Ignorance of the content of the Constitution; false symmetry between churches and unions (although he denies doing precisely what he does); religious and cultural intolerance; dehumanization of women, transforming her into a mere reproductive bag… There is no reactionary or stupid thesis that deputy Eli Borges (PL-TO) has not focused on, speaking on behalf of the evangelical group. I hope that lucid people, parliamentarians or not, supporters of the most varied religious currents gathered under this sign react so that the exercise of faith does not mix with coup d’état, obscurantism and misogyny. In the interview published by Folha this Sunday, Mr. Borges made it clear that he does know how to make himself influential in the spheres of power — a skill that lobbyists also have — but, in terms of religiosity, he seems more likely to cultivate golden calves.
I am not afraid to face this debate because, more than once, I have defended the right that evangelicals have — and it is the right that everyone has — to manifest themselves, to have a voice identified as such. And so it is with all who profess a religion. I myself am Catholic and I am aware that, here and there, a certain oblique look is perceived, as if belief were incompatible with a civilized world. Fortunately, it’s not the rule. And it is true that repudiation of religiosity as a principle is also a form of intolerance. I know the ground I walk on.
Deputy Eli Boges believes that there is a “toga dictatorship” in Brazil. When detailing his thought, he must have broken the record for nonsense to 95 words:
“I’ve been saying that we live a judicial activism. For example, this January 8th: I want to understand that there is a small minority of troublemakers infiltrated and, sometimes, some people in their simplicity, but they do not represent the thinking of the majority of Brazilians. There are many good people who are seeking their freedom and are in prison. This activism precedes [o 8 de janeiro]. We had interference from the Supreme Court in many matters, such as gender ideology, abortion. I don’t think they are matters of the Supreme Court. Judiciary has to judge laws, and the one who makes the laws is Parliament.”
In the deputy’s formulation, the arrest of coup plotters, the majority in flagrante delicto and a much smaller portion as a result of investigations, would result from “judicial activism”, from which it is inferred that a Judiciary that was not, according to its terms, “activist” should do turning a blind eye, allowing criminals, themselves, to practice their “activism”, which called for terrorist practices — even though the attribution of the crime of terrorism is controversial, always remembering that the Penal Code has articles to make the scoundrel spend a good few years in jail.
The deputy, as can be seen, works with the concept of “good people”, and it is not clear what he means by that. It is obvious to ask: what kind of “good people” are these who, given the result of the election, intend to prevent the one who legitimately won the election from taking office. More than that: it starts to occupy public spaces to preach a military intervention that enthrones the defeated. Attention! In the event that there were campers who did not participate in the attack on the respective headquarters of the Three Powers, there was not a single one who did not agree with at least this minimum program. It’s illegal.
To try to support his impossible thesis, he makes use of the conspiracy theory according to which the vandals were, in fact, infiltrators. As the overwhelming majority of the population repudiated the attack, it seeks to dissociate criminals from Bolsonarism. And, obviously, he needs to put reality aside to support his fantasy. It should be reiterated: almost all arrests took place in flagrante delicto. And, of course!, there is no trace that there was any frame. He’s making it up.
It should also be noted: the STF would not be able to interfere with “gender ideology” because it does not exist. Perhaps he is referring to the extension of the penalties of Law 7716 (anti-racism) for the crime of homophobia. It is enough to read the reasons for the court’s decision to realize that it is only a matter of applying the principles of the Constitution. By the way: does the deputy intend to practice homophobia and remain unpunished or does he have the votes of those who intend to practice it? What God is this?
Besides, I don’t even know if he actually intended to say what he said, but, in fact, it is also up to the Supreme Court to judge the laws, in addition to applying them. As with scammers.
THE COUP AS A RIGHT
It so happens that the coordinator of the evangelical bench thinks that trying to carry out a coup is a right, which would be supported by the Constitution. And it is fearless in nonsense. He says:
“If you open up the Constitution, it is very clear: the Armed Forces play a role in responding to the popular outcry, and this population went to make an outcry that the Constitution defines as a constitutional right. I saw nothing wrong with society making its outcry .”
It’s a coup thesis. In the good democracies of the world, you should have to answer to the Council of Ethics of the Chamber. What exactly was “the outcry” of such “good people”? I remember again: military intervention. This gentleman thinks that acting against constitutional guarantees and against the Penal Code is a “right”. I recall Articles 359-L and 359-M of the CP:
Abolition of the rule of law
Art. 359-L. Trying, using violence or serious threat, to abolish the democratic rule of law, preventing or restricting the exercise of constitutional powers:
Penalty – imprisonment, from 4 (four) to 8 (eight) years, in addition to the penalty corresponding to the violence.
Coup
Art. 359-M. Attempting to depose, by means of violence or serious threat, the legitimately constituted government: Penalty – imprisonment, from 4 (four) to 12 (twelve) years, in addition to the penalty corresponding to the violence.
The deputy is lying. There is not a single passage in the Constitution that sustains that the Armed Forces exist to “answer the popular cry”. Especially because, sir, even if the attack was a clamor of the 49.1% who voted for Bolsonaro — and that is also a lie —, it was not that of the 50.9% who chose Lula.
Borges is certainly making a stupid reading – and there is no way he can ignore that he is wrong – of Article 142 of the Constitution, namely:
Art. 142. The Armed Forces, made up of the Navy, the Army and the Air Force, are permanent and regular national institutions, organized on the basis of hierarchy and discipline, under the supreme authority of the President of the Republic, and are intended to defend the Homeland, the guarantee of constitutional powers and, at the initiative of any of them, of law and order.
Although such an article is remarkably poorly written, for reasons that are not relevant here, one of the attributions of the Armed Forces is to guarantee the Constitutional Powers, not overthrow them. “Maintaining law and order” does not mean preventing the elected official from taking office. If it were as he says, it would be up to the military, not the voters, to say who can and who cannot govern the country.
I recommend that Borges update himself. Even Ives Gandra Martins, the exegete of the coup d’état, has already retreated, trying to tidy up his own biography, stating that he didn’t say what they said he said. And he says. And he was stupidly wrong.
A question to the other members of the evangelical bench: do you feel represented by someone who believes that the Armed Forces make the final decision about the polls? That preaching a coup d’état is a right? That the riot was promoted by infiltrators — who could only be, of course!, from the left?
Is this the country you want to build, namely: the one where hordes decide to overthrow the elected president by force, assuming that the Constitution would provide a license for their own destruction? There are still a few things to say about the absurd interview. And I will. But I will close with an ethical question, which should be sent to the Council of Ethics of the Chamber: does immunity include a parliamentarian attacking the fundamentals that guarantee the legitimacy of the Parliament itself?