The crickets of the Civil Guard in Santa Maria: Protect the BIC or pursue the message?

The center of Palma is a Property of Cultural Interest (BIC). The whole thing. And in addition to the smell of urine left by many quality tourists, who are often seen urinating in the alleys, there are specific and damaging actions against heritage. Hundreds. Among them, systematic graffiti. In some places, like the convent of Santa Magdalena, there are even signs reminding of the BIC status and encouraging good behavior and to stop painting. It is really important that the population understands that heritage must be respected.

Surely with this purpose, that of preserving the heritage declared BIC, the Civil Guard has carried out the largest deployment in Santa Maria that is remembered in the Balearic Islands due to the complaint of a private individual whose wall has been painted. It cannot, in any case, be defended that someone paints their neighbor's wall, whether it is BIC or not.

Then, is the action of the Civil Guard questionable in the case of the two arrested last Wednesday in Santa Maria?

To answer this question, there is nothing better than looking at what has happened so far. For example, in the case of the recurring graffiti on BIC buildings in the center of Palma. According to municipal data specifically for the historic center, the City Council announced an operation to remove nearly a thousand graffiti from 331 properties, of which 46 were listed buildings. The Local Police, and it must be acknowledged that since the arrival of mayor Jaime Martínez it has been a priority, have investigated and even profiled the perpetrators. It is appreciated that the perpetrators are investigated, as the Palma Local Police have done, who are the people who systematically attack public property. And it is done. Without the same level of pointing, persecution, or handcuffing.

Some do it recurrently, and therefore, the police generate files, identify them, and follow them. Because they are repeat offenders, in some cases. And, on the other hand, it is not recorded that at any time they have been considered part of a criminal group, as the Civil Guard has done with two young women who allegedly painted or participated in the graffiti on real estate in Santa Maria.

It is clear that it is a problem. Because according to data from the Palma City Council, in 2025 Emaya removed 9,282 graffiti in Palma on facades, urban furniture and public roads. So, what is the reason for treating two young women as members of a criminal group, handcuffing them and singling them out as never before, when thousands of graffiti are made annually, hundreds of which are on BIC (Property of Cultural Interest)? And many, by repeat offenders. Why are some simple offenders and the two young women considered criminals?

The Civil Guard has the answer in its report. These young women are connected to a movement that apparently is now also criminal, that of Less Tourism and More Life, which is considered practically terrorist by some groups for having committed the naivety and, undoubtedly, the reprehensible action of republicing a manual older than the hills of non-violent actions.

Has it ever happened that graffiti on BIC have had a political or ideological component? Again, recent history helps us understand. In December 2024, graffiti appeared in Can Oleo (BIC) with a clearly ideologized slogan: 'Arruix sionistes'. The Palma City Council opened a sanctioning file against the promoter of the demonstration, but later the procedure ended up being archived after the appeal filed. The debate is not whether graffiti on a protected building should be tolerated — obviously not — but whether the criterion applied is coherent in all cases and whether the institutional response also actually depends on the political context of the moment.

There is no recent public precedent in the Balearic Islands where graffiti on a BIC has led to an action of this level: arrests, confiscation of mobile phones, accusation of belonging to a criminal group, and great public projection of the case. With a staging of persecution and with qualifiers of organized crime.

The question is very obvious. Who does the Civil Guard want to protect? Because if it is heritage, it turns out that in other cases the shackles do not appear. Nor is it remembered that when someone enlarged the hole in the main facade of the listed building of Santa Maria that now concerns us to put a luxury home display there, there was any arrest. Perhaps it was even done with a license. It is known that the Santa Maria City Council is not known for its rigor in territorial matters —villa construction—, and, therefore, perhaps the heritage part is also a bit weak.

If during the years of unbridled corruption, so much camera and nocturnal surveillance had been dedicated to the true actors of urbanistic 'pilotadas', today we would not have the panorama of territorial destruction that surrounds us. In fact, it was by tapping a few phones by, precisely, the Civil Guard, and the conversations between Eugenio Hidalgo and his collaborators were the script for the film of the destruction of the coast in the Andratx case in exchange for favors, commissions, and all sorts of irregularities. Or the case of the Manacor road, shelved due to delays in justice, in which civil servants and UM officials even stole construction materials to build villas. Here there was no time, for whatever reason, nor budget, for whatever reason also, to follow those who pocketed public money. Today, Mallorcans are still paying the bill for that indecent overcost.

No one has the right to paint another person's property to express a protest. But a mature democracy cannot allow the State's forcefulness to depend on the message behind graffiti. If heritage is the excuse, protection must be equal for everyone. And if the problem is the political message, then we are no longer just talking about preserving stones, but about how we manage social conflict. The only appreciable difference is that, in this case, a critique of the economic and tourism model of the Islands hovers over us. A predatory model that, moreover, generates a lot of frustration among young people. Because they see that any opportunity to have decent housing vanishes, while those who traffic in the houses and apartments that should be for them become millionaires. Does anyone have the right to paint a wall for this reason? Of course not. Should the facts be investigated? Of course. But if public authorities only respond with repression to criticism because they are incapable of offering a future to young people, we are in a fine mess.