It is Christmas Eve 2015. The Spanish nation turns its attention from stuffing the turkey with truffles and from popping the cava. It's the most anticipated television event of the year. What is he going to say? The he is King Felipe, though one might not totally dismiss the possibility that the he will by next year be the grandeur-delusional "pequeño Nicolás". Assuming that the little twerp hasn't ascended to the throne and that Felipe is delivering the annual Christmas message, he has to deal with the sister thing. The anticipation is therefore immense.
Felipe's message this Christmas Eve made no direct reference to Cristina, but it was a message notable for its absence of preliminary warm-up of the small-talking variety. It went straight in on corruption. The number one theme. It was a bold and strong message. "We need a profound regeneration of our collective life. And in so doing, the fight against corruption is an essential objective."
The message needed to be strong. Part of the job description that came with the succession was to be able to handle the sister thing. The old king, sadly discredited, could no longer credibly contend with the daughter thing. Awkward and embarrassing it must be for Felipe, but the nation comes first. He knows that, even if he didn't explicitly place nation above immediate family.
But what might the message next year contain? By then Cristina should know her fate, though there are surely several twists to follow the decision of Judge Castro to put her on trial. The judge, in delivering his "auto" - his judicial declaration - ruled out appeal and the application of the so-called Botín doctrine. He may yet find himself challenged on both counts. Botín, named after Emilio Botín, the former president of Santander Bank who died in September, refers to a case brought against Botín that was ruled inadmissible by the Supreme Court because the prosecution was led not by a state prosecutor but by a private, unaggrieved third party. As Pedro Horrach, the state anti-corruption prosecutor, has said that he believes Cristina does not have a case to answer, the prosecution lies essentially with a third party, namely the right-wing "union" Manos Limpias, an organisation which constantly seeks to fight corruption but which, as implied by alleged links to Francoism, is no friend of the royal family.
In a different case, however, the Supreme Court has ruled that an unaggrieved third party can be the sole accuser. The Atutxa doctrine refers to the case brought against the former president of the Basque Country, Juan María Atutxa, alleged to have had links to ETA. Despite this apparent contradiction, might the Cristina prosecution be bumped up to the Supreme Court? Castro would say no, and in delivering his "auto" he laid down a gauntlet. For there to now be a challenge citing Botín or for there to be any attempt to accuse Castro of having exceeded his powers (which was what happened to the celebrated investigating judge Baltasar Garzón) would be highly dangerous for Spain's reputation and indeed for Spain's society with its "serious social concern", as noted by Felipe.
Who knows what twists there might yet be and so what type of message Felipe has to deliver on Christmas Eve 2015. And who knows what Cristina might do next. Were she and Iñaki discussing divorce during the family Christmas in Switzerland? Was she giving serious consideration to renouncing her right of succession? (As sixth in line her chances of ascending to the crown would be as unlikely and as implausible as the current sixth in line to the British monarchy, Princess Beatrice of York.) Did she watch her brother's message? What did she think? It could not have been a happy Christmas in the Urdangarin household.
Showing posts with label Manos Limpias. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Manos Limpias. Show all posts
Saturday, December 27, 2014
Thursday, February 23, 2012
On Trial: The Spanish judiciary
Justice, administered and delivered by judges and magistrates in Spain, is administered and delivered in the name of the King. The King, in addressing a legal profession gathering in Barcelona, has reminded judges that it is they alone who impart justice. On Saturday, the King's son-in-law appears in a Palma court. The judge presiding over the "caso Nóos" is consulting with not just the prosecution but also the government and the Partido Popular as to whether they wish the King's daughter, Princess Cristina, to be indicted as part of this case.
Make of this little mix what you will, as there is an awful lot that can be made of it.
Under the Spanish Constitution, the judiciary is independent, and so of course it should be. But the extent to which it truly is independent or neutral is coming under increasing scrutiny. The Garzón affair has raised serious doubts, and the royal family having become embroiled in the wider investigation and trial of the former president of the Balearics, Jaume Matas, raises more doubts.
Let's be clear. If, and one stresses if, there is a case for the King's daughter to answer, then so be it. The royal household, from the outset of the investigation of the Duke of Palma, has made it clear that it respects the actions of the judiciary, but justice being administered and delivered in the name of King when it might involve the King's daughter, as opposed to a commoner (which the Duke is), highlights just how much of a dilemma has been created by the investigation.
For Judge Castro, the dilemma is enormous. By consulting with the government and a political party, he runs the risk of being seen to be subject to political influence. Should it not be his decision and his decision alone? Possibly. But by counselling the wishes of the political class, or a part of it, he is placing the dilemma in the hands of this political class.
In some respects, one could say he is playing a blinder, as he is handing responsibility elsewhere. But however the political class decides to play things, it will be criticised. Firstly, it will be criticised for getting involved at all. Secondly, if it says it does not wish the Princess to be indicted, it risks being accused of applying one rule for one and one rule for another (assuming, that is, there genuinely is a case to answer, and most noises have suggested not, as with the evidence of former Olympic sailing gold medallist, "Pepote" Ballester). Thirdly, if it says it does wish the Princess to be indicted, then it potentially opens up a massive can of worms.
The reason why this can of worms might be opened up is that a trap has been laid by the right-wing union Manos Limpias. In calling for the Princess to be indicted, if the government and the PP were to follow its demand, the union would, in effect, receive official backing. For the government to be perceived as acceding to the wishes of a union with the type of associations it has, i.e. Francoist, could be hugely damaging.
The government will be damned if it does and damned if it doesn't, and a further problem is that the Spanish people, generally speaking, are indifferent to many members of the royal family, with the definite exception of the King, who is held in such enormous regard, and rightly so.
The whole affair surrounding the Duke couldn't have come at a worse time for the Spanish judiciary. The world is having its say about a Spanish system that has tried, convicted and removed from office a leading judge at the behest of right-wing forces. Daniel Kaufmann, senior fellow at The Brookings Institution, has suggested that a travesty has been committed in respect of Judge Garzón, that judicial independence has been compromised, and, moreover, has presented evidence which indicates a decline in Spain's rule of law.
However much the Spanish judiciary is theoretically independent, there is a suspicion of politicisation and partiality. And it is caused not just by politics but also by professional rivalries within the judiciary (the Garzón affair is said to have been influenced by these). Garzón himself is not above charges of politicisation, and it is such charges, for the wider judiciary, which suggests that there needs to be some reform.
At the heart of all this, and a reason why it is all so important, is that the judiciary is a vital instrument of democracy. And in Spain, so is the monarchy. Both institutions, the legal system and the monarchy, are being placed or potentially being placed on trial.
Any comments to andrew@thealcudiaguide.com please.
Make of this little mix what you will, as there is an awful lot that can be made of it.
Under the Spanish Constitution, the judiciary is independent, and so of course it should be. But the extent to which it truly is independent or neutral is coming under increasing scrutiny. The Garzón affair has raised serious doubts, and the royal family having become embroiled in the wider investigation and trial of the former president of the Balearics, Jaume Matas, raises more doubts.
Let's be clear. If, and one stresses if, there is a case for the King's daughter to answer, then so be it. The royal household, from the outset of the investigation of the Duke of Palma, has made it clear that it respects the actions of the judiciary, but justice being administered and delivered in the name of King when it might involve the King's daughter, as opposed to a commoner (which the Duke is), highlights just how much of a dilemma has been created by the investigation.
For Judge Castro, the dilemma is enormous. By consulting with the government and a political party, he runs the risk of being seen to be subject to political influence. Should it not be his decision and his decision alone? Possibly. But by counselling the wishes of the political class, or a part of it, he is placing the dilemma in the hands of this political class.
In some respects, one could say he is playing a blinder, as he is handing responsibility elsewhere. But however the political class decides to play things, it will be criticised. Firstly, it will be criticised for getting involved at all. Secondly, if it says it does not wish the Princess to be indicted, it risks being accused of applying one rule for one and one rule for another (assuming, that is, there genuinely is a case to answer, and most noises have suggested not, as with the evidence of former Olympic sailing gold medallist, "Pepote" Ballester). Thirdly, if it says it does wish the Princess to be indicted, then it potentially opens up a massive can of worms.
The reason why this can of worms might be opened up is that a trap has been laid by the right-wing union Manos Limpias. In calling for the Princess to be indicted, if the government and the PP were to follow its demand, the union would, in effect, receive official backing. For the government to be perceived as acceding to the wishes of a union with the type of associations it has, i.e. Francoist, could be hugely damaging.
The government will be damned if it does and damned if it doesn't, and a further problem is that the Spanish people, generally speaking, are indifferent to many members of the royal family, with the definite exception of the King, who is held in such enormous regard, and rightly so.
The whole affair surrounding the Duke couldn't have come at a worse time for the Spanish judiciary. The world is having its say about a Spanish system that has tried, convicted and removed from office a leading judge at the behest of right-wing forces. Daniel Kaufmann, senior fellow at The Brookings Institution, has suggested that a travesty has been committed in respect of Judge Garzón, that judicial independence has been compromised, and, moreover, has presented evidence which indicates a decline in Spain's rule of law.
However much the Spanish judiciary is theoretically independent, there is a suspicion of politicisation and partiality. And it is caused not just by politics but also by professional rivalries within the judiciary (the Garzón affair is said to have been influenced by these). Garzón himself is not above charges of politicisation, and it is such charges, for the wider judiciary, which suggests that there needs to be some reform.
At the heart of all this, and a reason why it is all so important, is that the judiciary is a vital instrument of democracy. And in Spain, so is the monarchy. Both institutions, the legal system and the monarchy, are being placed or potentially being placed on trial.
Any comments to andrew@thealcudiaguide.com please.
Wednesday, February 15, 2012
MALLORCA TODAY - Call for Princess Cristina to be subpoenaed
Manos Limpias, the union that has been closely involved with the case against Judge Baltasar Garzón for overstepping his authority in seeking to investigate crimes against humanity during the Franco era and which had previously sought to include evidence from Valencia in the case against the Duke of Palma (Iñaki Urdangarin) currently being heard in Palma, has now called on the judge in the "caso Palma Arena" to subpoena the Duke's wife Princess Cristina, daughter of King Juan Carlos.
Tuesday, January 17, 2012
Cleaning Hands: Garzón and the Duke
There are times when news reports make you sit up and pay particular attention. They do so because something crops up that you hadn't expected or makes you wonder what it has to do with otherwise repetitious news.
So it was with a news item related to the Duke of Palma affair. This is all terribly repetitious as it is a constant diet of evidence being made public that appears to drop the Duke ever deeper into it. But this particular news item referred to an organisation that I hadn't been aware of playing a part in the affair.
It was the headline that caught my eye. It referred to a "denuncia" against Iñaki Urdangarin (the Duke) by Manos Limpias. It was Manos Limpias that I had not expected. What did it have to do with the case against the Duke?
You might well ask what Manos Limpias is. Its full name is Colectivo de Funcionarios Públicos Manos Limpias, a union of public-sector workers that has only a few thousand members. Why should a union be involving itself with Urdangarin?
The denuncia was raised in Valencia and has to do with accusations of fraud against the Duke and his institute and accusations against representatives of the Valencia Generalitat. The court in Palma which is overseeing the case against the Duke has yet to be decide if the Manos Limpias denuncia will be incorporated into its own proceedings.
In the sense that the public authority in Valencia has been implicated, one can see why a public-sector union might become involved. But Manos Limpias is more than a union. Its name means "clean hands", and it works against corruption of different types, hence its name, and devotes a great deal of energy in pursuing cases of corruption and also in issuing denuncias.
On the face of it, this seems all perfectly laudable, but Manos Limpias operates with a very specific agenda, one that is well to the right of the political spectrum. Its founder was a leading light in the National Front, a party that was wound up in the first half of the 1990s and whose politics were as you might expect given its name. The founder, Miguel Bernard Remón, has been honoured by the Francisco Franco National Foundation; yes, that Franco.
Of other of its denuncias, perhaps the most celebrated is that against the judge Baltasar Garzón. The case against Garzón for exceeding his powers and going against the post-Franco amnesty in seeking to order exhumation of graves and to pursue crimes against humanity related to the Civil War and afterwards has largely been the doing of Manos Limpias and the current-day Falange.
Manos Limpias has not, though, issued just one denuncia against Garzón. There have been nineteen since the 1990s. The union says it doesn't have anything against Garzón, but the frequency with which it has denounced him does rather suggest otherwise.
The case against Garzón related to the Franco-era investigation, which is to come to court this month, is political, pure and simple. State prosecutors had rejected charges against Garzón, so the court case, as also with one to do with the so-called caso Gürtel, under which Garzón was pursuing Partido Popular politicians for corruption, is in effect a private prosecution.
The Garzón affair is frankly an embarrassment to Spain. He may have got carried away with his own celebrity and power, but the hounding of Garzón throws up unpleasant questions about the forces of the right and far right within the country and about the lingering legacy of Franco which Garzón sought the opportunity to investigate and which others denied him.
But what of the Duke of Palma? There is no direct link with Garzón, but there is now a common theme of Manos Limpias. The allegations against the Duke are another embarrassment - to the Royal Family - and his wife, Princess Cristina, is being dragged into the affair more and more, Manos Limpias having also called for a tax-office inspection into her links with the Duke's businesses.
There is a real fear that the Royal Family will be discredited as a consequence of what the Duke may or may not have done. And at the head of the Royal Family is King Juan Carlos, the man who rejected Francoism and the man who put a stop to the attempted coup in 1981.
In Spain there is a law of historic memory that is designed to remove the symbols of the Franco period. In Spain, however, there is also a long memory of Franco. Garzón didn't want to let it go, and nor do others want to let it go.
Any comments to andrew@thealcudiaguide.com please.
So it was with a news item related to the Duke of Palma affair. This is all terribly repetitious as it is a constant diet of evidence being made public that appears to drop the Duke ever deeper into it. But this particular news item referred to an organisation that I hadn't been aware of playing a part in the affair.
It was the headline that caught my eye. It referred to a "denuncia" against Iñaki Urdangarin (the Duke) by Manos Limpias. It was Manos Limpias that I had not expected. What did it have to do with the case against the Duke?
You might well ask what Manos Limpias is. Its full name is Colectivo de Funcionarios Públicos Manos Limpias, a union of public-sector workers that has only a few thousand members. Why should a union be involving itself with Urdangarin?
The denuncia was raised in Valencia and has to do with accusations of fraud against the Duke and his institute and accusations against representatives of the Valencia Generalitat. The court in Palma which is overseeing the case against the Duke has yet to be decide if the Manos Limpias denuncia will be incorporated into its own proceedings.
In the sense that the public authority in Valencia has been implicated, one can see why a public-sector union might become involved. But Manos Limpias is more than a union. Its name means "clean hands", and it works against corruption of different types, hence its name, and devotes a great deal of energy in pursuing cases of corruption and also in issuing denuncias.
On the face of it, this seems all perfectly laudable, but Manos Limpias operates with a very specific agenda, one that is well to the right of the political spectrum. Its founder was a leading light in the National Front, a party that was wound up in the first half of the 1990s and whose politics were as you might expect given its name. The founder, Miguel Bernard Remón, has been honoured by the Francisco Franco National Foundation; yes, that Franco.
Of other of its denuncias, perhaps the most celebrated is that against the judge Baltasar Garzón. The case against Garzón for exceeding his powers and going against the post-Franco amnesty in seeking to order exhumation of graves and to pursue crimes against humanity related to the Civil War and afterwards has largely been the doing of Manos Limpias and the current-day Falange.
Manos Limpias has not, though, issued just one denuncia against Garzón. There have been nineteen since the 1990s. The union says it doesn't have anything against Garzón, but the frequency with which it has denounced him does rather suggest otherwise.
The case against Garzón related to the Franco-era investigation, which is to come to court this month, is political, pure and simple. State prosecutors had rejected charges against Garzón, so the court case, as also with one to do with the so-called caso Gürtel, under which Garzón was pursuing Partido Popular politicians for corruption, is in effect a private prosecution.
The Garzón affair is frankly an embarrassment to Spain. He may have got carried away with his own celebrity and power, but the hounding of Garzón throws up unpleasant questions about the forces of the right and far right within the country and about the lingering legacy of Franco which Garzón sought the opportunity to investigate and which others denied him.
But what of the Duke of Palma? There is no direct link with Garzón, but there is now a common theme of Manos Limpias. The allegations against the Duke are another embarrassment - to the Royal Family - and his wife, Princess Cristina, is being dragged into the affair more and more, Manos Limpias having also called for a tax-office inspection into her links with the Duke's businesses.
There is a real fear that the Royal Family will be discredited as a consequence of what the Duke may or may not have done. And at the head of the Royal Family is King Juan Carlos, the man who rejected Francoism and the man who put a stop to the attempted coup in 1981.
In Spain there is a law of historic memory that is designed to remove the symbols of the Franco period. In Spain, however, there is also a long memory of Franco. Garzón didn't want to let it go, and nor do others want to let it go.
Any comments to andrew@thealcudiaguide.com please.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
