RIO DE JANEIRO, BRAZIL – (Opinion) On April 20, the Brazilian Federal Supreme Court (STF) sentenced Bolsonarist Federal Deputy Daniel Silveira to eight years and nine months in a closed prison for encouraging what the STF, famous for its strict leftist bias, claims to be “anti-democratic acts” and for “threatening institutions,” including the STF itself.
Justices Alexandre de Moraes (rapporteur), Edson Fachin, Luís Roberto Barroso, Rosa Weber, Dias Toffoli, Cármen Lúcia, Ricardo Lewandowski, Gilmar Mendes, and Luiz Fux voted for the conviction and for this dosimetry.
In addition to imposing the penalty, they also voted to revoke his mandate, suspend his political rights, and order the payment of a fine of about R$192,000 (US$42,000).
Justice André Mendonça was in favor of imprisonment for two years and four months in an open regime. Justice Kassio Nunes Marques was the only one to defend Silveira’s acquittal.
The Attorney General’s Office accuses Silveira of ‘verbal aggression’ and ‘serious threats’ against members of the Supreme Court on three occasions; of inciting the use of violence and serious threat to try to prevent the free exercise of the Legislative and Judicial Powers on two occasions; and of ‘stimulating animosity’ between the Armed Forces and the STF on at least one occasion. He became a defendant in April 2021.
The rapporteur argued that Silveira should be convicted of attempting to impede, by the use of violence or grave threat, the free exercise of the judiciary. In other words, the STF is willing to eliminate anyone who dares question or challenge its actions.
“Freedom of expression exists for the expression of opposing opinions, for jocular opinions, for satire, and even for erroneous opinions. But not for criminal imputations, for hate speech, for attacks against the rule of law and democracy,” said Moraes in his vote. In other words, freedom of expression should not be free.
Even when a society does not condone or welcome hate speech and criminal agitation, one cannot say they support free speech when they screen what can and cannot be said. After all, who decides what is acceptable and what is not? Tyranny and censorship come in all forms, even in the guise of “protecting democracy” – as the STF has demonstrated many times in the past two years.
After narrating several statements made by Silveira, Moraes said that “the serious threats made by the defendant consisted of severe attempts to intimidate the members of this Court, seeking to restrict the exercise of judicial power.”
Silveira was imprisoned for almost a year after releasing a video with threats to Justices of the Court but was released in November last year on the condition that he does not communicate with others investigated and stay off social networks.
However, in March this year, Moraes accepted a request from the Attorney General’s Office and ordered the patriotic congressman to return to using an electronic anklet for failing to comply with STF orders.
Silveira had taken part in political acts and continued to engage in what the STF classifies as “criminal behavior against the democratic rule of law, threatening, and uttering numerous ‘insults” against the STF and Justices of the Court.
THE DIVERGENCE
Justice Kassio Nunes Marques voted to acquit Daniel Silveira.
“I register my repudiation of the hurtful and regrettable language used by the parliamentarian, which, being so serious, may, from the conclusion of this trial, provoke a revision in the jurisprudence of this Court about parliamentary immunity,” declared Kassio Nunes. “However, despite the gravity and repugnance of the content of the speeches, I do not see a crime being committed.”
And Silveira is now being made an example for all to see. There are not a few in Brazil who see this as genuine political persecution.
But in Brazil, the persecution is directed against the president and his entourage. Ironically, Brazil’s Jair Bolsonaro and Peru’s Pedro Castillo find themselves in exactly the same situation even if with totally reversed signs.
While Castillo is the first left-wing president, and an indigenous one at that, and from the countryside and God forbid not from the Capital, after a long tenure of the right-wing and conservative elite of the capital Lima. He faces a hostile press, a hostile economy, and has to endure one no-confidence motion after another, and is thus gradually being worn down and hoisted out of the seat of power.
The mantra in Peru is ‘constant dripping wears away the stone’.
With Bolsnaro, it is the same and yet the exact opposite: he is the first patriotic-conservative president after a long left-wing and left-leaning rule.
Being leftist has therefore become ingrained in the minds of many Brazilians as a ‘must be’, among the press, among a considerable part of the business establishment, and certainly in the Brazilian way of political correctness.
Not affected are the rapidly growing evangelicals, which has become a power center without equal. For them there is only one law and that is the law of God. Political correctness is subordinated to that.
Ridiculing Bolsonaro by any means possible has long been the sport of the people, the media, and the arts, but is just now changing.
Bolsonaro is tough as nails and has a large and loyal following. Castillo’s voters, on the other hand, cannot withstand the stress. They are country people, unfamiliar with the aggressive and sneaky ways of Lima’s rich and beautiful.
The intrigue is too much for these people and they turn away.
But back to Silveira.
In view of the punishment, which many consider to be ‘outrageous’ and above all politically motivated, it can be assumed that the animosities, if they have existed up to now between the army and the STF, will not diminish, on the contrary.
Conversely, the STF itself is now guilty of what they are sending the Bolsonarist to prison for.
‘And who supervises the Justices’, the question arises. All the other ‘powers’ are supervised, except the Supreme Court. Is that why it just does what it wants? Because they can? Always under the pretext of maintaining democracy, of course. Nobody can overrule them and in this sense, they are really like Majesty.
In any case, the Supreme Court is already campaigning hard (are they allowed to do that?). With the severe Silveira banning, it says to Bolsonaro sympathizers: “Dare open your mouth during elections, and you’ll get in trouble.”
Together with the Social Media strategy put in place at least until the election, censorship in Brazil is one of the most effective ‘soft powers” there is.
If you are up to it read this post from July 2021 with the title “Brazil’s Supreme Court is setting precedents potentially dangerous to democracy”