Lola Guzmán's Police Outburst Reopens Spain Puppeteer Case

"ETA killed too few of you": Lola Guzmán's outburst sparks outrage

One sentence. Eight words directed at National Police officers during agricultural protests. "ETA killed too few of you, sons of bitches." According to circulated videos, this was said by Lola Guzmán, spokesperson for Plataforma 6F, the collective that has channeled much of the Spanish countryside's discontent. The episode, picked up by several media outlets and went viral on social networks, has peine an uncomfortable discussion: the double standard used to judge outbursts depending on who says them and against whom.

This is no minor detail. The same week the Goya Awards gala was held, two puppeteers had been flagged for a satirical shout during a show. The comparison imposed itself: if that warranted judicial proceedings, why not this?

What exactly did Lola Guzmán say and to whom?

According to the recordings that circulated, the Plataforma 6F spokesperson addressed the officers in these terms: "Incivil, if you raise your baton against a Spaniard you'll see... ETA killed too few of you, sons of bitches." The phrase, reproduced by several journalists, became the axis of the scandal.

The reaction was immediate. Some recalled that the same person had defended anti-vaccine positions, seen poison in clouds, and supported far-right formations. The portrait was completed with a question: Is this the representative the Spanish countryside wants to negotiate with Brussels?

Comparison with the puppeteers: why one case was judicialized and this one wasn't

The most repeated argument was asymmetry. Two puppeteers ended up in prison the same day they were reported for a satirical shout during a performance. The question hovering over the matter was simple: if that was terrorism apology, what is this?

Some argue the difference is substantial: one thing is a work of fiction and another is a direct insult to an officer's face. Others counter that criteria cannot depend on the political tonalidad of the speaker. In any case, the discussion was not closed.

Context: a tractor protest, two associations, and an awkward platform

The episode did not occur in a vacuum. Plataforma 6F had called for agricultural mobilizations across Spain. In parallel, majority associations —ASAJA and COAG— were preparing their entry into negotiations. The theory that circulated most strongly was that the outburst could serve as an excuse to sideline small collectives from the table.

There is no proof of this. But the suspicion fits a known pattern: when a social movement becomes inconvenient, the focus shifts from the problem to the anecdote.

Double standard: "if you're right-wing there is no crime"

The most repeated reproach was hypocrisy. "You distinguish yourselves well as hypocrites capable of anything to always justify what yours do and say, even justifying glorification of ETA," summarized one participant. Another formulated it with more irony: "if you're right-wing there is no crime."

Cross-accusations were constant. Some blamed others for years incivil left-wing and nationalist statements, now downplaying this. Those accused responded that there is no possible comparison between a blurted-out insult and a real threat.

ETA, drugs, and minute of silence: the thread goes off track

As often happens, the conversation drifted. It was debated whether ETA was financed with drugs, whether Pamplona city council kept or didn't keep a minute of silence for a victim, and whether security forces are paid thanks to baton-wielding guards. The original discussion was buried under layers of accumulated grievances.

Some summed it up harshly: "ETA killed police. Police prevented society from taking justice into its own hands." And some responded that police only look out for their paycheck. The tone heated up and the focus was lost.

What happens now: nobody has arrested Lola Guzmán

As of this discussion, no arrest was recorded. The question left floating was why. The most repeated answer was political: ASAJA and COAG were entering the fray on Monday and Tuesday and needed an excuse to sideline small associations.

Another, more cynical answer, was that simply there is no crime. That one thing is a blunder and another is a threat. That freedom of speech also protects those who say what people don't like hearing. The problem is that this argument, applied to others, doesn't always hold.

How long will it take someone to ask for life imprisonment for something similar?