Begoña Gómez Challenges Court Ruling on Defamation Case
Begoña Gómez, the spouse of the Spanish Prime Minister, has officially lodged an appeal against a court ruling that acquitted Pilar Baselga of charges of defamation and slander. Baselga made derogatory remarks about Gómez during a televised debate, referring to her as 'Begoño' due to her transgender identity and alleging her involvement in a drug trafficking operation in Morocco. The accusations extended to claims that this supposed involvement led to the Universidad Complutense not renewing her academic position, an assertion that the appeal argues had "significant immediate public repercussions."
The legal document states that Baselga's statements were influenced by similar controversies surrounding notable figures like Brigitte Macron, wife of French President Emmanuel Macron, and Michelle Obama, wife of former U.S. President Barack Obama. It posits that the viral success of such slanders in their respective countries encouraged Baselga to replicate this tactic in Spain, albeit with unfortunate results.
Furthermore, the appeal argues that Baselga's intent was not to convey information but to incite public outrage. It highlights that any reasonable individual would understand the injurious nature of suggesting someone is involved in drug trafficking and has lost their job over such allegations. The document reveals that immediately after the acquittal, Baselga boasted on Telegram about her remarks, asserting, "We have won! It is not a crime to say 'Begoño'. There is no conviction, no fine, nothing. Total acquittal. You see? I have won!" This statement underscores a troubling trend where the personal status of Gómez as the Prime Minister's wife is exploited, subjecting her to relentless and vicious attacks from media outlets opposed to the Socialist Party's policies.
Ultimately, the appeal raises concerns not only about the implications of Gómez's sexual identity or the unfounded drug allegations but also about the broader question of whether the judiciary will continue to tolerate such behavior, even when followed by insincere apologies. This case calls into question the protection afforded to individuals who are subjected to slanderous attacks, particularly when they are linked to public figures.
As reported by cadenaser.com.
