Feudalism: Alive and kicking in Mallorca

After King Jaume I and his not so merry men had finished slaughtering much of the population of Mallorca following the thirteenth-century conquest, they ran up against a slight problem. Land was all well and good, but less so if there wasn't anyone to work it. The scale of the slaughter suggests that half the population of the island - put at some 50,000 - was wiped out. Of those who survived, the majority were Muslim converts. Otherwise, there were still some Christians, descendants of the population at the time of the Muslim occupation three centuries before.

In terms of society, the story of the immediate aftermath of the conquest can be styled as a combination of slavery and feudalism. The slaves were the survivors of the conquest, whose numbers, limited as they were, needed to be added to by inward migration, principally from Catalonia, for which incentives of privileges were granted. Privileges or not, the new Mallorcan workforce was subject to the organisational system - Jaume's system of feudalism.

There wasn't one definitive system of feudalism in Europe, but the variants followed a basic principle usually attributed to French nobility, e.g. William the Conqueror. It was a system of privileges, at the heart of which were rights to land extended from above to those below - as in lord to vassal, for example - and which involved a form of mutual protection: the lord would protect his vassal, and the vassal would fight for the lord.

Feudalism is generally considered to be a system of mediaeval times, and indeed its practice in Europe had largely disappeared by the fifteenth century. In Spain, on the other hand - or more accurately in the lands of the Aragon crown - the system of feudal barony, a hangover from Jaume, wasn't to be ended until the early nineteenth century and even then, though legal rights were abolished, property rights weren't.

Earlier this year, the heirs of the Marquis de la Romana informed owners of 125 properties, such as those in Paguera for example, that the "alou" ("alodio" in Spanish) was still applicable. This is a charge payable on the transfer of ownership of a property, and this alou goes right back to the days of Jaume I: it is a mediaeval tax, founded on the principles of Jaume's feudal system.

Under a Balearic law of 2010 the alou was addressed, and ultimate landowners, almost invariably descendants in some form or another of those who engaged in the land grab and distribution that Jaume had facilitated in the thirteenth century, were given five years to renew the alou. Those who didn't wish to simply had to inform the Land Registry, and the tax - hugely anachronistic that it was - would no longer be applicable.

At the time this law was introduced, the president of the Balearic Academy of Jurisprudence explained that it had served a useful function - in the thirteenth century. It was a legal concept linked to the conquest but also to the need for repopulation. But it was, nevertheless, a legal concept that was almost 800 years old.

The law was expected to have seen the withdrawal of the alou in 2013, and there were owners who decided to scrap it. But not all. Later that year, a couple, Xus Sastre and his wife Beatrix, won a court battle after they had been pursued for the payment of 2% alou for the purchase of a house in Es Pil-lari in Palma. The demand, which amounted to 1,800 euros, came from the Marquise de Campo Franco. The couple argued that they had never heard of the tax, though when it came to formalising the purchase, a notary observed that there was a freehold but advised them that the alou would not be charged, as no one bothered demanding it.

The couple, though they won the court case, took the matter further. They raised a petition through Change.org for the eradication of this example of feudalism that had no place in a democracy. How could standards of the thirteenth century still be allowed to apply? The Romanas and the Campo Francos would doubtless argue that they could apply quite easily.

The Més party, though, asked the same question. At the end of 2013, the petition having raised 12,000 signatures, a Més parliamentary deputy said that his party would seek to have the alou abolished for good. It was a "feudal anachronism", and the 2010 law hadn't gone far enough. But if Més were to now introduce a law (and one would think that they and especially Podemos would do so), it would be too late for the airports authority Aena. A court has decided that it must pay an alou of 70,840 euros for having put to use land that was expropriated at Son Sant Joan airport in the 1960s.

Jaume I's legacy is great, and it lives on in some most peculiar ways.

Duck's Off: Defining Traditions

There is a legal oddity in Spain which prescribes how old a tradition must be in order that it can qualify for being a tradition - if this doesn't sound somewhat Irish (or Spanish). It is not a legal mechanism which defines all traditions but it is one that applies to traditions which involve animals. In a nutshell, older than one hundred years equals tradition, younger than one hundred equals non-tradition. To say that the law is somewhat arbitrary is a bit of an understatement. Nevertheless, it is a law which forms part of wider legislation - that of animal protection. It is one which rarely needs to be invoked, but in Mallorca it has been, and Can Picafort has been the main battleground for questioning the law. It's all to do with ducks.

Some time back in the 1930s, or so the story goes, underpaid local workers (of which there couldn't have been that many) were offered a little treat. A landowner made available a number of ducks, for the eating thereof. There was a catch. The workers would have to swim for their supper. The ducks were released in the sea, in dived the downtrodden peasantry and, amidst what was doubtless a great deal of quacking and general flapping around, the ducks were captured and were subsequently served up on a plate - à l'orange or sans orange. Such was the success of the watery duck chase that a tradition was born. Except of course, it wasn't. For the purposes of the law when it was drawn up, it was not more than one hundred years old. To borrow from Basil Fawlty, the law declared: "duck's off". 

It was only relatively recently that the 100-year rule came into effect and put an end to the use of live ducks for the annual dive, swim and catch at the Can Picafort summer fiestas. Santa Margalida town hall was none too impressed with the law. Only when it was threatened with legal action did it reluctantly agree to substituting the real ducks with unreal ducks. The manufacturers of rubber and plastic ducks were in ducky heaven.

While the town hall bowed to the force of law, not every citizen of the town did likewise. Into Can Picafort folklore was etched the image of the Power Rangers' mask. Real ducks were released by miscreant traditionalists wearing non-traditional masks who thumbed their noses at the legality of the 100-year rule.

The masks were on show in 2007, the first year in which real ducks were banned. They were to be seen again, along with more ducks, over the next three years. The flouting of the law required the town hall, still reluctantly complying with it, to order the local police to stop the miscreants and the Guardia to send a submarine diving unit. No one was ever actually caught. In 2010, the defenders of the duck tradition released a video. It featured a "pope" and some ducks. The pope was shown beckoning the ducks towards him. It was to be the last year that a real duck put in an appearance at the 15 August event.

Despite some Can Picafort old-timers and some not so old-timers having said that the swim is not how it used to be and that they refuse to take part and go in pursuit of a rubber duck, the event's popularity seems to have grown. One suspects that it is partly because some visitors live in hope that the Power Rangers will return. Or perhaps it is because there are only rubber ducks (and a load of melons as well). The papal defenders of the real ducks are not the only ones whose opinions and preferences count. There are the defenders of the rubber duck as well, those who disagree with the use of live animals.

The animal-protection lobby has said that ducks would have felt stress and anxiety when they were being chased by the swimmers. They may well have done, but when one is talking animal protection and rights, the stress of the ducks is surely nothing compared to that which a bull suffers. But that's a different argument and a different tradition, one that is definitely more than one hundred years old. It is, nevertheless, one with a political overtone, the ruling Partido Popular being supportive of the bullfight. It had been hoped in Can Picafort that the party's lack of animal-rights correctness might have seen a change of heart where the ducks were concerned. Regional governments can amend the 100-year rule, if it so suits. The Balearic Government hasn't been tempted to. The ducks, the real ones, are safely swimming and quacking in Albufera and other ducky habitats in the local area. They are no longer taken on board small boats and released into the sea in front of the Mar y Paz hotel on 15 August. It is a day for rubber ducks only. But. What would happen if a duck were to inadvertently fly over Can Picafort and land in the sea at around 12 midday? Would the duck be charged with breaking the law?

MALLORCA TODAY - Balearics looks to fishing tourism

It may come as a surprise but there is no law governing fishing in the Balearics (it is the only regional authority to apparently not have one), so the regional government has drafted one. Part of it will be to open up the Balearics to fishing tourism.

See more: El Mundo

Closing Down? Illegal downloading in Spain

I have a confession to make. I have never illegally downloaded a movie or a song from the internet.

Boy, you don't know how it feels to get this off my chest. I have been living with the shame of being a download-denier for years. I know that my 'fessing up could mean my being shunned by friends or family, but this is a cross I have to bear.

You have to ask why I have been a denier. In Spain of all places. Spain which is the most lax country in the European Union when it comes to tackling internet piracy. It is a haven for the dodgy downloader and also, therefore, for download "re-sellers". And these are not just the lookies. So lax is Spain and so high is the level of downloading by Spanish users that the country has been put on a blacklist by the US Congress. Production companies are wary about distributing original material in Spain.

Some years ago, Singapore sought to legitimise itself in the eyes of the international community by getting to grips with what was rampant piracy and counterfeiting. It was of a different type - fake Rolex, Gucci, Lacoste and so on. There were shops that taxi-drivers would take you to. The windows were papered over. Don't get me wrong, I don't claim never to have obtained pirated goods. The Lacoste t-shirts from Singapore made excellent Christmas presents. The day after I'd been to one shop, the front page of the local equivalent of "The Bulletin" ran with the story of a police raid. On that very shop. I must have missed it by moments.

Singapore did legitimise itself. Spain has been facing similar demands to get its act straight when it comes to downloading. Which is why for much of this year the passage of the so-called "Sinde" law has been staggering through parliament.

Named after the culture minister, Ángeles González-Sinde, the law was tagged onto a much more wide-ranging one, that of the "sustainable economy". This alone created confusion, a not uncommon facet of Spanish law-making. Months after it was meant to have been enacted, Sinde's law has just reached its final parliamentary stages in the Spanish Congress.

The law has not looked to emulate the route in the UK, that of cutting off the internet connections of habitual illegal downloaders and file-sharers. Quite right, too. The UK's solution is absurd. Instead, Spain would block or close down websites which offer illegal film and music downloads and free sports programmes that would otherwise be on subscription. Any decision to do so would still be subject to authorisation by a commission for intellectual property.

Getting to a vote has been a tortuous process as it has involved negotiations by the PSOE ruling administration with the multitude of parties which exist in parliament, the Catalonian CiU and the Basque PNV having been particularly crucial. There has been a reluctance to support the measure, and this stems, one has to presume, from what is a strong desire not to limit freedom of information. There has also been the added confusion of elements of the sustainable economy law that have nothing to do with the downloading element and which have been used as bargaining tools. You wonder why the Sinde law couldn't have been dealt with separately.

The law has also attracted the mavericks of cyberspace. Websites for the PSOE, Congress and others have been attacked in the days and hours leading up to the vote. The Anonymous group, which has been behind attacks on PayPal and Visa in light of the WikiLeaks furore, has been prominent in activating the Spanish attacks.

The point about the Sinde law, other than any notion of limiting freedom of information, is that it would probably have very little effect, especially for those internet users who understand a bit about file-sharing. Furthermore, closing websites down does not mean that new ones might not emerge, and recourse to a commission on intellectual property opens up the field to all manner of potential legal challenges by websites. The law could actually be a minefield.

And then there is the question as to whether it is sensible to legislate at all, which brings into play the whole issue as to what the internet stands for as well as the costs of trying to prevent piracy. In a way it's a bit like the war on drugs. Vast amounts of money and resources go into fighting drugs, but to what end? The scale of downloading and sharing in Spain is enormous - one in three users is said to regularly share copyrighted material - and this despite the fact that, in the Balearics as an example, the number of homes with internet connections isn't as widespread as you might think; only 56% of homes in the Balearics have one.

The other way of looking at this is that downloading, illegal or not, could be set to become even more enormous. For the meantime though, it's carry on downloading - illegally. Why? Because the passing of Sinde's law has failed. By two votes. All the horse-trading and it still couldn't be passed. You never know, maybe I'll join the rest and download with impunity. Until, that is, the Senate tries to ratify it in January, but don't bank on this.


Any comments to andrew@thealcudiaguide.com please.