|
All your interpretation and from some of jurists that you cite is that the attacks that Brazilian institutions suffered, like the attacks caused by digital militias during the Bolsonaro government were not serious coordinated attacks against the rule of law and against the tribunal. If so, involving the supreme tribunal in the case was overkill and should not have been done. This is just this: an interpretation which lost the discussion in the relevant judgements. Several jurists will also have divergent interpretations: it does not matter, there are instances that deal with divergent interpretations and choose the right one, and STF is the maximum instance. The tribunal is chosen by different elected presidents from the past and they vote making the majority decide. Saying that "Brazil is dictatorship" just because you have a divergent interpretation is ridiculous. You criticize that the STF was not the organization that should have opened the inquiry, saying that using article 43 of internal regiment of STF was wrong. You replicate the arguments in far right groups. According with your interpretation, build a missile to attack the tribunal is not a "crime in the dependencies of the tribunal". You are free to have this interpretation, but this is not the vigent interpretation. Moreover, what you also are conveniently ignoring is that organizations that otherwise should have opened the case if the attack were not considered in the dependencies of tribunal, nonetheless agreed with the inquiry: https://g1.globo.com/politica/noticia/2020/06/10/agu-e-pgr-d... [source in pt-BR] Several of your arguments, taken from far right groups, are weak: > First of all, there is no "fake news" crime in the Brazilian criminal code. This is just a term used in media. Show me an instance of someone jailed by "fake news". It does not exist. People are charged by crimes of threatening other people, unbased defamation, trying to abolish the rule of law, all of them are crimes and should be punished. > Third, you cannot have the same person performing the roles of victim, prosecutor and judge. If I threaten to kill all judges in Brazil, and create a plan to do so, according with you, I cannot be judged because any judge would also be victim in my crime? The fact is that there are cases where the STF has power to act, and that ridiculous argument do not overwrite this. Moreover, nobody is being at the same time judge and prosecutor. Inquiries are not criminal processes, they are administrative procedures. The criminal process comes later. And the prosecutor is not the STF, but the Prosecutor General of the Republic. Unless you have proofs that judges instruct and help prosecutors, like was proven in the carwash operation. But if this operation were carried like the carwash, Bolsonaro would already have been jailed. But fortunately that the due process in being respected in his case. |
> All your interpretation and from some of jurists that you cite is that the attacks that Brazilian institutions suffered, like the attacks caused by digital militias during the Bolsonaro government were not serious coordinated attacks against the rule of law and against the tribunal.
Oh yes, the grave attacks of people talking on twitter. The Brazilian institutions suffered so much.
> Saying that "Brazil is dictatorship" just because you have a divergent interpretation is ridiculous.
Brazil is a dictatorship because its own Supreme Court disrespects the constitution, censors elected congressmen and journalists without due process (see Twitter Files Brazil), arrests people with without due process, withdraws access to case files to defense attorneys... the list goes on.
> You replicate the arguments in far right groups
Yes, the former Republic Attorney General, a well known far right extremist.
> This is just a term used in media
The exact term is used in the opening of the wildcard illegal inquiry.
> If I threaten to kill all judges in Brazil, and create a plan to do so, according with you, I cannot be judged because any judge would also be victim in my crime?
You think this is some sort of slam dunk argument but it is so juvenile that it shouldn't even deserve a thoughtful reply. You create a fantasy scenario where there's no specific victim ("threaten all judges in Brazil") that is obviously so absurd that such a threat shouldn't even be considered seriously. In the case of an actual crime, where a number of judges are victims, one would expect that investigations are carried out by the Federal Prosecution Service, not by the judges themselves, and that the case would be judged different judges, not the victims themselves.
> The fact is that there are cases where the STF has power to act
This is the core of the problem. The Supreme Court has the power to do whatever it wants, without limits. It is also a political court that is, in their own words, adversarial against right wing thought, and to defeat the right wing they will not be limited by the rule of law.
> Moreover, nobody is being at the same time judge and prosecutor
You cannot be serious.