[embedding-shape]

It is not a general "men and women get different prison terms for all the same crimes" rule, it applies to specific offences and specific relationship/victim categories. The Constitutional Court has also upheld it, meaning it's quite literally not unconstitutional.

For the people following along at home, parent is talking about "Ley Orgánica 1/2004, de 28 de diciembre, de Medidas de Protección Integral contra la Violencia de Género" AKA LIVG, which is a law containing gender-violence provisions aimed at a specific form of inequality in intimate-partner violence, as we (Spain) has a lot of that.

[Levitz]

>For the people following along at home, parent is talking about "Ley Orgánica 1/2004, de 28 de diciembre, de Medidas de Protección Integral contra la Violencia de Género" AKA LIVG, which is a law containing gender-violence provisions aimed at a specific form of inequality in intimate-partner violence, as we (Spain) has a lot of that.

Which, to be clear, does explicitly discriminate depending if the aggressor is a man or a woman, since it defines gender violence as something that men do to women, explicitly.

You are not even disagreeing. You are arguing in favor of such discrimination and justifying it. This is not the place to argue such matters but the point that generally considering a law to be constitutional or not is no guarantee is more than proven.

[embedding-shape]

I'm not agreeing nor disagreeing, nor providing justification, I'm just giving more context for people who might be reading about this and not having the full context or background of the wider conversation.

The law does explicitly create sex-asymmetric criminal treatment in these partner-violence offenses, I wouldn't deny this. A man assaulting, threatening, or coercing a female partner can fall under the LIVG-linked "violencia de género" provisions while a woman doing the equivalent to a male partner generally does not.

But our Constitutional Court has ruled that this asymmetry is constitutionally valid, because it treats the offense as gender violence tied to structural inequality, not as punishment merely for being male. This is why I think this isn't considering discrimination, and why it isn't unconstitutional.

I think the disagreement comes from what actually is discrimination, rather than me being OK with discrimination and others not, or vice-versa. I'm trying to explain the legal situation as objectively as I can, based only on what the legal texts actually say, and I'm trying to help you understand the reasoning of the Constitutional Court here, as obviously they don't agree with this being discriminatory.

[luckylion]

I have no idea about that law in particular and no dog in that fight, but I find

> The Constitutional Court has also upheld it, meaning it's quite literally not unconstitutional.

a weak argument when stated that absolute. Constitutional Courts occasionally shift in their opinions over time. If they do change -- has the previous court violated the constitution? Or is the constitution flexible enough to hold opposite viewpoints without being violated? Doesn't it become very flimsy at that point?

I think a better wording would it is not currently considered to be unconstitutional. It might be in the future if the court changes. Naturally that only happens over longer periods of time as old judges die and are replaced with younger judges who were born in a different era and raised with different values.