Denial medical institutions have gone to court against scientists who criticize denialism. It’s better not to say the name, as we could be on the list of those harassed for demonstrating that the anti-science stance causes thousands of deaths. But we know what these institutions are. They violate rights without giving up their honor and self-esteem, converted into legal assets protected by criminal law.
and religious women have gone to court asking for arrest and compensation, teachers and citizens who publicly criticize their improbable and unseemly behavior. It is better not to say their name to avoid the risk of being condemned for subjecting them to this classic form of public control through speech. Or for trying and taking risks in “speaking truth to power”.
Lobbyist law has multiplied techniques to legalize violations of the law of economic and political powers. Procrastination techniques accepted by the courts culminate in prescription and impunity. The irrational web of appeal is a factory of injustice.
Foul play against the opposing party or the construction of promiscuous relationships with judges, converted into charging fees for VIP tickets to access Justice, are others. Representing a lawyer for the opposing party to the OAB, or the prosecutor to the CNMP, so that the specter of disciplinary punishment hangs over them and drains their energy to act diligently, is a recurring practice.
It’s better not to mention names because, if called lobbyists, lawyers also criminally question, in private, those who question them argumentatively in public. The unfair game receives imposing slogans, such as “access to justice and broad defense”, “reputation”, or even “national interest”, disguises for less than virtuous strategies of manipulation and enrichment.
These examples make up a typology of the forms of instrumentalization of the Judiciary as a weapon of business and political delinquency, mediated by legal brokerage. There are judges who accept the role of puppets for fair material or immaterial compensation. There are those who prefer self-respect.
The National Council of Justice has attempted, within its institutional limits, to mitigate the harmful potential of these practices. Recommendation 127/2022 calls attempts to inhibit the exercise of freedom of expression “predatory judicialization”. It suggests that courts group repeated actions and attention to bad faith.
Recommendation 159/2024 sets out criteria for identifying abusive litigation and tools for its treatment and prevention. But it adopts a limited concept of “judicial harassment”.
These are modest efforts to confront different techniques of using the Judiciary and promoting predation on the Rule of Law.
There are obstacles ahead. The unsurprising fact that many judges and ministers side with these practices for personal benefit is one of them. Another is the lottery of the meaning of rights like freedom of expression or full defense. Jurisprudential lottery is a workshop of judicial arbitrariness.
Abusive judiciary and abused judiciary are sides of the same coin. Harassing remains a big deal for the harasser when the Court provides the service for free.
This is the Judiciary and its ways of using it. If you’re going to criticize, just don’t say their name.
LINK PRESENT: Did you like this text? Subscribers can access seven free accesses from any link per day. Just click the blue F below.
