From ARA.CAT
Documentary proves the conciliatory role played by the two Catalan grassroots leaders
ÀLEX GUTIÉRREZ Barcelona 28/06/2018 07:28

We’re on friendly terms now and talking to each other”. Those were the words of ANC leader Jordi Sànchez speaking about Spain’s Guardia Civil in the late afternoon of September 20, 2017. It has been a testing day, with the search of the HQ of Catalonia’s Finance Ministry sometimes looking like a pretext to bait the demonstrators outside into starting a riot that would justify taking the crackdown up a notch. The Spanish authorities are edgy because the referendum on independence [which a Spanish court of law has ruled illegal] is just around the corner (October 1) and if they fail to avert it, it will be humiliating. Jordi Sànchez and Jordi Cuixart [the leaders of pro-independence grassroots groups Catalan National Assembly and Òmnium Cultural] have been busy all morning trying to mediate between the Spanish authorities and the thousands of protestors gathered on Rambla de Catalunya, outside the Catalan ministry’s HQ. However, the Guardia Civil have sabotaged every mediating effort they have made so far. “We’ve been lured into a goddamned trap!” Jordi Sànchez had complained hours earlier, hinting that the police operation underway had a hidden agenda. But the atmosphere is becoming less strained now and Sànchez even claims —presumably speaking metaphorically— that they might go off and have a cold one together. That was 279 days ago. Since then Sànchez has spent 253 nights in a prison cell in Soto del Real [near Madrid], together with Òmnium president Jordi Cuixart.
These are some of the scenes featured in 20-S, a Mediapro documentary that TV3 [the Catalan public broadcaster] will show on Thursday evening after the 9 o’clock news. A preview is scheduled this evening in Barcelona’s Aribau cinema. Written by Lluís Arcarazo and directed by Jaume Roures, the documentary provides a front row view of the events of September 20. That day Mediapro had sent out a camera crew to document everything that was going on at all times and, furthermore, they have since collected every bit of footage that the people who were rallying in the street have made available to them. There is no narrator: it is the pictures that tell the story of the day, including the half a dozen times when the two Jordis called on the protestors to remain calm and explicitly rejected any violence. This openly contradicts the cause led by judge Pablo Llarena that has landed both Jordis in prison.
Speaking for Público and ARA, Lluís Alcarazo explained that “the widespread use of cameras has allowed information to be democratised and the footage clearly shows that at no point were they aware of leading a rebellion of any sort”. Indeed, the footage shows that the Guardia Civil vehicles which the Jordis climbed on top of that evening —specifically, to call off the protest— had been used as an elevated platform of sorts by reporters and demonstrators alike. That was the footage —plus the odd minor incident later on— which Spain’s TV networks kept looping all the time.
The notion that a narrative has been construed is also apparent from the voice recordings of Catalan police boss Josep Lluís Trapero’s deposition before the Audiencia Nacional judge in Madrid, also featured in the documentary. The Catalan police chief can be heard stating that two Guardia Civil officers stayed by the front door of the ministry’s office at all times, which the prosecutor questions sarcastically, given the size of the crowd that had gathered outside the main entrance. However, the video recordings clearly show that, indeed, two Guardia Civil officers stood guard by the door at the very end of the corridor which the ANC and Òmnium leaders had managed to open up through the crowd in order to allow access into the building and out of it. Alcarazo admits that “we could have made a big deal of the tone of the questions posed to Trapero in court, which were uttered as if he was already on trial”.
The documentary also focuses on the “visit” paid to the CUP’s HQ by Spain’s Policía Nacional. It was a rather odd move when the Spanish police attempted to enter the headquarters [of the anti-capitalist pro-independence left party] without a warrant. When the CUP leaders asked them to produce one —and the police failed to do so—, two police units were staged for hours on end blocking the streets adjacent to the CUP’s building. This was a rather peculiar setup that left no escape route. Once again, according to eyewitness accounts featured on the documentary, it lends credence to the idea that it was a bait operation that sought to elicit a violent response which would have justified the extensive use of force. However, the alleged provocation was met with a peaceful resistance response by the CUP leadership in an atmosphere that you could even describe as festive. The pictures of Anna Gabriel, Eulàlia Reguant, Mireia Boya and Mireia Vehí dancing in the street was in stark contrast with the hostility displayed by the Spanish police officers in their navy blue uniforms.
The same applies to the now-famous firearms which were left unattended inside one of the Guardia Civil vehicles. First of all, there is no possible explanation for such gross negligence by the Spanish law enforcement officers. Once again, this fuels the notion that they sought to instigate a violent incident. Secondly, the documentary includes footage taken from a Catalan police helicopter which proves that, once it transpired that there were weapons inside the vehicle, they were watched at all times, with plainclothes Catalan police officers standing by, in case they were needed.
Alcarazo explains that “some of the pictures show tension, but we have found no footage of anyone throwing as much as a piece of wood. I was there myself and the only thing people chucked were carnations”. In fact, Jordi Sànchez can be seen holding a red carnation for a good portion of the day: it is a splotch of bright red that contrasts vividly with the pervasive grey of the state’s machinery whose cogs began to turn at full speed on that September 20.
Etiquetes

• 20-S documentarywww.ara.cat/en/the-against-Jordi-thanks-cameras_0_2041595904.html?utm_medium=social&utm_source=facebook&utm_campaign=ara

Victoria Rosell, The Guardian 

The rape acquittal sparked huge protests yet was in line with legislation. As a criminal court judge, I find this deeply unsettling

The fight for women’s rights is far from over in Spain. That’s been laid painfully bare in the wake of the manada (“wolf pack”) case – its name drawn from the Whatsapp group of a number men who would boast to their friends about their sexual exploits, about group sex and drugging women for the purpose of abusing them, and who expressly used the word rape.“I’ve got pills at bargain prices. For raping,” one wrote.
Early morning on 7 July 2015, during Pamplona’s San Fermín bull running festival, five men from this group took an 18-year-old woman into the lobby of a building where they sexually penetrated her nine times within the space of half an hour – five times orally, three vaginally and once anally. They then left her lying there, having stolen her mobile phone so she couldn’t immediately call for help. After that, they bragged about it on their Whatsapp group, posting photos and videos.
In April, they were sentenced to nine years in prison for sexual abuse, but acquitted of rape. Across Spain, women took to the streets to protest. They chanted: “It’s not abuse, it’s rape!” Last week, a provincial court in Pamplona ruled that these men could be released on bail. Women across Spain again reacted by pouring out on to the street.
I am a woman, a criminal court judge with 20 years of experience, and a feminist. The “wolf pack” verdict outraged me and I find the decision to release these men very unsettling.


ome images are seared in my mind. During the trial, videos filmed by those men were shown in the courthouse: we saw a young woman cornered and unable to react, literally paralysed, surrounded by five men, all older and stronger than her, in a narrow lobby with only one exit. She kept her eyes shut during the ordeal.
The verdict, handed down by the three judges (by a majority vote) stated that rape had not taken place – only sexual abuse, a lesser offence. It said the young woman had adopted “an attitude of submission and subjugation”. In Spain, only sex that involves violence or intimidation can constitute rape. One of the judges even claimed that what had taken place was entirely consensual sex. He added that these events had occurred in a “general atmosphere of fun and revelry”.
AdvertisementWhat also incensed me, along with many other women, is that the most widespread reaction among Spanish judges was to condemn the protests, not the verdict. This points to a mindset in which public criticism is somehow deemed to be a threat to the rule of law and the independence of the judiciary.
Nothing could be further from the truth. Spain’s wave of protests must be seen as a sign that a worrying gap has appeared between many citizens and the judicial system.
It is not hard to see that our national legislation carries a heavy legacy of sexism. It’s as if judges would rather judge the woman who has been victimised rather than those who stand accused of attacking her. Some things in our judiciary haven’t entirely changed since the Franco era – not least in the way judges are trained, through the rote learning of laws, and the weight carried by experienced peers.
Pedro Sánchez, the socialist head of the new government, criticised the verdict while he was in opposition. This month he appointed Dolores Delgado, a feminist prosecutor, as the new minister for justice. She has said that what’s needed is a change of mindset as well as a change in the law.
Spain is a country that signed up to the UN declaration on the elimination of violence against women. In 2007, it passed a law on “effective equality between men and women”, which says that all legislation must be interpreted in ways that help prevent discrimination against women.
In 2014, Spain joined the Istanbul convention of the Council of Europe, according to which violence against women is a serious violation of human rights and a form of discrimination. The convention says that a non-consensual sexual act amounts to a criminal offence.
There’s no doubt feminism has advanced considerably in Spain in my lifetime. On 8 March, a massive women’s strike in Spain made international headlines. This groundswell played no small role in the fact that Spain’s new centre-left government is two-thirds female, a welcome change and one that sets a record in Europe.
But our judicial system continues to be chauvinistic. It insists that a young woman must be able to provide proof that she was terrorised, or tried to resist, in the face of sexual aggression. If this had been a man surrounded by five other men in a doorway, he would have immediately handed over his wallet or mobile phone. And a Spanish court would have described that situation as robbery with intimidation. No proof of resistance would have been required, nor would the victim be suspected of having willingly put himself in that situation.


People power has expressed itself in many ways in Spain since the “15 M” (15 May) movement started in 2011. Crowds have occupied squares across the country, calling for greater guarantees for fundamental rights – the right to housing, to public education, health care and social services. To many, it had become clear that state institutions tasked with ensuring checks and balances would be applied to powerful groups had failed in their mission. Popular anger grew in the aftermath of multiple corruption scandals.
But somehow the “15 M” movement didn’t question the way our judicial system functions. One reason was that, at the start of the protests, judges upheld citizens’ rights. They overruled evictions and they fought back against abusive contracts customers had signed with banks. They also scrutinised the many consequences of labour reform.
As time passed, however, criminal high courts started demonstrating a distinct lack of independence from political power. They fell even further into disrepute when various political conflicts were dragged through the courts, particularly over Catalonia. Now, Spain’s justice system is increasingly being called out for its sexism.
What Spanish women have been protesting against isn’t just one case nor the behaviour of one group of men, but a system in which chauvinism is structural and institutional. Public trust in the judiciary needs to be rebuilt. Women are calling for equality and respect. Decades after our transition to democracy was achieved, Spain’s judicial system remains deeply tainted with patriarchy and traditionalist Catholic morality. The “wolf pack” case has shown there’s still much more we need to do to make women’s voices heard.
• Victoria Rosell is a judge and a feminist activist in Madrid
Topics

​Has Spain been squandering money on public works projects? A new study that looked at two decades of public investment would suggest so.
Just the high-speed railway system, known as the AVE, accounts for inappropriate allocations of public money in the range of €26.2 billion in the 1995-2016 period, according to a report called “Approximation to the geography of wasteful spending in Spain: assessment of the last two decades,” a joint project of the universities of Barcelona, Girona, Valencia, Cantabria, Tenerife, Seville, Málaga, Alicante and Madrid’s Complutense University.


The report, which was published by the Association of Spanish Geographers, estimates that between 1995 and 2016 government agencies spent more than €81 billion on “infrastructure that was unnecessary, abandoned, underutilized or poorly programmed.”
And this figure could surpass €97 billion in the near future, factoring in the amounts that have already been pledged.
The authors of the study said there are four main ways in which public money has been wasted: corruption, underutilized projects, useless projects, and inadequate priority-setting.
​
There are four main ways in which public money has been wasted: corruption, underutilized projects, useless projects, and inadequate priority-setting

The report says that between 1985 and 1995, Spanish authorities misspent the equivalent of 5% of gross domestic product (GDP). Then, during the economic boom of 1996 to 2007, this figure shot up to 20% of GDP. From the beginning of the economic crisis until now, it has come down to around 3%.
Of all the wasteful spending, over a third has gone into the AVE railway system for projects that did not produce the kind of social benefits expected of such investments. There were “too many multi-million-euro train stations, closed lines, stretches that were dropped halfway through construction, unnecessary lines, and cost overruns.”
“All of it was done without a proper cost/benefit analysis, and often on the basis of estimates of future users or earnings supported by a scenario of economic euphoria that was as evident as it was fleeting,” adds the report.
Researchers underscored the cost overruns on the AVE lines connecting Madrid, Barcelona and the French border (over €8.9 billion) and on the Pajares Tunnel (€3.5 billion).


fter high-speed rail, airports and seaports are other major recipients of excessive government funds (€9.5 billion). The report finds that “a mere look” at official data provided by AENA, the national airport operator, clearly shows that at least a third of its airports are unnecessary.
To this must be added all the airline facilities built by regional governments “following no criteria other than attracting votes; these facilities are now shut down, lacking passengers or with such reduced numbers of them that they will remain in the red for decades.” Castellón airport, in the Valencia region, is a case in point.
As for seaports, the biggest example of wasteful spending is in the port of A Coruña, in Galicia.
Desalination plants are a chapter unto themselves, representing more than €2.3 billion in cost overruns, inefficiencies or mismanagement in places such as Torrevieja, Alicante, Oropesa and Moncofar. And excessive spending on roads has reached €5.9 billion, according to the report. Of this amount, nearly €5 billion have gone into the nearly deserted “radial” roads outside Madrid, which had to be bailed out by the state.
Regional and local governments have also squandered away €34.6 billion on unnecessary education centers, hospitals, cultural and scientific facilities, parks and major events. The list of big spenders is headed by the regional governments of Catalonia (€9.1 billion), Madrid (€7.7 billion) and Valencia (€5.9 billion).
At the local level, the report mentions unnecessary projects such as tramway lines in Parla, Jaén and Vélez-Málaga; the City of the Environment in Soria, the City of Light in Alicante, the City of Justice in Madrid, the City of Arts and Sciences in Valencia, and the Alicante theme park Terra Mítica.
From El Pais in English 
RAMÓN MUÑOZ
Madrid 19 JUN 2018 - 12:32 CEST
elpais.com/elpais/2018/06/19/inenglish/1529399004_907742.html

Since taking office, Spain's new government led by Socialist party (PSOE) leader Pedro Sanchez has been receiving praise for its pro-EU stance and progressive policies.
On June 17, it decided to welcome the Aquarius rescue ship, which had been drifting in international waters for two days with more than 600 people on board after being rejected by Italy and Malta.
Not everyone in Spain, however, is content with the new government's performance. Basque and Catalan nationalists, who played a fundamental role in Sanchez's unexpected rise to power, have mixed feelings about the country's new leader and government.
Sanchez was sworn in as Spain's new prime minister on June 2, a day after a vote of no-confidence booted his conservative People's Party (PP) rival Mariano Rajoy from power. He is now presiding over a minority government, propped up by the leftist Podemos bloc and other parties, including Basque (PNV and EH Bildu) and Catalan (ERC and PdeCat) nationalists.
In other words, Sanchez is Spain's prime minister today only because he was able to gain the support of the aforementioned parties. He did this by promising to help with the Basque peace process and suspend the application of article 155 of the Constitution on Catalonia.
Article 155 was used by the central government to suspend the region's autonomy after it held an independence referendum in October 2017, which was deemed illegal by the Spanish courts.
On Sanchez' first day in office, a new cabinet was sworn in Catalonia, automatically ending just over seven months of direct rule from Madrid by Spain's central government. Moreover, on June 8, the cabinet announced that it is lifting direct financial controls imposed on Catalonia through Article 155.
However, the new prime minister did not give Catalan nationalists everything they wanted.
Ever since September 2015, Madrid had been keeping tabs on the Catalan government's use of funds from the Regional Liquidity Fund (FLA), to make sure that the money did not go to sponsor the independence drive in the region. As part of this arrangement, Catalan authorities were required to send Madrid monthly reports. Sanchez's government says it will continue to require the reports. In Catalonia, this is seen as a sign that Sanchez is not serious about normalisation.
The Catalan government is also still waiting for Sanchez to release "political prisoners" that were incarcerated following the region's controversial independence vote. Moreover, Catalans want the new prime minister to take steps to end the persecution of nationalist politicians that are still in exile, such as former Catalan President Carles Puigdemont, who is now in Germany.
So far, Sanchez did not make any moves to solve these issues. Jose Luis Abalos, organisation secretary of the PSOE, said the decision over political prisoners and those in exile concerns only the judiciary.
Just like the Catalans, Basque nationalists, who helped the new government win the confidence vote, are also not entirely convinced about Sanchez's commitment to normalisation and dialogue. Arnaldo Otegi, leader of the Basque political party EH Bildu, recently said he does not view the PSOE "as a real democratising option for the Spanish state".
Otegi brought up Sanchez and his party's support for both the full application of Article 155 on Catalonia and the penal code reform that allowed secessionists to be incarcerated, and said they will evaluate the PSOE on its future actions and will wait "to see what steps they take". 
Some appointments Sanchez made to his cabinet already alarmed Catalan and Basque nationalists and, for some, took away any remaining hope for real negotiations.
The new prime minister appointed Josep Borrell, former European Parliament president, as foreign minister. Borell has been accused of supporting GAL, an anti-Basque paramilitary group linked to the PSOE, which was active in the 1980s. He also made some very damaging statements about Catalan separatists over the years.
Another blow to Basque and Catalan separatists was the appointment of conservative judge Fernando Grande-Marlaska, who is known for his harsh verdicts against secessionists and reluctance to investigate allegations of torture against political activists, as interior minister. Grande-Marlaska was involved in six of the nine cases in which the European Court of Human Rights subsequently condemned the Spanish state for not investigating torture claims against detainees. 
Isabel Celaa, the new education minister, once defended the elimination of big companies' obligation to provide services in the Basque language.
The new defence and justice ministers are also considered problematic political figures by Basque and Catalan nationalists.  
Sanchez is currently between a rock and a hard place. He needs the support of Catalan and Basque nationalists in Parliament to stay in power, but he risks losing the support of Spanish voters if he takes steps towards normalisation.
By back-tracking on key issues regarding Catalan autonomy and making questionable cabinet appointments, he already alienated many Basques and Catalans. Moreover, the left-wing Podemos, another party that was key to Sanchez's rise to power, has expressed its reservations about the cabinet.  
In sum, despite the fanfare abroad, the Sanchez government is isolated and fragile. It has ministers and advisers seemingly chosen to please the right-wing opposition (PP and Ciudadanos) more than its left-wing and nationalist allies. The chances of a sincere, constructive dialogue between separatist forces and Madrid still looks as unlikely as ever.

​This poem was written by the Chilean poet Pablo Neruda in 1947, about his experience of the Spanish Civil War, an experience he said made him a communist for ever.
The English translation is below and under that a rewritten version about the experiences of those living in Grenfell Towers in London. The tower block, in the borough of Kensington and Chelsea, one of the richest boroughs in Britain, and indeed in Europe, caught fire on the night of  17 June 2017. The official death tollis 72, the highest peacetime loss of life in a fire in Britain. 

EXPLICO ALGUNAS COSAS
 
Preguntaréis: Y dónde están las lilas?
Y la metafísica cubierta de amapolas ?
Y la lluvia que a menudo golpeaba
sus palabras llenándolas
de agujeros y pájaros?
 
Os voy a contar todo lo que me pasa.
 
Yo vivía en un barrio
de Madrid, con campanas,
con relojes, con árboles.
 
Desde allí se veía
el rostro seco de Castilla
como un océano de cuero.
Mi casa era llamada
la casa de las flores, porque por todas partes
estallaban geranios: era
una bella casa
con perros y chiquillos.
Raúl, te acuerdas?
Te acuerdas, Rafael?
 Federico, te acuerdas
debajo de la tierra,            
te acuerdas de mi casa con balcones en donde
la luz de Junio ahogaba flores en tu boca?
Hermano, hermano!
Todo
eran grandes voces, sal de mercaderías,
aglomeraciones de pan palpitante,
mercados de mi barrio de Argüelles con su estatua
como un tintero pálido entre las merluzas:
el aceite llegaba a las cucharas,
un profundo latido
de pies y manos llenaba las calles,
metros, litros, esencia
aguda de la vida,
pescados hacinados,
contextura de techos con sol frío en el cual
la flecha se fatiga,
delirante marfil fino de las patatas,
tomates repetidos hasta el mar.
 
Y una mañana todo estaba ardiendo
Y una mañana las hogueras
salian de la tierra
devorando seres,
y desde entonces fuego,
pólvora desde entonces,
y desde entonces sangre.
Bandidos con aviones y con moros,
bandidos con sortijas y duquesas,
bandidos con frailes negros bendiciendo
venían por el cielo a matar niños,
y por las calles la sangre de los niños
corría simplemente, como sangre de niños.
 
Chacales que el chacal rechazaría,
piedras que el cardo seco mordería escupiendo,
víboras que las víboras odiaran!
 
Frente a vosotros he visto la sangre
de España levantarse
para ahogaros en una sola ola
de orgullo y de cuchillos!
 
Generales
traidores:
mirad mi casa muerta,
mirad España rota:
 
pero de cada casa muerta sale metal ardiendo
en vez de flores,
pero de cada hueco de España
sale España,
pero de cada niño muerto sale un fusil con ojos,
pero de cada crimen nacen balas
que os hallarán un dia el sitio
del corazón.
 
Preguntaréis por qué su poesía
no nos habla del sueño, de las hojas,
de los grandes volcanes de su país natal ?
 
Venid a ver la sangre por las calles.
venid a ver
la sangre por las calles,
venid a ver la sangre
por las calles!
© 1947, Pablo Neruda
From: Pablo Neruda Selected Poems: A Bilingual Edition
Publisher: Houghton Mifflin / Seymour Lawrence, Boston, 1970
 
I'M EXPLAINING A FEW THINGS
 
You are going to ask: and where are the lilacs?
and the poppy-petalled metaphysics ?
and the rain repeatedly spattering
its words and drilling them full
of apertures and birds?'
 
I’ll tell you all the news.

I lived in a suburb,
a suburb of Madrid, with bells,
and clocks and trees.
 
From there you could look out
Over Castille’s dry face:               
a leather ocean.    
                       My house was called
the house of flowers, because in every cranny
geraniums burst: it was
a good-looking house
with its dogs and children.
Remember, Raúl?
Eh, Rafael?
Federico, do you remember
from under the ground
where the light of June drowned flowers in your mouth?

Brother, my brother!
Everything
loud with big voices, the salt of merchandises,
pile-ups of palpitating bread,
the stalls of my suburb of Argüelles with its statue
Like a drained inkwell in a swirl of hake:
oil flowed into spoons,
a deep baying
of feet and hands swelled in the streets,
metres, litres, the sharp
measure of life,
stacked-up fish,
the texture of roofs with a cold sun in which
the weather vane falters,
the fine, frenzied ivory of potatoes,
wave on wave of tomatoes rolling down to the sea.
 
And one morning all that was burning,
one morning the bonfires
leapt out of the earth
devouring human beings -
and from then on fire,
gunpowder from then on,
and from then on blood.
Bandits with planes and Moors,
Bandits with finger-rings and duchesses,
Bandits with black friars spattering blessings
came through the sky to kill children
and the blood of children ran through the streets
without fuss, like children's blood.
 
Jackals that the jackals would despise,
stones that the dry thistle would bite on and spit out,
vipers that the vipers would abominate!
 
Face to face with you I have seen the blood
of Spain tower like a tide
to drown you in one wave
of pride and knives!
 
Treacherous
generals:
see my dead house,
look at broken Spain:
 
from every house burning metal flows
instead of flowers,
from every socket of Spain
Spain emerges
and from every dead child a rifle with eyes,
and from every crime bullets are bom
which will one day find
the bull's eye of your hearts.
 
And you will ask: why doesn’t his poetry
speak of dreams and leaves
and the great volcanoes of his native land?
 
Come and see the blood in the streets.
Come and see
the blood in the streets.
Come and see the blood
in the streets!
 © Translation: 1970, Nathaniel Tarn
From: Pablo Neruda Selected Poems: A Bilingual Edition
Publisher: Houghton Mifflin / Seymour Lawrence, Boston, 1970
 
 You will ask: and where are the lilacs?
And the world-changing new politics?
And the dreams unceasingly speaking words,
embellishing them with flowers and birds?
I’ll tell you everything that happened.
I lived in a neighbourhood,
a neighbourhood of London, with council estates,
and tower blocks and trees.
From there you could look out
across Kensington’s gardens,
like a sea of grass.
My tower was called
Grenfell Tower, because at its feet
green fields grew: it was
a good-looking tower
with its families and children.
Isaac, do you remember?
Remember, Jeremiah?
Mehdi, do you remember
(from beneath the ground)
do you remember my window where
the June sun drowned flowers in your mouth?
Brothers, O my brothers!
Everything
loud with children’s voices, the rumble of trains,
blocks of throbbing life,
homes of my ward of Notting Dale with the Westway
Winding like a snake through the grass.
Our prayers reached the sky,
a deep heartbeat
of feet and hands filled the streets,
pounds and pence, the sharp
measure of life,
stacked up flats,
the texture of metal in the cold sun
from which our homes were insulated –
aluminium and foam panels
bolted to our sides.
And one morning all that was burning,
one morning the flames
leaped out of the walls
devouring human beings,
and from then on fire,
burning metal from then on,
and from then on ashes.
Killers with clipboards and questionnaires,
murderers with laptops and masterplans,
assassins in suits speaking lies
came through the fire to kill children
and on the streets the ashes of children
fell softly, like the ashes of children.
Consultants who ignore those they consult,
councillors whose council the residents spat out,
contractors whose cladding killed those it clad!
Faced with you I have seen the smoke
of Grenfell rise like a tower
to devour you in one bonfire
of greed and pride!
Corrupt
bureaucrats:
see my dead home,
look at Grenfell Tower:
from every window burning metal springs
instead of flowers,
but from every ruin of London
London will rise,
and from every dead child a voice cries,
and from every crime justice is born
that will one day find the bull’s eye
of your hearts!
And you will ask: why does his poetry
not speak to us of dreams and flowers
and the gardens of this green city?
Come and see the ashes in the streets.
Come and see
The ashes in the streets.
Come and see the ashes
In the streets!
Simon Elmer
Architects for Social Housing

 architectsforsocialhousing.wordpress.com/2018/06/11/the-tower-rewriting-grenfell-ash-response-to-andrew-ohagan/
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

• This article by Luke Stobart and published in Jacobin online on 18 June is by far the best left analysis of the current stare of Spain. jacobinmag.com/2018/06/catalan-independence-pedro-sanchez-rajoy

Catalans helped Pedro Sánchez become president. How will he respond?
"It’s the best thing for me and for the Popular Party,
or to put in another way, it is the best for the Popular Party and for me,
and I think also for Spain
and the rest doesn’t matter."
With these typically bumbling words Mariano Rajoy said goodbye to his seven years of presidency after losing a no-confidence motion in Congress. After many depressing months in which the new Spanish right — Ciudadanos (C’s) — had helped push mainstream politics rightwards, a more interesting political phase has begun.
The Popular Party (PP) administration has been replaced by a fragile center-left Socialist Party (PSOE) government led by Pedro Sánchez. Under Rajoy, Spain took almost no refugees from the recent crisis — despite its commitments otherwise — something that led to big protests. The new administration has promised to take in hundreds abandoned by the new anti-immigrant Italian government, but otherwise there are plenty of reasons leftists are skeptical about its intentions.
The Popular Party (PP) administration has been replaced by a fragile center-left Socialist Party (PSOE) government led by Pedro Sánchez. Under Rajoy, Spain took almost no refugees from the recent crisis — despite its commitments otherwise — something that led to big protests. The new administration has promised to take in hundreds abandoned by the new anti-immigrant Italian government, but otherwise there are plenty of reasons leftists are skeptical about its intentions.
Under the PP premiership, the Spanish state has become a target of concern for international human-rights organizations and leads the world in imprisoning musicians and other artists. Low wages have been squeezed, employment made even more precarious, and welfare provision cut, making Spain the most unequal large state in the EU. Two issues were crucial in the Rajoy downfall. The direct catalyst was the confirmation of systematic corruption within his party. Corruption is a major problem that has persisted from the dark days of Franco and has brought down previous governments (including a long-running PSOE administration in the ‘90s). Under the Popular Party, it reached new extremes.
In a historic legal verdict weeks ago, the highest criminal court identified the PP as having run a “system of institutionalized corruption” — under the name Gürtel, finding that party chiefs had operated a system of kickbacks for construction and other contracts with a particular businessman for over seven years. Twenty-nine out of thirty-seven defendants in the case were given prison sentences — including party treasurer Luis Bárcenas, who was given thirty-three years. When the ex-treasurer went to testify, Rajoy texted him “Luis, be strong.” The unusually damning legal decision sparked the decision by Sánchez to table the motion in Congress that ended Rajoy’s nasty administration.
Gürtel was not the only PP scandal. Indeed no less than twelve out of fourteen of the ministers under Rajoy’s predecessor, José-María Aznar, have been imprisoned, charged or involved in corruption cases. And, most comically, the party’s regional president in Madrid resigned after it emerged she had faked her university masters, and a video was leaked of her stealing face cream from a retail store! Writersassociated with the Instituto de la Democracia y el Municipalismomaintain that the putrefaction in the PP has come to surface due to people’s outrage towards the political class since the 2011 mass square occupations; but also due to score-settling within an increasingly divided Spanish right over political strategy and access to power.
The other, less commented on, issue that sealed Rajoy’s fate was Catalonia. Many observers have talked about how the new Sánchez administration may try and pacify the conflict that exploded over the October 1 referendum, but much less has been said about how the dispute itself contributed to overthrowing Rajoy. This is despite the perceptive pro-Spanish Catalan journalist Lola García observing that “half of Spain” is “asking whether Sánchez has proposed something unspeakable to the secessionists” in order to guarantee their decisive votes to oust Rajoy. In order to understand the relationship between the Catalan struggle and the social-democratic victory (and therefore what could happen under Sánchez) it is necessary to chart how the Catalan movement has developed over the last year.


Catalonia’s Hot AutumnIn October, Madrid suspended Catalan self-government after a pro-independence parliament declared independence — itself in response to the repression against a referendum it had been forced to call unilaterally. Catalan leaders were imprisoned or driven into exile, leading Rajoy’s deputy Soraya Sáenz de Santamaría to boast that they had “decapitated” the movement. After pro-independence parties won the December “regional” elections imposed by Madrid, the state blocked Carles Puigdemont from returning from exile to be Catalan president. Furthermore, it blocked the reappointment of Catalan ministers for helping hold the referendum. Meanwhile the courts began persecuting the grassroots committees (CDRs) set up to defend the process.
Though Sánchez made semi-critical remarks about the police violence, the leader backed all of the subsequent authoritarian measures against the Catalan movement and even recently aired his view that the law should be tightened against those unilaterally attempting independence.
The Catalan movement showed in strength on October 1 — managing successfully (due to the actions of the CDRs) to keep most of the polling stations open despite state attacks. It flexed its muscle again during the general strike two days later. Yet, since then, it has suffered defeats. One of the state’s few successes on the day of the vote was to diminish turnout (by scaring off voters and confiscating ballot boxes in some areas). A tactical mistake by the Catalan government (Generalitat) was not to instruct its own police force — the Mossos — to disobey legal orders or encourage supporters to obstruct the Mossos from entering stations. The force was divided that day and generally played no role in the violence, but in some areas their soft approach allowed ballots to be taken. Consequently the size of the “yes” votes collected did not confirm to everyone that the Generalitat had a democratic mandate to push through independence — even though a convincing calculation suggested that a majority had voted in favor of a new state.
This led to difficulties when the Catalan government moved to declare independence: first, a significant layer of Catalans that had mobilized for the referendum and against police violence peeled away from active protest, unsure of the movement’s democratic case. Second, for the first time since the Catalan “sovereignty process” began, “pro-unionist” forces managed to mobilize considerable numbers of pro-Spanish Catalans in street protests.


Utopian IdealismPro-independence leaders then wobbled over declaring independence. Since 2015, a strategy of “disconnection” had been favored. At its most idealistic, it involved the notion that the Catalan Republic could come about simply by people believing that they were already living in one and creating its institutional structures to supersede the Spanish state. The idea’s biggest strength was that it was adopted (to varying degrees) by at least around a million people that have been demonstrating for independence for half a decade.
Unfortunately the hypothesis was based on mistaken presumptions. One was that Madrid wouldn’t risk using violence against a peaceful movement — something that even left-wing Candidatura d’Unitat Popular (CUP) MPs were arguing in early September. Both the pro-Catalan organizations and progressive parties opposed to independence underestimated how much both the modern Spanish right and state apparatus are still shaped by their Francoist origins.
Key pro-independence insiders — including the deputy leader of the large Republican Left of Catalonia (ERC) party — say that people at the top of the state apparatus warned them there would be “deaths” if the Generalitat were to continue implementing the Republic. These claims were met with outrage in mainstream Spanish political and media circles. But many Catalans believe them. After all, under “democracy,” the Spanish state funded death squads in the Basque country, and in recent years ten people linked to the Gürtel case have died.
Despite the “rule of law” being used as a central instrument against the unilateral referendum, the law was often broken to stop independence (using banned rubber bullets on October 1; robberies of computers and papers of Catalan ministers, director generals, and councilors). In the early autumn, those who had hoped for peaceful departure woke to the reality of the situation.
Of course, few thought there would be no conflict at all but the pro-sovereignty government and movement leaders assumed that if events escalated in any way, the European Union would intervene to broker a deal. Instead, the EU supported Rajoy and the Spanish legal system’s authoritarianism. Publicly, such a view didn’t change even when many European citizens became outraged by the repression. The utopian idea that disputes in democratic systems (Spain and Europe) would be resolved through dialogue and negotiation led to a political strategy revolving around well-orchestrated street and institutional protests aimed at getting across political messages to the outside world. But the harsh situation — beginning with the arrests of Catalan officials on September 20 — led the movement to develop in a more grassroots and militant direction, culminating in a October 3 general strike.
Then two new difficulties emerged for the pro-independence block. First, Barcelona mayor Ada Colau and other leaders of the left-wing “Commons” warned the Puigdemont executive that divisions were emerging in Catalan cities with large Spanish-speaking populations which could turn into conflict if independence were announced. The media put forward a simpler prognosis, and the first big Spanish nationalist protests, in which far-right supporters carried out assaults on passers by, seemed to confirm this view. Actually, the atmosphere in those same cities was much calmer, with residents against independence tending to show apathy rather than hostility towards it.
A bigger problem was that large corporations began wielding their economic power against independence by intensifying their lobbying of Puigdemont’s center-right PDeCAT and by relocating their headquarters (a thousand firms) outside Catalonia. Up to that point, the struggle seemed on the surface to take place on a nonmaterial “political” terrain. Now, the Catalan conflict was revealing itself to be a form of class struggle.
On the one side were much of the middle classes and increasing numbers of workers; on the other, the large bourgeoisie and the state. Fear that capital flight would reactivate the crisis started weighing on many independence supporters, and the threat of the sovereignty struggle articulating itself more clearly along class lines was not in the interests of the pro-Catalan right. The latter group was scared by the October strike, as well as the Spanish and European establishment.
Puigdemont and his party claimed that delaying the declaration was required because important global actors were attempting bringing about negotiation. But someone was lying, and later Puigdemont would say that this delay was his biggest regret. The Catalan Republic was eventually pronounced after a parliamentary vote on the October 27 — and only after a revolt by students and MPs forced Puigdemont and his team to overcome their anxieties. The declaration was not included in the Catalan statue book and Spanish flags were not taken down from public buildings.
For journalist Vicent Partal, if the declaration had been made at the beginning of October when the streets were “occupied by an outraged multitude,” Europeans were in “a state of shock,” and Belgium and Slovenia were lobbying European counterparts in favor of Catalonia, the outcome might have been different.
But the pro-Catalan political leadership then deserted the battlefield. When the state suspended Catalan “autonomy,” no call was made for public sector workers to resist their new bosses, including the many organized in workplace defense committees. Nor did the street movement receive guidance to act to prevent arrests. In effect, the main resistance at the top was Puigdemont and several ministers fleeing into exile, where they have had considerable success in Europeanizing the conflict (particularly after the arrest of Puigdemont in Germany). But this was no substitute for the lack of fight where it mattered most — in Catalonia.
Puigdemont and supporters did spend months insisting on his return as president — despite arrests continuing. But his agreed substitute — the unimpressive nationalist Quim Torra — has made it clear in words and deeds that he too wants to limit opposition to the Spanish state to the symbolic (displaying yellow laces in solidarity with political prisoners, creating a nonbinding Constituent Process). Much of the movement has not known how to respond to this shift. When Torra chose not to appoint ministers the courts would oppose, the only notable criticisms towards this came from the CUP and one pro-sovereignty movement leader. This is despite the Spanish state effectively policing who runs the Catalan institutions (and therefore with what policies).
In exchange for complying with the state, the Generalitat has regained some of the regional autonomy it lost when Rajoy applied the infamous constitutional article (155) that allows central government intervention in “outlaw” territories. But even under Sánchez, Madrid has not returned control of the Generalitat’s finances. And, most importantly, the Catalan leadership has abandoned any real fight for a republic, accepting less than the status quo before the independence drive began.
The Catalan movement is not dead and buried — as shown by the enormous protest for the release of prisoners in April and direct action by CDRs such as lifting private toll barriers on motorways. But it has to transform in order to survive. A pro-independence movement subordinated to parties limiting their aim to preserving regional autonomy makes no sense. And neither does any tactical alliance between the pro-Catalanist left and right, which the CUP has begun to acknowledge. The question now is whether the left of the movement that fought and won holding the referendum in October can now forge a new strategic direction for that same movement, and one that can bring in popular forces that have yet to join the battle.


Is Détente Possible Now?Having looked at the development of the Catalan movement (and particularly the turn away from any real fight by the two main pro-Catalan parties) it is easier to comprehend the dynamics behind Rajoy’s sudden end. First, partly due to the failure by the Spanish (and Catalan) left to explain the Catalan struggle and its progressive aspects to non-Catalans, the main Spanish benefactor of the crisis in Catalonia has been Ciudadanos. The party is leading the Spanish polls for the first time, and even if these are likely to have exaggerated its support (as has happened in the past), it should be remembered that C’s came first in the December elections in Catalonia — a major breakthrough.
The party is an odd mix of fresh-faced extreme centrism a la Macrón, phony anti-establishment populism a la Trump, and hard nationalism increasingly a la Le Pen. It has a clear program to recentralize the Spanish state (opposing the lifting of Article 155, and planning both to reimpose teaching in Spanish in Catalan schools and remove the Basque Country’s tax-raising powers).
After the Gürtel verdict, keeping the PP in office was no longer justifiable for any of the significant parties in Congress — including Ciudadanos (which had given parliamentary support for the PP to form a government). But any move sparking early elections would likely bring about some variant of hard-centralist government (possibly led by C’s) that would keep enflaming the Catalan conflict.
Both Catalan and Basque nationalists were fearful of such a scenario and thus chose to back Sánchez in ousting Rajoy. The Basque PNV party did this despite having kept Rajoy afloat just weeks before by backing his budget. Podemos and its allies also were fearful of the continued entrenchment of a conflict from which they do not benefit electorally. It seems the Podemos leadership played a key role in bringing together the PSOE, which supported applying Article 155 and the Catalan parties that have been victims of it.
Podemos also gains from having its main competitor in a minority government: if the PSOE fails to bring about change, Podemos can hope to take votes from it later; if the PSOE does progressive policies, Podemos hopes it will be easy to form a left-coalition government after new elections. This is one reason why the party attempted to get a similar no-confidence motion passed a year ago.
Other forces have likely aided bringing about the cooperation between the PSOE and the parties that supported its motion. EU leaders have reacted positively to the change in Spain and it is probable that they believe Sánchez to be more capable of pacifying Catalonia. Requests by Spanish Supreme Court judges have on several occasions been rejected by European courts — such as when a German court ruled that Puigdemont had not promoted a violent rising against the state and could not be extradited for such. This was a rejection of the main basis for the state’s authoritarian behavior.
Of course, the European Union opposes any secessionism in a member state that might encourage other national movements or add to existing economic and political instabilities. But it is not interested in the continuation of a conflict that has already undermined the EU’s own democratic legitimacy and has the potential to evolve into a radical challenge to the status quo.
Big business has also been encouraging a new direction. The president of the giant Santander Bank has called for “rebuilding bridges” between Barcelona and Madrid, and for Spain to “make all Catalans attracted to Spain again.” Meanwhile a Barcelona-based business lobby has proposed that Madrid should end the conflict by offering the Catalan government greater fiscal and other powers. The initiative was praised by Catalan president Torra, which will have sent the message to Sánchez that the Generalitat is open to a deal that falls short of a legal referendum.
The signs are that the new government in Madrid will use both carrot and stick. Sánchez has included right-wingers and hard unionists in its government, such as the new interior minister who as a judge twice jailed Arnaldo Otegi — the pro-independence politician most responsible for bringing about peace in the Basque country. The new foreign minister is a unionist who called for “disinfecting” Catalonia on a platform alongside hard-rightists in Barcelona. Such appointments have been welcomed by conservative commentators and politicians and suggest that the new government will be willing to use despotic methods. It is telling that the new administration has not handed back control of Catalan public finances to the Generalitat. And only a week before being sworn in, Sánchez dubbed the new Catalan president a “racist” who is “worse” than Marine Le Pen.
But since the motion of no-confidence was tabled Sánchez has seemingly done a 180º turn, also talking of “building bridges” with the pro-independence Generalitat. His appointee for minister of territorial policy is a Catalan federalist who immediately promised an “urgent” reform of the Spanish constitution. Sánchez has ruled out giving Catalans self-determination but says he will study forty-five demands previously made by Puigdemont to Rajoy. It is difficult not to see this strategy as interesting the pro-Catalan liberals who need to justify abandoning creating the Catalan Republic. Perhaps that is why the powerful right wing of the PSOE has publicly warned their leader about “concessions” being made to “nationalists.” However, if Sánchez offered the Catalan government economic and political territorial reforms, he would be supported by Basque Nationalists, European leaders, and possibly Podemos and its allies. Most importantly, the retreating pro-Catalan movement may be willing to accept this.
There are many question marks as to whether this strategy will be possible. The Spanish right will now form a strong opposition, in which its two components will compete to be the biggest adversaries of giving “rewards” to “criminals.” Bridges could be blown up by the judges who will be presiding over major trials in the autumn. The last PSOE president — Zapatero — did a U-turn over allowing a new Catalan statute giving the territory more powers and national status after encountering massive establishment resistance. It is difficult to think why Sánchez would not face the same.
But, most crucially, the uprising that began in Catalonia in October was not about gaining greater fiscal powers or being recognized as a “nation.” Those that faced police batons did so for the right to decide which state they live in. It might take a while, but my bet is on a powerful movement returning — probably in a new form and based on different alliances.

I think it difficult to understand what is happening in Spain today without knowing the history of the second republic (1931-1939).
But the goal of Franco was to eliminate all memory of the time, a time of some historic changes and a time in which Catalunya played a key role.
Franco was succesful in this aim and the idea of "Spain of the Catholic Kings" became the only story.
It was not until the PSOE government headed by José Luis Rodríguez Zapatero, from 2004 - 2011 that the atmosphere in Spain changed sufficiently to some allow discussion of the Republic, the Civil War and the dictaorship which followed.
Since the election of the PP government, with Mariano Rajoy at its head in 2011 however it has been more difficult to investigate the past. Although thta has not stopped some determined campaigners from fighting in the courts over many years to exhume the bodies of their family members. 
But for learning to understand Spain a little only happened after I researched the history of the Second Spanish Republic. 
The following article from Open Democracy gives what I consider a fair account to begin with. 
By CSILLA KISS 14 April 2011

The values of the Spanish Republic - freedom, progress and solidarity - are also the values of today’s Europe. Eighty years on, it is fitting to remember the legacy of the Spanish Civil War and its aftermath.The passions stirred by the commemoration and official memorialisation of the Spanish Civil War even today are a reminder of the enduring principle of solidarity


The Second Spanish Republic was proclaimed eighty years ago, on 14 April, 1931, after the monarchy’s supporters lost the elections against the republicans. The Spanish population greeted the proclamation of the republic with serious hopes: not only the lower classes, who expected an improvement in their lives, but also the bourgeoisie. All expected that the Republic would lead Spain into the 20th century, since the Spanish Republic was first and foremost an attempt at modernisation. It extended political and civil rights to those hitherto deprived of them, which meant the increasing of the rights of the working classes, the introduction of public education, and the emancipation of women. 
Unfortunately, the Republic had only a short time to carry out these tasks. As is well known, only five years later, in1936, the military rebellion of General Franco pushed Spain into a three-year long bloody civil war, after their coup d’état and hopes for a quick grab of power were foiled. Their victory in 1939 resulted in Franco’s thirty-six-year long dictatorship. The legacy of these tumultuous years is evident today.
The Second Spanish Republic was not born under a friendly star: its international environment was shaped by the 1929 economic crisis and its consequences, as well as by the European advance of the extreme right. Domestically the government, composed mainly of liberal and centre-left parties came into conflict with the most powerful groups of Spanish society. Confrontation was inevitable with three such groups, which were also the strongest supporters of the monarchy: the big landowners, the Catholic Church and the army. The secular policy of the Republic, based on the separation of church and state, the introduction of laic education, of civil marriage and divorce, deprived the church of its privileges in social organisation, education and culture. Moreover, while these groups, together with the monarchists and the newly formed extreme right parties such as the Falange, constituted the Republic’s right-wing opponents, the government also had to contend with those left-wing republicans which demanded more radical reforms: the various workers’ parties, trade unions, especially the anarchists which were particularly strong in Spain, the socialists, and the not yet very numerous communists. However, the government was able to handle – or as the participants called it, ‘brutally repress’ – these groups or their actions.
The general impression that the Spanish Republic was primarily a left-wing system is not far from reality, if we consider that its supporters belonged to the political centre or centre-left and the radical left also supported this form of government. On 14 April, 1931, for the first time oligarchy was replaced with the moderate centre-left. The winner of the elections in February 1936, the Popular Front, was also based on a wide coalition of centre-left and left-wing political parties and trade unions. This coalition was formed because the right-wing government that came to power in 1934 started to reverse the previous reforms, and those supporting the reforms concluded that they could only win together. Such a coalition was obviously inspired by the French example (Léon Blum’s government) as well as by fear of the advance of fascism, but it also shows that during its short life the Spanish Republic functioned as a democratic parliamentary system based on competitive elections and political alliances. And while the Popular Front government enjoyed the support of numerous workers’ parties and trade unions, at this time there was no workers’ party in the government. This blatantly belies the rebels’ propaganda that their coup d’état attempt intended to prevent a revolution and a communist takeover. In fact, it was the coup d’état itself, the following chaos and the temporary collapse of the government that facilitated the momentary success of revolutionary movements (the formation of a kind of “dual power”) as well as the strengthening of the Communist party.
Military coups and dictators appointed by kings had a tradition in Spain, and Franco and his supporters hoped for a similarly quick takeover when they rebelled on 16 July, 1936. This time, however, they faced the opposition of a part of the army and of the guardia civil, as well as the unorganized, but determined, resistance of the population, especially of the organized workers. The coup attempt thus turned into a long and bloody civil war, and what started as a Spanish affair soon acquired international dimensions.
Eighty years later, it is still imperative to mention the shameful behaviour of western democracies during the Spanish Civil War which, under the veil of “non-intervention”, refused all assistance to the republican government that any legitimate government has a right to claim, including the transfer of weapons bought by the government.  At the same time, they turned a blind eye to the material and military support offered to Franco and his rebels by Germany and Italy. Only the USSR supported the Spanish Republic, extracting a high price for its help.
Yet in marked contrast with the conduct of their governments, thousands of volunteers flooded Spain from numerous countries to help the Republic’s fight in the International Brigades. Their role was not simply symbolic, limited to the expression of solidarity, but a real and tangible military contribution.  This is evident in the three-year long resistance of Madrid, as well as the last desperate republican counter-attack at the Ebro river. Despite all this, the People’s Army, the workers’ militias and the International Brigades could only postpone, but not avoid defeat. On 1 April, 1939 Franco announced his victory and started his thirty-six-year long rule. 
Vengeance against republicans was cruel and brutal.  Everyone who supported the Republic, or whose sympathy for the republican cause could be assumed based on social status was made a target. Those who managed to cross into France did not generally fare much better: the anonymous refugees, the rank and file soldiers of the People’s Army and of antifascist parties were herded into concentration camps in the south. Later many of them participated in the French resistance, and if captured, ended up in German concentration camps. In vain they hoped that following Germany’s defeat the Allies would also rid Spain of Franco: the western powers did not desire another armed conflict with a non-belligerent party, and as the Cold War developed, in exchange for Franco’s anti-communist stance and his willingness to accommodate American military bases on Spanish territory the United States was ready to ignore the dictatorial nature of his rule.
Even if the international community behaved shamefully during the war, and pretended not to notice what was going on in Spain under Franco’s rule the memory of the Republic and the civil war did not fade amongst artists and intellectuals. For many the Spanish Republic’s fight against fascism signified the ‘last great cause’, as demonstrated by a great number of masterpieces, of which Picasso’s Guernica, Miro’s paintings and Hemingway’s writings are only the best known examples.
But while the civil war became the lyrical conscience of the European left, it was not only Franco’s official Spain dominated by the narrative of a ‘glorious crusade’, but the democratic transition that followed the dictator’s death and is still regarded as an exemplary route to democracy, that was also based on the ‘pact of forgetting’. Legally it took shape in the amnesty law, while socially it was expressed through the silence surrounding the civil war, the repression and the atrocities of the dictatorship.
Republican memory was liberated and officially sanctioned only at the 70th anniversary of the war. José Luis Rodriguez Zapatero’s socialist government, which came to power in 2004, played a significant role in carving out the historical memory of the Second Republic, its supporters and their heritage. It is expressed in the law quoted at the start of this piece, or in the strongly debated legislation about historical memory (Ley de la Memoria Histórica), which ordered the removal of Francoist memorials and monuments, and assists the identification and reburial of republican dead, the honouring of their memory. Yet the difficulties faced by social movements organised to discover and open mass graves and honour the memory of the victims, or the complications surrounding Judge Baltasar Garzón who took up and assisted their cause, testify to the passions stirred by the war even today. While the conflicts created by the law demonstrate that the memory of the civil war and dictatorship can still divide Spanish society, the reforms implemented during the transition and in the recent past follow the best traditions of the Republic, this time hopefully permanently.
In the light of all this the sometimes tense relations between Spain and the Vatican is unsurprising and was not eased by the beatification of priests killed by republicans in the war. This gives the impression that the Spanish Catholic church, which has not yet apologized for supporting Franco’s rebellion and dictatorship, would prefer to continue to solely remember the victims on Franco’s side, forgetting the bloody crimes committed by Franco and his supporters against republicans, not only during the war, but also in the repression that followed. All this happened with the enthusiastic assistance of the church, while the Republican victims could not even be commemorated. The need to remove Francoist memorials is also a sensitive issue for the church, as commemorative plaques are visible on numerous church walls, listing the names of those who fell “for God and Spain” - that is, in the fight against the Republic.
At the same time, the values of the Spanish Republic are also the values of today’s Europe. In the 2006 book L’homme européen Jorge Semprun draws attention to the constitution of the Second Republic as a potential inspiration for Europe, and, we might add, to any contemporary state committed to freedom, progress and solidarity.  Eighty years on, it is fitting to remember this legacy of the Spanish Civil War and its aftermath.

​
​Across Spain today, tens of thousands of people are buried in unmarked mass graves, many dumped in roadside ditches after being stripped and executed. Victims of the country’s vicious civil war, they were uncounted and ignored by officials for decades as part of the “Pact of Forgetting,” official policy agreed upon in 1977 after the death of General Francisco Franco as a way to focus on Spain’s future.Forty years on, though, the urge to remember is stronger than ever. “The Silence of Others,” a film made by Spanish director Almudena Carracedo and her husband and filmmaking partner Robert Bahar, explores how people wronged long ago are fighting for recognition and justice today. The film, which follows several Spaniards trying to uncover the fate of their loved ones or expose their tormentors, will have its New York premiere at the Human Rights Watch film festival on June 19 and 20. 
The idea for the movie emerged in 2010 as Carracedo and Bahar finished their last film, “Made in LA,” about Latina immigrants working in LA sweatshops. “I realized there was this other fight for dignity and justice going on in my own country,” Carracedo says. “It really hurt me as unfinished business that my generation needs to deal with.”
hey spent six years filming and 18 months editing 450 hours of footage into this moving and clear-eyed look at why there is no peace in silence. ​
Central to the transition from dictatorship to democracy in Spain was this notion of moving forward by forgetting the past, agreed to by leaders of the main parties. These included Franco’s Popular Party and the (newly legalized) Socialist Worker’s Party of Spain. Although Franco’s victorious forces committed the vast majority of these atrocities, during the war and throughout the 40-year dictatorship, the Republicans were also responsible for serious crimes during the war. Both sides agreed to a wide-ranging amnesty law that prevented prosecutions and even investigation of crimes against humanity. 
“For many years, we only wanted to erase from our heads all that time of bitterness and repression,” says Felisa Echegoyen, a woman featured in the film. “Perhaps we all collaborated in that silence.” But, “people don’t forget so easily. Even if they want to. It’s not easy.” 
For decades, the victims suffered silently, until a small group started to demand answers, including the exhumation of their murdered relatives.  “A country is judged on how they treat their dead,” Carracedo says, quoting the leader of Spain’s newish center-right party Ciudadanos. “This is not an issue we can keep hiding – at least 100,000 people are still buried by the side of the road in unmarked mass graves – and this is a Western democracy!”


In the film, we meet the elderly children hoping to bury a long-lost parent, men and women who were horribly tortured, and the lawyers trying to force Spain to confront its ghosts. 
“One thing that makes me particularly angry is when people say, ‘No, you’re just motivated by revenge’,” says Chato Galante, who describes how he survived being tortured. “You can only think I’m looking for revenge if you think that looking for justice is looking for revenge.”
“We’re asking for justice and truth. It’s all we have left,” says Maria Bueno, whose child was stolen from her presumably to be passed to another family. “Of course I forgive you,” says Horacio Sainz, another character in the film, “You, the physical person who did something horrible because you were serving a regime that tortured me. But I demand justice.”
As a lawyer in the film notes, the state’s role is not to forgive crimes, but to investigate them: “Forgiveness is an individual matter.”
“I love that quote,” Carracedo says. “Forgiveness is often used as blackmail: you don’t forget therefore you’re not a good person, you’re not trying to create reconciliation.” But as one victim points out, the state has never apologized or asked for forgiveness.
 As a child of the transition – her parents were both active in the fight for democracy – Carracedo grew up politically engaged but her concerns were for human rights issues far from home. Like every Spanish family, she has relatives on both sides of the war. “It was not something to discuss in big family meetings if you wanted to get along,” Carracedo says. “Now my generation is old enough that we can discuss among the cousins without any bitterness. The rhetoric of ‘let’s not discuss’ is something we have learned and now we need to break it.” 
Carracedo and Bahar are showing the film abroad to build international prestige and pressure before screening it in Spain, to promote a cultural change that will acknowledge injustice and seek to repair the damage so that victims can die in peace. 
“We want to use the film to catalyze these conversations and to bring about real change. We want to help people sit down with these victims for 90 minutes and start a different kind of conversation,” Carracedo says. “We’ve learnt since we were very little ‘come on, don’t open those wounds.’ But after seeing the film, how can I tell this woman she doesn’t have the right to find her mother and bury her in a cemetery?”
Watch the trailer for Silence of Others here: 
https://vimeo.com/267787396