitutional rules and spirit, so to grant citizens freedom against majority and government power. Using a synecdoche, we can compare the Courts to “lex animata”: they are the only interpreter of Costitutional rules and the heepers of dreedoms and power balance in their countries; Consequently, their are “super partes” for definition, and this means that as collegial organ they trascend single judges opinions (and also the sum of them) becoming something similar to what was “Ideas world” in Plato phyiosophy: they have to value laws using justice and general principles as only measure units of their decisions.

Now ask ourselver what happens when Costitutional jurisdiction is on the hands of courts appointed by executive powers (and so without the balancement of compromise)? The first ansewr is “generally happens nothing”at first because almost all countries contemplate that term of office for supreme judges (when a term exist) and the Powers that appointed them are different, so to give an equilibrium due to alternance of ruling parties that appoint single judges. The system generally have good results also when is only one Power (for example the President, as in US) to choose jugde courts because the proposal have to face with both branch of legislative assemblies.

But sometimes this mechanism doesnt work, as is happening in Mexico nowadays. In this country, victim of a no-declared war between narcos, and suffering a progressive dissolution of social tissue and a growing of economic inequality and violence (also perpetrated by policemen), also civil rights are having an involution, as its happening with the law that depenalize abortion (with heavy restrictions).

In 2007 Mexican Parliament voted a law to depenalize abortion in a country that, as almost all South american Nations, is dominate by Catholic church, where Chile, Hicaragua and Haity dont allow people to abortion in any case, even if mother's life is in danger, while in others (Honduras, Guatemala, Venezuela, PerĂ¹ and so on) rape is not a reason that depenalize abortion (sic), in an area where in the only Guatemala, between 1960 and 1996 there were more than 100.000 documented rapes and were in all central american countries (and not only) rape is a weapon to fight enemies band (the infamous “pandillas” and “maras” wars) attacking womens of enemies, or is used to overthrown women or simply to affirm male domination. IN all south american countries only Cuba, Suriname and French Guyana have a legislation that allows women to follow their will on responsible parenthood.

But for Catholic Church the mexincan law was a wounds and immediatly after the vote, local Bishops assembly asked to Vatican to excommunicate the politicians that promote and vote it. As a result, Pope spokesman, mr. Lombardi, affirmed that people who vote such kind of things excommunicate themselves and is better not to take holy communion in church, while, the immediate excommunication works for who helps women abortion (not matter if is to preserve their life, for fetus malformation or for rape) and for women (can. 1398, excommunication redemption can be given from single bishops and in main sanctuaries).

For years later, in that aradise with 36.000 people killed from 2006, with a federal State -Chihuahua- that in 2001 voted a law that punished more a rustler than a raper (3 years as predictable minimum for rape, excluding extenuatings) and in wich capital Ciudad Juarez more than 1.000 women were killed in terrible way from 1993 (and only 430 bodies, or part of them, were discovered...) and the violences numer in uncountables, the interest of Supreme Court is again on abortion... to avoid it asiding law. In fact the nwe president appointed a new ultraconservative judge at Supreme Court with the result that in any civil right law the court vote as a parliamentar majority:8 against 7, to stop it and now their voting in favour of single states laws that avoid again abortion in any case. Now is possible to follow federal law that grant the right only in Mexico City district.

So the paradox of jurisdiction is this: 1) there is a federal law that grant the right that is not in contrast with mexican constitutional general principles, and so cannot be quashed by Courts.
2) Catholic groups boicott it in single state legilation 3) the caourt, politically inspired, cannot quash the federal law because is constitutional, but cannot allo people to the right for political and religious behaviours, and so dont quash the single state laws against federal law, but is impossible that in the same time can exist a law that allow a right and another that punish it, both judged by the same Supreme Court.

Now the question is what is the credibility of a Supreme court that act following singles judges behaviours? How is possibile that a secular court can make a decision based on metaphisycal ideas as that of soul and catholic behaviours about the moment of “creation” of a soul?UNfortunatly this is a problem not only in mexico, but there is a contagion also in countries that seemed safe, as in Hungary where the preambolous of new Costitution could modify hardly the rights of citizens, submitting them to a religious-oriented control, made by local Supreme Court that should use as parametre the preambolous itself that is inpired to catholic doctrine and in deeply contrast with UE general laws

No comments: