Former Podemos Leader’s Home Squatted After Pro-Squatting Stance

Former Podemos Leader Who Defended Squatting Has Her Apartment Occupied

The irony needs no adjectives. A former Podemos executive who, according to versions circulating on social media, promoted and supported squatting associations now has her own apartment occupied. The case has circulated on Twitter and Facebook via screenshots and comments, reviving one of the most heated debates in Spanish politics: who has the right to occupy an empty property and who can evict them.

The facts, as they have been disseminated: Gemma Galdon was a member of the Podemos state council between 2014 and 2016. According to the message that went viral, she would have backed squatting groups during that period. Today, her home appears to be occupied. Neither the affected party nor the cited associations have publicly confirmed the details, and there is no known judicial ruling regarding the property at the time of this discussion.

Who is Gemma Galdon?

Galdon is founder and director of Eticas Consulting, a firm associated with the eticasAI label dedicated to ethics and data analysis. Her public activity mixes tech business with institutional discourse: she participated in the 5IS Forum with a closing talk titled “Artificial Intelligence, Social Innovation and Ethics to Promote More Inclusive Societies”.

That contrast—discourse on ethics, inclusive societies, and technology versus a very earthly domestic conflict—is exactly what fueled the conversation. It is not the first public figure to see their biography reordered within twenty-four hours due to such an episode, but it is one of those that has gained the most traction on social media.

From Planned Rental to Occupation: The Numbers Behind the Flat

Translations of messages circulating in Catalan indicate that the housing was intended to be transferred to the municipal housing pool or rented out. The amounts mentioned in the distributed material are: between 800 and 1,000 euros per month in rent. In other words, the occupation would have not only derailed a plan but also recurring income.

The debate has focused on price. The same municipal housing pool cited as the destination for the property appears in the conversation with a concrete example: a 45 m2 flat in El Raval, without an elevator, for 700 euros a month. A public real estate agency, critics say, does not always come out cheaper than the free market. This data surprises many and contradicts the idea that public stock is always the safety net.

Squatting vs. Usurpation: The Line That Changes Everything

On the legal level, the conversation gets tangled with a distinction many do not know. Entering an empty home is not the same as entering an inhabited one. The first scenario is popularly associated with okupación (squatting); the second, when there are residents, is usually classified as usurpation. Hence the accusation of double standards running through the messages: the same act, they say, is called one thing or another depending on who suffers it.

It is wise not to draw hasty conclusions. Legal qualification depends on the specific circumstances of each case and is resolved by a judge, not by the owner of a screenshot. But the argument works as ammunition in the political arena, which is where this fight truly takes place.

Karma, Desokupa, and the War of the Networks

The reaction has been swift and multidirectional. One part celebrates what they call poetic justice. Another directly calls for a private eviction company, Desokupa, to solve the problem. In the background is the memory of a similar episode: the occupation of the home of a well-known TV presenter, which was resolved in a few hours.

There is also a minority current criticizing organized trolling. “It’s our fault for not organizing to legally support these kinds of trollings,” states one of the shared messages. It is an implicit recognition that the public battle is lost or won by volume, not by arguments.

The Political Context Sneaking Into the Conversation

The case does not arrive alone. In parallel, it has been disseminated that Luis Nieto, convicted of robbing a bank, would have won the Podemos Madrid primaries, and that the Supreme Court would have decided the imprisonment of those convicted in the procés (Catalan independence trial). The three issues have been mixed into the same package of indignation, something common when they coincide within a few hours.

There is also a trace of digital history: the Wikipedia entry of the affected person has been edited to remove the last sentence of the article and reference number 9, according to those tracking these modifications. The detail, seemingly minor, is proof that the fight over the narrative is not limited to comments.

The case remains unresolved. If the property ends up being recovered through judicial means or via an eviction company, an uncomfortable question will remain floating: what becomes of the doctrine that defended occupation when the occupier has a name, surname, and a Twitter account?

---