Spain's top court orders Franco family to hand back Romanesque statues
The statues were once part of the 12th-century "Door of Glory", a portico marking the entrance to Santiago's cathedral, which is widely considered a masterpiece of mediaeval art and which is where the famed pilgrim Camino (Way) ends.
The works were removed during restoration works on the cathedral's facade and purchased by the city in 1948.
Franco's wife, Carmen Polo, expressed interest in them during a 1952 visit to the city, after which they were sent to the Meiras palace - the dictator's summer residence.
"Motivated by a desire to please the wife of the head of state", Santiago's then-mayor facilitated their transfer to Meiras, the ruling said.
The court decided that despite Franco's family possessing the statues for a long time, they still belonged to the city of Santiago.
Franco's descendants argued that the purchase by the city was never completed and claimed the statues were acquired through an antiquarian, citing an oral account passed down within the family.
Francis Franco, the dictator's grandson, did not reply to a request for comment when contacted by Reuters.
Franco rose to power through a military coup against the Republican government in July 1936 and ruled the country for almost 40 years, until his death in 1975. Fifty years later, his legacy still divides Spanish society.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Independent
2 hours ago
- The Independent
Biden laments over Trump's handling of the presidency in speech: ‘These are dark days'
Former President Joe Biden blasted his predecessor and successor in the Oval Office, President Donald Trump, in a speech at the National Bar Association's Centennial Convention in Chicago on Thursday night. Biden said he was 'proud I've appointed judges doing their best to be independent, fair, and impartial, respecting the rule of law, upholding the Constitution. I wish I could say the same for the executive branch.' The 82-year-old said Trump was 'doing his best to dismantle the Constitution.' Saying that he was 'deadly earnest,' Biden lamented that Congress was 'just sitting on the sidelines' and that the Supreme Court was enabling the president's worst impulses. 'The rulings they made, my God,' said Biden. The former president said, 'There are moments …that forced us to confront hard truths about ourselves, our institutions, and democracy itself. We are, in my view, at such a moment in American history, reflected in every cruel executive outreach, every rollback of basic freedoms, every erosion of long-standing established precedent.' 'Watching immigrants who are in this country legally, torn from the arms of their family, dragged away in handcuffs, the only home they've ever known,' said Biden. 'My friends, we need to face the hard truths of this administration.' He argued the Trump administration's goals have been to 'erase all the gains' from his own time in the White House, and 'to erase history rather than make it, to erase fairness, equality, to erase justice itself. And that's not hyperbole, that's a fact.' 'Look, folks, you can't sugarcoat this. These are dark days, but you're all here for the same reason. I left that prestigious law firm … to go to the defender's office years ago, it's because our future is literally on the line,' he added. Biden accepted an award from the association following his 22-minute speech, in which he criticized the president without mentioning him by name. The former president was awarded the association's highest honor, named after its founder, C. Frances Stratford. The National Bar Association is the country's oldest and largest national association of mostly African American attorneys, judges, law professors, and students. Biden's speech targeting the president came as a group of federal judges has asked U.S. political leaders to tone down their rhetoric and ease their attacks on members of the judicial system after a spike in intimidation and death threats. The group Speak Up for Justice hosted a forum on Thursday where a number of judges spoke of their experiences of receiving hatred and harassment. While Trump was not named, Esther Salas, a District Court judge in New Jersey, said attacks came from the 'top down.' 'The fix check is so easy in some ways, right, because what we need is our political leaders from the top down to stop fanning these flames, to stop using irresponsible rhetoric, to stop referring to judges as corrupt and biased and monsters that hate America. We need our leaders to lead responsibly,' said Salas Thursday. 'Stop demonizing us, stop villainizing us, because what they're doing when they do that irresponsible rhetoric is they are inviting people to do us harm… because our leaders are calling us idiots and deranged, and monsters,' she added.
Reuters
12 hours ago
- Reuters
Panama communities challenge canal expansion project in Supreme Court
PANAMA CITY, July 31 (Reuters) - Communities in Panama affected by a $1.6 billion project by the Panama Canal to build a massive new water reservoir on Thursday introduced a lawsuit before the Supreme Court asking it to the declare the project unconstitutional, a coordinator group representing farmers said.
The Guardian
18 hours ago
- The Guardian
The fight for trans safety is a fight for everyone's safety – MPs must have the chance to debate it
The supreme court judgment on the application of the 2010 Equality Act has rendered the UK's system of legal gender recognition entirely hollow. It has ruled that men like me who have gender recognition certificates are defined as women in equality law, which applies to organisations ranging from workplaces to public services and sporting bodies. Vice versa for trans women. For context, the Gender Recognition Act 2004 was passed after the European court of human rights ruled that the 'intermediate zone', between two sexes, in which trans people were then forced to exist was – and, crucially, remains – unlawful. Under the Gender Recognition Act, I am male 'for all purposes', but the supreme court decided this is not the case under the Equality Act. In effect, it is not the case in public. Having run what human rights organisations criticised as an unusually short six-week public consultation, the Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) will soon update its code of practice about how this legal interpretation of the Equality Act will be applied. This will then go to parliament to be approved by ministers, as things stand, with no opportunity for debate. Far from clarity, experts argue that the supreme court ruling has created legal uncertainty and contradiction and that the EHRC's response has been highly questionable. Rather than despair, as understandable as that would be, many trans people live in hope that their MPs are fair, ethical people, who have simply not had the opportunity to fully understand any of this. Which is why, late last month, roughly 900 people travelled from as far as Scotland and Cornwall to queue outside parliament in punishing heat to meet them in person. Many of those people were trans. Others were their loved ones, colleagues and allies. Westminster Hall and the lobby grew so busy that many never got inside. Those who hadn't managed to pre-book a meeting with their MP queued again in the hubbub to 'green card' their representative, an arcane system whereby a constituent requests their presence via a slip of green paper. Organisers were surprised by how many MPs spoke to, perhaps for the first time, someone who happened to be trans. Trans Solidarity Alliance's director, Jude Guaitamacchi, described the conversations in stark terms: 'It's 'Look me in the eye and tell me you're willing to destroy my life'.' This is known as a mass lobby, a direct and old-fashioned tactic for getting MPs' attention. What choice do trans people have at this point? Over the past 10 years, their rights have been chipped away in Britain, their lives made increasingly difficult by anti-trans lobbyists with more influential connections and far more money. Systemic transphobia has captured our public institutions with terrifying speed. For its part, the supreme court refused to hear any interventions from trans people before deciding on its recent, devastating ruling. Things were so different in 2016. When North Carolina passed a shocking 'bathroom bill' banning trans people from using the correct bathroom, the Labour MP Ruth Cadbury told the Commons that 'a bathroom bill would never be passed here in the UK'. In the same debate, the Conservative MP Caroline Dinenage welcomed a new NHS policy prescribing cross-sex hormones to young gender-variant people, acknowledging this was 'consistent with international guidelines', a description that, were it not for well-documented lobbying, would hold today. Maria Miller, a former Conservative MP, cited fairer treatment of trans prisoners as progress 'on which Britain leads the way'. Concluding, she said: 'Better protecting trans people does not mean diminishing the protections in place for women. It is not a zero-sum game and we should not allow those who attempt to paint it as such, and who try to undermine the position and legitimate rights of trans people, to succeed.' What on earth has happened? Today, any MP who dared say that protecting trans people and protecting women go hand in hand would incur the wrath of politicians and commentators from the right to the centre left. Perhaps current Labour ministers privately justify the state's capitulation to the anti-trans lobby as political expediency. Perhaps they did the same when branding many peaceful protesters against genocide as terrorists. This government is making decision after decision that betrays its own principles and those of its actual voters, who will not be fooled again. It's cold comfort that trans people are not alone in being thrown under the bus by a PM who promised an end to culture wars. Maybe the growing number of MPs who feel betrayed by their leaders are reason for hope. They must find the courage to defend their trans constituents, too. Whether they cite the UK's vertiginous slide down European LGBTQ+ rights rankings, the Council of Europe being asked to investigate the proposed implementation of the ruling or the contents of the more than 50,000 responses to the EHRC's public consultation on its code of practice, they will not lack for evidence to back them up. MPs who attended the mass lobby probably learned alarming things about what the EHRC's code of practice might look like, based on the interim guidance it released in April, which is being challenged in the high cout by the Good Law project. They might have heard from the news or comment pages that women who are trans may be banned from women's loos and shelters. What they probably did not hear is that the EHRC's interim guidance also says a women-only gardening club with more than 25 members will be legally required to exclude a trans woman, even if she's legally a woman, and even if her fellow members want her there. Perhaps you're just learning this, too. If so, pause a moment longer to consider what this would mean. This guidance, were it to become legally enshrined, would rob citizens, trans and otherwise, of the freedom to choose whom they associate with and to recognise others for who they truly are. It not only takes away trans peoples' right to define themselves in relation to their families and friends, but the freedom of those families and friends too. Does someone married to a trans woman no longer have a wife? Does the mother of a trans son, against her better knowledge, now have a daughter? What does this say about the courts' and government's readiness to curtail the freedoms of other minorities that, through no fault of their own, become politically inconvenient? The fight for trans safety is a fight for everyone's safety, whatever your identity, however you present, whatever your beliefs. The decade-long campaign against trans people is not about anyone's safety. It is exactly what it looks like: an organised effort to drive a tiny minority from public life, back into the closet. Do not let yourselves be fooled. MPs, consider what has changed since 2016 (hint: it isn't trans people), listen to what you heard at the mass lobby, heed the 100,000 who marched for London trans pride last weekend. The EHRC's proposals must be properly challenged and debated. This is a litmus test for the country's soul, wounded as it is, though not yet dead. Freddy McConnell is a freelance journalist Do you have an opinion on the issues raised in this article? If you would like to submit a response of up to 300 words by email to be considered for publication in our letters section, please click here.
