STF wants to regain by force the respect it has already lost

Yesterday (16) the STF issued a note saying that the protests of Brazilians against ministers in New York were manifestations of “intolerance and violence”. In the few lines signed by Minister Rosa Weber, one can also read this excerpt that will enter the Annals of Brazilian Juridical Cynicism (volume 13): “Democracy, founded on the pluralism of ideas and opinions, to legitimize dissent, proves to be absolutely incompatible with acts of intolerance and violence, including moral violence, against any citizen”.

We even give a discount because we know that the Minister of platitudes is café au lait. Even so, the concepts and language used in the note are troubling. After all, it seems that our supreme ministers do not understand the meaning of very important words for the proper functioning of the truly democratic gear, such as tolerance. Worse: the note speaks of “moral violence” as if the STF were not one of the three pillars of the Republic, the “white head” power par excellence and a place occupied by mature people and in full enjoyment of their mental and emotional faculties, and yes a safe space for fragile children.

In addition, what does Minister Rosa Weber mean by “pluralism of ideas and opinions” ? Does she know that such dissent, the same as legitimate democracy, presupposes the coexistence conflicting of antagonistic ideas? Rather, I will speak in a way that even Minister Rosa Weber can understand: once upon a time there was a very silly and ugly idea, which wanted to win over other ideas based on physical violence, institutionalized shut-up and legal persecution. Then, through democratic dissent, a better idea (an idea of ​​freedom, perhaps?) came and won. And everyone lived happily ever after. The end.

Democratic anger

“But what about swear words? You’re not going to talk about the profanity? You have to talk about the profanity, man! From the injuries. From the attack on the honor of ministers. Of verbal violence. Do des-res-pei-to!”, says one of those people who separate syllables when they want to emphasize something and who really believe that Alexandre de Moraes deserves a statue (equestrian?) in a public square. To which I respond with the annoying obviousness of common sense: swear words are wrong, reprehensible, regrettable, shameful, etc. But they are also understandable. Very understandable.

We are facing a crowd that feels wronged and, without knowing how to express it, does what they can. That is, it makes use of the freedom guaranteed by a Constitution immune to the alexandrices of life (the North American one) to make it clear that the absolute power of the ministers of the Supreme Court is not welcome. And it’s no use coming up with the lame excuse of being “protecting democracy”.

It’s a crowd that doesn’t feel that it was just defeated at the polls; she feels that she was defeated long before leaving home and facing long queues to cast her vote in the TSE’s infallible and unquestionable machines. It is a crowd that, in the face of successive mockery, from the “temporary censorship” to the STF minister’s dinner with the PT lawyer, has nowhere to turn. Especially because, in a real democracy, they would appeal precisely to the ministers of the Federal Supreme Court. That is, those who have the greatest attribution to protect ordinary citizens from possible abuses committed by the State and its agents.

Co-opted by a political group (leftists, communists, progressives, petistas – call it what you will) and intoxicated with pride, however, the highest instance of Brazilian Justice is no longer capable of producing… justice. In the face of this, how can you not understand profanity? Name-calling is the last resort of a population that for years has seen prudence, meekness, logic and even legal doctrine being ignored or replaced by the voluntarism of dictators in toga.

As well as the politics is war by other means, in the context of the supreme riot in New York the word foul is habeas corpus by other means. I give this the rather uncreative name of “democratic wrath”: a frightening monster that slept in a splendid cradle until it was awakened by the ambition of ministers who consider themselves crusaders of this pathetic PT revolution.

The text is over

The text is over and all, but there’s a little bit of reasoning left here and, well, since the Lula government is a harbinger of lean cows, it’s not worth wasting it anything. It’s a silly, simple, random thing. So silly, simple and for nothing that I don’t even know why I’m writing. But I am.

It so happens that, taking into account the mastodontic vanity of our judges, I was imagining their shame before the justices of the Supreme Court of the United States and of all the places to which the images of the protests may have arrived. Because, you know, they might not give a shit about me and you, but they’re totally dependent on accepting the image they project to the world.


Recent Articles