Survivors of Spain's Franco-era 'fallen women' centres seek apology, recognition
Headquarters of the Adorers nuns, still in operation, where numerous women were imprisoned against their will during Franco's regime and the transition to democracy by the 'Patronato de la Mujer', in Valencia, Spain, April 25, 2025. REUTERS/Eva Manez
The picture shows photos, from Provincial Historical Archive in Sevilla, from the 1940's to 1970's of women in centers belonging to the Women's Protection Board, in Madrid, Spain, April 23, 2025. REUTERS/Ana Beltran
MADRID/VALENCIA - Consuelo Garcia del Cid was 16 when the family doctor came into her bedroom in Barcelona, Spain with her mother in 1974, grabbed her left arm and pushed a needle into a vein.
She blacked out then woke up in a strange room a day's drive away in Madrid - one of thousands of girls and young women who were accused of a range of perceived moral failings and taken to state-run Catholic rehabilitation institutions during the dictatorship of Francisco Franco.
On Monday, a Catholic body that includes most of the communities of nuns that helped operate some of the centres, will hold a ceremony to formally ask the women for forgiveness, the first event of its kind in Spain, announced in April but delayed by the death of Pope Francis.
A start, but not enough, say campaigners who want a national apology for what they went through in the network of Patronato de Proteccion a la Mujer (Board for the Protection of Women) institutes - along the lines of Ireland's 2013 apology for the abuses in its Magdalene Laundries.
"It's just the tip of the iceberg," said Pilar Dasi, 73, who spent several months at a centre in Valencia in 1971. "The event is good for the Church as it cleans its own image, but the government must also act."
She said she was held after her cousin, a police officer, reported her for keeping "bad company", a reference to left-wing boyfriends.
The operation was set up in 1941 by Franco's Justice Ministry, overseen by the board chaired by his wife Carmen Polo. It was active until 1985, 10 years after Franco's death.
Spain's Democratic Memory Ministry - a body set up to tackle the legacy of Spain's civil war and Franco's regime - told Reuters it applauded the decision by the Spanish Confederation of Religious Entities (CONFER) to ask for forgiveness.
The ministry said in a statement it hoped to hold its own ceremony later this year that would recognise the women as victims of the Franco regime.
"They will be considered victims and will be given a declaration of recognition and reparation," it said, without going into further detail on the timing or substance of any event.
Garcia del Cid said her family had called in the doctor in 1974 because they were worried about what they saw as her rebelliousness after she attended a number of demonstrations against the dictatorship.
The centre where she went was "a sinister place, with extreme religious indoctrination, and life was reduced to working, scrubbing and praying," said the now 66-year-old who has written five books on the subject.
"If you are told all day long that you are crazy, a slut, a lost cause, on the wrong path, there comes a point when you might start to believe it if you don't have a strong inner core." She said she was held until 1976.
'HORROR OF HORRORS'
The institutes took girls and women aged up to 25, including single mothers, children of prisoners, and those reported by priests, neighbours or their families for deviating from strict Catholic moral standards. The centres sought to rehabilitate them, survivors say, through work and instruction.
"A bad woman could be a girl who smoked, a girl who talked back like me, a girl who skipped school, wore miniskirts, kissed her boyfriend in the back row of the cinema," said 67-year-old Mariaje Lopez, who was placed in a centre from 1965 to 1970.
"Girls who got pregnant were also considered bad girls, and often no one asked who the father was."
One of the most feared centres was Penagrande maternity centre on the outskirts of Madrid, where many young women were pressured to give up their babies for adoption, campaign group Banished Daughters of Eve says.
"Penagrande was the horror of horrors. It was scary to have a child there. Any child who went up to the infirmary never came back. They were given to other families, or sold, or whatever. We were told they died," said Paca Blanco, 76, who was in and out of several board centres between 1967 and 1969.
CONFER - representing 403 Catholic congregations - announced in April it would hold a forgiveness ceremony, saying it took the step after listening to the experiences of survivors and conducting its own research.
"It helps (the survivors) to live that moment of healing and liberation and... us as congregations also to improve our way of dealing with these realities," CONFER chairman Jesus Diaz Sariego told Reuters.
The Spanish Conference of Bishops referred questions to CONFER, saying the Confederation was an independent body. The Vatican did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
Garcia del Cid said she would be at the CONFER event that she saw as a step towards her and the thousands of others being recognised as victims of Franco's regime. But more was needed.
"I will be buried with this," she told Reuters. "It was the greatest atrocity Spain has committed against women." REUTERS
Join ST's Telegram channel and get the latest breaking news delivered to you.

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Business Times
2 hours ago
- Business Times
US, China to hold trade talks on June 9 in London, Trump says
US PRESIDENT Donald Trump on Friday said three of his cabinet officials will meet with representatives of China in London on June 9 to discuss a trade deal. In a post on his Truth Social platform, Trump said Treasury Scott Bessent, Secretary of Commerce Howard Lutnick, and United States Trade Representative Jamieson Greer will attend from the US side. 'The meeting should go very well,' Trump wrote. The scheduling of the meeting comes a day after Trump spoke to Chinese President Xi Jinping in a rare leader-to-leader call amid weeks of brewing trade tensions and a battle over critical minerals. The countries struck a 90-day deal on May 12 to roll back some of the triple-digit, tit-for-tat tariffs they had placed on each other since Trump's January inauguration. Though stocks rallied, the temporary deal did not address broader concerns that strain the bilateral relationship, from the illicit fentanyl trade to the status of democratically governed Taiwan and US complaints about China's state-dominated, export-driven economic model. REUTERS

Straits Times
3 hours ago
- Straits Times
Trump gets key wins at Supreme Court on immigration, despite some misgivings
The US Supreme Court most recently let the Trump administration end temporary legal status provided to migrants for humanitarian reasons. PHOTO: REUTERS Trump gets key wins at Supreme Court on immigration, despite some misgivings The US Supreme Court swept away this week another obstacle to one of President Donald Trump's most aggressively pursued policies – mass deportation – again showing its willingness to back his hardline approach to immigration. The justices, though, have signalled some reservations with how he is carrying it out. Since Mr Trump returned to the White House in January, the court already has been called upon to intervene on an emergency basis in seven legal fights over his crackdown on immigration. It most recently let Mr Trump's administration end temporary legal status provided to hundreds of thousands of migrants for humanitarian reasons by his Democratic predecessor Joe Biden while legal challenges in two cases play out in lower courts. The Supreme Court on May 30 lifted a judge's order that had halted the revocation of immigration 'parole' for more than 500,000 Venezuelan, Cuban, Haitian and Nicaraguan migrants. On May 19, it lifted another judge's order preventing the termination of 'temporary protected status' for more than 300,000 Venezuelan migrants. In some other cases, however, the justices have ruled that the administration must treat migrants fairly, as required under the US Constitution's guarantee of due process. 'This president has been more aggressive than any in modern US history to quickly remove non-citizens from the country,' said Dr Kevin Johnson, an immigration and public interest law expert at the University of California, Davis. No president in modern history 'has been as willing to deport non-citizens without due process,' he added. That dynamic has forced the Supreme Court to police the contours of the administration's actions, if less so the legality of Mr Trump's underlying policies. The court's 6-3 conservative majority includes three justices appointed by Mr Trump during his first term as president. 'President Trump is acting within his lawful authority to deport illegal aliens and protect the American people. While the Supreme Court has rightfully acknowledged the president's authority in some cases, in others they have invented new due process rights for illegal aliens that will make America less safe. We are confident in the legality of our actions and will continue fighting to keep President Trump's promises,' White House spokesperson Abigail Jackson told Reuters. The justices twice – on April 7 and on May 16 – have placed limits on the administration's attempt to implement Mr Trump's invocation of a 1798 law called the Alien Enemies Act, which historically has been employed only in wartime, to swiftly deport Venezuelan migrants who it has accused of being members of the Tren de Aragua gang. Lawyers and family members of some of the migrants have disputed the gang membership allegation. On May 16, the justices also said a bid by the administration to deport migrants from a detention centre in Texas failed basic constitutional requirements. Giving migrants 'notice roughly 24 hours before removal, devoid of information about how to exercise due process rights to contest that removal, surely does not pass muster', the court stated. Due process generally requires the government to provide notice and an opportunity for a hearing before taking certain adverse actions. The court has not outright barred the administration from pursuing these deportations under the Alien Enemies Act, as the justices have yet to decide the legality of using the law for this purpose. The US government last invoked the Alien Enemies Act during World War Two to intern and deport people of Japanese, German and Italian descent. 'The Supreme Court has in several cases reaffirmed some basic principles of constitutional law (including that) the due process clause applies to all people on US soil,' said Professor Elora Mukherjee, director of Columbia Law School's immigrants' rights clinic. Even for alleged gang members, she said, the court 'has been extremely clear that they are entitled to notice before they can be summarily deported from the United States'. A wrongly deported man In a separate case, the court on April 10 ordered the administration to facilitate the release from custody in El Salvador of Mr Kilmar Abrego Garcia, a Salvadoran migrant who was living in Maryland. The administration has acknowledged that Mr Abrego Garcia was wrongly deported to El Salvador. The administration has yet to return him to the United States, which according to some critics amounts to defiance of the Supreme Court. The administration deported on March 15 more than 200 people to El Salvador, where they were detained in the country's massive anti-terrorism prison under a deal in which the United States is paying President Nayib Bukele's government US$6 million ($7.74 million). Dr Ilya Somin, a constitutional law professor at George Mason University, said the Supreme Court overall has tried to curb the administration's 'more extreme and most blatantly illegal policies' without abandoning its traditional deference to presidential authority on immigration issues. 'I think they have made a solid effort to strike a balance,' said Dr Somin, referring to the Alien Enemies Act and Abrego Garcia cases. 'But I still think there is excessive deference, and a tolerance for things that would not be permitted outside the immigration field.' That deference was on display over the past two weeks with the court's decisions letting Mr Trump terminate the grants of temporary protected status and humanitarian parole previously given to migrants. Such consequential orders were issued without the court offering any reasoning, Prof Mukherjee noted. 'Collectively, those two decisions strip immigration status and legal protections in the United States from more than 800,000 people. And the decisions are devastating for the lives of those who are affected,' she said. 'Those individuals could be subject to deportations, family separation, losing their jobs, and if they're deported, possibly even losing their lives.' Travel ban ruling Mr Trump also pursued restrictive immigration policies in his first term as president, from 2017 to 2021. The Supreme Court gave Mr Trump a major victory in 2018, upholding his travel ban targeting people from several Muslim-majority countries. In 2020, the court blocked Mr Trump's bid to end a programme that protects from deportation hundreds of thousands of migrants – often called 'Dreamers' – who entered the United States illegally as children. Other major immigration-related cases are currently pending before the justices, including Mr Trump's effort to broadly enforce his January executive order to restrict birthright citizenship – a directive at odds with the longstanding interpretation of the Constitution as conferring citizenship on virtually every baby born on US soil. The court heard arguments in that case on May 15 and has not yet rendered a decision. Another case concerns the administration's efforts to increase the practice of deporting migrants to countries other than their own, including to places such as war-torn South Sudan. Boston-based US District Judge Brian Murphy required that migrants destined for so-called 'third countries' be notified and given a meaningful chance to seek legal relief by showing the harms they may face by being sent there. The judge on May 21 ruled that the administration had violated his court order by attempting to deport migrants to South Sudan. They are now being held at a military base in Djibouti. The administration on May 27 asked the justices to lift Judge Murphy's order because it said the third-country process is needed to remove migrants who commit crimes because their countries of origin are often unwilling to take them back. Dr Johnson predicted that the Supreme Court will side with the migrants in this dispute. 'I think that the court will enforce the due process rights of a non-citizen before removal to a third country,' he said. REUTERS Join ST's Telegram channel and get the latest breaking news delivered to you.

Straits Times
3 hours ago
- Straits Times
Far right Proud Boys seek $129 million over US Capitol riot convictions
Former Proud Boys leaders Joseph Biggs and Enrique Tarrio speak to reporters on Feb 21 outside the Capitol in Washington. PHOTO: REUTERS Far right Proud Boys seek $129 million over US Capitol riot convictions MIAMI, Florida - Five members of the far right Proud Boys convicted of orchestrating the US Capitol riot filed a lawsuit on June 6 seeking US$100 million (S$129 million) in damages for alleged violations of their constitutional rights. The suit, filed in a federal court in Florida, claims the five were victims of 'corrupt and politically motivated persecution' intended to punish political allies of President Donald Trump. Among the five plaintiffs is former Proud Boys leader Enrique Tarrio, who was sentenced to 22 years in prison for directing the Jan 6, 2021 assault on the Capitol by Trump supporters seeking to overturn the results of the 2020 election won by Democrat Joe Biden. Tarrio, whose sentence for seditious conspiracy was the longest doled out to Capitol rioters, was among the more than 1,500 Trump supporters pardoned by the Republican president on his first day in office. In their suit, the Proud Boys members said they were victims of 'egregious and systemic abuse of the legal system and the United States Constitution to punish and oppress political allies of President Trump.' They accused government prosecutors of 'evidence tampering, witness intimidation, violations of attorney-client privilege, and placing spies to report on trial strategy.' It said their convictions were 'the modern equivalent of placing one's enemies' heads on a spike outside the town wall as a warning to any who would think to challenge the status quo.' The Proud Boys members demanded a jury trial and punitive damages of US$100 million. The Trump administration agreed in May to pay nearly US$5 million to the family of a woman shot dead by a police officer during the Jan 6 attack on the Capitol. Ashli Babbitt, 35, was shot as she tried to climb through a window leading to the House Speaker's lobby during the assault on Congress by Trump supporters. Ms Babbitt's estate filed a wrongful death suit last year seeking US$30 million. The case had been scheduled to go on trial, but the Justice Department reversed course after Mr Trump won the November 2024 election and entered into settlement talks. The Capitol assault, which left more than 140 police officers injured, followed a fiery speech by then-president Trump to tens of thousands of his supporters near the White House in which he repeated his false claims that he won the 2020 race. He then encouraged the crowd to march on Congress. AFP Join ST's Telegram channel and get the latest breaking news delivered to you.