A controversial verdict
In a ruling that has generated mixed reactions, the Criminal Court Number 22 of Madrid has decided to acquit the teacher and activist Pilar Baselga, who had been accused of defamation against Begoña Gómez, the wife of the Spanish Prime Minister, Pedro Sánchez. The verdict is based on Gómez's absence during the trial, which left the court without direct testimony regarding the emotional and reputational impact of Baselga's statements.
The words that sparked the controversy
The case dates back to a television appearance in November 2022, where Baselga referred to Gómez in derogatory terms and suggested connections between her and illicit activities in Morocco. In her defence, Baselga argued that her comments were part of a critical analysis and were not intended to be defamatory. Despite the serious accusations, the court found that the expressions used did not reach the necessary severity to be considered a crime.
The judicial resolution underscores a crucial aspect: although Baselga's claims could have been considered humiliating or disparaging, they were not proven to be credible enough to affect Gómez's honour or dignity. The judge emphasized that defamation is only punishable when perceived as serious by its nature and context.
A controversial background
Pilar Baselga has gained notoriety in recent years as a prominent figure within the Spanish conspiracy ecosystem. With a strong presence on social media and a Telegram channel with thousands of followers, she has spread theories about electoral fraud and other controversial topics. Her confrontation with Begoña Gómez is not new; she had previously reported irregularities related to the university master's degrees linked to her.
Although this verdict represents a legal victory for Baselga, it does not close all the judicial fronts she faces. She is currently involved in another proceeding related to the so-called Bar España case, where she could face severe penalties if found guilty. This context adds an additional layer to her already polarised public figure.
Reactions to the ruling
The decision has sparked divided opinions among advocates of freedom of expression and those who believe that such statements should be penalised to protect personal dignity. The lack of direct testimony from Gómez was key to the outcome of the trial; many wonder if this will set a dangerous precedent for future similar cases.
You may also like
