RIO DE JANEIRO, BRAZIL – The Federal Supreme Court (STF) by a 9 – 1 vote of its Justices, has ordered the suspension of any actions by the Ministry of Justice to produce or share data on “anti-fascist” citizens. According to the Justices, the portfolio headed by Minister André Mendonça is banned from collecting data on the personal life, personal or political choices and civic practices exercised by government opponents.
Last Wednesday, August 19th, the rapporteur of the case, Justice Cármen Lúcia, voted against the monitoring of government opponents. With harsh messages to the Planalto, the Justice said that the state “cannot be an offender”, stressed that “it is not up to anyone to make a file against anyone” and praised the press, which disclosed the existence of the report.
Cármen Lúcia’s position was followed by Justices Alexandre de Moraes, Edson Fachin, Luís Roberto Barroso, Rosa Weber, Gilmar Mendes, Ricardo Lewandowski, Luiz Fux, and Chief Justice Dias Toffoli. The sole dissenting vote was by Justice Marco Aurelio; Justice Celso de Mello, on medical leave, did not vote.
“Brazil’s past condemns the misuse of security bodies. This type of monitoring to find out what potential opponents do is utterly incompatible with democracy. Unless one had any evidence to assume that they were plotting against the state or democratic institutions. But if this were truly the concern, perhaps it would be the case to monitor fascist rather than anti-fascist groups,” Justice Luis Roberto Barroso criticized.
According to Justice Rosa Weber, intelligence reports “cannot target a specific ideology, or its threat, regardless of the ideology it expresses.” “In a democracy, no one should fear reprisals for merely expressing an opinion, a belief, a thought that is not endorsed by those in authority. A constitutional state does not allow for state actions to be guided by the logic of ideological thought,” the Justice stressed.
For Justice Edson Fachin, the right to free demonstration and the right to protest, like that of the “anti-fascist” movement which the report challenged, is not a criminal infraction and “is not, therefore, subject either to criminal investigation or to intelligence activity.”
“The defense of freedom of expression is also very important in attracting foreign investors. The international repercussions, when one suggests these reports that can revive our recollection of a rather hazy period, have international repercussions,” said Justice Fux.
In his vote, Justice Moraes pointed out that the file against anti-fascist civil servants sets out, state by state, the list of police officers who would be opponents of the government.
“It is one thing to establish, through the exchange of data, in theory, that there is a prospect of a police strike that could lead to public insecurity. This is important in intelligence reports to prevent social chaos. One thing is the exchange of data, intelligence reports to determine potential demonstrations that could disrupt supply chains, as was the case with the truckers’ strike. These are facts – you analyze facts. It’s another thing to start listing, state by state, state police officers, civilians, who may be leaders against the government, leaders against demonstrations held in favor of the government,” Moraes said.
The former Minister of Justice under the Temer administration and ex-State Secretary in São Paulo, Moraes said it doesn’t matter if the state, civil, or federal highway police officer is “politically in favor of A or B, if he votes for A, B, C, if he professes a certain religion or philosophical belief. As long as he performs his duties within legal limits, he has absolute freedom of affiliation. It is not for the state intelligence bodies to monitor, assess whether he is for or against (the government),” the Justice noted.
Moraes pointed out a misuse of purpose in the “attempt by certain intelligence bodies” to list the political and philosophical preferences of police officers, without them having committed any illegal activity. “People are starting to be targeted, that’s not what the legislation authorizes. No public body may act beyond the limits of the law. This is serious,” the justice concluded.
Source: Estadão Conteúdo