When one thinks of a "squatter", one imagines a young person with long hair and a hippie vibe, invading private properties almost as a way of life. However, it is extremely surprising to see a married couple in their sixties who, with complete ...
When one thinks of a "squatter", one imagines a young person with long hair and a hippie vibe, invading private properties almost as a way of life. However, it is extremely surprising to see a married couple in their sixties who, with complete impudence, have sneaked into a house in Los Geranios, and even act as hosts and receive the press in a house that is not theirs, admitting without hesitation that they broke the lock, settled there and have no intention of leaving, no matter how many complaints the legitimate owners have filed.
The story of the couple in question, who justify their attitude by explaining that the bank foreclosed on the apartment in which they lived and that they have nowhere to go, may arouse the solidarity of some. But even ignoring the fact that they themselves admit that in recent years they have bought and sold two homes, including one of official protection in the same area where they have now settled as squatters, the truth is that nothing justifies the invasion of private property or the damage caused to a third party.
If their economic problems are really true, it would be the public administration that would have to respond, but not citizens who have nothing to do with them.
However, the law does not seem to be so clear. In this issue, Spanish legislation goes against logic and common sense. And it is that although finally a trial will be responsible for putting things in their place, until it is held, the owners of an occupied house can not do absolutely anything, and have to resign themselves to see how other people settle in their house, use their furniture and violate their privacy and their rights.
It is of little use to file a complaint or go to the police, because they cannot act until a judge rules. And that can take at least several months. Something that fuels a worrying impunity and gives weapons to people capable of doing things like this. Because unfortunately, such an event is not the first time it has occurred, nor will it be the last as long as the laws are not changed and an immediate response is given to totally aberrant situations.
It is as if a thief sneaks into our house to steal and instead of arresting him, the police let him stay inside for months, prohibiting us from entering, because he has changed the lock and we have to wait for a judicial pronouncement. Is it really so difficult to protect the private property of citizens?
If what the State is concerned about is the right of squatters to housing, it should articulate mechanisms to meet social needs, and not allow these to be covered by force at the expense of other citizens and their assets. Would a group of young people or a family be allowed to settle in the Congress of Deputies and change the lock, making the building their home for months? The answer is obvious. As obvious as the nonsense of a law that, despite being modified 15 years ago, since until then the occupation was not even a crime, is still totally insufficient.
Even the injured party must prove that he actually uses the house in question as a "dwelling", because only then can he at least report the facts as trespassing. Otherwise, it would only be usurpation, which does not even imply prison sentences. In short, a whole invitation to forget about rents and mortgages and, with a little cold blood, nerves of steel and lack of scruples, go assaulting other people's homes, settling there for as long as it lasts, and then move on to the next victim. Simply, shameful.
And it is not a problem of the Justice, it is a problem of the laws that emanate from politics. And it is precisely that area that with these and other actions and inactions, including the lack of provision of human and material resources, weakens what should be one of the pillars of society: the judiciary.
