In the lower house of Brazil’s federal Congress on Tuesday, Maria do Rosário – a Congresswoman since 2003 from former President Lula da Silva’s Workers Party (PT) who is also the country’s former Minister of Human Rights under President Dilma Rousseff – stood to praise the National Truth Commission. That Commission was preparing to release a comprehensive report on the systematic human rights abuses perpetrated by the U.S.-supported military dictatorship that ruled the country for two decades until 1985. Congresswoman do Rosário described the military dictatorship as a source of “absolute shame” and condemned it for using murder, torture, sexual abuse, and other violence against dissidents. The Commission’s report was released yesterday in the presence of Rousseff, who was herself imprisoned and tortured by the military regime.
After do Rosário left the podium, Jair Bolsonaro – a right-wing Congressman since 1990 who served in the military during the dictatorship and is still an ardent defender of it – stood to speak. He began by immediately demanding that do Rosário, who was preparing to leave the chamber, remain to hear him, yelling: “No, Maria do Rosário, don’t leave! Stay here, Maria do Rosário. Stay!” Referencing her statements about the well-documented use of rape by the military dictatorship against female opponents, he bellowed: “I would not rape you. You don’t merit that.” The meaning was clear, particularly in the original Portuguese: while some women are good enough to be so blessed, do Rosário wasn’t even good enough to deserve his rape.
As she moved to leave the chamber, he then again angrily screamed directly at her: “stay here to hear this!” After she left, he mocked her for leaving the assembly, saying that “she ran out of here.” The report’s release coincided with the United Nation’s International Human Rights Day. Referencing that, Bolsonaro said it should instead be called “the day of losers.”
It’s shocking and repulsive enough to have a woman be told – in a major nation’s Congress where she serves – that she’s not worth raping. What makes it even more sickening is that this is the second time Bolsonaro has said this to her. In her first year serving in the Congress, he screamed at her in a crowded hallway, telling her that she didn’t even merit being raped by him. He then called her a “slut” (vagabunda). And that time, for good measure, he also pushed her, then told her to “cry! go cry” – all in front of journalists who filmed the entire episode:
After this week’s speech, Bolsonaro took to Twitter where he gleefully boasted of his attack. Proudly posting a video of Tuesday’s “rape” speech as well as the prior incident where he shoved her, he wrote – referring to himself in the third person – “after lying about the military era, Bolsonaro puts do Rosário in her rightful place.”
Bolsonaro’s personal website also now prominently features the same video at top of the page. He is clearly proud of all of this behavior.
This morning, do Rosário told The Intercept that while she is usually willing to speak publicly on all matters, she was concerned for her safety and feared speaking further about the episode because she’s been subjected to widespread threats. She said she was receiving numerous calls threatening violence against her. She did, however, vow in the Brazilian media to sue Bolsonaro. Her concerns are understandable, to put it mildly: in September of last year, Bolsonaro punched a senator after he tried to crash an event without an invitation.
In an interview today with The Intercept, Bolsonaro, despite boasting of both incidents and despite the clarity of the videos, denied having suggested that do Rosário was beneath being raped, asking: “do you think she’s good enough to be raped”? He also denied ever having pushed her, claiming she accosted him first. When asked whether he regrets calling her a “slut,” he refused to answer that question, instead angrily claiming that she first called him a “rapist” (there is no evidence that she did any such thing, though she has referenced the indisputable fact that the military regime subjected female opponents to rape and other violence). He said all of this was a by-product of PT’s desire to “play the victim.”
The nation’s current Minister of Human Rights and Policies on Women issued a statement yesterday saying: “it’s incredible that a Congressman would use his position to spout hatred and incite a crime,” one which “humiliates and degrades women.”
Every major democracy has its share of hateful bigots and cretins among its elected officials – the U.S. has had more than its fair share – but Bolsonaro is a unique national disgrace. He has a long history of revolting racism, homophobia and other assorted forms of bigotry to be expected of an admirer of military dictatorship.
In 2011, he said in an interview that he’d prefer that his son die in a car accident than be gay. In this 90-second excerpt from an interview by the BBC’s Stephen Fry, he responds to Fry’s referencing of the murder of gay Brazilian teens and frequent anti-gay attacks by stating that “there is no homophobia in Brazil,” claiming that 90% of the gay victims die in “places of drug use and prostitution or are killed by their own partner.” He added that the LGBT movement is really about converting Brazilian children into homosexuality for future sexual recruiting.
The same year, during an appearance on a television program, he was asked by a famous Afro-Brazilian actress, Preta Gil, what he would do if his son fell in love with a black woman, and he bizarrely replied: “I am not going to discuss promiscuity.” He then added that he doesn’t run that risk because his sons “are very well raised,” telling the actress that they “don’t live in the type of environment that you unfortunately do.”
After a female senator from the left-wing PSOL party (which includes prominent gay Congressman Jean Wyllys) requested that he be investigated, Bolsonaro said PSOL was a “party of dicks and faggots.” He added that he would respond to her “with toilet paper,” asked with mock sensitivity if he “injured her femininity,” and said she’s not like most Brazilian women. When a female television reporter earlier this year asked him about the investigation of the dictatorship, he screamed that she was an “uneducated idiot” and told her that she was not permitted to speak further. When President Rousseff advocated a program to teach school children to respect gays, he strongly suggested it was because she is a lesbian (“stop lying,” he said on the floor of Congress, and “admit your love with homosexuals”). Last year, he called the Minister for Women’s Policy, Eleonora Menicucci, a “big dyke.”
In one sense, Bolsonaro is the most extreme and repellent face of a resurgent, evangelical-driven right-wing attempt to drag the country backwards by decades, in exactly the opposite direction most other civilized countries are headed. Despite the country’s notorious record of violent abuse by police, he said expressly that he “defends torture” for drug dealers and kidnappers, who “have no human rights.” The Brazil-based journalist Andrew Downie, detailing this week’s incident, aptly describes Bolsonaro as “a hateful man who perhaps more than any other person exemplifies the backward side of Brazil that is still a huge and tragically worrying presence in this great nation.”
One of his current projects is support of a proposed law to ban same-sex couples from adopting children. When asked by The Intercept about this, he said: “If you want a baby so badly, why don’t you go and rent a woman’s belly?” He added: “don’t worry, soon homosexuals will be able to have a uterus implanted in them and then you can have a baby.”
In a country in which extreme poverty (though greatly diminished) is still widespread, and in which countless children are orphaned, living in the street, or hideously neglected, denying them a caring, loving, stable home is nothing short of demented. Subordinating the welfare of the neediest children to bigotry and religious dogma is simply evil. That’s Jair Bolsonaro, but that mindset is also sadly common in many cultures and societies, certainly including in the U.S.
But what isn’t common, what deserves universal scorn and condemnation, is Bolsonaro’s heaping of repugnant and obviously threatening misogyny on a female colleague on the floor of the Congress of one of the world’s largest and greatest democracies. In response to his assault on do Rosário, four parties in Brazil, including Rousseff’s PT, have demanded his expulsion from the house. Bolsonaro scoffed at that move, telling The Intercept that the request came only from “left-wing parties which idolize Fidel Castro, Che Guevara and Hugo Chávez.” But any other action, short of expulsion, would send a message that this kind of repulsively misogynistic behavior is acceptable in the Congress of Brazil.
Photo: screen grab from ParlaTubeBrasil; additional research provided by Cecília Olliveira and David Miranda


It is unknown whether out of spite or hypocrisy, the fact is that the graduation ceremony of the elected parliamentarians, 5 “souls watching” the PSOL turned their backs to Mr Jair Bolsonaro. Now they are all against Bolsonaro: left parties, constant targets of deputy torpedoes, Feminazis, or rather feminist, organizations of human rights and similar …
The prosecution made a complaint against the deputy for the same reason and some parties, asked the head of the political, votes champion at Rio de Janeiro and, not coincidentally, entering his seventh term.
Many people feel represented by former military, otherwise would not have received almost 500,000 votes.
The Ethics Committee of the House will judge the Bolsonaro behavior in plenary.
But it is good to tell the story from beginning to place, as would my colleague Reinaldo Azevedo, all record straight.
The episode in the House was not the first of the Rosary versus Bolsonaro saga.
In 2003, when he was Secretary for Human Rights, Mrs. Mary interrupted a Bolsonaro interview and teased.
The episode was recorded by the cameras of RedeTV and all the run-in is available on the Internet:
While the deputy talked about violence and the reduction of legal age, Maria accuses first:
– You are responsible for all this violence!
Bolsonaro question:
– So I’m rapist now?
– It is. Stated categorically, to today, victim Dona Maria.
– So Bolsonaro gave him a good evil created response:
– Would never rape you because you do not deserve!
Now Bolsonaro can be much, but definitely not a rapist.
By the way, is a strong advocate of punishment to minors rapists, incompetent by maintaining the status as juveniles, this yes, defended by Maria do Rosário and his troupe.
For those unaware, is the deputy Jair Bolsonaro the bill proposing the chemical castration of rapists. Although presented in 2013, we are entering 2015 and the proposal, which is in the best interests of society, especially women victims of sexual violence, lies the Committee on Constitution and Justice since July.
I want to return to the controversial speech Bolsonaro recently repeated to Mary of the Rosary.
He said: – I would never rape you because you do not deserve! “Never” means “never”, “never” is denial.
Bolsonaro refuses the label of rapist imposed by Rosario, and also says: you do not deserve to be raped. Neither she nor anyone.
Again, the Bolsonaro opponents want to distort his words and tarnish your reputation to discredit him as a man, military and parliamentary.
It is unacceptable.
If want to sue Bolsonaro for incitement to crime, seize and prosecute Maria do Rosário for libel.
The accused rapist Bolsonaro to be on camera to a TV, Dona Maria undermined the honor of the deputy, charging him a crime he never committed.
If Mary does not deserve to be raped. Bolsonaro not deserve to be branded a rapist.
And that justice is done! No sexism without ideologismos ….
SOURCE: http://jovempan.uol.com.br/opiniao-jovem-pan/comentaristas/rachel-sheherazade/bolsonaro-pode-ser-muita-coisa-mas-definitivamente-nao-e-um-estuprador.html
A esquerda toda reunida, em bloco, ‘achando’ que tá mexendo com qualquer um.
Pegam uma fala dele, mostram só a parte que lhes convêm, e passam a pedir a cassação dele.
Tentando desviar o foco dos problemas de corrupção que TODA a mídia está noticiando, fazendo com que as pessoas esqueçam esses problemas, e passem a debater esse.
Por isso a própria página oficial do PT foi invadida pelos defensores do Bolsonaro. Até precisaram convocar todos os MAV’s (Militância em Ambientes Virtuais) para ver se equilibra a página.
Em todas as páginas que falam do Bolsonaro, a maioria, é a favor dele, exceto naquelas onde o dono da página exclui os comentários que são a favor dele.
O tiro do PT e dos esquerdistas, saiu pela culatra, queriam causar um efeito, uma comoção nacional, e o que conseguiram foram atrair mais simpatizantes ao Bolsonaro.
Mais pessoas puderam ver e conhecer realmente quem é Bolsonaro, quais projetos ele tem em defesa das crianças, das mulheres e da família, mas que sempre esbarram na esquerda, que não aprovam seus projetos.
Sempre dar uma de vítima, inverter as posições, coisas típicas de esquerda. Ataque, e se revidar, dê uma de vítima.
Bolsonaro é homem que luta só, só tem o apoio do povo, diferente dos outros parlamentares, que quando atacam Bolsonaro, atacam todos em bloco.
E quanto mais eles atacam, mais o prestígio do Bolsonaro sobe, e o de seus opositores, cai.
Bolsonaro é autor de vários projetos para diminuição da maioridade penal para estupradores, autor de projeto para castração química de estupradores, mas todos seus projetos esbarram na esquerda, que vai contra seus projetos.
Bolsonaro defende a família brasileira, as mulheres e as crianças. E mais: é um dos poucos parlamentares, se não talvez o único, que enfrenta sozinho o PT e todos os partidos comunistas que infestam o Brasil, e fala na cara deles, tudo de ruim que esses políticos tem feito. Bolsonaro fala na cara dos políticos de esquerda e dos comunistas, o que mais de 51 milhões de brasileiros queriam falar mas não tem a oportunidade.
Por isso querem calar sua voz.
O Brasil precisa de políticos honestos, e o Bolsonaro NUNCA esteve envolvido em nenhum escândalo de corrupção, propina, desvio de verba. Por isso a raiva dos esquerdistas. Ele não se envolveu em nenhum esquema de trensalão, mensalão, Petrobrás, e tantos outros que vemos todos os dias, e todas as horas a imprensa denunciar. Eles não tem o que falar dele.
Se acha que eu estou mentindo, que o Brasil tá carente de político honesto, faça um teste AGORA, nesse minuto. Vá em qualquer site de notícia, revista, jornal, e veja, quais são as notícias, e quem são os envolvidos.
Procure o nome de Bolsonaro envolvido em qualquer escândalo, não vai encontrar. E os outros parlamentares que o acusam?
Espero ansioso mesmo quando é que o PT, PSOL, PSB, PCdoB, etc, vão se mobilizar em bloco para cassar o mandato de deputados e senadores, que possuem, no mínimo, 1 inquérito na justiça por corrupção e outros crimes.
Façam a pesquisa vocês mesmos, e vejam quem está do lado da moral, da família, contra os bandidos e quem está a favor e protege bandidos e estupradores. Vejam qual a moral que tem esses que o acusam, pesquise a ficha de cada um, e veja quantos tem moral para apontar o dedo para ele.
Isso toda a esquerda no Brasil fecha os olhos, mesmo vendo a verdade, não enxergam.
Para desespero da esquerda e dos comunistas, Bolsonaro sai mais fortalecido desse episódio do que eles imaginavam.
`mona – 1
‘class’ – 1/2
stebmund wanksfurter III – 0
..
.. and in other news.
Open Media [Canada]
ht `bill owen [eyestir communications]
https://openmedia.ca/news/supreme-court-ruling-permitting-warrantless-cell-phone-searches-underlines-need-much-stronger-legal
I’m Brazilian, now living in the U.S. for 11 years, came to stay 3 months and never left. Why ?? First because I refuse to live my life in fear (crimes) and second because I can not stand the corruption in my Country… both problems are getting worse and worse.
Now about Bolsonaro and the 2 main things that are being discussed in here. First the whole raping and slut comment, which definitely was not right. But I do think when you write an article you have to cover the full story and you fail to do so. Due to a recent case where a minor kidnapped a couple , raped the wife for consecutive days in front of the husband and them killed both, Bolsonaro was giving an interview about supporting that the age to be judged as an adult change to 16, when she jumped in to defend the ‘Human rights of those’. He then sarcastically proceeds and says that the ones that feel bad for that minor should hire him as a driver to a family member. She gets upset and says he is supporting raping and he says “oh now I’m the rapist !?” Which she agrees…and then it happens what you posted. 2 wrongs do not make a right, but he was defending the safe of all of us. Last year an American , very young couple got in a van in Rio (Rio has van ride shares) that was posing as the public transportation as a plot to get tourists…they later got robbed, the girl raped in front of the boyfriend, the guy beaten up and they tried to exchange the girl for drugs in a favela. A minor was part of it, including the raping !!
@ Benito
“Steb is arguing that prohibitions on hate speech are almost always an attempt to silence, or at least to discredit, those you disagree with politically.”
“As Steb indicates, he uses the technique to delegitimize the Palestinians to avoid addressing the unwelcome question of their right to self determination.”
I specifically picked Hamas, which does not represent all the Palestinians. I used the technique to delegitimize Hamas not the Palestinians’ right to self determination.
“He maintains that Glenn Greenwald is using the technique to discredit a right wing politician whose policies Glenn opposes. ”
Yes, I do. Glenn Greenwald is discrediting the politician, he is not defending women’s rights. The same way he is more anti Israel than pro Palestinian. In 2014, he writes an article about a misogynistic and stupid Brazilian politician who has no power to neither impose nor enforce his retarded beliefs on any Brazilian. This is after he spent years disregarding Hamas clear misogynistic regulations they enforce with armed individuals and Hamas leaders’ hateful comments about homosexuals. He does not have the credibility to bash a misogynistic politician after he has ignored a proud misogynistic government, which even gets his support in some cases.
Assuming, arguendo, that Bolnosaro is as impotent as you say, this is not what Greenwald’s article is about. He argues that the Brazilian congressman’s statements to Congresswoman do Rosario are more an act of harassment and abuse than they are speech. And so just cause to expel him from the congressional body. (The distinction between act and speech is a critical one in free speech jurisprudence.)
I vehemently disagree. Many agree with me, many agree with Glenn. But we are all discussing the actual topic.
You, by contrast, are having an unrelated discussion with yourself in which Hamas is somehow in play.
@Mona
Steb
30 Nov 2014 at 8:45 pm
@ Mona
Your comments are irrelevant to me. I do not waste time with those who sympathize with terrorists.
It’s impressive! Even the press correspondents in Brazil are far-left militants. Jair Bolsonaro has an unblemished political career, has been praised by the minister of the Supreme Court for not having participated in the until then largest corruption scandal in Brazil’s history. Bolsonaro bother the Bolivarian, he defended the reduction of criminal responsibility for minors rapists, which Maria do Rosário was contrary. How can he be misogynist? The name of Maria do Rosário appeared in the biggest corruption scandal of all the history that follows, in the case of Petrobras. What about Bolsonaro be ”homophobic”, he has posed countless times smiling beside gays, he is against is the project of highly explicit sexual education, being know as ”Kit gay”.
As a Canadian I thought Rob Ford was as bad as politicians could get. i was wrong
No good play Mr. Greenwald, no good play.
As much as I agree with the content of your article, it is a scaringly apparent strategic blunder to publish this article with respect to timing and relevance. So there is a homophobic, sexist, right-wing politician in the brazilian opposition. Sadly, the “democatic world” is full of those.
In such a spotlight period where everyone navigates to The Intercept several times a day to get the latest news on the US-torture-scandal, an event which will reach much further than i think we all anticipate, the reader might be somewhat dissappointed that you choose to pick a battle in which there is nothing to win, for reasons that one cannot help to feel are personal and that is absolutely irrelevant in the bigger picture. It suggests you don’t have anyone around you to tell you when acting on your justified indignation is bad publishing.
Please don’t interpret this criticism as hostile. It is not. I believe The Intercept right now has a unique opportunity to sharpen its profile from being “those guys with the Snowden-files” to a real heavy-weight in reporting on US Foreign Policy.
But did he send a drone to kill halfway around the globe and destroy innocent children? How do those actions stack up for ‘hateful’?
I don’t see anything in the Brazilian constitution which discriminates between a deputy’s speech inside or outside the Chamber of Deputies with respect to immunity from prosecution. This constitutional article might have been influenced in part by the following event.
I believe that a number of think tanks in Washington are currently studying whether AI-5 is compatible with the US Constitution.
Until repealed or superceded, I believe OUR country’s Congress already abrogated the constitutional authority to prevent such a decree – by passing the AUMF.
While I’m clearly paraphrasing, the law seems best nutshelled with the words, “whatever it takes to preserve national security in the war on terror.”
Talk about your blank checks waiting to be completely cashed…
“Costa e Silva was to date the last Brazilian politician to be on the cover of the U.S. edition of TIME Magazine”
Damning enough, some would say. Time being what it is, in general – and what time does to history, in particular.
Mr. Greenwald is funny sometimes. He defends Hamas, which according to him is “devoted to protecting its citizens against the state of Israel”, but he bashes the Brazilian lawmaker who has no authority to impose his beliefs on the Brazilian people. Mr Greenwald, here is a list of Hamas misogynistic policies that you should have reported if you were really dedicated to the truth and for human rights for all.
1) October 2009, Hamas bans women from riding motorcycles with a man. The chief of police Abu Al Hani stated it was a “safety issue”
2) July 2010, Hamas bans women from smoking pipes in cafés The interior ministry spokesman stated: “It is inappropriate for a woman to sit cross-legged and smoke in public. It harms the image of our people,”
3) Jan 2013, Al Aqsa university in Gaza introduces “Islamic dress code” for women.
4) March 2013, United Nations cancels the Gaza Marathon because Hamas bans women from running. Hamas cabinet member Abdul Salam Siam stated: “We don’t want women and men mixing in the same race,”
About Homosexuals in Gaza?
“You in the West do not live like human beings. You do not even live like animals. You accept homosexuality. And now you criticize us?” Hamas co founder Mahmoud Zahar
Mahmoud Zahar again described homosexuals and lesbians as a “minority of perverts” “mentally and morally sick”.
Mr Bolsonaro does not have his own police or his militia to enforce his crazy beliefs, but Hamas does. Please direct me to your articles in which you bash Hamas for sharing the same misogynistic and homophobic beliefs that Mr Bolsonaro has and for imposing them on the population of Gaza by force. Moreover, if you were a gay Palestinian living in Gaza with your partner, would you feel that Hamas is “devoted” to your protection?
You are so fucking stupid, Steb. The debate here is about when speech crosses over into behavior sufficient to expel a member from a democratic assembly. Hamas has nothing to do with that topic.
@Mona
Steb
30 Nov 2014 at 8:45 pm
@ Mona
Your comments are irrelevant to me. I do not waste time with those who sympathize with terrorists.
You answer my comments when it suits you. And repost the above when it does not. And it should not suit you here, because as I pointed out, you are posting inane drivel that has no bearing on the discussion everyone else is having.
Steb is arguing that prohibitions on hate speech are almost always an attempt to silence, or at least to discredit, those you disagree with politically.
As Steb indicates, he uses the technique to delegitimize the Palestinians to avoid addressing the unwelcome question of their right to self determination.
He maintains that Glenn Greenwald is using the technique to discredit a right wing politician whose policies Glenn opposes.
Since Steb has clearly mastered this modus operandi, I’d have to concede his argument might have some merit.
Gotta disagree on this one with you, Duce. Steb doesn’t use the word “speech” or an analog anywhere in his comment. The comment has nothing to do with the topics of Glenn’s post, or the issues the rest of us have been debating here, to wit: speech v. acts, censure v. expulsion, private club or employer v. Congress, & the like.
That is, Steb is not having a discussion about issues pertaining to speech, because he’s too much the moron to realize that is the topic. No, he thinks if Glenn is going to say mean things about Jair Bolsonaro, he must also say mean things about Hamas, because something.
Moaning with a hard on in Gilliam’s Brazil.
Mona with her heart on, of free ( fuck the expense) speech.
What does it profit free speech that curtails the cost of freedom?
Why does Mona prophetical pay the cost of freedom?
Sold out is the answer, sold short by the askance of utter frivolity.
Duce is right, sillyputty is right but Mona is left to suffer the reprisal.
SillyPutty:
Why? Because it’s patently false. You know – The Bill of Rights, and all that.
Actually, the Bill of Rights *is largely about determining what acts will cause men authorized to use guns to take a citizen away and put them in prison, or to otherwise criminally sanction them.
Men with guns cannot come and take you away and put you in prison for: publishing your views, practicing your religion, peaceably assembling with others to redress political grievances, keeping arms, or for refusing to quarter soldiers. Much of the document also addresses procedures for what happens when the government may send men with guns to try to get you convicted and sent to prison. A great deal of the Constitution is about who gets to decide when the government may send men with guns to compel or forbid certain things on the pain of prison.
You truly do not understand the purpose of law.
The first paragraph of an article by the Organization of American States, emphasis mine:
See that word “enforced?” Men with guns make you obey the law, and come get you if you violate it, making you pay $$ and/or go to prison.
“You truly do not understand the purpose of law.” – Mona
And you truly do not understand and/or choose to disregard qualifiers in arguments.
For the nth time, I am speaking about law enactment, while you are speaking of law enforcement.
In my world view, at the outset, laws (such as the Bil of Rights, as only one example) are enacted to grant citizens things, not to take them away. Thus, that is the purpose of law.
As I said several times earlier, of course there comes a point where impinging on those things given to us by law requires enforcing those laws via self-imposed rules, the courts, etc.
But this is really getting to be beside the point.
In the specific case involving this legislators behavior, the behavior appears to be in conflict with Brazilian laws because they impinge upon anothers rights – rights that were first granted by the laws of Brazil. If that proves to be the case, as it seems it may, the affected party should seek redress.
Also, in my view, Brazil’s Congress should democratically enact rules within their legislature that grants rights to encourage a more egalitarian work environment. The specifics and to what extent of sanction to those deemed to have deprived others of their rights under this new rule should be up to them. They are a democracy, after all.
In the end I think that perhaps the articles authors painted themselves into a bit of a corner with their closing thoughts:
But any other action, short of expulsion, would send a message that this kind of repulsively misogynistic behavior is acceptable in the Congress of Brazil.
I think that it would have been more effective if worded : “Action, up to and including expulsion, would send a message that this kind of repulsively misogynistic behavior is unacceptable in the Congress of Brazil.
But as I noted earlier, this may have been written exactly as it was as a rhetorical device to get the results that we are seeing on here and world wide – attention.
In no instance in this case should men with guns be involved.
But hey, what do I know. I don’t live there.
You are wrong on all accounts. Legislators pass LAWS. By definition, that means legislators are deciding when the men authorized to carry guns, tasers and handcuffs will be permitted to seize citizens and put them in prison. Criminalize drugs? The armed men must grab the drug sellers and users and put them in prison, If the legislature repeals criminalization? The men with guns, taser and handcuffs must NOT seize citizens for selling or possessing drugs. It ALWAYS comes down to the legislators (except when a court invalidates a law).
As for the Bill of Rights. It doesn’t “grant” us anything. The First Amendment begins: “Congress shall make no law…” That is a restriction on what laws Congress may pass that authorize the men who carry guns, tasers and handcuffs to seize and prosecute citizens.
Again, you are asserting great deal of nonsense and you literally do not know what you are talking about.
I’m glad you agree a prosecution would be wrong, and attempts at that should fail.
“I’m glad you agree a prosecution would be wrong, and attempts at that should fail.” – Mona
Once again, your argument throws out the many qualifiers surrounding that statement, in an attempt to make it sound like I’m saying something you agree with.
That’s counterproductive and childish.
To clarify, I said Brazil should follow the laws they do have and democratically enact new ones s they see fit. If that includes prosecution up to and including expulsion, so be it, It’s their democratically elected government after all, isn’t it? Or is self-determination at this level off the table?
On another note, your ongoing assertion that men with guns will end all infractions is both hyperbolic and incorrect.
Dang it! – like Benito earlier, I unwittingly tortured that html….
<blockquote.Once again, your argument throws out the many qualifiers surrounding that statement, in an attempt to make it sound like I’m saying something you agree with
Well, no. If you favor prosecution you necessarily favor involving men with guns. Because they exist is why defendants show up in court and go to prison when/if it is decided that they will; these are not voluntary behaviors. Thus, if you don’t want men with guns to have any involvement in the Bolsonaro matter, you cannot support prosecution.
You continue to be quite confused. An expulsion, if it happens, would not be the result of a prosecution. It would be by vote of Brazilian congresspeople. It is not a criminal matter.
It might be those things, had I said that “men with guns will end all infractions.” I didn’t. They do, however, stand behind almost every law, laws being mandatory and not voluntary.
I’m still of the opinion, as is every legislature on the planet, that for such an institution to function, there must be a code of conduct that regulates speech above and beyond civil and criminal liability. A legislature must hold committee meetings, write reports, debate and pass laws. Unlike protesters on the street, members of a legislature have self imposed constraints. For example you won’t hear things like…” The chair recognizes the a-hole from Utah”, or “shove it where the sun doesn’t shine, Mr. Speaker”. It is a work environment that should be setting the standard for how its workers are treated and be a showcase for how a society upholds the dignity of its members. There is no way to automate this process. The members must use their subjective collective best judgement to self regulate in a way that protects their ability to serve their electors and get the business of government done.
And yet the Brazilian attorney general may yet moot the immediate question if it accepts a request to make the politician’s antics a criminal matter:
“RIO DE JANEIRO (AP) — The Brazilian government’s human rights watchdog said Friday it has asked the Attorney General’s Office to file a criminal complaint against a lawmaker who said he wouldn’t rape a female colleague only because she didn’t “deserve it.” “
http://www.utsandiego.com/news/2014/dec/12/brazil-lawmaker-could-face-charges-in-rape-comment/
<em"And yet the Brazilian attorney general may yet moot the immediate question if it accepts a request to make the politician’s antics a criminal matter
I think it’s an appropriate first step, given that the remarks were also made outside the legislative process (see my link below). That said, it doesn’t seem to preclude the legislature regulating itself concurrently, which, as you say, and I agree with, is a necessary action as well for the reasons that you have cited.
And are you under the impression that this doesn’t routinely happen only because legislators fear expulsion? To ask the question is to answer it.
It is not necessary to expel for speech and thereby rob the voters of the results of their voting. This is not any old workplace: the ultimate boss is the electorate. Or should be in a democracy.
*Brazilian Congressman’s Rape Comments May Get Him Prosecuted*
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/12/12/jair-bolsonaro-charges_n_6317856.html
Ah, thanks Cindy. Benito and I have been perusing the Brazilian constitution and it was clear he had immunity for remarks stated on the congressional floor. But according to your HuffPo piece:
No actual charges have been brought yet.
I wonder if Glenn is going to publicly opine on this. Below he said:
Does Glenn think Bolsonaro’s words constitute “behavior” for which he should be criminally sanctioned, or are they “speech” for which he ought not be punished?
In my innocence I’d thought that parliamentary proceedings, or congressional ones for that matter, had a sort of “contempt of court” kind of thing, whereby offensive language would be barred on that level, in the sense that they degrade the formality necessary for officials to deliberate calmly. Your knowledge of the law makes my observations laughable, but I wanted to share that observation.
I can’t say what Glenn is ‘thinking,’ though allow me to say that I learn from both of you, and that the free speech debate is quite a difficult one for me – since through my continuing studies in psychology I’m aware of how protractedly painful and propagandistic insulting ‘mere’ words and mannerisms can be. I emphatically deny the idea that we are intrinsically more fragile than men in this regard, however, and although psychologically well-adjusted people can indeed dismiss offensive talk readily, unfortunately I’m see fewer and fewer well-adjusted people in this regard. I place the blame for this largely on the (corporate/state controlled) establishment media for idiotically promoting ego-offendedness and revenge-orientation across the world as ‘sane as long as you think you are good,’ but that’s another story.
Of course not — like all of us, no one speaks for him but him. My question was rhetorical, altho I’ve emailed and let him know I’d very much like to see him answer some of the points raised since he participated last.
I cannot understand how a man who militantly believes (as do I) that a white supremacist should not be denied a license to practice law — a racist who says many foul things — also countenances expelling a legislator for appalling comments to another legislator about rape when the subject is rape. A depraved, misogynistic man also thinks that “sluts” object to rape. (I am curious what the word translated as “slut” fully connotes in Portuguese.)
Greenwald has a stunning ability to be morally assertive, and it is how remarkably responsible he’s been so far with this skill that fascinates me about him.
I hope he answers your questions about this.
Greenwald has a stunning ability to be morally assertive, and how responsible he’s been so far with this skill fascinates me.
I hope he answers your questions.
No. I don’t think he should be prosecuted. You’re overlooking a fundamental difference between criminal punishment by the state and expulsion from bodies.
I may think a club is within its rights to revoke the membership of a particularly boorish member without thinking he should be prosecuted for his bad behavior.
The bar for removing someone from serving in office is lower than the bar for criminally prosecuting him.
I’ll ask you this, Mona: suppose Bolsonaro went to the podium every time this Congresswoman entered the assembly and started screaming at her how she’s not good enough to be raped by him – literally a daily occurrence, with rage and fury. Would you be opposed to any action being taken by the Congress, or would that be an undue interference with his free speech rights?
Is Censure is an option in Portugal as it is in US congress?
Senatorial censures
The U.S. Senate has developed procedures for taking disciplinary action against senators through such measures as formal censure or actual expulsion from the Senate. The Senate has two basic forms of punishment available to it: expulsion, which requires a two-thirds vote; or censure, which requires a majority vote. Censure is a formal statement of disapproval. While censure (sometimes referred to as condemnation or denouncement) is less severe than expulsion in that it does not remove a senator from office, it is nevertheless a formal statement of disapproval that can have a powerful psychological effect on a member and on that member’s relationships in the Senate.
House censures
In the House of Representatives, censure is essentially a form of public humiliation carried out on the House floor. As the Speaker of the United States House of Representatives reads out a resolution rebuking the member for the specified misconduct, the member must stand in the House well and listen to it. This process has been described as a morality play in miniature.
“Is Censure is an option in Portugal [I mean, Brazil] as it is in US congress?”
A Congress is not a private club; it’s membership is determined by voters of a polity. It is the state.
His constituents should be embarrassed and horrified, and should remove him at the ballot box. In the meantime the congress should censure him. Now if he does this same thing when the congresswoman is attempting to speak in order to drown her out, he is impeding the democratic rights of everyone else in the assembly, including do Rosario’s constituents. For that removal should be an option.
Thank for sharing that, Cindy. From the article:
“Atila Roque, who heads the Brazil branch of Amnesty International, said Bolsonaro “crossed the line of what is acceptable.”
Which I completely agree with.
Also this:
“Lawmakers in Brazil enjoy parliamentary immunity, which protects their speech, opinions and votes. However, the immunity would not apply to Bolsonaro because he made similar remarks later in an interview with a newsmagazine.
So it’s not just political speech, after all.
“Many women say that verbal violence causes more harm than physical violence because it damages self-esteem so deeply. Women have not wanted to hear battered women say that the verbal abuse was as hurtful as the physical abuse: to acknowledge that truth would be tantamount to acknowledging that virtually every woman is a battered woman. It is difficult to keep strong against accusations of being a bitch, stupid, inferior, etc., etc.”
– Suzanne Pharr, Homophobia: A Weapon of Sexism
Yes, it is.
The topic of the military dictatorship, and the crimes it committed, are also discussed in the media, not just on the floor of Congress.
“So it’s not just political speech, after all.”
An example of a qualifier in an argument. I had thought that I’d spelled this out explicitly earlier here but ICYMI, this particular one means that this man has taken his hateful speech to the masses outside the legislative chambers in an attempt to garner support for his hateful speech, and to incite others to intimidate and otherwise unduly influence another legislator in a misogynistic and disgusting way which I feel is completely unacceptable.
I also noted earlier that some speech, whether uttered in a political venue or in the media (supposedly in relation to a political debate) can cross the line. and in my view this speech does.
On a side note regarding science – PTSD is not “contracted” as you have repeatedly stated, it is developed.
This mans hateful behavior is clearly meant to develop something, and it’s not political debate – but rather it’s clearly meant to stifle that debate by using fear, coercion, misogyny, and the societal pressures inherent in Brazil’s culture to bludgeon another legislator.
Another PTSD Pro-Tip™: Neither being a member of the armed forces or a member of a legislature will keep someone from developing PTSD.
http://www.military.com/benefits/veterans-health-care/posttraumatic-stress-disorder-overview.html
That’s a bunch of hooey. There is no evidence Bolsonaro directed anyone to intimidate anyone else. Moreover, it is not illegal to garner support for “hateful speech.” (At least it is not in the U.S., nor should it be.)
It is not illegal to invoke misogyny or to support societal pressure against certain speech. Nor is there any evidence that Bolsonaro has done anything “coercive,” and that would be illegal also in the U.S. What the man has done is made some odious statements about not wanting to rape a woman in the POLITICAL context of her promoting a truth commission report that includes findings of rape.
That is true. Correction accepted and adopted.
“There is no evidence Bolsonaro directed anyone to intimidate anyone else.”
Of course he didn’t. And yet again, that’s not what I said, that your ongoing attempt to have it appear to be that’s what I said. Here is what I said:
“this man has taken his hateful speech to the masses outside the legislative chambers in an attempt to garner support for his hateful speech, and to incite others to intimidate and otherwise unduly influence another legislator in a misogynistic and disgusting way
If I’d thought he’d directed someone, I’d have said it – but, again, this man, although emotionally ill, apparently isn’t stupid enough to be using his office, in public to explicitly incite others to intimidate anyone.
“Nor is there any evidence that Bolsonaro has done anything “coercive,”
Please. Almost everything a politician says and does is coercive – the question is did this cross the line into unacceptable, and possibly illegal behavior? I think it did.
“What the man has done is made some odious statements about not wanting to rape a woman in the POLITICAL context of her promoting a truth commission report that includes findings of rape.”
And again, I say that this crosses the line from acceptable political speech to unacceptable speech, period. There is no acceptable political context for this speech whatsoever.
So it’s not about a) “shrinking violets” (ironically, a misogynistic term), or b) political speech – but it is about hate, bullying, misogyny, and stifling speech.
I’m glad you agree he didn’t direct anyone to intimidate anyone else. That is why what he did do is not illegal in the U.S. and anyone who values free speech doesn’t think it should be illegal anywhere. If, when you say what he did is “unacceptable,” you are only passing moral judgment, then we do not disagree.
I object only to expelling him from Congress or holding him criminally or civilly liable at law. If you don’t advocate any of those things, we do not disagree.
Nothing a politician says or does is coercive. Not if it is legal speech. And again, of course, what Bolsonaro said was “unacceptable” morally. It is not, however, illegal in the U.S., nor should it be, here or elsewhere. Nor should it be grounds for undermining the voting rights of of his constituents.
You seem to think political speech cannot also be “unacceptable” in the moral sense. You are wrong. To, say, claim that a certain ethnic group is inferior is to make both a political and unacceptable statement. But a legal one, as Bolsonaro’s is, or should be.
“I’m glad you agree he didn’t direct anyone to intimidate anyone else.” – Mona
Yeah, me too. I actually like agreeing with people. That said, in context that’s not what I said – what I said was he didn’t have to explicitly incite others to intimidate and otherwise unduly influence another legislator, because he can coerce (or persuade) others implicitly through his repeatedly misogynistic, hateful, and disgusting commentary and actions. Politicians coerce (persuade) others all of the time – that’s their job. Doing what he did in the manner he did is unacceptable speech – not political speech – for the reasons I’ve already tautologically outlined.
“You seem to think political speech cannot also be “unacceptable” in the moral sense”
Actually, no. There is a dividing line between acceptable political speech that is meant to legitimately outline a position or aid in others understanding or elicit the same – this speech was none of those things, for the reasons I’ve already tautologically outlined.
In the end, and unless more facts show up that changes the evidence, I’m going to have to side with the articles authors and say that the activities by this legislator in their entirety rise to the level of sanction of some sort – which will be whatever the democratically elected Brazilian legislature decides.
“em>”“… in practice the standard for what constitutes rape is set not at the level of women’s experience of violation but just above the level of coercion acceptable to men.”
– Judith Lewis Herman
There is no such thing as outlining a position “legitimately” for free speech purposes; for legal purpose of freedom of speech, no such dividing line exists. At least not in the U.S. For moral purposes yes, but not for purposes of law. Our courts do not sit in judgment of what constitutes political truth that may be spoken, any more than they decide what constitutes religious truth that may be believed. Nor may our legislators seek to mandate these things by law.
Because Bolsonaro was engaging in political speech, it is legitimate in the legal sense, by definition, at least in the U.S.
“Because Bolsonaro was engaging in political speech, it is legitimate in the legal sense, by definition, at least in the U.S.”
Therein is the rub. It’s not in the US, it’s in Brazil, so our law doesn’t apply and it’s up to them to decide what it is and what to do about it.
But Glenn is an American who is somewhat notorious for being a “free speech absolutist.” He has written many times about his rejection of European and Canadian hate speech laws.
But here he is endorsing the removal of a nation’s congressman for reasons he claims are about behavior, but are clearly about speech. Calls for Bolnosaro’s expulsion were not triggered when he mildly pushed her; they were triggered when in the context of a report touching on rape, he said something vile to her about rape.
“There is a dividing line between acceptable political speech that is meant to legitimately outline a position or aid in others understanding or elicit the same – this speech was none of those things, for the reasons I’ve already tautologically outlined.” – Sillyputty
“There is no such thing as outlining a position “legitimately” for free speech purposes; for legal purpose of freedom of speech, no such dividing line exists.” – Mona
“the debate here is about when speech crosses over into behavior“ – Mona to Steb (Emphasis mine)
Precisely – so in fact, and in this case, there is a “dividing line” after all.
But not the one you claimed, to wit: the line between legitimate and illegitimate speech.
There is a line between mere opinions and thoughts on the one hand, and acts on the other, e.g., one may not solicit murder. One may, however, advocate it. But there is no line between kinds of mere political speech.
“But there is no line between kinds of mere political speech.” – Mona
That is your argument, not mine. In looking back at my comments, I explicitly stated multiple times that this speech was not political speech, because ““the…speech here…crosses over into behavior“ to paraphrase your comment to Steb, and to echo Glenn’s comments as well.
I do see your distinction; however, I feel that in this particular case it surpasses “mere political speech” and becomes something else entirely, and therefore that it should be subject to whatever sanction the Brazilian Legislature deems appropriate.
1. That’s a different argument, and
2. It would be necessary to identify a demonstrable something relevant about the speech that renders it more than mere speech — what makes it speech plus impermissible thing? — for the argument to prevail. I doubt you can succeed where Glenn has failed.
“That’s a different argument” – Mona
No, it’s not. That’s the argument I’ve made and continue to make. That it does not comport with what you want the argument to be about is your problem, not mine.
“what makes it speech plus impermissible thing?” – Mona
The answers to that question have already been provided in the article itself, the follow up links, my arguments, and in Glenn’s follow-up.
Please state what act Bolsonaro’s statements constitutes that merit sanction. Because all I’ve seen you do is rant that words alone can cause enormous harm, PTSD & etc.
Yes, Glenn wants to have us believe that this was not political speech, but I’ve dispatched that nonsense. And nothing you have offered does any better than he has.
“Yes, Glenn wants to have us believe that this was not political speech, but I’ve dispatched that nonsense. And nothing you have offered does any better than he has.” – Mona
That’s just nonsensical. It will be the Brazilian’s who dispatch this in whatever fashion they decide. Everything else is just us pounding on keyboards. Arguendo.
You’re welcome!
Senhores, boa noite.
Vejo que existe uma reportagem um tanto quanto desinformada.
Votei no Bolsonaro para deputado federal e não me arrependo. Assim como os 500 mil votos que recebeu aqui no Rio de Janeiro.
Maria do Rosário é uma defensora dos direitos humanos. Todos somos, inclusive o Bolsonaro.
O que talvez vocês não saibam é que aqui além da grande corrupção que existe na política, os direitos humanos procuram defender SEMPRE o assassino, estuprador e etc.
Todos os cariocas não aguentam mais toda a violência que assombra nosso estado. E não será o direitos humanos que irão resolver, nem a violência (como sugerem que o Bolsonaro apóia. O que não é verdade. )
O Bolsonaro é casado com uma mulher NEGRA e tem em assessor gay. Além de ser apoiado por alguns gays.
Então, cai por terra suas colocações de que ele seria racista ou qualquer outra coisa.
Sugiro ler seus projetos de lei que estão disponíveis na Internet.
Ele também não defende a volta da ditadura militar. Defende a ordem.
Aqui no Rio de Janeiro, você não tem tanta segurança. Nossa mídia esconde algumas situações e dá importância a outras, de acordo com o que irá vender mais matéria.
Se numa troca de tiros com bandidos um policial mata, ele é indicado e quase sempre é culpado por se defender.
Quando isso acontece, nosso “direitos humanos” sempre ficam ao lado do bandido. Nossa polícia não é apoiada por cumprir seu papael em defender um cidadão comum.
Peço que antes de escrever uma matéria converse com pessoas da zona norte ou baixada fluminense Rio de Janeiro. Pois sempre são nesses lugares que acontecem as piores coisas.
Since Glenn Greenwald has called for the expulsion of this Congressman, I did some research to see if their is any legal basis for this demand. So I looked through a copy of Brazil’s constitution. This is Brazil’s 7th constitution and, since it was introduced in 1988, has been amended 77 times (although it might have been amended several more times since I started typing this comment). So clearly Brazilians, unlike Americans, do not have any hangups with messing about with their constitution. When they make a mistake, they are willing to admit it and change. So if the current constitution does not support expulsion, that should be relatively easy to rectify.
It might currently be hard to sue Bolsonaro for his comments. According to Article 53,
.However, kicking him out might be easier. According to Article 55,
Apparently the majority of a secret vote in the Chamber of Deputies would be enough to do it.
So the only question is whether his conduct is ‘incompatible with parliamentary decorum’. The constitution does not define parliamentary decorum, explain why it is considered so important, nor describe what actions might be incompatible with it. So I believe the only way to find out would be to hold the secret vote. This seems like an excellent way of getting rid of troublesome Deputies and I fully support it.
Benito, the Constitution further says in Art. 55, Paragraph 1:
One would need access to both these internal regulations, as well as to an annotated Constitution that cited case law interpreting what constitutes a breach of this decorum, to assess the legal merits (in Brazil) of expelling Bolsonaro. But I would guess they permit it.
While de Rosario would seem to be precluded from suing Bolsonaro by the Brazilian Constitution for his words directed to or about her, perhaps the “internal regulations” and judicial interpretations do permit his expulsion. In which case, that is their choice.
Nevertheless, it is unfortunate to see Glenn supporting such a move.
I`m fed up with Brazilian right-wingers and their talk of “Cuba”, “communism” and “bolivarianism”. So I decide to read a report by a foreigner, in an international site, just to find the same right-wing fanatics spouting the same nonsense.
“Brazil needs help” and Co: We know all you want is to go to Miami. So please go right now, forget you were once Brazilian and live us alone. Thank you.
What a dishonest article.
Greenwald is trying to make it look like Bolsonaro insulted Rosário for no reason other than the fact that she is a woman and he’s a mysoginistic right-wing extremist. That’s ridiculous.
Let’s put things in perspective. Bolsonaro was interviewed by a TV channel about Champinha, a teenager who raped a girl and killed her and the boyfriend 10 years-ago. Because he was 16 years-old when the crime was committed, Champinha couldn’t face trial and go to jail, so he’s in a mental-health institution and nobody knows what to do with him. He’s clearly not insane, so he can’t stay there, but he also can’t be simply released. Bolsonaro was defending changes to brazilian law so that minors involved in heinous crimes like those can face trial as an adult, like in the US. Because of that, Rosário called Bolsonaro a rapist, since she believed Champinha should be released. Just to make it clear, she was defending the rapist and murderer and called Bolsonaro a rapist because he as any sane person in the democratic world believes a murder and rapist shouldn’t walk free on the streets, no matter his age.
I learned to never assume malice when ignorance is enough to explain something, but Greenwald maneuver so carefully around the issue to avoid putting things in context that it’s hard to believe he isn’t being deliberately dishonest. What a shame.
“Every major democracy has its share of hateful bigots and cretins among its elected officials – the U.S. has had more than its fair share – but Bolsonaro is a unique national disgrace.” ~ Greenwald & Fishman
Gentlemen, we can agree that every democracy (indeed every State) has had its share of bigots and cretins. Where we are sure to part company is that you don’t seem to realize that politicians don’t come any other way. Oh sure, some hide it very well and will even make the claim that they are “sacrificing” their lives in service to “the common good”. But simply, the government is a gang of thieves writ large. Thieves and goons all, even if some are demonstrably worse than others. The government of England refuses to help get Julian Assange to safety, choosing to leave him a prisoner in the embassy of Ecuador right in downtown London. The USA has murdered, raped, and tortured innocent men, women, and children worldwide for over two centuries. The entire US government is guilty of destroying whole societies in the name of “regime change”.
This ugly politician that is the topic of this post is a real horse’s behind, but the actions of the members of the ruling class (the government) is the real crime.
~Mark
Surprised to see Glennzilla all but advocating muzzling another’s right to free speech, even purported hate speech, however despicable.
Sure, whatisname certainly defines despicable by any measure, but WTF?
I believe Glenn Greenwald has realized that being a lone voice in the wilderness is folly. So he is trying to build bridges to the progressive left. To be effective you must be part of a larger group, which requires submerging your own wishes and desires. Free speech is inimical to the interests of any group. It encourages dissent which leads to argument and then rebellion. Being riven by internal strife is counter productive.
In Brazil, there is currently a battle between left and right. Sitting on the fence accomplishes nothing. So the proper course of action is to pick a side and then build solidarity by expressing hatred and ridicule of the ‘other’. Silencing the ‘other’ is the aim of both sides. In this battle for survival, there is no room for quaint notions such as free speech.
No one is more disturbed by Glenn’s position than I am. As law partners, we once defended a white supremacist group together where the leader’s free speech was being sanctioned by the government in multiple ways. (And this speech was truly vile; this was a guy and his church who thought Glenn and his family all belonged in ovens.) I’d do it again, and I’ll bet he would, too.
Many, many disapproved of our decisions to represent this group, and some to this day call Glenn a Nazi-lover because of it. When he answers them, he sneers at their rejection of free speech.
What Glenn is doing now, is trying to convince himself and everyone else that Bolsonaro’s statements to do Rosario are “acts” and not speech. Below I have extensively explained why this won’t fly; there was a context of do Rosario trumpeting a truth commission and its report that included the topic of rape. Bolsonaro was angry about the accusations of rape re: the military dictatorship that he defends. He did not, out of the blue, decide to stand up and say he wouldn’t want to rape her as they were debating, say, energy policy. Rather, he was in the midst of a distinctly political discussion on the floor of the Brazilian congress that directly pertained to findings of rape.
He should be admonished, censured, or whatever the Brazilian Congress does to express the body’s disgust. But he ought not be expelled. What should be done if Bolsonaro’s constituents simply reelected him (which I glean is a distinct possibility)? The rights of each voter in Bolsonaro’as district are at issue here.
Mere bad speech should not be allowed to invalidate the voters’ choice. I hope Glenn will continue to ruminate on this issue and change his mind.
I do support free speech in America. Because they have been brainwashed to believe in free speech, many Americans would continue to speak their mind, even if it were criminalized. So it’s better to just accept it, regardless of how unpleasant it may be. The best to be hoped for is that it can be subverted by small increments over time, or at least curtailed through the pressure of social conformity.
However, many countries don’t have a long tradition of free speech. There it can possibly be nipped in the bud before it blooms into a full blown obsession. Glenn Greenwald has spent a good deal of time in Brazil and his instincts in this case may be correct.
I really don’t see expulsion as being based on his political views ****at all.****
There are members of that body far more anti-gay and racist than he is, with far worse views on women. I would vehemently oppose their expulsion.
This is about very abusive behavior directed at a single woman serving in that body that has involved physical contact and repeated personal abuse. The behavior that would justify his expulsion is devoid of ideological or political views. It’s not about sanctioning opinions or even hate speech. It’s about ensuring that people who serve in that congress aren’t subjected to this kind of assaultive behavior.
Here is another perspective from the Huffington Post regarding the topic at hand, with more specific quotes from the parties involved:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/12/11/jair-bolsonaro-rape_n_6310460.html
Here is The Guardians take on the political climate in Brazil after the Truth Commission Report was unveiled:
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/dec/10/brazil-president-weeps-report-military-dictatorship-abuses
Ah, here we are in a Le Monde blog…”Jair Bolsonaro the Brazilian deputy who dares to be a homophobe, a misogynist, and a racist”
http://bigbrowser.blog.lemonde.fr/2014/12/12/jair-bolsonaro-plus-scandaleux-que-le-plus-scandaleux-de-tes-deputes/
Reading the comments, it seems that Bolsonaro’s defenders have two points:
One, Mrs. de Rosario hit him first!
And two, Bolsonaro may be politically incorrect, but Brazilian kids will shoot you as quickly as look at you and Bolsonaro is a law and order guy who favours giving children adult prison sentences.
folks, you should QUESTION everything you read. The story is not like it’s written in most newspapers, they just forward what they’ve heard from others! Most people just follow the crowd without questioning what exactly happened, that’s unfair! I am brazilian and i am a woman. I also hate sexism and recognize our society is still very primitive, BUT the story is actually as follows:
He was at the congress speaking with jornalists in favor of lowering the minimal age of criminal responsability. This woman, Maria do Rosário, is AGAINST that, she also defends every criminal that is underaged! She was angry and started to tell Bolsonaro, that he causes violence and called him a rapist. SHE CALLED HIM FIRST A RAPIST, allright? He then said, he wouldn’t rape her, because she doesn’t deserve (which in our country means, you are ugly!). Of course this is not a nice thing to say and he should have kept quiet, but it is extremely unfair to blame him for a fight that SHE STARTED. To defend herself she began to put on a show, so that everybody would see HER and not HIM as a victim.
Bolsonaro is a thorn in the eye of the corrupt politicians in our country, since he always confronts them. That’s why they want to shut him up!
You say children as if they were angels. They are criminals and often psychopaths!
All you leftists faggots listen, nobody is holding you here, go to cuba and see if your sexual liberties will be appreciated !
pior de tudo que sabe-se que existem 400 mil bolsonaros no Rio de Janeiro seus eleitores…Isso é o grande absurdo
While you are looking into mass surveillance stories GG, don’t forget to mock this:
“Verizon is the latest big company to enter the post-Snowden market for secure communication, and it’s doing so with an encryption standard that comes with a way for law enforcement to access ostensibly secure phone conversations.
Verizon Voice Cypher, the product introduced on Thursday with the encryption company Cellcrypt, offers business and government customers end-to-end encryption for voice calls on iOS, Android, or BlackBerry devices equipped with a special app. “
http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2014-12-11/verizons-new-encrypted-calling-app-comes-prehacked-for-the-nsa
If I am reading correctly, that is an “end to end encryption” with “a way for law enforcement to access”.
I’m confident that the (I believe impossible) combination of those two features will provide a chuckle for anyone who has been following the surveillance debate.
@ Glenn Greenwald,
Glenn not sure if you saw this or anyone plans on addressing it, but it would be interesting if someone did. From the Guardian today in the context of German high court thwarting the German Green and Left parties attempts to have Edward Snowden testify to the German legislature in person:
http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2014/dec/12/court-edward-snowden-germany-nsa
Is Harald Range suggesting that he believes one of the Snowden documents is a fake? Or is “not an authentic surveillance order” just his legal opinion that he can’t “authenticate” the particular document because the NSA won’t admit to its authenticity and Edward Snowden isn’t being permitted entry into German to authenticate it? Is he possibly just hiding behind a semantic distinction re: what is/is not “an NSA ‘order’” to do nothing? Is anyone aware of precisely which “document” he is referring to that he believes isn’t an authentic NSA order?
In any event, I thought the tapping of Merkel’s phone was pretty well established by document(s) provided by Edward Snowden despite Pres. Obama neither directly admitting or denying it. Just wondering if Der Spiegel, you, Ms. Poitras or Mr. Snowden were planning on addressing Mr. Range’s apparent statement questioning the authenticity of any documents addressing the issue of the bugging of Chan. Merkel’s phone?
It’s hilarious, the German government won’t let Snowden testify:
“If Snowden were to be allowed to enter Germany, the clamour for him to be able to stay would be strong and resistance from the government would be likely to be met with civil unrest.”
Then they say that without further testimony there is nothing to back up the NSA documents:
“Range said the investigation would continue. He said that neither Snowden, the reporter for Spiegel magazine who was in possession of a document that appeared to be evidence of tapping, nor Germany’s foreign intelligence agency, the BND, had presented him with any other details.”
http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2014/dec/12/court-edward-snowden-germany-nsa
Then they say that without further testimony there is nothing to back up the NSA documents
Sounds an awful lot like the CIA saying that the Senate torture report (pace Cindy!) isn’t valid because no one from the CIA was interviewed. Interesting to see the spread of techniques for evasion of investigation. Almost like the way they spread memes that serve their purposes.
“Interesting to see the spread of techniques for evasion of investigation.
Absolutely. This is “aiding and abetting and enemy of the US state” or some such, it seems. Pretty discouraging that Germany won’t, at least at the Merkel level, stand up for itself yet. Also interesting is that “German attempts to secure a no-spying agreement with the US were unsuccessful” which may be a stumbling block. Also, perhaps, if I understand other articles correctly, there is a chance for Germany’s Court of Justice to make a different decision – time will tell.
http://www.dw.de/court-disallows-bid-to-invite-snowden-to-testify-in-berlin/a-18125067
The government in Germany has explicitly the privilege to NOT prosecute foreign officials if it is against the “interest of the state”. Furthermore. while Germans in general are extremely wary of privacy violations, the First and Fourth Amendment rights are not as strongly proteceted as they are (or better: should be) in the US
I wonder if the fact that Glenn understands and speaks Portuguese and lives in Brazil is the reason that we know about this particular dunce but not about others in Latin America and the rest of the world. But Bolsonário IS without doubt one of the worst. The tirades that you can follow on the additional tapes are of the same calibre. As much as it pains me, I am afraid to say that this is not a singular voice in Brazil. The militar dictatorship had the appearance of being more bland as the other guerilla regimes in Latin America but that is true only with regard to the numbers not to the atrocities committed. The truth report now published was only possible to be published now, thirty ywears after the end of the military regime. The collective amnesia was and still is quite disgusting, one indicator being the almost seamingless passage of supporters of the regime into “democracy”. It sufficed to read the obituaries of the politicians who held office while the gorillas ruled toget na idea of the scope of the public being unable to face some nasty facts about their past. Invariably, their service to the nation is presented without a whiff of blemish. This is true for all of the “lame MSM” in Brazil, not only those of the Globo empire being promoted by and promoting the generals.
Without doubt, the publication of the Truth Report is a severe blow to the amnesia and the (dis)honor of the defenders of the gorillas. The reaction is all the more violent. One should not underestimate the general disgust with the current political class and the very real insecurity in the country where the multiple police forces are to a differing degree in cahoots with the drug lords. The ruling Workers Party – without blemish until entering government – has proven unable to break up corrupt habits, which has given fuel to dreams of the “strong hand”, the repeal of gun laws, and a general trend to claim for law and order – not unlike the pre-1964 years when the militar jettisoned the political class the last time.
Bolsonário is only the most uncouth representative of such – still minority – feelings in a country which might not be God’s own but proudly claims God as one of its citizens.
If you read the actual Spiegel story, it does not identify the leaker as Snowden. Glenn was busy earlier on Twitter making that point. It’s long been suspected there is another NSA leaker located in Germany.
Which isn’t to say he (or I) doubt that it’s true. President Obama likely doesn’t promise not to do things, and to stop doing them, when they’ve never been done in the first instance.
Thanks Mona. I probably should have read the Spiegel story. But if it was another document (“the document presented in public as proof”) from another leaker Range was referring to, then it raises the obvious question, or maybe I misunderstood originally, wasn’t it Snowden documents that revealed Merkel had her phone tapped? Or did I just conflate the two leaks? And if it was independently corroborated by Snowden documents, how is it that Range couldn’t establish “enough firm evidence to corroborate the claim” that Merkel’s phone had been tapped?
Hi rr. I don’t know much more than you do. Glenn tweeted this earlier:
See his TL from today and the tweet chains he has had going with several people on this topic.
Thanks again Mona. I took a look. It seems someone named Holger Stark raised the same issue that I did–which is that he thought the Merkel tapping was also referenced in the “NSA files” which I presumed were the Snowden docs but when I followed the links were another Twitter feed.which has the same guy linking to Spiegel reporting the Merkel tapping as being sourced from the Snowden docs.
Maybe I’m confused, but again, if there was Snowden docs that independently established Merkel had been tapped I can’t figure out why that wasn’t submitted to Range or wasn’t sufficient proof if it was submitted to Range. Which is not to say I believe the German government wouldn’t bow to pressure from the US to kill any investigation–my guess is they would, will and are killing it despite the German peoples’ feelings on the matter.
rr:
Holger Stark is a German journalist who specializes in cryptology and agencies like the NSA. He wrote several of the stories for Spiegel, including, I think, the one on Merkel.
The German prosecutor has just confirmed he is not, at all, claiming Spiegel fabricated documents. Some assholes like Joshua Foust and John Schindler who hate Snowden and Greenwald, are trying to make it look like a big conspiracy to fabricate docs just because the German prosecutor has said he lacks evidence to prosecute for the Merkel spying. (Don’t know what rules of evidence are in Germany, but as you know which others don’t, there would be an admissibility problem in the U.S. without the NSA person who drafted or received the thing to “authenticate” it.)
See Stark’s TL to sort of get the gist of this kerfuffle https://twitter.com/holger_stark/with_replies
Foust and Schindler are embittered liars who will grasp for any outre accusation in an attempt to undermine Snowden and all his journalists.
Mona,
Glenn’s recent Twitter feed links to Der Spiegel’s response to the issues raised above.
http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/nsa-german-federal-prosecutor-seeks-to-discredit-spiegel-reporting-a-1008262.html
This is an absolute bullshit story from start to finish (aside from the fact that the document in question isn’t one from the Snowden archive), which the US media has completely mangled. Here’s a good explanation as to why and what actually happened.
Thanks GG. I see now what happened and where everyone’s confusion originates. Appreciate the clarification and link(s).
Glenn,
By reading your replies to many readers here, it seems to me that you are more inclined towards a manicheistic standout of us-versus-them, left-versus-right, rather than analysing each fact independently.
So if one agrees with Bolsonaro’s response, this person is automatically against the poor, gays, is in pro of military dictatorship and is also a misogynist? How many logical fallacies can we find in such assertion?
I have shown this video to my WIFE, who is not Brazilian but understands Portuguese. Her opinion is that, while Bonsonaro was unfortunate to lower himself to that level, he was defending himself from a blatant attack by Rosário. She was in no right to call the man a rapist, But hey, maybe my wife is misogynist. Who knows?!
Who is this guy’s constituency? From where is he elected? With his history it seems like who returns him to Congress is an important story.
OK, so he’s an idiot and seemingly happy to show it by opening his mouth but he’s small potatoes when I think of the hate, death, and destruction that has poured from the mind of Dick “Strangelove” Cheney.
The funny thing is Maria do Rosário has been accused of corruption in Petrobras issues,while Jair Bolsonaro never participated in such case. This debate is pure illusion, a good Works Party tactical to take public opinion’s out of that scandal.
No one knows what’s going on in brazil and latin america.
Bolsonaro is anti-socialist and his speech was about the dictators (lula dilma)who is in power now in brazil.
This communist lady called him rapist without prove .so,i think that he head the right to pay back.
Bolsonaro also said in his speech many things about the corruption that dilma is responsible and that she is give a lot of money to cuba,etc…
Its seen that the socialists got what they want,make the press look for another way.
Google about the foro de sao paulo to find out about .
Btw,this lady is involved in a corruption of petrobras.
She has no moral.
We are asking impeachment or military intervention in brazil ,but we know that the guerrilla in latin america are ready to attack my country to help lula and dilma.
USA don’t know any thing about and think that dilma was elected by democracy,it was a fraud.
Olavo de carvalho (google,he lives in US)has tell every one about the foro de sao paulo and no one believed ,just now people are waking up.
Our president is a terrorist and a killer,she murdered a solder in car bomb attack,he was 19 years older.she also robed a bank and kidnaped an american ambassador at the time of military regime.
We need help form international press.
We have a lot of protests but the press in brazil does not showing .
Please,help us!!!!!!!!
Tell the true!!!!!!!
In some ways, Brazilian politics have become as polarized, at times even more so, than American politics. The hatred for the B razilian left – mostly due to a perception that it acts to protect the poor – is so extreme that there are right-wing fanatics expressly defending Bolsonaro.
I knew that there would be an uncorking of hatred for Maria do Rosario: a leftist woman (gasp!) – Chavez lover! But I really didn’t think there’d be so many people willing to defend someone who pushed a woman, called her a SLUT, and told her that she isn’t good enough to deserve his rape – to say nothing else of all vile things he said that we detailed here.
It’s fine if you like the military dictatorship, hate programs to help the poor, and think that the pro-corporate Dilma is some sort of communist insurgent. But that doesn’t mean you have to defend obviously repulsive behavior of every right-wing, proto-fascist, pro-dictatorship cretin who comes along. It won’t kill you if you say: “yes, I hate the left in Brazil, and I like the right, but Bolsonaro is a repellent hater.” Because that’s exactly what he is.
As for those suggesting there’s just some problem with the translation: Please, get a better excuse. Aside from the fact that we worked on the article with two native Brazilians (“additional research provided by Cecília Olliveira and David Miranda”), and aside from the fact that we’ve lived in the country for years and speak the language fluently, this episode is a huge controversy in Brazil. Numerous political parties have called for his expulsion from the Camara. The human rights minister has officially condemned him.
They all speak Portuguese. Everyone knows exactly what he said, and exactly what he meant.
And that’s what makes it so shameful for any of you to defend it, no matter how far to the right you are, how much you hate Dilma, or how much you crave a return of the military dictatorship because democracy lets poor people have too much power.
Dear Glenn,
Why the hell you do still dodges from answering that he was called a rapist, out of the blue, in the context of one of the most horrid crimes in our history, while he was defending a victim? Why do you dodge from the reality that he won a judicial trial on the question over racism, that, in the end, the tapes that suggested that were edited?
You have the right to dislike the guy. That´s one thing. But to lie and say that Rosário is feeling the hatred from the streets because she and her party helped the poor is BS.
Yesterday her name appeared in the lists of dirty campaign money in the Car Wash Scheme. That would be a nice follow up on the story.
And, if you really want to talk about dictatorship, you should know that Lula´s economic czar, Delfim Neto, was himself a 64 defender and an ex-minister for the Coup. Antônio Carlos Magalhães, another military coup puppy, as the leftist use to say, created in Bahia a program to help the poor, later copied by Bolsa Família. As a Senator, he created the law of funding for the Bolsa Família. Politically speaking, he and Bolsonaro, on a hell lot of issues, were on the same side (as still is Delfim Neto).
As a matter of fact checking, Bolsonaro isn´t against the Bolsa Família (as I am): he favours an additional program to help planning families and to transfer Bolsa Família users to job preparing courses and, then, to new jobs itself. Is this, by any means, horrid?
Regards,
Gabriel
Dear Gabriel,
Maria do Rosário told him he incites violence, that’s what she said, and you can hear it on the video. Also here in the end part of the article –
http://www1.folha.uol.com.br/poder/2014/12/1559815-para-rebater-deputada-bolsonaro-diz-que-nao-a-estupraria.shtml
and in a very good commentary – in Portuguese, sorry:
Vi muita gente por aí comentando o seguinte, em relação à agressão de Jair Bolsonaro: “Ele foi ofendido por ela e devolveu a ofensa”. Mas vamos analisar com um pouquinho de pé no chão? Não foi bem assim. Bolsonaro fez teatro, para aparecer para seus ufanistas e entusiastas seguidores. Ele queria Ibope. E conseguiu, só que Ibope negativo. Essa é a segunda vez que ele repete essa mesma frase “Não vou estuprar você porque você não merece”. Na primeira vez, foi por causa da discussão sobre a maioridade penal. Sei que o tema é polêmico, mas não se trata aqui sobre ser a favor ou contra a redução. Se trata da maneira como ele reagiu. Por ser Maria do Rosário contra a redução, ele disse que ela deveria dar a um estuprador o carro dela. E ela lhe respondeu “O senhor promove essa violência”. O que se vê nessa frase? Ela acusou Bolsonaro de promover DISCURSO DE ÓDIO, discurso de misoginia, de homofobia, de “bandido bom é bandido morto”, coisa que, de fato, ELE FAZ. Daí ele respondeu “Grava aí que agora eu sou estuprador”. ELE DISSE QUE É ESTUPRADOR. É dramatização na frente das câmeras. Ela NÃO o chamou de estuprador. E essa foi a resposta dele. E para completar, a chamou de vagabunda (aquilo que nós conhecemos como slut shaming), e a empurrou. Sim, empurrão é agressão física, quer homens gostem que a gente fale isso ou não. E sem contar com a ameaça dele em bater nela.
In any case, two wrongs don’t make a right.
By the way, if you are so confident on your Portuguese skills and on your Brazilian buddies, journalistic distance on the issue, you should make a fair transcription of the full tape on the Champinha story, as well as a report on his judicial victory against CQC.
And, yes, you should check your skills. Portuguese communication, as French and Italian, is much more subtle than English (a language that I absolutely love), especially on rhetoric and slang territories. If you couldn´t hear on the Rede TV! Tape Rosário calling him a rapist, alongside with a new Portuguese teacher, you need some auricular medical treatment.
Regards,
Gabriel
i am a native speaker an DID NOT hear the lady saying the word “rapist”.
Don`t be a COXINHA.
The judiciary in Brazil, just as any other country in the world, isn’t always the most trustful of the powers, just take a look at the recent judge’s abuse of power cases. Aside any rightness of wrongness of both Bolsonaro and Do Rosário on these episodes, the facts remain. He shouldn’t never, ever have said those things of her, regardless any motivation, provocation, or anything else she might have done to incite it (I’m not saying she did). There isn’t any justification for what he did so, for this reason, I find it very hard to see fellow compatriots not just defending him, but praising this prick.
Please, see your own bias. You doubt of the righteousness of his judicial victory, and you do not say anything about an open crime (here in Brazil is a crime to say, without a proof, that another person committed a crime) that she committed. You cannot see degrees of importance, putting, by this, her right to commit a crime in a higher position than his right to call her names after a false imputation of crime.
Killing soldiers during a brutal military dictatorship is righteous; killing active soldiers is not terrorism in most circumstances.
I do not support expelling Bolsonaro from a congress in a democratic nation that permits free speech. However, what he said was vile and repugnant, and it appears that many of his views are. Unfortunately, the “law and order” authoritarians usually are a large package of illiberal noxiousness. That’s certainly been the case here in the U.S.
Glenn,
With all due respect, translations can indeed be a problem. I could not care less for Miranda’s or Cecilia’s translation, as I am fluent in both English and Portuguese and I can clearly see that there has been some biased and selective criteria applied where key facts have been ‘strategically omitted’.
I certainly hate the left and I despise what the PT is doing to Brazil. No, I do not think Bolsonaro is any sort of paladin of truth and justice, and I certainly don’t think he would be a good president. But I think he is doing a great job as an opponent to this vile and corrupt government. Rosário has jumped in the middle of an interview that did not concern her to accuse Bolsonaro of being a rapist. To which he defended himself and said that he wouldn’t rape her. As we say in Brazil: Quem diz o que quer, escuta o que não quer (those who say what they want to say, will hear what they do not want to hear).
Now, do we really need to get to the silliness of hair-splitting and deconstructing the rationale behind Bolsonaro’s answer to Rosários attack, as to find out that perhaps he is condoning rape to some and not others? Such exercise simply shows some desperate attempt to vilify the man based on a silly game of non-sequitur.
You have been living in Rio for a while as we know, and you should know by now that despite trying to show a different image to the foreign public, there is an overwhelming amount of Brazilians to have followed the incident through its entirety and are, in fact, perplexed as to the audacity of this woman to refer to a congressman as a rapist just because of a divergence of opinion — and even more, for the PT and its allies to focus solely on Bolsonaro’s response and completely ignore the abuse he received.
I certainly disagree with him on his views about gays, marriage and adoption. But I think this is due to him not knowing many gay people and for having an outdated perspective on the matter. Some of my dearest friends (and family members) are gay and I would certainly denounce him if I felt he was a threat to their well-being.
As a matter of fact, I find US Republican party to be much more misogynist and harmful to gays than Bolsonaro would ever be. So to say that he is the most “hateful elected official in the democratic world” is, at the very least, a hyperbole.
Best regards,
P.
Glenn
Bolsonaro are working about the legal age for criminal responsibility from 18 years old to 16. And increases the penalty for rapist. Maria do Rosario goes to Bolsonaro and started to call him raper, and he talk to her, – I’ not rapist … (I will use caps here just to do some emphasis and sorry if it’s agressive) I WON’T RAPE YOU BECAUSE YOU *DON’T DESERVES*.
She is just a victimhood.
We have another case 60 girls was raped… The guy goes to jail for a little time and back to the streets
http://noticias.terra.com.br/brasil/policia/am-vitimas-contam-como-estuprador-de-seita-demoniaca-agia,18ba80c24604a410VgnVCM4000009bcceb0aRCRD.html
Where is Maria do Rosario? What she are doing about that? We have a lot of another cases…..The “Humans Right” here is just to protect criminals, and when someone suggests something to increase more protection (Bolsonaro), people like Maria do Rosario start to kind of theater…they don’t have arguments they just known theater.
In her case, she do everything in some hours… and look, that she was not raped, just words, and Bolsonaro said (you don’t deserves)..
and now for ours 60 girls?
You are sick, man. You called a terrorist a woman who was tortured because she spoke against a dictatorship that was doing unspeakable things against people and sometimes without any reason. YOU have no freaking idea of what you are saying, people like you were the ones that oppressed, tortured and killed innocent people that dared to say something against the government. If you think the dictatorship should come back, you damn well should know that you would not be able to say the kind of things you are saying now. Go to hell, even if you are a troll.
Oh my goodness, spoke like a true idiot.
“That is not the purpose of law. The primary purpose is to determine what acts will cause men authorized to use guns to take you away and put you in prison, or to otherwise criminally sanction you.” – Mona
I’ll have to disagree. What you describe above is the definition and purpose of law enforcement – i.e., “The Stick”
What I am describing is the purpose of legislators in the context of law making, which ultimately is to elicit the best of what a society wants to reflect – i.e., “The Carrot”
That this indeed may ultimately involve sanctions and punitive action to get those results is a given, but I feel that societies default starting point and purpose for law in general is to not necessarily begin as reductive in nature – quite the opposite.
Your views as I understand them have expressed concerns that legislator(s) would be subject to punitive action (expulsion) for merely expressing their speech. On the other hand, I expressed more of a concern that legislators (in the specific examples cited) should not use abusive speech (and physical contact in this case) to affect laws or lawmaking by stifling speech.
In this case, and in my view of speech in particular to lawmaking bodies, this is clearly just a more insidious, yet socially acceptable form of expulsion – but expulsion nonetheless. It’s being a stick. A bully. A sexually explicit act of aggression. Misogynistic, specifically, in this case.
Nothing that any lawmaker should be or exhibit in their duties representing the public in a law-making session. Nor should it ever be an acceptable workplace environment for lawmakers or anyone else.
I find what has been described in this specific case to be an unacceptable form of behavior by any legislator, yet apparently there are no “carrots” to either encourage better behavior, nor “sticks” to ensure it. Hence the dilemma – encouraging speech (and contact, in this case) that obviously ostracizes some thus as a result limiting discourse, or encouraging speech that prevents ostracizing anyone, thus allowing for more discourse.
I choose the latter. It is a slippery-slope; however, I reject the notion that this is an “either/or” dilemma, in that humans are more than creative enough to craft law that encourages rather than discourages discourse in its lawmaking bodies.
In other words when crafting our laws, we should make it the goal to travel more uphill rather than down.
Whether Brazil has the political will and/or public support to do so at this time is another matter altogether. I think that the reporters of the article are, at the very least, trying to help that process along by shining a light on the subject.
You are wrong as a matter of objective fact. Law enforcement is just that. LE does not draft the law, and has no purpose other than to enforce it.
These are the definition and origins of the word “legislator”
When the legislators do their job of passing laws, they are deciding for which acts the enforcers with guns shall be sent to apprehend citizens and put them on trial and, if convicted, thrown in prison. Law enforcement does not decide this; they can only abide by the will of the legislators, who decide when the enforcers may use their gun-backed power against us.
The purpose you impute to legislators, i.e., to “elicit the best a society wants to reflect” is a dangerous (and mercifully inaccurate) goal to assign them. They are not to act as parents shaping the moral character of children, and ought to only be concerned with protecting us from one another and foreign others, and to provide the basic material necessities that not all can provide for themselves.
The priests and therapists can “elicit the best from us.” They can’t use guns to apprehend us if we fail to let them elicit enough of what others determine is our best.
“You are wrong as a matter of objective fact. Law enforcement is just that. LE does not draft the law, and has no purpose other than to enforce it.” – Mona
I believe that you have completely misread, and as a result, misstated my position. You, in fact, said exactly what I said. Regarding this:
“The purpose you impute to legislators, i.e., to “elicit the best a society wants to reflect” is a dangerous (and mercifully inaccurate) goal to assign them. They are not to act as parents shaping the moral character of children”
I have absolutely no idea where this came from, as it entirely misses the point that I was, I thought, quite clearly making with regards to legislators being lawmakers (as you yourself affirm in your definitions above: “A person who makes laws; a member of a legislative body”).
So once again, you, in fact, said exactly what I said, but for some inexplicable reason added tortured rationals that do not address the subject directly at all, instead casting a wider and wider net that completely misses the point at hand, and for that reason I will offer no rebuttal to those specifics.
In the end, I’ll just repeat my “I’m not a lawyer doctrine” which I put forth earlier:
This seems a lot of hair splitting rather than what it really is, which is a whole lot more like this:
“But people like the doll guy who sells women and the dog guy who buys women, and other guys who, say, rape women, or maybe don’t go as far as violent rape but treat women like objects instead of people—sure, there’s a difference in the level of crime, but it’s all the same thing, where women become a canvas for throwing emotional baggage, Jackson Pollock style.” – Taylor Stevens, The Doll
You call it political speech. I call that bullshit.
Your position was so egregiously wrong and muddled it is possible I misstated it out of confusion. However, what I’ve been saying is true:
As opposed to your false assertion, which was:
That’s all nice and Hallmark, but grossly inappropriate for a process that determines when those authorized to carry guns, tasers and handcuffs may come and take us away to prison.
Well, it was uttered from one legislator to another in the context of a report that included findings of widespread rape committed by a military dictatorship that the offending speaker defends. That’s about as political as it gets.
Well, Mona, I’ve certainly enjoyed the discussion; and I’ll just keep my panglossian view that the First Continental Congress (as just one example) was not solely interested in enacting legislation to “determine what acts will cause men authorized to use guns to take [me] away and put [me] in prison, or to otherwise criminally sanction [me].”
Why? Because it’s patently false. You know – The Bill of Rights, and all that.
You keep your idea that just because someone says (or acts, in this case) within a political venue or realm that it therefore makes those acts only political irregardless of any other consideration.
In this case I find that position indefensible.
“Of liberty I would say that, in the whole plenitude of its extent, it is unobstructed action according to our will. But rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others. I do not add ‘within the limits of the law,’ because law is often but the tyrant’s will, and always so when it violates the right of an individual. – Thomas Jefferson
In the mid-’90’s my engineer friend, who was then working for a multinational contractor, was taken for a pre-tender site visit to a place near Rio de Janeiro. He got suspicious of the perfect nature of the site, so he demanded a geotechnical borehole investigation before bidding. Sure enough, human remains turned up in all the boreholes throughout the entre site. The site turned out to be a mass grave that had been bulldozed over with two meters of dirt fill.
And this has…WHAT to do with the story?
So, unfortunately I don’t have a good English,
However, let’s try… I will just try to show my opinion. What means that could not be a truth, I will explain something’s before to explain this case. In my vision
We have many problems here in Brazil.
One of them is the permanent debate about reducing the legal age for criminal responsibility from 18 years old to 16. (part of this discussion is about that)
If someone commits a crime….the thing here are very soft here …
1) Nobody here could stay in the jail for more than 30 years.
2) If someone goes to jails, his/her family will earn money, yes, minimum wage. The victim family.. nothing =)
3) If you had your gold clock stolen in a bus stop (here in Brazil you will be believe), the judge will tell you, “you created an environment to be stolen”, isn’t a joke, it’s sad.
If you are a minor… the thing start to be more, very easy, very easily. Example? A minor invade your home, you cannot known his age, and for some reason defending your home and your family, you hit him, and the worst case (isn’t the death of your family) you kill him. Maria do Rosario and the “Human Right” will catch you. For what? You killed poor and innocent children. What this poor children could do at your home and family, doesn’t matter.
A minor here could stole, kill people, and believe nothing will be done. And one more time, Isn’t a joke.
In 2005 a couple of teenager goes to camp and (had a violent, very violent death). The girl was raped for 5 days for more than one man before be killed. Lifelong prison, what is this? The max here for the worst case is 30 years, and he is a minor. The person is living in a clinic.
Case: http://pt.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caso_Liana_Friedenbach_e_Felipe_Caff%C3%A9
The guy cannot go to the jail: http://veja.abril.com.br/noticia/brasil/dez-anos-depois-o-que-fazer-com-champinha
Bolsonaro goes to a TV. And started to talk about the legal age for criminal responsibility from 18 years old to 16. And that he thinking to increases the penalty for rapist. After the TV show, Maria do Rosario goes to Bolsonaro and started to call him raper, and he talk to her, I’ not rapist … (I will use caps here just to do some emphasis and sorry if it’s agressive) I WON’T RAPE YOU BECAUSE YOU DON’T DESERVE.
I was stolen ate 1 month for a minor, and…. nothing…..can be done. sav ethe “humans right”
She is just a victimhood.
Well, I hope they don’t kick him out of Brazil. If he stays there at least, he won’t get elected in Kansas.
Glenn Greenwald in January of 2012, my emphasis:
Now, I upfront allow that Glenn has not advocated that Jair Bolsonaro be imprisoned; he merely wants him expelled from the Brazilian Congress. Glenn endorses this expulsion because of Bolsonaro’s statements after Congresswoman Maria do Rosário took the floor to praise the National Truth Commission that is about to release a report on the human rights abuses committed during Brazil’s military dictatorship, including the systematic use of rape against female opponents.
As Rosario left the room, Bolsonaro is reported to have said, as Glenn puts it:
Bolsonaro apparently defends the behavior of the dictatorship, and either rejects that rape was then commonly used against opponents, or doesn’t think it is a big issue. Either way, his statements to do Rosario took place on the congressional floor in the context of a political debate involving the subject of rape.
I’d like to see the Greenwald who wrote the above column calling for Bolsonaro’s expulsion grapple with the Greenwald rejecting applying hate speech laws to Twitter. Is the difference between prison on the one hand, and expulsion from a legislative body on the other, most salient? Or is it that Bolsonaro’s angry rejection of the report and it’s findings on rape were made personal to do Rosario?
Aren’t we flirting with hubris in thinking we can pick one sensitive issue like rape as a secure limit on what will constitute cause for expulsion from a congress? What if Bolsonaro had said: “I don’t want to murder you, you aren’t worth murdering?”
Or is there a generally applicable, speech-friendly principle that merits expelling a legislator from a legislative body for words he utters during political debate that would capture Bolsonaro?
you can only be stupid ! Bolsonaro said : You do not deserve not to be raped ! Showing his repudiation of this lady who only defends criminals. To say that one does not deserve even suffer violence means that this person is so low that even this deserves. This is not a crime in Brazil or in most civilized countries . Have impute criminal fact the other person (rape) is a crime in Brazil and probably where you live.
Glenn, it’s time for you to have a kid. Stop fucking around. Big, fluffy dogs are great but they are no substitute for the real thing. Find a surrogate, and do it now. You’re not getting any younger. Your mom will thank me for saying so. And so should you.
Excuse me, you speciesist, dogs *are* the real thing.
Oh HO! Now I see.
I am glad that you have seen the light. Now, it would be a kind thing for you to go down to your local shelter and take a lonely dog for a walk.
NO. I won’t. I have enough rescue animals, and I stand by what I said. The world has enough Duggars. We need a few more Greenwalds.
Well, for sure I’m not a lawyer, but in the end this seems a lot of hair splitting rather than what it really is, which is a whole lot more like this:
“But people like the doll guy who sells women and the dog guy who buys women, and other guys who, say, rape women, or maybe don’t go as far as violent rape but treat women like objects instead of people—sure, there’s a difference in the level of crime, but it’s all the same thing, where women become a canvas for throwing emotional baggage, Jackson Pollock style.” – Taylor Stevens, The Doll
“Not worth raping” speaks of a massively ingrown neurosis, and is possibly a throwback to the discredited idea that rape is about sexual desire rather than vicious dominance. He’s maybe trying to say “you don’t deserve my sexual attention” and by inference thinks rape is amusing.
Personally it’s this assumption that depraved thought like this (if the translations are accurate) is normal in social interactions that offends me, as it could easily be avoided with therapy and certainly has no place in official behavior.
Nonetheless, she shouldn’t be calling people “rapists,” either. If she did.
On his expulsion, if that is Brazil’s answer to impeachment, then have at it. If, on the other hand, this expulsion is a special extra-legal consideration for this man only, then no. Press charges for shoving possibly, but because you find his speech odious, then no again. The reason should be obvious, but, if not, free speech sums it up.
Sillyputty:
Do Rasario is a member of a legislative body, not in a marriage (for purposes of this discussion) or a child in an abusive home. This desire to apply a PTSD standard to a “fragile flower” woman is one I find deeply offensive.
The actual basis of her fear, according to Glenn’s article, are the many threats she’s receiving from outside the Brazilian Congress. My strong guess is that many or most of those are illegal — and should be. That kind of campaign could, indeed, make a person beside herself with anxiety.
But that is not what Bolsonaro did to her. He mildly pushed her; he called her a slut; and he told her, twice, she was unworthy of his raping her. That would not cause the average professional woman to contract PTSD — we, after all, are emergency room doctors, lawyers, first responders to crises. One misogynist making several outrageous comments is not, and should not be perceived to be, grounds for destroying us.
“The actual basis of her fear, according to Glenn’s article, are the many threats she’s receiving from outside the Brazilian Congress.” – Mona
Disregarding the “fragile flower defense” (which I never made) don’t you think that, as a body of elected representatives, they need to set the tone for public discourse, rather than sink down to the lowest common denominator?
And don’t you think that this man’s abhorrent behavior, because it’s allowed in Congress, is a direct contributor to those “many threats she’s receiving from outside the Brazilian Congress?”
Where we say words does not isolate their impact – in fact – it seems to have done just the opposite in this case.
That they may not collectively have the political will or ability is a given (see our Congress) but, really, that they cannot proscribe acceptable levels of public discourse when it has been empirically proven by science to harm is OK?
So in this case the “fragile flower” is just a “straw man” – meant to imply that women aren’t human and therefore don’t need protection from men in more powerful positions whose words do have a direct physical impact on anothers health. That’s not speculation, that’s science. And as rrheard said earlier, gender does not matter.
These legislators are, after all, the ones that make the laws that are meant to elicit the best of what we (they) want society to reflect, and not necessarily to reflect what is happening or allowed at the moment.
So in the end this man’s comments are not “political discourse” although they are vicious – and it is, due to it’s recurrence and the spill-over into her private life – harassment at the very least.
““… in practice the standard for what constitutes rape is set not at the level of women’s experience of violation but just above the level of coercion acceptable to men.” – Judith Lewis Herman
Apologies for the html fail re: the bold font… :(
No.
What he said is allowed — or should be — in or out of Congress. Threats of physical violence are not, and should not be.
I am a female human, and I neither need nor want protection from mere words of men in positions more powerful than mine. I won’t break without that “protection,” and I’ll bet do Rosario won’t either. (But she could be horribly distressed by all the *actual threats, which should be dealt with by the authorities.)
That is not the purpose of law. The primary purpose is to determine what acts will cause men authorized to use guns to take you away and put you in prison, or to otherwise criminally sanction you.
Vou explicar o que aconteceu pois acredito que você não seja uma desonesta, mas mal informada. No ano de 2003, um casal de namorados foram acampar no litoral. Assaltantes liderados por um menor de 18 anos conhecido como Champinha sequestraram o casal. Ao perceber que não tinham dinheiro passaram a estuprar a menina em rodízio na frente do namorado que foi executado com um tiro na cabeça. Após, os estupradores continuaram esta agressão contra aquele anjo. Não satisfeito com a barbarie, o menor de idade a esfaqueou inumeras vezes e tentou degolá-la. Ainda fez sexo com o cadáver. Isso, nos Estados Unidos séria cadeira elétrica!
Após onda de protestos o deputado Jair Bolsonaro propôs Lei reduzindo a menoridade penal e castração química de estupradores.
Estava no saguão do congresso dando entrevista sobre seu projeto quando Maria do Rosário interferiu na conversa dizendo que ele era responsável por todas as mortes, estupros e por toda a violência. Então Bolsonaro pergunta se ele era estuprador. Ela responde que sim, ele é estuprador. E ele respondeu irritado que jamais estupraria ela porque ela não merecia. Ela partiu pra cima dele, quis dar tapa e ele disse que daria de volta. Todo o episódio foi lamentável. Jamais Bolsonaro cometeria um absurdo desses nem concorda com o estupro de mulheres. Maria do Rosário foi grosseira ao inteferir a entrevista de um colega e chamá-lo de estuprador. O que veio após foi só irritação de Bolsonaro, natural diante de tanta provocação.
Aqui no Brasil dizemos que quem fala o que quer…ouve o que não quer (é uma rima).
Ainda que a atitude dele de chamar atenção na última sessão legislativa tenha sido grosseira também, ele apenas reprisou o episódio passado que havia partido dela.
Essa mulher é uma desqualificada que não merece nem o pior dos crimes a ser cometido contra uma mulher: o estupro.
Costumaz defensora de bandidos, a quem chama de excluídos da sociedade, em recente caso de um crime cometido contra um homossexual, disse que isso era crime de ódio, vociferou dizendo que quem mata um gay merece a pena de morte. Ao saber que os assassinos do gay eram menores de idade (seus protegidos) entrou em contradição. Não sabia o que responder. Apoiava a causa gay ou os menores que ela havia condenado a morte, sem querer?
Agiu de maneira dissimulada (cínica como somente ela) pegando o telefone e fingindo estar numa ligação para sair sem responder a dúvida de todos.
The authors of this very to the point article could at least have mentioned that in the first occasion he said he wouldn’t rape her because she called him a rapist in the first place. Out of nothing she called him a rapist.
It’s really interesting to see Glenn Greenwald picking this up, and I’ve read the comments so far with interest. Because this really is at the heart of so many contemporary debates about “free speech”. In contexts where women get overwhelmingly targeted for spoken threats of violence (and really, the assurance that “I wouldn’t even rape you” is one part insult to two parts “but I could if I wanted” threat) and when, additionally, the main source of violence in women’s lives is men, free speech absolutism particularly about spoken threats of gendered violence starts to look pretty indistinguishable from the defense of male privilege. I was really disheartened (and said so) when in its first few months The Intercept was doing great work on imperialist violence but the only feminist-relevant pieces were essentially hostile. It just looked like, oh right, the same old same old left bullshit, the kind that thinks accused rapist Julian Assange is a “honey-trapped” hero while transwoman Chelsea Manning is “well-intentioned but confused” (to be fair to GG, this has NEVER been his position. But it is all over the left and my heart sank when it looked likely to be all over The Intercept, too).
After all, the larger context of violence and threat and how it constrains formally protected “free speech” isn’t just a feminist issue. To pick a topical theme: torturing people didn’t produce a lot of useful speech; but living in a world in which torture exists as a potential consequence means that many kinds of vital speech never get uttered at all. One of the most frequent pop tropes of, for example, the Israel-Palestine conflict is that if only the people involved could sit down and talk, and really get to know one another as people, all would be remedied; or think of Obama inviting Professor Gates and Officer Crowley to just “have a beer” together, like race relations in America could be repaired by the magical power of the right kind of conversation. If you really refuse to understand how much what gets called “free speech” is already subject to prior constraints of power, violence, and very well-grounded fear, in favour of defending how yet another powerful dude just needs to be allowed to speak his mind as he sees fit — well, it’s unlikely you have anything very interesting to say.
What I understand is that both left and right have theories about why certain speech simply can’t be allowed. These enclaves think themselves competent to determine what views and opinions of other human beings should be prohibited by the government. Those people are guilty of hubris.
I don’t care if the ideologue who wants to deny the “dude” his right to speak his views freely bases it on the claim that said dude uttered treason or sedition or a proposition harmful to the community’s sexual mores, or whether the dude says vile things about women, gays and ethnic groups. We empower the government to lock people up for their views, or we don’t.
That is not a threat. It’s disgusting, repugnant, and many other negative things. But it is not a threat. Unless you can show it was uttered in a way that would make do Rosário reasonably fear that Bolsonaro was actually stating an intention to rape her. (And you are not permitted to add words he didn’t actually use.)
“you are not permitted to”
ha ha ha hahah ah hhha ha ha haha Mona, you are a HOOT.
That’s right, when deciding whether the democratic will of people in a congressional district is to be flouted due to the words of their elected representative, one is required to at least base judgment on the words actually uttered, and not imaginary ones existing only in one’s head.
I note you offer no substantive replies to my comments.
You go out of your way to tell us “there is no evidence that she did any such thing (called him a rapist), though she has referenced the indisputable fact that the military regime subjected female opponents to rape and other violence”, but one can see in the link below.
http://youtu.be/iXBY6gMQZNo?t=56s
She did call him a rapist.
It seems to me that this whole article was terribly biased =/
I don’t know if out of ignorance or malice, but it was.
Right. You supply a youtube link in a language most of us don’t understand, and claim that she directly called him a rapist.
You then claim that Greenwald is biased. He says HIMSELF that he is biased, and those who claim that they are not are deluding themselves.
You or anyone can click this below the youtube video: …More … and then click transcript. Then put the transcript into Babylon or some other translator from Portuguese to English. I did it but did not find the words fitting the accusation that she ‘called him a rapist’. The translation I chose was a bit rough. I used one that worked without downloading. But there is that option available for all to take up.
unfortunately i don’t speak portuguese – but i’m getting the general picture by reading the comments with the hakenkreuz-avatars:
“HAIL KAPITAN BOLSONARO UNSER BRAZILIANER FUHRER !?”
Sort of reminds me of that Knesset, after Haneen Zoabi was discovered going on Mavi Marmara—but, there is was more physical.
In Brazil, it was somewhat physical, but mostly verbal.
Words hurt more.
I was googling about Representative Bolsonaro when I stumbled upon this piece. I had never visited this site before, I don’t know how right or left leaning it is, yet I do feel the need to speak up. I would like to point out that some translations here are off, as well as providing an overview of what’s behind such a heated speech.
First things first. His first sentence in its entirety was “A few days ago you called me a rapist, Maria do Rosario. I told I would not rape you because you do not merit it”. Yup, she accused him first, out of the blue. I do feel some context has been lost. Being accused of rape for no reason is as bad as claiming “you’re not worth raping”.
At no moment did Rep. Bolsonaro say the UN human rights day is “Loser’s day”. His words in portuguese were “…dia internacional da vagabundagem”. Vagabundagem may be translated as vagrancy. In brazilian portuguese, however, the connotation is akin to “thug”. Therefore, what he did say was “…the international UN human rights day in Brazil is thug’s day”. He goes on: “Human rights here defend only bandits, rapists, thugs, kidnappers and even the corrupts”. He probably meant to attack Rep. Rosario’s stance on street criminals being purely victims of society, her stance against repressing crime sternly, and her party’s widespread corruption. One of the heads of such party (José Genoino) was convicted, went to jail and a s***storm ensued, led by “humans rights activists”, claiming for his release because he had a fairly minor heart condition. Good grief, Duke Cunningham had prostate cancer and was kept behind bars! That is how “human rights” is put to use around here.
Bolsonaro went on, saying “Maria do Rosario just ran away from here. Why didn’t she talk about her boss? Whose first husband hijacked a plane and went to Cuba, who participated in the execution of the “german Major” [Edward Ernest von Westernhagen was murdered by COLINA- Comando de Libertação Nacional, National Liberation Command, Dilma’s terrorist organization] , her second husband publicly confessed he “expropriated” banks, invaded Army HQs, robbed cargo trucks in Rio, why doesn’t she talk about that? Maria do Rosario, why don’t you talk about the kidnapping, torture and murder of Worker’s Party mayor Celso Daniel [who threathened to expose some of the party’s inner workings and was, well, kidnapped, tortured and murdered]…no one ever talks about that here! They are soooo concerned about human rights…go fry an egg! Outright liar and a coward! I stood here listening to her horsing around. Speak about your government, the most corrupt government in Brazil’s history!”
“Dilma Roussef should be indeed embarassed. Embarassed for having stolen mere two million and half dollars from Ademar’s house [former Rio governor, had his house broken in by COLINA in the 80s]. Now billions of dollars are stolen from Petrobras, by the chairman, by the Secretary of Energy, Chief of Staff…and the president claims she knows nothing. How many dozens of thousands of people die each day because money is diverted to your party? To your cause? You were in Unasul [alliance of leftist governments in South America], gathering with the scum of Latin America, dealing among other things about opening up our airspace to Unasul countries [to ANY kind of overflying]. Cuba is not a part of Unasul, but will be accomodated into the scheme. Also, drug traffic, arms and ammo traffic. There are 11.000 cubans here [“advisors” and “doctors”], thousand of haitians [illegally], we’re emitting visas to iranians to enter our country [no background check required], bringing in inmates from Guantanamo. We are bringing to Brazil what is worst in the world. Creating a military school common to latin american countries – what for? To plan their leftist agenda? What kind of country is this? Bankrupt, not just Petrobras, other [brazilian] companies will suffer that abroad, Brazil is bankrupt! Where do we go from here? Toward cubanization, as a way to save this country? Old taxes coming back, raising income tax, taxation of large fortunes, a scoundrel government, corrupt, immoral, dictatorial! And now we also have the elections in entire Unasul, whose countries found out electronic ballot boxes are their way of remaining in power! A cowardly, communist government, immoral, thief [microphone is cut off]! Congratulations to the vagrants of Brazil, who are calling the shots at Maria do Rosario’s “Truth Comission”.
Rosario was a state minister (Secretary of Human Rights). Her policies are the ones in force today, and their end results were turning crime into a low-risk activity around here. It was already bad before 2002, it became worse now. Partially thanks to them, we have 50,000 deaths per year out of urban violence and a general feeling of impunity amongst thugs, who kill people for watches, cell phones and are ushered back to the street by the “human rights” crowd.
My personal belief? Rep. Bolsonaro is a reality check in that hen house full of holier-than-thou communists and crooks.
We’ve got enough left wingers in Brazil, we need to hear the other side as well. I do feel this article was terribly one-sided.
These legislators can get, er, fractious:
Rest here: https://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/history/minute/The_Caning_of_Senator_Charles_Sumner.htm
I can’t believe that the COMUNIST BRAZILIAN GOVERNMENT ( yeah, in Brazil we live a fake democracy ) is paying the foreign media to share false and misunderstood information. DO NOT believe on any news that says good things about brazilian economy, everything is a lie !! Just look at the Biggest oil refinery in Brazil, which is a State company ( Petrobras ) !!
You’re so dumb that you don’t deserve a decent reply;
Actually, he said she didn’t deserve to be raped. Apparently, people are missing the fact that do Rosário called Bolsonaro a rapist in another opportunity. She is known to spout nonsense every now and then. Once, after a case of rape, she said rapists deserved a death sentence (even though she is a defender of human rights), but when she learned that the rapists were teenagers, she avoided the matter and pretended to answer her cellphone.
Here’s a link to the Bolsonaro interview with Stephen Fry (the globo link doesn’t work for me, perhaps because I’m outside Brazil): http://vimeo.com/77320436#t=16m35s
rrheard:
Absolutely, it is. To my great surprise, I am in significant disagreement with Glenn on a matter of speech.
A democratic body should never, ever expel a duly elected member based only on his viciously stated political opinions. This cretin clearly doesn’t think the history of raping women is shameful, and he reminds his female opponents of that when he advises they are not “worthy” of being raped by him, or that they are sluts.
If he is to removed from the legislative body, it should be by his constituents. The body itself has no right to undermine their votes, which is what expulsion in this case would constitute.
Moreover, the man has a right to hold that women are so inferior that they are rape-able, except when too lowly to rape.
@ Mona,
Agreed, except I think he should be removable as a function of violations of the criminal law (i.e. the physical battery he may have committed against one or more of his fellow legislators). His/her constituents should not be able to shield him from both criminal liability or preserve his place in a legislative body simply because it is anti-democratic to remove him against his constituents will. That would be an example of democratic tyranny whereby “We can keep our elected official in office because we like the crimes he commits against our fellow citizens or elected officials we don’t like.” But removal on the basis of his words or ugly worldview isn’t for his fellow elected members of the Brazilian legislature to determine.
I doubt Western democratic bodies expel members for assault that is non-felonious. Moreover, I can’t speak to Brazil, but I’d have to have more confidence in our judicial system before I’d bar all felons from serving in public office. Better to let the voters decide.
Again, agreed. But I’m not sure how “deliberative” a democratic body could be, even in theory, if some members were allowed to physically assault other members, and remain as members, so long as it was non-felonious assault. And I certainly can’t envision (and I don’t mean to come off as chauvinist or sexist) and deliberative democratic body where it wasn’t the basis for expulsion for a male member to slap a female member (non-feloniously) in the face, or physically push her around, and remain a member of the body. Again, I don’t think it would be okay even if it was female to male violence, or male to male violence, but male members physically intimidating or striking female members in anyway would seem to be highly problematic notwithstanding the level of criminal offense it constitutes.
Whether a member had committed a felony of violence in the past again raises some troubling questions but I’d guess I’d have to go with your take that so long as it is disclosed it should be for his/her constituents to decide.
It’s a close call and I confess to some ambivalence about the expulsion. There are all sorts of members of Brazil’s congress (and the US Congress for that matter) with retrograde and vile views on women, gays, etc. and I’m not in favor of their expulsion except by election.
I do think this is different because the offense is more behavior than speech (and that line is often unclear, and I believe in erring on the side of finding “speech,” though I think the bar is lower when we’re talking about membership in a government body as opposed to, say, fining or prosecuting).
Anyway, this to me borders on stalking. It’s the second time he told her publicly that she’s not even good enough to deserve his rape. It’s in the context of him having physically assaulted her the first time, and just having punched a senator in the stomach. You should have heard her today – she’s scared physically.
What if he went every day to the podium and implicitly threatened to rape or punch her? Just words, yes, but also behavioral. This is beyond the expression of ideas. It’s directed at her personally. It’s menacing and intended to be, and was accompanied at one point by mild though still ugly physical contact. I think members of Congress have the right to be free of this sort of harassment and threatening behavior in the workplace.
Bolsonaro’s two sons are both in politics – one is a City Council member in Rio. Here’s a video of him today trying to be physically intimidating to another council member who stood to denounce the father’s comments:
[LINK FIXED]
@ Glenn and Mona:
I’ll say it again, there shouldn’t be much if any leeway given to a member of a deliberative body (or between workers in any workplace) for assaultive physical contact regardless of any sexually abusive dialogue or threats that may accompany said touching.
Physically touching people without their permission, particularly in an intimidating or sexually unsolicited manner is always wrong in my opinion. It is for his physical acts that he should be expelled. They appear to be sufficient in and of themselves.
Any parliament has guidelines. For instance, when Nigel Farage, an MEP, told the (unelected) president of the EU he had “the charisma of a damp rag, and the appearance of a low-grade bank clerk”, the Chairman of the European parliament viewed it as an insult, and fined him. According to that standard, this despicable Brazilian MP deserves at least as much, though I don’t know what the exact rules of the Brazilian Parliament are on the matter.
A second step is the judiciary. Though elected, an MP is bound by law in the same way any ordinary citizen is. For instance, should he enter the parliament building and shoot one of his colleagues, he would of course be arrested, though, formally, his colleagues would have to lift his parliamentary immunity beforehand. One year ago, a Belgian MP allegedly killed his wife, and this is exactly how it happened. Clearly, molesting a colleague fits into that (criminal) category. Even threatening her with violence does. But there are two problems :
1/ He’s not threatening her directly, at least not according to the elements put forward in this article. He knows exactly how to twist his words to convey his victim a particular message (“I could if I wanted to.”) without explicitly stating it. Is this sufficient in court ?
2/ He didn’t molest his colleague. As the second video shows, he barely touched her as she was approaching him. It was uncalled for, agreed, but he did nothing more than that.
3/ This episode happened years ago : in the first video, the dangerous misogynistic boor clearly looks older. Furthermore, the article makes it clear this happened during an earlier legislature.
So, the current parliament isn’t in any way competent to settle this incident one way or another, especially if the MPs at the time did nothing about it, and if do Rosário didn’t press charges.
But, even if this entered into the Brazilian parliament’s prerogatives, I’m quite surprised by the flimsiness of your argument, rrheard : on the one hand, you invoke a general democratic principle (An MP can only be deposed by those who elected him.), and, on the other hand, you claim the implementation of said principle varies according to circumstances. Make up your mind !
Here’s what I would suggest :
1/ The local FBI should make sure do Rosário is safe from harm.
2/ The local MI5 should investigate the madman (which it probably did already).
3/ His colleagues and the media should push him to make a mistake, for instance issue a direct threat.
4/ His parliamentary immunity should then be lifted.
5/ Finally, he should be declared ineligible for the next ten years.
… Simply agitating that prospect might also make him think twice.
Otherwise, you risk making a martyr out of him, and increase the amount of his followers.
By advocating his removal without laying out the procedure that would allow such a move and without taking into account the jurisprudence this would enact, a jurisprudence that might later be used by less “noble” elected officials, I’m afraid the authors of the article fell into an all too common trap one might call emotional journalism, the one one Natasha Vargas-Cooper warned against in another recent article…
“I think members of Congress have the right to be free of this sort of harassment and threatening behavior in the workplace. – Glenn Greenwald
This to me is the crux of the issue. Yes, this verbal abuser is a democratically elected representative, and yes, free speech should err on the side of more speech rather than less.
That said, this has become psychological abuse at the workplace with the clear intent to cause emotional harm and impede another legislators ability to be an equal part of the governing process. Workplaces have the right, and in the case of democratically elected governmental agencies, I would say the legal and moral responsibility to govern their workplace to ensure a safe and conducive work environment for everyone – not those who just happen to be a) men, and b) have received the most votes.
You should see what goes on in the Knesset! No, standards as vague as “psychological abuse” or “intent to cause emotional harm” can’t be grounds for expelling democratically elected members of legislatures.
However, rr is moving toward a general standard (of the sort I just requested of Glenn) that might be acceptable and proper. If all members who commit assault on another member while in the legislative building are expelled, no exceptions, I’d consider that.
@ Mona:
I’d agree I think “psychological harm” or “intent to cause emotional harm” are untenable as legal standards, particularly in a deliberative body. You want to engage in the rough and tumble exchange of ideas, here or anywhere, particularly a deliberative body, you’ve got to develop a tough skin. Threats of imminent physical harm, physical intimidation/coercion and/or actual unsolicited-unwanted touching should be subject to a blanket prohibition and grounds for expulsion. Just as those are generally cognizable as both crimes and/or civil battery. The gender of the two parties is irrelevant to me–it simply has no place in any workplace or deliberative body.
“psychological abuse” or “intent to cause emotional harm” can’t be grounds for expelling democratically elected members of legislatures” – Mona
Certainly they can, so long as the legislative body enacts such rules. I’m not necessarily saying that these exact phrases need to be the benchmarks, per se, but that democratically elected governmental agencies do have a legal and moral responsibility to govern their workplace to ensure a safe and conducive work environment for everyone. Which leads to:
“The gender of the two parties is irrelevant to me–it simply has no place in any workplace or deliberative body.” – rrheard
I agree completely.
To think that legislative bodies as a workplace should be exempt from laws as a workplace simply because political speech is “rough and tumble” or “they do that in the Knesset” isn’t the answer here. Bringing better laws that protect rather than defend such activities is.
“Threats of imminent physical harm, physical intimidation/coercion and/or actual unsolicited-unwanted touching should be subject to a blanket prohibition and grounds for expulsion. Just as those are generally cognizable as both crimes and/or civil battery.” – rrheard
I would add the word “psychological” intimidation/coercion to the list of unacceptable actions to be subject to a blanket prohibition and grounds for sanction and/expulsion upon review from any democratically elected legislative body – because that is what this man’s words ultimately are – acts of violence, not of discourse.
Specialists in PTSD treatment have proven that threatening and intimidating speech, particularly when used against those adults that are a minority within a society or social paradigm can indeed, even as adults, be just as harmed, and sometimes more-so by such speech than a physical act itself, especially if repeated over time.
In other words, physical contact as the sole litmus test as to whether measurable harm has been done to a person has been proven empirically outdated – but unfortunately in many cases not legally so…yet.
In the end Brazil’s Congress – a reflection of its voting society as much as our own – will determine what is acceptable or not, both within it’s legislative bodies as well as on it’s streets.
In my opinion the article is not a prescription or proscription of free speech as much as it is a rhetorical device used to leverage ideas as to what acceptable behavior should be in civilized societies – and they are simply saying that this isn’t civilized and that it should change.
I was speaking normatively. Obviously a body of people are physically able to adopt any rule they like; I am saying a democratic one should not adopt rules against “psychological abuse” or “intent to cause emotional harm” that carry expulsion as the sanction.
If they want to admonish for “unparliamentary language,” fine.
“I was speaking normatively” – Mona
As was I, in that, unfortunately, this ongoing verbal abuse against women is normative at this time in the Brazilian Congress. I qualify further in my comment by saying :
“I’m not necessarily saying that these exact phrases need to be the benchmarks, per se, but that democratically elected governmental agencies do have a legal and moral responsibility to govern their workplace to ensure a safe and conducive work environment for everyone.”
So in the end, and staying with the specific example given, do you consider this demonstrably “normative” behavior to be acceptable in Brazil’s Congress, or do you see it as more of a workplace/health issue which needs to be addressed?
Sure, and if the man had cornered her in her office and uttered actual threats of rape, not only should he be fired, he should be prosecuted. Ditto if he hits on her or any of his female staff in an unwanted manner.
That is all distinct, however, from political exchanges between two legislators as legislators. The subject under debate was the military dictatorship’s myriad human rights abuses, including rape. Bolsonaro was expressing his rejection and contempt for accusations of rape during the dictatorship.
That is not “workplace” sexual harassment, or if it is, it is also more — political speech.
“That is not “workplace” sexual harassment, or if it is, it is also more — political speech.” – Mona
So, if it is workplace sexual harassment, it can also be political speech? I disagree.
I think that defines the dividing line quite well – between what should be allowed in legislative bodies in this instance, and what should not.
Based on what you wrote, this does not rise to criminal stalking, at least not in the U.S. Moreover, your article says she’s scared because others are sending her “widespread” threats.
I can’t locate a general principle I would embrace that would permit — based on the facts you’ve recited — the expulsion of Bolsonaro specifically. Can you?
“Based on what you wrote, this does not rise to criminal stalking,”
Is that the standard, criminal stalking, that you need run afoul of before expulsion? I know certain legislatures around the world, you’ve seen them, actual fist-fights break out on the floor, quite amusing, but other legislatures around the world aim at having the members set the bar higher than “no criminal stalking allowed”, meaning, I don’t think you can neatly separate physical violence, and verbal violence so absolutely. The community will always have to judge, is this speaker voicing a political opinion?, or are they interfering with another congressman’s rights/duties.
If you propose another standard, what are it’s specific requirements, applicable to all?
Yes, we can, and in the U.S., we do.
“Yes, we can, and in the U.S., we do.”
Really? In the US Congress? Are there examples of members joking about raping each other, and not being admonished? That would surprise me.
Per wiki, through 1921 several members of the U.S. House of Representatives were censured for “unparliamentary language.” This appears to be common throughout the Wesern democracies: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unparliamentary_language
But this is not a matter of punishing “verbal violence,” it is a matter of unseemliness. And in any event, is not sanctioned with expulsion.
In the U.S., there is no criminal sanction for so-called “verbal violence.” Nor is it civilly actionable.
“But this is not a matter of punishing “verbal violence,” it is a matter of unseemliness”
Semantics? Let’s agree to disagree.
I would suggest that Brazil’s congress maybe read up on how to insult each other as the Brits do:
from the wiki
“It is a point of pride among some British MPs to be able to insult their opponents in the House without use of unparliamentary language. “
I don’t think you can neatly separate physical violence, and verbal violence so absolutely.
I’m pretty sure the late Dr. Skinner would agree with you. I don’t see how one can say that speech is in some way clearly distinct from any other observable behavior. We have given it a special status, I think, due to it’s place in the chain of causal influence. A fist to the face has an influence that “I want to punch you in the face” does not. (Although even by that metric, at a certain point emotional distress can become worse than a physical punch, and since there’s evidence that thoughts can produce the same neural outcomes as actions – thinking about practicing the piano is similar to practicing – I’d say it’s a hazy line).
One likes to think that this would be balanced by do Rosário simply looking infinitely more sane, relatively speaking, perhaps more so than she would if placed in a room of reasonable, thoughtful adversaries. But you only has to watch one or two bad 80s movies to know that some people will always back the bully or the biggest badass on the block out of self-interest, and at some point you have to counterbalance that unless you want to live out your freshman year ad infinitum, politically.
“A democratic body should never, ever expel a duly elected member based only on his viciously stated political opinions.” – Mona
Well, of course not. But this persons words are not “political opinions” at all, they are verbal abuse, meant to cause harm, have happened repeatedly, and are not meant to foster a particular political position or elicit political discourse, but rather to stifle it.
This man’s speech is obscenity, if not in Brazilian law, then most likely in American law – and if not – it should be:
“Currently, obscenity is evaluated by federal and state courts alike using a tripartite standard established by Miller v. California 413 U.S. 15 (1973). The Miller test for obscenity includes the following criteria: (1) whether ‘the average person, applying contemporary community standards’ would find that the work, ‘taken as a whole,’ appeals to ‘prurient interest’ (2) whether the work depicts or describes, in a patently offensive way, sexual conduct specifically defined by the applicable state law, and (3) whether the work, ‘taken as a whole,’ lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value.
First of all, rape is, disgustingly enough, this mans “prurient interest” in that if it were not, then why would the words even escape his lips, even if it were to describe a contemporary as “unrapeable”?
Secondly, rape is, even in the back-handed version offered as “political opinion” here, sexual conduct that is patently offensive.
And lastly, this man’s “political opinion” or “work” when ‘taken as a whole,’ lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value.
“Most men fear getting laughed at or humiliated by a romantic prospect while most women fear rape and death.” – Gavin de Becker, The Gift of Fear: Survival Signals That Protect Us from Violence
They are political opinions. Bolsonaro did not introduce the subject of rape; do Rosario did, in the context of indicting the prior military dictatorship, a government Bolsonaro defends.
Bolsonaro clearly thinks do Rosario’s accusations of rape occurring under the military dictatorship are either untrue or irrelevant. That’s what he was communicating to her and all listeners.
” Bolsonaro did not introduce the subject of rape; do Rosario did” – Mona
That some cannot differentiate between a political opinion and verbal abuse meant to actually get inside someones head and cause harm (rather than to dispute an argument, however inelegantly) is stunning.
“Bolsonaro clearly thinks do Rosario’s accusations of rape occurring under the military dictatorship are either untrue or irrelevant. That’s what he was communicating to her and all listeners.
Yes, to the extent that any abuser (and this is verbal abuse at this level, no matter where you are, and gender aside) wants to intimidate her and to embolden his supporters to do the same (as you noted was already occurring) it means that it crosses the line from political speech to obscene speech.
You don’t have to be a specific gender or age or demographic to feel the effects of abuse. Just ask any female soldier who has served amongst these misogynists:
http://mynorthwest.com/11/2286155/Former-female-soldier-says-every-day-a-rape-threat
No, it does not. You can assert that as often as you like, but that is not the law anywhere in the west that I know of, certainly not in the U.S.
Two legislators were angrily debating a truth commission and report about the crimes of a prior military dictatorship, among those crimes was rape. She allegedly called him a rapist at some earlier time — if so, that is not “obscene.” He rejects the accusations about the military dictatorship, including those about rape, and sneered that he wouldn’t want to rape her. That is many things, but it is not obscene in a legal sense, nor is it a threat. It certainly is not going to cause a woman capable of running for Congress to contract PTSD!
“It certainly is not going to cause a woman capable of running for Congress to contract PTSD!”
Honestly, channeling Wilhelmina isn’t an effective technique! That said,
“I neither need nor want protection from mere words of men in positions more powerful than mine” – Mona
Nor, I would argue, does she. What I do think she deserves is a workplace free from this type of abuse, and I hope she has the capability to change her societies misogynistic, faux “political discourse” before she suffers more – either at the hands of physiology, to which, as science has proven we all are non-exempt at some level – or at the hands of others that have been emboldened by this sociopaths behavior.
I’ve enjoyed the argument, however this will be the last word from me on this…for now.
For some context of what repeated words and actions from “mere [persons] in positions more powerful” can have on anyone in a culture that allows it – read up on the stories and statistics of sexual abuse and rape in our US military, where for many soldiers, “every day was a rape threat.”
http://www.takepart.com/feature/2014/02/12/military-rape-not-just-women
Which is why I never sound like her — she’s of the “fragile flower” school of Stalinist feminism. And as I said, the words Bolsonaro uttered during a debate about rape in the time of the military dictatorship are not going to cause a female legislator to contract PTSD.
You now write:
Meaning that like me, do Rosario neither needs nor wants protection from mere words uttered by men in positions more powerful than she holds. Yet upthread you wrote:
This was just some gratuitous, non sequitur hiccup?
Benito Mussolini – “Members have the right of free speech, providing they remain within the limits of partisan debate, and say nothing to undermine the club as a whole.”
Rrheard – “But I do believe you are going down a problematic slope when you self-censor or limit the “terms of the partisan debate” to what a majority of an elected body believes is “civil” or otherwise “acceptable” to “the majority.” “
Well…they are both correct, IMO. Parliaments are debating clubs. You can’t have a fair debate if some members have to divide their efforts between debating and fearing for their personal safety.
…and also expulsion is also dangerous, if it turns from a means to facilitate civil debate, into a means to use the physical removal of the adversary as a substitute for actually debating them.
I don’t see how rrhead’s concerns can be addressed in any neat way, even theoretically. But when there is the public threat of physical violence, never mind the real violence that I have no doubt accompanies it, it is so far over the line that I wouldn’t fault Brazil’s chamber for throwing him out. It doesn’t have to be permanent, perhaps they could ask him to leave until he apologizes. After all, he is elected and they probably don’t want to jump to the step of setting the precedent of members being tossed out permanently. Doing that might be seen as a slight against his voters and even get him re-elected with a higher majority next time.
He pushed her, apparently. Should democratic bodies always expel members for misdemeanor assaults?
“He pushed her, apparently. Should democratic bodies always expel members for misdemeanor assaults?”
No not always Mona.
But I’m more concerned with the rhetoric, more than the push on the video. I’m trying to speak generally, because I don’t speak Portuguese and I’m primarily taking the few facts GG is presenting at face value, although I did try to verify them. I’m trying to picture a parliament, In a society where violent crime is a rampant reality, a parliament where you can threaten to rape the political opposition, for example. I just don’t see how that serves the cause of free speech, Except for those speakers who are adept at shouting very loudly, being physically intimidating and who have a knack for inspiring their supporters to carry out physical attacks on their behalf. And can you imagine what the work environment is like for female staffers in Brazil’s congress? Perfect free speech exists nowhere, but it is possible to have a congress where women who don’t want to be sexually abused can feel comfortable working. And I would start by aiming for that.
Then what is your generally applicable standard for when a legislator should be expelled for pushing another member?
A credible threat uttered with intent to put the receiver in fear of rape by the speaker is illegal. If the legislators are given immunity for such criminal speech, the criminal standard could still be used as the grounds for expulsion. Is that what you propose?
I’m going to think on this some more Mona. I’ve found this a very enjoyable argument.
I’ve been to Brazil, and met some wonderful people, but calling it “one of the largest and greatest democracies” is a bit off, unless I misunderstand your terms. Incredible poverty in the favelas, gated areas for the rich guarded by armed men – these seemed stark to me.
But this guy certainly is a Brazil nut, and not representative of most of the (often remarkably happy and attractive) general population. He sounds terrified of sensitivity generally, with a vicious angry slant as to how intimidated he is particularly by women and gays. He should indeed by shunned for being so vile.
That’s an American stereotype from 20 years ago. Yes, there is widespread poverty in Brazil and terrible wealth inequality, as I said. But they have moved in the right direction in the last decade as much as – probably more than – any other country in the world. The changes are palpable. In the last decade alone – even with the financial crisis – tens of millions of people, literally, have been lifted out of poverty.
I haven’t just “been to Brazil.” I’ve lived there for almost 10 full years. And the positive changes are palpable and extreme.
No politician represents the “general population.” But he did get elected, and with more votes in Rio de Janeiro than any other deputado, so it’s a bit hard to say he’s some sort of major outlier.
Agree totally.
Thanks for the response (seriously, it’s a thrill to think you’ve thought at all about what I say).
I was a teenager when I visited (eight, nine years ago), so it would be about when you moved there, and I didn’t stay long enough to catch anything but those strong impressions of nice people, poverty, gated areas. Also I wasn’t into politics then, so didn’t discuss it – even though my dad kept trying to. I’m very glad things are improving.
Wasn’t the easiest answer to Cindy that if poverty is indeed the measuring tool for democracy, the US is certainly not a standard ?
“In 2013, the official poverty rate was 14.5 percent.
In 2013, there were 45.3 million people in poverty. For the third consecutive year, the number of people in poverty at the national level was not statistically different from the previous year’s estimate.
The poverty rate for children under 18 fell from 21.8 percent in 2012 to 19.9 percent in 2013.
Despite the decline in the national poverty rate, the 2013 regional poverty rates were not statistically different from the 2012 rates.
https://www.census.gov/hhes/www/poverty/about/overview/
Of course, favellas are a completely different story altogether, but one has to look at the general wealth of a nation to be able to assess the level of inequality between its citizens.
Dunno if you’re a US citizen, Cin, but if you are, and if you look around in your own city, I’m pretty sure you’ll see some fortified compounds as well. They’re better hidden, that’s all. And, trust me, ya don’t wanna know what happens behind those doors… As Kool Keith puts it : “it may be so strange you’d never understand it. They go to places you can’t get in. That’s why they get these houses far away so that you can’t see them, cuz they start doing weird stuff, you know, having another man put [xxx] up their butt, stuff like that. […] And they start touching each other. And they start wearing a lot of suits and stuff. And they start hanging around different places that they never thought they would be before. They start to let men rub up against them. Then, they forget about the streets. And they go far, far, and start living up in coops and penthouses. And they start kneeling down kissing other men, all around their stomach and their pelvis. These are big, big, people […].”
I’m not proud of America (except as an aspirational ideal), nor was I being comparative. America seems like a complete sham of a “democracy” to me. I loathe some of the things the US does, and protest against corporatism/militarism whenever I can. And yes, I see that the rich are shielded against the poor similarly, and that the authorities abuse the lower classes overtly, while fleecing the middle class beneath clever distractions.
Right after the coup took place in Ukraine and the local neo-nazis burned fifty people alive in an old union building, there wasn’t a week without a physical fight erupting in the Rada (= the Ukrainian parliament). Perhaps there were, but I can’t remember any article about it in TI at the time.
So, why is it suddenly more relevant to devote a whole article to a nutcase no one outside Brazil would otherwise have heard about, and who’s clearly relying on muddy sensationalism as a strategy to appear in the media and gain traction… Isn’t this article proof even the most adversarial among the media fell for it ? Wouldn’t adversarial journalism in such a case be more efficient by simply refraining from echoing what this dictatorship-lover is saying and let him spit his hate in the dark ?…
“In one sense, Bolsonaro is the most extreme and repellent face of a resurgent, evangelical-driven right-wing attempt to drag the country backwards by decades, in exactly the opposite direction most other civilized countries are headed.”
There’s only one sentence in the whole article about this guy being part of a broader movement. Instead of explaining these ramifications, how much leverage they have (Are they as much of a nuisance in Brazil as the Tea Party in the US ?), as well as the socio-economic program they carry, it focuses on individual rants.
And, paradoxically, it’s concluding with a frightening call : let the majority of the Brazilian parliament “expel” the madman (just like the majority of the Ukrainian parliament disbanded its communist fraction ?).
As a former lawyer, Glenn ought to know only the body that elected a representative can “unelect” that representative. Had the fool been a Brazilian government delegate in some kind of international arena, said government could have revoked his credentials on the spot. In this case, only the Brazilian people are habilitated to do so. If you believe in parliamentary democracy, that is… which doesn’t imply there are no other legal means to condemn blatantly racist/misogynistic/homophobic and whatnot comments.
This evangelical driven right-wing has big leverage in Brazil. There can’t be any politics made without them. And that’s unfortunate. Bolsonaro was one of the representatives that got elected with most votes in it’s state. And that’s not unfortunate, but a disgrace to democracy and a shame to Brazil. What is happening on Ukraine has relevance, and should be also reported on. I believe Glenn did this piece on Bolsonaro, because he lives on Brazil and, as me, was profoundly disturbed with what just happened on our Congress.
Perhaps he is on the “payroll” of the infamous “Koch Brothers.”
Well, as a politician, you’ve at least got to admire his unadulterated transparent honesty…
Honesty implies that he is telling truths (perhaps they might be… in his head). So no, there isn’t any aspect of this person to admire.
No, “honesty” means that he is speaking truthfully and straightforwardly about his opinions, thoughts and values.
Nice try to diss me, though.
As I said, it “implies”. Perhaps in your view it don’t. I believe that honesty and transparency do not belong in the same phrase with this despicable person’s name. I believe you can’t even quantify or qualify what comes out of his mouth with names as “opnions”, “values”. Certainly not “thoughts”. People like this are no better in the evolutionary scale then chimps throwing feces at each other. Only in his case he throws his feces disguised as words.
That is simply ridiculous. He commited a mistake by using such language, but the reporter fails to inform the public that Bolsonaro was called “Rapist” by the congresswoman, that Maria do Rosario failed to demonstrate such outrage when one of our main journalists was threathened with rape by a left-wing activist from her political party and that she vehemently opposes Bolsonaro’s stiffer laws against rape and underage criminals.
In one particular case, a 16 year-old girl was viciously and continuously raped through 5 days by several minors before getting murdered and when Bolsonaro condemned his behavior and tried to push for him to be judged as an adult, she opposed him, saying that the boy was a “victim of the society” and today the “boy” is free to do as he pleases.
Check your facts and study the subject before condemning one of the few congressmen who oppose the rising tide of communism defended by the PT and their supporters, Maria do Rosario included, who already are trying to push the UNASUL (United South American Countries), a communist block in the mold of the sovietic union.
“But any other action, short of expulsion, would send a message that this kind of repulsively misogynistic behavior is acceptable in the Congress of Brazil.
The authors explicit position on this behavior.
“His/her constituents should be shamed into removing him/her from office democratically. It shouldn’t be the place of others elected representatives in the same body to dictate what is/is not acceptable speech.” – rrheard
Perhaps this is what the authors are saying – remove the official democratically. There may be, after all, ethical rules that allow the Congress of Brazil to democratically sanction and/or remove members for the behaviors that have been outlined in the article.
““Excluding certain ideas and thoughts, calling them hate speech, is an important piece in the progressive movement’s puzzle. If you can’t win an argument logically, demonize your opponent, make him out to be a bad person and all of a sudden the ideas he stands for become bad as well.” – Chris Sardegna
“I would not rape you. You don’t merit that.”
I´m not a Freudian and do not feel any kind of envy, but I would like to extend my congratulations to Ms Maria do Rosário. Whatever she has done, worked well and she should be very proud of herself and not feel offended.
Question is who likes to be raped of Bolsonaro? Can Bolsonaro name some of his victims?
Personally I will place Bolsonaro in a zoo cage and release one of the poor innocent animals into the wild.
It would appear that in Brazil, as in the U.S., those who dream of dictatorship do not mind making a farce out of democratic proceedings.
i can’t believe that now we have governist media about brazil in English!
more liberal media to spread lies
Really? Lies? What is in those videos that you didn’t got? If you’re a fellow compatriot, I’m felling really ashamed that we both live in the same country. It is people like you that feed idiots, to not mention other names, like Bolsonaro.
Vai pra cuba!!!!
Se você não consegue ver a gravidade do que este idiota fez, e ainda por cima acha que quem não está aplaudindo ele, tem que ir pra cuba, então você só conseguiu comprovar que as pessoas que elegeram ele, não são capazes, assim como ele, de ter um diálogo com outro ser humano.
I give you the next Fox News ‘personality’…’cept Fox dussunt like folks that don’t know no English.
This Brazilian representative is foolish. The powerful are granted immunity to rape, torture or kill (see recent Intercept stories on UVA, CIA and Ferguson respectively). The deal is you don’t boast about it in public. The people are aware their representatives aren’t nice, and accept it, but they do demand they pretend to be nice.
There’s always exceptions, Duce, if powerful enough one can brag about torture or even shoot a critic in the face – and then make them apologize for getting in front of the gun.
They can do so, but it is bad form and I counsel against it. People will always forgive the act, but they remember what you say. Even the powerful should not expend political capital for no good reason.
Good form’s probably not even a consideration when already telling people you prefer to be called “dick.”
But I grant your point as a general rule…
Ugh, I am reeling from the pathological hatred and fear in this guy’s words. Interesting how his outlandish gender prescriptions are superimposed on his political ideology.
A depraved misogynistic scumbag of the highest order to be sure. Sad that our world is so full of them in the year 2014. So much of mankind really is comprised of hateful violent little naked sociopathic apes with jobs and hobbies. I wish I lived in a time where that wasn’t the case. But humanity collectively has such a long long way to go before we can or should apply labels like “civilized” to our endeavors, that I know I’ll never live to see it.
Hey rr! Yup, you gotta look hard to find little pockets of sanity and civilization.
Dear Mr. Greenwald,
As a fellow journalist, I must say a few things about your piece.
1) The videotape is crystal clear: Bolsonaro was being interviewed my Rede TV! About Champinha, a minor that, with two co-criminals, killed and raped Liana Friedenbach and her boyfried. For Bolsonaro, the case was one of the examples that induced the need of pushing down the criminal responsibility age. Rosário interrupted him, accusing him of being a rapist for defending this idea. The irony is that Rosário was a fierce defender of Champinha during those days, saying that he was “victim of society”. The Liana Friedenbach case, to this day is one of the most remembered and grieved cases. Maria do Rosário took an irresponsible action, and received, due the circumstance, a very moderate response;
2) About the racism accusation, you forgot to tell that Bolsonaro won a judicial action against the show CQC, that edited the tapes of that interview about Preta Gil. He spoke not about her color, but about her sexual behavior (Preta Gil is famous due to her open comments about her “progressive” sexuality, about multiple partners and sex with every gender). Bolsonaro, by the way, is married with a black woman;
3) Bolsonaro has a law project that hardens the penalties against rapists. The project is paralyzed in the congress by, helas!, a PT deputy;
4) His figures about gay killing aren´t wrong. They are, by the way, official data from the police. Brazilian comedian Danilo Gentili has joked about it also: according to the Bahia Gay Movement data, is easier to be killed if you are not a Gay person in Brazil;
No one has to agree with Bolsonaro, but your piece was, to say the least, rubbish.
If you are to remember rapes in the military era, I should remember you the rapes and crimes done by the Araguaia Guerrilla: The self-proclaimed revolutionaries committed atrocities in the poor region, which led the people to help the army in this case. The guerrilla crimes (that almost outnumber the military ones) aren´t being investigated by the “Truth Comission”.
Rethink your position. If you want to do real journalism, and not to be used as an international mouthpiece for PT, correct the false information used here.
Hi Gabriel:
Thanks for the comments.
Are you denying that he called her a “slut” (vagabunda) and pushed her, or are you justifying and defending that?
Are you denying that he twice told her that she doesn’t merit being raped by him, or are you justifying and defending that?
Are you claiming that someone whose third wife is non-white can’t be racist?
Are you claiming that he was right when he said there’s no homophobia in Brazil?
Are you claiming that it’s better to let orphaned and neglected children remain on the streets rather than let them be adopted by stable, loving gay couples?
Do you agree with him that PSOL is the party of “faggots” (veados) and that this is acceptable to say?
Do you agree with him that the Minister of Women’s Politics is a “sapatona” and that Dilma only supports teaching children to respect gays because she herself is homosexual?
Do you agree that the LGBT movement is really about trying to convert children into homosexuality so that they will be future sex partners of gays, and that there’s nothing bigoted about this belief?
Are you also in favor of torturing accused criminals, or are you denying that he ever said this?
You claim that there is “false information” and that (hilariously) we’re acting as “an international mouthpiece for the PT”, but you overlook virtually every key fact that makes this politician that you admire so odious and repellent.
This reads like a particularly graphic episode of South Park, especially the anal feeding storyline. And somewhat like the NAMBLA episode I saw yesterday morning on Comedy Central. This guy is like Eric Cartman.
Dear Mr. Greenwald, replying answer by answer:
“Are you denying that he called her a “slut” (vagabunda) and pushed her, or are you justifying and defending that?”
Re: He was called, before that, a rapist. To call someone a slut after being called a rapist, in national television, is, to say the least, a very educated answer.
“Are you denying that he twice told her that she doesn’t merit being raped by him, or are you justifying and defending that?”
Re: Again, his response was a counter-attack. To call someone a rapist, while he didn’t do anything like that, is not only one of the greatest disrespectful acts, but also a crime. Back then, her party didn´t prosecuted him exactly because the Rede TV! Image was clear. He was only uneducated while she acted as a criminal.
“Are you claiming that someone whose third wife is non-white can’t be racist?”
Re: Are you saying that a man that marries a black woman hates blacks? By the way, are you denying the validity of his judicial victory against CQC, which brought all of this up in the first place? If you think he is a racist, you should present some evidence. This one (the Preta Gil stuff), is judicially over.
“Are you claiming that he was right when he said there’s no homophobia in Brazil?”
Re: At least 5 big “homophobic” killing cases, pretty much divulged by PSOL, turned out to be none of that. There is a will to politicize crimes where homosexual are involved as homophobic crimes, when a lot of cases are passionate murders between couples.
“Are you claiming that it’s better to let orphaned and neglected children remain on the streets rather than let them be adopted by stable, loving gay couples?”
Re: No, as a matter of fact, this is one of my divergences with him (along with some economic ideals). Nevertheless, I would be the lowest of persons to shut down or to persecute the free expression of his opinions and the democratic will of his voters.
“Do you agree with him that PSOL is the party of “faggots” (veados) and that this is acceptable to say?”
Re: PSOL is a socialist party that defends the Cuban and North Korean regimes. The term “faggot” is used not only on the “gay thing”, but also to define a coward person. A party that defends socialist regimes that murdered a lot of gay people and then has the courage to define itself as the party of “gay people” is a party of “pirocas” (that, besides of “dick”, could be translated as “loons”- another Brazilian term : “porra loucas” – “Crazy fucks).
“Do you agree with him that the Minister of Women’s Politics is a “sapatona” and that Dilma only supports teaching children to respect gays because she herself is homosexual?”
Re: The questions involving the sexuality of both women don´t say anything to me. But this same rhetoric was used by PT´s ex-minister Marta Suplicy against the (then right wing) mayor of São Paulo, Gilberto Kassab. None of this was even discussed on international media.
“Do you agree that the LGBT movement is really about trying to convert children into homosexuality so that they will be future sex partners of gays, and that there’s nothing bigoted about this belief?”
Re: Bolsonaro was always a politic of the police and military electoral base. His question against the infamous KIT Gay was that it was infant-juvenile directed, i.e, primary school. The fundamental point of the kit was to end the “heteronormative family”. Bolsonaro simply stated what was written in the Kit itself, but in popular language. The school should not be intermissive in family issues and sexuality. Maybe if it was concentrated on teaching math, Portuguese, Sciences and History, we would have better grades. But it seems that ending the “heteronormative” family is a greater thing than raising grades.
“Are you also in favor of torturing accused criminals, or are you denying that he ever said this?”
Re: I didn´t said this, as you can read on my first comment. You didn´t touched on any questions that I raised. I should remind you that murders in Brazil are around the greatest, in total numbers, around the world. Are you implying that we should worry more about criminal rights than with normal citizens’ rights?
“You claim that there is “false information” and that (hilariously) we’re acting as “an international mouthpiece for the PT”, but you overlook virtually every key fact that makes this politician that you admire so odious and repellent.”
Re: Well, if you cannot prove that he is a racist, and that he only responded to an incredibly false accusation of crime, you cannot tell that he is “odious and repellent”. I firmly disagree with his opinions on economic affairs (he is more statist than I, even being less statist than the government), but he has a clear record on corruption (was, according to STF minister Joaquim Barbosa, the only one from his party that wasn´t involved with Mensalão, always voting against his peers). If he is a bronco, a rude man, this do not turn him in the monster that you want to paint (very interestingly, when PT and other 3 socialist parties, – all of them with acquaintances on the Cuban regime, a regime that kills gay people- do this media action against him). Here ( https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rs4ZGYNdXqI) he done an homage to the late gay deputy Clodovil Hernandes. If he hated so much gays, he would never do anything like this. Again, you should know that Clodovil was a great noon TV star, along with a hell lot of gay stars, in shows watched primarily by grannies and grandsons after lunch. It is a strange “homophobic” society that gives this kind of space to gay stars.
Warm regards,
Gabriel
Glen,
I must agree with Gabriel for the most part. You need to brush up on your Portuguese a bit. Also, it is funny how a journalist would post this while living in Brazil instead of writing a story about how the PT is trying to censor free speech and social network sites and apps. Frankly, I find Bolsonaro repulsive as a person, but the PT is worse unfortunately…
Thanks Gabriel for putting it so correctly. Just adding some background.
In Brazil if you are not 18 years old you can do the most cruel murder, as the one Chapinha has done in 2003. He killed a boyfriend and raped a his girl three days in a row in a camping forest. After that he cutted off her nipples and other parts of her body and killed the 16 year old girl.
Maria do Rosario was defending the rapist, and Bolsonaro wanted to change the law. She said he was promoting rape and that he was responsible for that. He said now I am the rappist? Yes you are, she replied. He was not promoting rape, he was attacking her, and I think he is on the right side.
She first said that she was going to slap him and came towards him. He stopped her with one hand and said if you slap me, you will be slapped.
I dont see anything wrong with that. Neither did the 460.000 voters who gave him 6% of the votes for the state of Rio de Janeiro.
Bolsonaro was the only one in his party who did not vote on the corruption scheme of Mensalao. He is a honest congressman and does not sell himself for this left wing dictatorial government. They did not list 122 murders from the left terrorist organizations, and blamed all the five presidents and all the generals in 20 years of militar regimen. Just some figures, 450 people were killed in 21 right wing regimen. There were 300 terrorist activists taking on arms, killing people, kidnaping 2 planes, kidnapping the american ambassador(and the were going to kill him) . It is a shame, but on the other hand 150.000 people were killed in Colombia since 1964 when a similar movement was founded FARC. Bolsonaro defends that if that WAR was not declared and eradicated this movement we could be living the same in Brazil. He did not fight that war but he is the only one that states that. The left wings, communists, PSOL, PT hates them, and it is ok to talk about a communist revolution/dictatorship, but is not ok to talk about this.
Bolsonaro has a improper way to express, but he defends right causes.
I am 100% in favour of gay rights including marriage and adoption. But I am 100% against that stupid ‘kit gay’ that the government was trying to bring into schools. First, the contents of the so called ‘kit gay’, the way it was put together, would do more harm than good to the LGBT community. Most importantly, for many parents it would be inadmissible to raise the subject of sexuality to six year olds, be it straight or gay.
I certainly do not want my 6-year old son being taught sexuality by some teacher in school, be them gay, straight, green, Zoroastrians or fans of Kenny G.
Um as a “fellow journalist” what does anything you’ve written have to do with the context of the recent exchange between Bolsonaro and do Rosario re: the Commissions report and the use of rape by the military dictatorship? Moreover, how does any past issues justify what Bolsonaro said about do Rosario’s “suitability” as an object of rape.
As I said, the question wasn´t on the dictatorship, but on the affair of Champinha´s crime.
A character analogy could well be drawn between the asshole Bolsonaro and the rest of the demented upper level officials occupying the authoritarian regimes of State governments worldwide.
In the US alone…Dick Cheney comes to mind. Are not the verbal tactics that Bolsonaro used and continues to use upon Ms. do Rosário merely the echo of verbal torture techniques promoted by Cheney and the rest of his evil Cabal?
At this time, I am having fantasies regarding possible fates for these tyrants. All of them are much worse than simple confinement with subsequent execution. I would call for a complete cosmic and universal annihilation of all energy matter which vaguely resembles existence of that malignant spiritual essence….for eternity.
“But any other action, short of expulsion, would send a message that this kind of repulsively misogynistic behavior is acceptable in the Congress of Brazil.”
For now…this will have to do.
Glenn,
You don’t appear to be advocating for criminal or civil liability for Bolsonaro’s words and purported actions, is it because you don’t believe they don’t rise to instances of “incitement of violence” and therefore shouldn’t expose Bolsonaro to legal culpability? Or is it that, and you may have had this discussion before, is it that you don’t believe rhetoric that borders on “incitement to violence” should be prohibited or prosecutable (whether under either hate speech laws in some countries, US Constitution or Brazilian law) because the legal culpability resides with the person who acts on the speech not with the speaker, the speaker’s words or their intent. Or is it the lack of “imminence” or the setting of Bolsonaro’s rhetoric that you believe removes it from speech that borders on “incitement” and should not be prohibited or legally culpable?
You do appear at the very least to support the move by his colleagues in the Brazilian legislature to expel Bolsonaro from elected office. An office which he presumably holds because the people in his electoral district want him there. How do you square that with your general principle that even the prohibition or regulation of hateful or violent speech or speech that could incite violence is problematic? Is there a distinction in your mind between a “government” that passes laws restricting certain types of speech and an “elected body of government officials” seeking to censure or expel an elected co-member for his/her speech?
For example, any member of the US Congress is protected by the speech and debate clause in the US Constitution, and I’d argue that there are plenty of examples of US Congressmembers saying things equally as vile and borderline incitement to violence, although US Congress members usually couch those immoral sentiments and viewpoints in much better euphemistic turns of phrase. But I’ve never seen you support the prospect of the expulsion of a member of US Congress for their misogynistic or homophobic rhetoric (although it may be difficult to find an example of a sitting Congressperson justifying or calling for the rape of a fellow member–although I’d have to look) or speech that was equally close to “incitement to violence” or “hate speech”. In fact I’m pretty sure you’re on record as opposing all types of “hate speech” laws in any democratic nation that presently has them on the books.
So I’m curious what the meaningful distinction is in your mind between a democratically elected body passing laws that have the effect of criminalizing and/or exposing one to civil liability, and a democratically elected body expelling an elected member of that body for the words he/she speaks? Is it that you believe some types of speech should not be protected, or that the condemnation and shunning of speech can include forced expulsion from a body by co-elected members of that legislative body? If so then while the government would not be enforcing a regime of de jure censorship or prohibition of speech it would be engaging in a de facto practice of censorship or prohibiting speech if finds offensive notwithstanding the fact said speech may reflect poorly on the body as a whole. Do you find that at all problematic?
Nice comment and questions. Freedom for the thoughts (and speech) we hate, or not?
“In fact I’m pretty sure you’re on record as opposing all types of “hate speech” laws in any democratic nation that presently has them on the books….Do you find that at all problematic?”
excellent question rrhead, GG is something of …what does he call himself? An extremist on these matters. So I myself probably wouldn’t like his envisaged utopia, but that doesn’t detract from him pointing out the problem. I know Americans, like people in democracies around the world often wonder in public discussions, “Why don’t more women participate in politics?” Jair Bolsonaro is an extreme example of why. Is it such a crime against free speech if his colleagues censure Bolsonaro for discussing the rape of one of them?
In other words. the women who are scared away from politics….what about THEIR free speech? Or are they supposed to “man-up” and “take it”?
At a personal level, I don’t have a problem with civil “shunning” of people. But I agree with Glenn that as a practical matter it is difficult to do anything but draw subjective arbitrary lines in that regard. And if only subjective arbitrary lines can be drawn, ever, then it is problematic to say the least to attempt to shun or hold people socially and legally culpable for speech. I’ve personally struggled with the entire moral and logical conundrum of regulating speech. I generally only believe in legal culpability for factually defamatory (lies or misrepresentations of “fact” or acts) speech and “violent” speech. But again, prohibiting violent speech is problematic in terms of what crosses the line into legally culpable “incitement to violence.” The current state of US law allows for such speech to be regulated or for one to be legally culpable for engaging in it. Just as it does factually false commercial speech and “indecency” on public airwaves and time, place and manner restrictions for other types of speech that some find undesirable. All are problematic in one way or another. I also don’t believe an individual’s right to speak as his conscience or beliefs require him to, even including what I find to be subjectively hateful and violent, is the same as the fabricated ideas that legal fictions have the “right” of free speech or that “money = speech”. I think there is a difference between a group of individual union members agreeing to “speak” collectively via a democratic process, and a “corporate board” (a conglomeration of capital) using the profits of the entity, without the full consent of all employees or shareholders, to “speak” to any particular topic (other than truthful advertising). I think any rich individual should be able to use his her natural voice and money to make his/her opinions known on any given topic. I don’t believe that is equivalent to using that money to (in)directly fund, absent full disclosure, any particular candidate, issue advocacy or lobbying of elected officials.
I don’t know what the answers are or where the lines can be drawn without it always causing a problem. I’m not surprised Glenn finds it to be a topic of fundamental importance legally, socially, and in all other respects–because it is very consequential and interesting issue.
You should listen to Thom Hartmann’s TED talk, particularly the part about a law that was in effect in Wisconsin until 1880, which stated the following : “It is a felony for any person to speak with any legislator with an attempt to influencing legislation on behalf of or to further the interests of a corporation. It is a felony for any person to give money to a political party, a political candidate or any political group on behalf of a corporation with an intent to influence legislation, and it is a felony for a person to publish any form of advertising or public pronouncement on behalf of a politician or to influence legislation that is paid for by a corporation.”
What ‘utopia’? Has Greenwald EVER said that one shouldn’t account for what one says? If you are in a position of authority, and order someone to kill another, is prosecuting you denying your right to free speech?
Huh? Glenn has often taken the position of what others (not necessarily me) refer to as “free speech absolutism”. I’ve discussed the topic enough with him in the threads to know that isn’t an accurate description of his position(s).
I don’t recall Glenn having a problem with being legally accountable in civil court for defamation. I’m pretty sure he’s adamantly opposed to criminalizing any type of speech.
So the question remains–what are the meaningful moral or logical distinction(s) Glenn draws between an elected body passing laws that prohibit speech (regardless of the speaker’s status) and an elected body exercising its power to prohibit/punish the speech of a fellow elected member of which they do not approve?
I’m simply curious because supporting the termination of a peoples’ representative for what a majority of that body perceives as “vile” speech, is arguably, a very slippery slope. It is also one I’d suggest (assuming my memory is correct) that Glenn has argued and warned against in his writings, which is why I find his tacit support for Bolsonaro’s expulsion interesting and seeking some clarity because maybe I’m missing a distinction he’s illuminated in the past.
The Congress is no different than any other exclusive club:
If speech rises to a level where it could cause the people to revoke some of their privileges, the Congress has a right to protect itself by any means necessary.
I wasn’t suggesting it was any different than any other elite club. Except the elite clubs in question are ostensibly the democratically elected representatives of the people not some charity or private for-profit group of people engaged in whatever activities they are pursuing. I think the distinction is important.
My questions were directed more at the underlying free speech issues which Glenn has written about extensively in the context of shunning or expulsion of the peoples’ representatives for speech others find ugly, hateful and offensive.
I look at it as an elite club with a two step process for entry: election by the people, and then approval of the other members. Just because you pass step 1 doesn’t mean you pass step 2. However, members are extremely reluctant to expel each other, not because of their respect for the will of the people, but because it might set a precedent that would be used against them.
Practically speaking, members are privately told to resign, to avoid using the blunt instrument of expulsion. But it is still a useful threat.
Members have the right of free speech, providing they remain within the limits of partisan debate, and say nothing to undermine the club as a whole.
Agreed, but it is step 2 that is problematic. How do you define what are the “limits of partisan debate” and more importantly do you think a majority of other peoples’ elected representatives should be in the position to define and delimit the “limits of partisan debate” for me and my fellow citizens’ elected representative(s) under threat of ‘expulsion’?
As far as the peoples’ elected representatives having some fealty to the “club’s” perpetuation rather than his/her constituents policy preferences, I’d argue that’s precisely the problem with the US Congress–each member cares more about his/her capacity to wield political power and the perpetuation of the institution and their place in it, than they do the morality and efficacy of their policies, or the which policies benefit the most or serve the majorities’ preferences while protecting the minorities’ rights.
But I do believe you are going down a problematic slope when you self-censor or limit the “terms of the partisan debate” to what a majority of an elected body believes is “civil” or otherwise “acceptable” to “the majority.”
We’ll simply have to agree to disagree. For me, preserving the club is paramount. The free speech considerations are merely an intellectual exercise. The learned helplessness of the judiciary branch ensures they will always defer to the other two branches on questions of free speech. In the words of the immortal Judge Posner,
@ Benito
So it is institutional “comity” and “civility” and institutional preservation over free and unfettered partisan debate? Again, where do you draw the line on what is “acceptable partisan debate” and what isn’t? You are aware that the “speech and debate clause” of the US Constitution was in part inserted to protect the freedom of legislators to speak freely and unfettered while on the floor so as not to be subject to some arbitrary subjective notions of “acceptability” in how and what is debated on the floor? It was also in part inserted to prevent the executive from stopping and questioning members thereby prohibiting them from voting on controversial matters.
What if a majority of members of the House or Senate could have moved to censure or expel members who were abolitionists or sought to speak freely about the evils of slavery because it wasn’t within the acceptable limits of “partisan debate”.
I’m just saying that it is somewhat problematic to have one group of elected officials deciding based on a bare majority, or even larger required majority, what is within/without the acceptable topics and terms of partisan debate under threat of expulsion.
Which is not to suggest that I necessarily believe anything Bolsonaro said was relevant to the “topic of debate” at hand, therefore irrelevant to the debate, and should not be condemned. But that’s different than arguing he should be expelled for his words or ideas in the interests of institutional comity.
The following message is approved by rrheard:
“We will not be silent in the face of your violence!”
rrheard enthusiastically approved of this disruption of a talk by a pro-Israel speaker in a college classroom:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QaYIYa54CSA
“Yeah definitely don’t inconvenience anybody man. And definitely don’t rudely interrupt propagandists while their disseminating their rank propaganda.”
Simple as that! At that time, he was hardly “struggling” with the issue.
Um not sure who you are or how it is you think you can attribute to me what I “approve” or “enthusiastically approve.”
But I will say that if the quoted material in your second comment is something I’ve written then I’d ask you link to the entire comment thread in which it was written for context.
Nevertheless, I have no problem with meeting “bad speech” with “good speech” or speech that “disrupts the bad speech”. That is what free speech is all about. You have a right to disseminate whatever vile crap that pops into your head and others have the right to opine on why it is vile, to condemn you for saying it, and/or raise their voices to disrupt your dissemination. Do you not believe it is okay for anti-bigotry protestors to mock KKK rallies or peacefully attempt to disrupt the KKK’s message and rhetoric? How about using your voice to disrupt the dissemination of Zionist propaganda? Or American propaganda? And of course that is different in kind that pre-censoring speech, prohibiting it, or expelling a peoples’ elected representative from his position(s) or speech. His/her constituents should be shamed into removing him/her from office democratically. It shouldn’t be the place of others elected representatives in the same body to dictate what is/is not acceptable speech. And if it is where do you draw those lines because I can think of a lot of elected members of the US House and Senate who, by the majoritarian standard of what is “vile speech” to have been expelled from the US Congress for similarly hateful, violent, misogynistic or homophobic sentiments and speech.
I’m not suggesting generally, and/or except in very narrow circumstances, that speech should be subject to civil liability and whether there are certain narrow circumstances where it should be criminalized (I can’t think of any that could withstand the scrutiny that doing so would create more problems than it ostensibly solves, but I’m open to hearing all arguments on that topic). I’m simply a little confused given Glenn’s past writings and positions that he appears to be tacitly supporting the removal of this particular elected Brazilian bigot when he’s never advocated that in the past for our homegrown American bigots in elected office.
It’s not possible to link (reliably) to a Salon comment. Go to this article, then page 20 of the comments.
The discussion started with – black FRIDAY, FEB 24, 2012 07:59 PM EST
The comment that I quoted was – mysterposter FRIDAY, FEB 24, 2012 08:06 PM EST
Our argument carried over into at least one additional article. It wasn’t fun. (That’s not the same ‘black’ that has been popping in here occasionally.) In the meantime, I found this in an old UT post by Greenwald:
The Greenwald post is here:
http://glenngreenwald.blogspot.com/2005/12/tolerance-warriors.html
Are you under the impression – somehow – that I’m in favor of banning him from speaking or that I think he should be barred from appearing in public to express his views?
Because I’m not.
Punching one Senator, pushing a Congresswoman, calling her a “slut” and telling her she’s not good enough to be raped does disqualify him,in my view, from serving in Congress because that’s behavior. But I’m fully in favor of allowing him to express his political opinions without suppression or punishment.
Punching and pushing another human being are “acts” not speech and should be prosecuted as crimes or as battery in civil court. He should also be removed from elected office for physically assaulting fellow legislators I agree. But telling a woman she is a slut and isn’t good enough to be raped, as horrifyingly ugly as that is, is speech nonetheless. I’m not even sure an American court, sadly, could/would sanction either statement as threats or harassment although it would depend on the context of the physical interaction of the two during the speech at issue.
I misunderstood I guess, but I am still not sure it was clear from the piece that you were supporting the call for his expulsion for his actions as opposed to his words (or some combination of the two).
@GG –
You’re putting that question to me?? Did you mean to reply to rrheard? I am the ONLY commenter who was willing to condemn that action at the University of New Mexico. At least five other commenters argued in favor of that suppression of speech – absurdly defending it as a form of counter speech. rrheard led the pack.
@ Barncat,
I’ll bet you $5 that Glenn has zero problem with disruptive “counter-speech” so long as it is peaceful. Do you think Glenn opposes counter-protestors disrupting KKK rallies with peaceful speech?
Maybe you believe that every individual has an unfettered right to disseminate whatever belief, opinion, propaganda or hate speech and that every listener has to sit quietly by until they are done speaking to engage in counter-speech, otherwise, it becomes “thug tactics”?
I’ll bet you Glenn disagrees and I know I do. I am under zero obligation, as a function of my commitment to “free speech,” to peacefully and silently sit by while some speakers traffic in the most vile speech imaginable until said speaker is done speaking. The concept of “free speech” is about government suppression of speech, not whether to private individuals have to sit idly by while another speaks.
I think I mis-read your comment as implying that I had previously contradicted myself with that Coulter post as compared to today’s. My apologies if that’s not what you meant.
RRheard is raising very complicated questions that aren’t easy to answer but which he and I have discussed many times over the years. That’s why I haven’t responded to him (yet), but I will try to today.
@rrheard –
I’d be willing to bet you a lot more than that if it were practical. Do you think his opinion has changed since that blog post I quoted? How about we bet on whether Greenwald approves of the protest in the first video I posted. The loser stops posting for a month. Deal? (Loser can post for the remainder of today to allow whining.)
@ Glenn,
Don’t sweat it Glenn. I wasn’t looking for a response necessarily, accusing you of inconsistency or trying to rehash old discussion between us. It was just unclear to me what the basis for your appearing to support the call for his expulsion was/is. If it’s his physically abusive acts I’m totally on board. There is no place for that anywhere in society much less a democratic deliberative body. But if it was, in whole or part, his speech then I am confused given the issues I raised above. They are complicated and difficult, and I struggle with them personally as best I can and have no problem with others disagreeing with my take on some or all of those issues.
I don’t know all of the details of the Coulter incident, but I’m sure she was handsomely paid by the university that the protesting students were paying tuition to attend. So that would be a consideration for expecting that they would have some say on whether or not they would feel obligated to sit through or quietly not attend her appearance on their campus.
@ Barncat,
I read Glenn’s defense of Coulter’s right to speak as a function of the setting. If students (some or all) invite her to share her ideas and she is willing to attempt to defend them when she is done (in an academic setting) against any and all comers, then Glenn is arguing it is more productive to put in the hard, and/or easy work in the case of Coulter’s ideas, of refuting someone like Coulter on the merits.
Shouting her down makes it seem as if liberal ideas, in an academic context, are wanting and incapable of refuting Coulter’s mindless nonsense.
I don’t think Glenn is arguing that disruptive counter-speech in all contexts and under all circumstances is as a fundamental matter a) ineffective and/or b) undesirable. But I’ll let Glenn clarify that himself. If he does believe that counter-speech or disruptive counter-speech is in all circumstances and contexts inappropriate and/or ineffective then we’ll simply have to choose to agree to disagree.
Again, I don’t believe “free speech” as a legal concept or otherwise is about anything more than government prohibition or censorship of speech. Peoples’ right to speak to one another in an individual or private capacity is a function of a whole bunch of other factors. Whether any particular exercise of speech is more or less effective in terms of when and in what manner is again not a question of “free speech” but of ideology, intended effect, and efficacy all dependent upon the identity and context of the speaker and the nature of his/her speaking engagement.
I’m most certainly not obligated to have you into my home or business and have you spout off whatever speech you think you are entitled to because of my commitment to speech unfettered by government censorship or prohibition. Whether or not an academic setting is the appropriate place for disruptive speech is a matter of considerable debate.
@rrheard – Do we have a bet or not? I thought you wanted to make a bet.
We can use this video if you’d prefer.
@ Barncat:
We have a bet so long as Glenn directly answers the following:
1) does he categorically oppose counter-speech that is disruptive,
2) are there certain contexts or venues where he believes disruptive counter-speech is never/sometimes appropriate and if so articulate them specifically (and does it also apply to things such as Code Pink disrupting Congressional hearings or is that pure protected political speech)
3) whether Glenn specifically agrees with your apparent understanding of Glenn’s position on “free speech” meaning people always have to politely and passively listen to another’s speech, regardless of its content, before countering whether politely on the merits or passionately disruptive as said counter-speaker(s) may choose to exercise their voices, and
4) Glenn articulates specifically whether he believes disruptive actions (protests, sit-ins, civil disobedience) are speech and if so when and under what circumstances, which venues, and against which speakers Glenn believes it is permissible to engage in disruptive counter-speech or actions.
If his answer comports more with your interpretation, and isn’t context specific, then I’ll refrain from posting for a month and pay you $5 if you send me your address privately by e-mail and conversely if Glenn’s position is more nuanced and his defense of Coulter more context driven than absolute on the topic of disruptive counter-speech then you’ll be obligated to pay me $5 but not abstain from posting. Because I don’t know who you are or what your beef with me or my raising what I believe to be legitimate questions concerning Glenn’s article and the his underlying viewpoints, but I certainly would not seek to stop you from having an opinion in this forum simply because we disagree or Glenn proved one of us right or wrong.)
@rrheard – The bet I’m offering you is whether or not Greenwald approves of the protest in the first video I posted. Clean and simple. You wrote, “I’ll bet you $5 that Glenn has zero problem with disruptive ‘counter-speech’ so long as it is peaceful”. The protest in that video fits the bill perfectly, right? Disruptive counter-speech that’s peaceful. You approve of that protest, right? Why do you (always) want to make things complicated? Why do you want to ask Greenwald to do all that work? All I’m asking him to do is type a single word. You can suggest a different video if you want. You can suggest different stakes, but I don’t think it’s practical to exchange money. If you want to go with months off, I’ll lay you 2 to 1. I don’t want to waste any more space on this. Let me know if you want to make the bet.
@ Barncat:
I don’t know enough about the background of the organization or Kristian Williams role in it, and I doubt neither does Glenn, to form an opinion about whether or not the passionate counter-speech that was displayed was appropriate or not. It appears to be passionate but peaceful, but I wasn’t there and clearly one of the panel members didn’t feel safe and the panel was disbanded and the police were called.
I’m not trying to make things “complicated” I simply don’t find life or debates about life to be cut and dry or black and white. They are a function of nuance and context.
And I’m not asking Glenn “to do all the work.” As he stated these issues are “complicated”.
I am curious why you would want as the outcome of our wager that I not comment for one or more months? My guess is you and I have some history from Salon to the point you don’t enjoy having to read or respond to any comments I post. Sorry. I’d advise scrolling past them, but I’m pretty much where I’ve always been when it comes to commenting on Glenn’s work–if/when he says I’m being disruptive and asks me to tone it back or leave then I will. As far as any other opinion on my comments/commenting I’m not particularly interested in popularity or anybody’s opinion on when and under what circumstances I should continue to comment, on what topics or in what way.
I generally speaking honor my bets, and I’m willing to bet that if enough is known about the PSU debate you linked Glenn would probably agree with you, as he did in the Coulter situation, that in an academic setting it is more productive to debate someone on the merits rather than disrupt their speech if I understand is Coulter defense.
As far as whether or not I do, again, I don’t know enough about the background of the organization, the issues at play or the protested speakers positions to weigh in on whether or not I agree with debating it on the merits or exercising their right as students to call her out on their unwillingness to let her set the terms of the debate.
@rrheard –
Ok, we’ll make the same bet, and if Greenwald says he can’t make a judgment for the reason you gave, you win the bet. It’s not going to matter to him. If one values free speech, it doesn’t matter who’s speaking (no exceptions) or what they’re saying (with a few exceptions). I’ll make that bet at even odds. I only suggested months off because it’s the first thing I thought of. Suggest different stakes if you want. Maybe if we agree to bet a gazillion dollars, Greenwald will take pity on us, and render a decision. Maybe just to shut us up.
My question is, who the hell continues to elect this prick? That should be at least as significant as the man himself.
Who keeps electing GOPers in this country who clearly have an agenda against women? Corey Gardner for Senate in Colorado, beating Mark Udall leaps into my mind somehow.
Yes, a perfect example. Gardner is currently my “Representative” (though he represents nothing in which I believe) and will now be one of my Senators. I am still absolutely astonished that he won that race and, I strongly suspect, that the women of CO will be very sorry that more was not done to insure that he lost.
lol how dare people not vote for the same person as you they’ll pay for that dearly.
Get back to me the next time Gardner, et al., attempt to outlaw abortion, deprive women of birth control, fail to pass the Violence Against Women Act, the Equal Rights Amendment, etc. And be assured, all of these will happen with the enthusiastic support of Cory Gardner.
Our (Brazil’s) Republic state started with a military government. After that, when they left the power, people were forced to vote for a specific candidate or they would have their property seized. After that, we had a dictatorship. After that, all the presidents were freaking jokes (3 of them). After that, another military government. In the late 1980s, we couldn’t choose a president, the chambers chose them. In the early 90s, when we finally could actually vote, all the major media in the country coerced the citizens to vote for a guy who then stole ALL the money for himself (he was impeached, though). Finally, in the mid-1990s we could choose a president, but that doesn’t mean the choice was actually “free”. Our government, and just the general State, really, is a broken system, but we can’t do anything about that because since always the one and only “reply” to protest from the State is extreme police brutality. Also, our political education is non-existent, most of us have no idea of what each politician does.
Who the hell continues to elect this prick? Himself. The government. The media. The ones who have the actual power.
And I know Brazil is not the only one.
Unfortunately, a *lot* of Brazilians support him. He was the most voted candidate in Rio.
There’s a whole war against left wing ideology here in Brazil, and these far-right kind of people are being chosen as some kind of heroes against the “corrupt communists” who are destroying the country by fighting against social inequality…
It seems insane, that’s what’s happening around here these days….
Hi Paulo –
There seems to be a lot of resistance to fighting social inequality here in the U.S. as well. Check some of the Guardian or yahoo posters when there are articles about income inequality or people who are economically struggling. And Congress has basically been shredding any social safety nets. Oh wait —- we’re spending all that money on munitions.
Ah well, looks as though we’re an uphill fight all over. Wish people would wake up!
Paulo
Go to cuba!!!!!!
Castros brothers loves you!!!
:/
“Go to Cuba” is the new motto for people who run out of arguments these days. They’re so entrenched within their hatred towards welfare and human rights that they can’t answer anything with rationality – only prejudice, even more hatred, and overused jargons. Sad days we live in.
Brazil doesn’t need help. What Brazil needs is to have less people like you, you waste of organic matter.
Wow, mansplaining on crack. It’s painful to think of a dignified woman standing there listening to a man say she’s beneath his rape, but sadly I think people often have to see such situations play out before they’re convinced of what “means without ends” looks like, what the real world manifestation of that strategy is.
Excellent article ! Shows the true face of the policy that is in favor of dictatorship in Brazil.
Very good article Greenwald, thanks for that, In addition to explaining America to Brazil, as you have on the NSA story, you are very well placed to expose to the English language community what’s going on in that country. You’re reporting can allow for some comparative analysis. I hope you continue to spend some time giving us a window into Brazil, it gives us a new perspective on issues that affect us all around the world.
Andrew Fishman co-authored of this report. He, same as Glenn, resides in Rio. So the ‘comparative analysis’ you’re correctly pointing out the substance and importance of will be much aided by Fishman’s knowledge and input, as well as Glenn’s.
At the time of this writing, the article was published 32 minutes ago, and it still hasn’t been tweeted by @the_intercept. Not good.