Edition #16
Lisbon, 2011
“DKANDLE weaves swirling multi-colored vibrant unearthly soundscapes, blending fuzzy and reverberating Shoegaze textures, mesmerizing Dream Pop meditations, sludgy Grungey tones and moody Post-punk strains, heightened with soul-stirring lyricism and pensive emotive vocalizations”
In recent weeks, there have been significant changes in Brazil. On one side, we had politicians and evangelical pastors who took a stand against same-sex unions in the country. On the other, some judges banned certain Marches for Marijuana, claiming that they were promoting drug use. I was starting to feel disheartened about being Brazilian. It seemed like we were all at the mercy of these ignorant fundamentalists. But imagine my surprise when I saw that the Supreme Federal Court (STF) stands above all this mediocrity and, free from any dogma, judged these cases fairly... I confess, I had "intellectual orgasms" listening to their arguments on these matters. It’s so reassuring to know that, in my country, we are not entirely in the hands of the likes of Garotinhos and Bolsonaros. The STF justices have proven to be very enlightened, and with their unassailable arguments, they dismantled the pseudo-moralistic and religious prejudices of those who wanted to keep Brazil in the dark ages. We're talking about "top-tier" judges here. Their speeches were a lesson in civility that everyone should read. That's why I decided to honor them here in Tranzine by transcribing parts of their speeches. Can you imagine if all Brazilian politicians were like them? Brazil would be the most advanced country in the world...
HOMOSEXUAL UNION
On May 5, 2011, the Brazilian Supreme Federal Court (STF) unanimously ruled in favor of recognizing same-sex unions. In a move that showed complete disrespect for the STF, Judge Jeronymo Pedro Villas Boas, who is also an evangelical pastor, disobeyed the STF's decision and ordered the annulment of the first same-sex union performed in his registry office in Goiania, arguing that the STF had disrespected the Constitution. However, he ignored the fact that the STF is the highest authority in Brazil, even above the president, and it is the most qualified body to interpret the Constitution. While the Constitution only explicitly recognizes unions between a man and a woman, it does not prohibit unions between people of the same sex at all. Thus, the STF's decision did not violate the Constitution. If even Collor, a former president, had no authority to disobey an STF decision regarding his impeachment, who is this judge to disobey? Predictably, his annulment had no effect other than to give him his fifteen minutes of fame. The STF's decision is sovereign. Here are some of the arguments used by the justices to legitimize same-sex unions in Brazil:
LUÍS ROBERTO BARROSO, JURIST:
“What matters in life are our affections. Love and the pursuit of happiness are at the center of the major philosophical systems and the major religions. This court is asked to declare that any way of loving is worthwhile. No one should be diminished in this life because of their affections or for sharing their affections with whomever they choose. Freedom means being able to do what the law does not prohibit. And freedom is private autonomy; it is the right of each person to make their own moral judgments and to make their existential choices.”
AYRES BRITTO, MINISTER:
“The sexual organ is a plus, a bonus, a gift from nature. It is not a burden, a weight, an annoyance, or even less a reprimand from the gods. There is nothing more private to individuals than the practice of their own sexuality. The freedom to exercise one’s own sexuality falls within the range of individual freedoms, which is an expression of autonomy of will. This right to explore the potentials of one’s own sexuality is exercised both in intimacy and in privacy, regardless of whether the adult partner is of the same sex or not.”
ROBERTO GURGEL, ATTORNEY GENERAL OF BRAZIL:
“The heterosexual individual is fully able to form a family according to their emotional and sexual inclinations. However, the same possibility is denied to homosexuals without any acceptable justification. There is no doubt about the constitutional prohibition of discrimination based on sexual orientation. The lack of legitimacy for same-sex unions generates prejudice and reduces these people to a status lower than others. It is a stigma that explicitly devalues the way of being of homosexuals, relegating them to second-class citizenship. Depriving members of such unions of their rights is an affront to their dignity, exposing them to unjustifiable social risks where even the minimum material conditions for a dignified life may be compromised. The fact that the Constitution recognizes a stable union between a man and a woman as a family entity does not necessarily mean that it does not also guarantee the recognition of unions between people of the same sex.”
LUIZ FUX, MINISTER:
“Homosexuality is not a cancer, it is not an ideology, and it is certainly not a lifestyle choice. Same-sex unions are a fact of life, a social reality.”
CÁRMEN LÚCIA, MINISTER:
“The choice of a same-sex union is individual, intimate, and, according to the Constitution, a manifestation of individual freedom. Those who choose same-sex unions cannot be diminished in their citizenship.”
MARCO AURÉLIO MELLO, MINISTER:
“Family is a cultural construct. Affection for another person of the same sex is a part of one’s individuality, making it impossible to demand otherwise without destroying the person. The State exists to assist individuals in their respective individual life projects.”
GILMAR MENDES, MINISTER:
“The fact that the Constitution protects a stable union between a man and a woman does not mean a denial of protection for civil or stable unions between people of the same sex. I recognize the existence of this union.”
CELSO DE MELLO, MINISTER:
“This judgment will allow for the full realization of freedom, equality, and non-discrimination. It is a judgment that will mark the country. Justice is secular. Prejudiced or discriminatory stances generate great injustices. States must ensure everyone's right to form a family, including through adoption and insemination.”
MARIJUANA MARCH FOR MARIJUANA
On June 15, 2011, the Supreme Federal Court (STF) of Brazil unanimously decided in favor of allowing the "Marcha da Maconha" (March for Marijuana). The Supreme Court ruled that banning the movement threatened freedom of expression and did not constitute incitement to drug use. In May, courts had banned demonstrations advocating for the legalization of marijuana in at least nine capital cities. In São Paulo, the march was prohibited by Judge Teodomiro Mendez, resulting in heavy police repression. Fortunately, the STF intervened in favor of free expression of opinion. This is not enough yet, but democracy prevailed nonetheless:
DEBORAH DUPRAT, DEPUTY ATTORNEY GENERAL:
“The freedom to express opinions is a prerequisite for the functioning of democracy. Judges, when prohibiting this type of demonstration, use the ‘mistaken argument’ that it constitutes incitement to crime and encourages the use of illicit substances. Article 287 of the Penal Code must be interpreted in accordance with the Constitution, ‘in a way that excludes any interpretation that could lead to the criminalization of advocating for the legalization of drugs or any specific narcotic substances, including through demonstrations and public events.’ The restriction on freedom of expression violates a fundamental principle of constitutional order. Freedom of expression is a ‘meta-right,’ as it is the foundation for verbalizing and exercising other rights. The state should not make value judgments about individual expression.”
CELSO DE MELLO, MINISTER:
“Nothing is more harmful or dangerous than the state's intention to prohibit free expression. Deodoro da Fonseca, Brazil's first president, ordered the suppression of capoeira gatherings, which were considered crimes at the time. Today, capoeira circles are considered intangible cultural heritage by IPHAN. The state has no right to prohibit the exercise of free thought, a right guaranteed by the Federal Constitution. In a democratic society, the state must respect the right of assembly. Thought must be free, always free, permanently free. The majority principle cannot legitimize the suppression, frustration, or annihilation of fundamental rights, such as the free exercise of the right to assemble and freedom of expression, under penalty of disqualifying the very essence of the democratic state of law. Minorities also have the right to assembly, which is fundamental for disseminating their ideas, even if they are unpleasant, mocking, or unpopular. In the case of the March for Marijuana, there is no evidence of glorification, defense, or justification of possession for consumption or drug trafficking, which are classified under the current drug law. On the contrary, there is a clear attempt to initiate an important and necessary debate on public policies and the effects of prohibition. The state has no authority over the ideas, thoughts, and opinions of its citizens. The right to speak, think, and write freely, without censorship, represents the most precious privilege of the citizen. However, incitement to hatred and prejudice is not included under this protection.”
MARCO AURÉLIO, MINISTER:
“The interpretation that the defense of decriminalization is equivalent to incitement to drug use conflicts with freedom of expression. The very concept of what constitutes a crime varies. How many national heroes were considered criminals according to the laws of their time? It is necessary to protect even the manifestations that disturb the majority of people. Freedom of expression cannot be considered the right to freely speak only what people want to hear or what is indifferent to them. Certainly not. Freedom of expression exists to protect manifestations that disturb public and private agents and provoke reflection. The right of expression serves to prevent the state from treating a particular opinion favorably or unfavorably.”
AYRES BRITTO, MINISTER:
“It is not possible to censor a demonstration before it even takes place. One should not confuse the criminalization of conduct with the debate on its criminalization. Freedom of expression is the highest expression of liberty. Any subject can be legitimately discussed.”
RICARDO LEWANDOWSKI, MINISTER:
“A march is a moving assembly, and thus, protected by the right. The concept of drugs is not uniform around the world. During Prohibition in the United States, alcohol was banned and harshly repressed.”
MARCOS MACHADO CHAIBEN, LAWYER OF THE BRAZILIAN ASSOCIATION FOR SOCIAL STUDIES ON PSYCHOACTIVE SUBSTANCES:
“The prohibition of marijuana originated as a process of segregation against the Black population, where its use was said to be more widespread. The prohibitionist model has not achieved its goals. The effects of the war on drugs are harmful. ‘Between freedom and restriction, we must defend freedom’ (quoting the late minister Carlos Alberto Mendes Direito in the Press Law ruling).”
LUCIANO FELDENS, LAWYER OF THE BRAZILIAN INSTITUTE OF CRIMINAL SCIENCES:
“Article 5 of the Constitution states that ‘everyone can gather peacefully, without weapons, in public spaces, without the need for authorization.’ (...) If a political party included decriminalization in its platform, would it also be committing incitement to crime? I urge the STF to say no to the hatred and violence practiced by police during protests.”
CÁRMEN LÚCIA, MINISTER:
“Marches like this highlight the need for tolerance, discussion, and reaching a new consensus. There is no such thing as an intolerant democracy. We should not fear words. ‘Oh, word, what strange power you have’ (quoting Cecília Meireles).”
CEZAR PELUSO, MINISTER:
“The government cannot prohibit verbal or non-verbal expressions simply because society finds them offensive or contrary to dominant thought.”
What do you think about same-sex marriage and the marijuana march?
Leave a comment below
previous page: EVILGELICS
next page: CONCEPT X METAPHOR
YOU MIGHT ALSO LIKE:
Mind your own business, will you?
MARIJUANA LEGISLATION
How weed is treated around the world
HOMOPHOBIA IN CHURCHES
The damage caused by dogmatism
