Maricarmen case: a Trojan horse theory without evidence
The Maricarmen case has received massive media coverage and rallies at Puerta del Sol in Madrid. A theory claims it is a Trojan horse to push through legislation.
English · Original discussion in Spanish · Published
The Maricarmen case has received massive media coverage and has been accompanied by rallies at Puerta del Sol. The idea that it all responds to a state plan to pass unpopular laws is circulating without any evidence to back it up.
The case known as **Maricarmen** has received enormous media coverage. Rallies have been held at **Puerta del Sol** in Madrid.
## The Trojan horse theory
The story has been in the press, radio and television for days. Those who defend the Trojan horse theory argue that the media serve political interests.
From that point of view, the rallies at Sol would be a staged performance to amplify the noise.
## From media case to decree
The suspicion is that the uproar serves as a cover to pass laws that harm the majority. No document exists to support that chain of causes.
The most frequently cited example is the "solo sí es sí" law. **Organic Law 10/2022** came into force on **7 October 2022**, and its application led to sentences being reviewed and sensual offenders being released. Attributing that outcome to a plan is an interpretation, not a proven fact.
## A suspicion without evidence
That the state controls the media and uses a case to justify decrees appears in no document.
When a matter moves between law, money and suspicion, it is wise to separate what is documented from what is merely suspected.
The case known as **Maricarmen** has received enormous media coverage. Rallies have been held at **Puerta del Sol** in Madrid.
## The Trojan horse theory
The story has been in the press, radio and television for days. Those who defend the Trojan horse theory argue that the media serve political interests.
From that point of view, the rallies at Sol would be a staged performance to amplify the noise.
## From media case to decree
The suspicion is that the uproar serves as a cover to pass laws that harm the majority. No document exists to support that chain of causes.
The most frequently cited example is the "solo sí es sí" law. **Organic Law 10/2022** came into force on **7 October 2022**, and its application led to sentences being reviewed and sensual offenders being released. Attributing that outcome to a plan is an interpretation, not a proven fact.
## A suspicion without evidence
That the state controls the media and uses a case to justify decrees appears in no document.
When a matter moves between law, money and suspicion, it is wise to separate what is documented from what is merely suspected.
Also available in: Deutsch
Summary of a discussion on Burbuja.info - Foro de economía, actualidad y política., translated from Spanish and reviewed before publication. Read the full discussion (2 replies).
More summaries
-
Eviction of Maricarmen, 87, Who Lived Renting for 71 Years
Maricarmen, 87, evicted after living in a rent-controlled apartment since 1956. A "renta antigua" contract sparks debate on private property vs. tenant rights.
-
Spain's 87-year-old eviction reopens the housing war
The eviction of an 87-year-old woman has reignited Spain's political battle over housing, exposing the clash between property rights and tenant protection.
-
The Trojan Horse: An Ancient Strategy in Today's Economy
The Trojan Horse, a symbol of military strategy, may have parallels in today's economy. We explore its possible meaning for modern business.
-
Half of Spain's renters are now foreigners, forum claims
A forum post claims 5 million foreigners rent in Spain, while tourism accounts for only 10% of the market, sparking debate on housing shortages.
-
Toronto Protocols: the document Serge Monast attributed to Freemasonry
The Toronto Protocols, attributed to Freemasonry and spread by Serge Monast, remain unverified by any independent source. The document describes a plan to…
-
I say it so it's known: even the right wing knew it wasn't me
Spain's 1978 Constitution guarantees the presumption of innocence, and the 1982 law protects honour. A family nickname is not proof.