It became a central figure in the Brazilian political scene-and it has bothered powerful inside and outside the country. Its tenacity in the fight against coup and the cilates of the far right to erode the rule of law, through social networks and other stratagems, deserve the applause of democrats who do not live in the world of the moon.
The reasons that have led to legislature activism are known. They are not limited to specific cases such as the blatant in the Bolsonaro government. They concern a new configuration of the postmodern world, in which the technological revolution, the crisis of liberal promises the imbalance of the market economy coexists with the international rise of a type of extreme nationalist ultra-right.
In this context, it assumed it in Brazil a fundamental role in containing the Bolsonaro government’s coup and sabotage against republican institutions – public health to the electoral process, passing through the judiciary itself. In these clashes, Minister Moraes took the lead with the fake news inquiry and the attempted coup and suppression of the rule of law in view of the maxim “justice is blind, but not foolish.”
It was this once again precautionary that applied to the former president. Well, there is a certain discretionary margin in “not being silly”. Our language even records proverbs about any widening of the use of cleverness. Some consider that Moraes, in conducting inquiries and monocratic decisions, exceeds and committed censorship. They are criticism made in some cases with relevance, although in others with mere school candor, anachronistic liberal formalism or, worse, fascist mood.
In the complimable effort to show himself balanced at a particularly delicate and explosive political moment, the minister preferred to avoid Bolsonaro’s preventive arrest, a decision that would be perfectly justifiable, and give preference to precautionary measures.
It turned out that it was not long before a problem in the prescriptions, endorsed by the first class of the Supreme. Not everything was so clear about what could or could not be done. Would Bolsonaro, who suffered no conviction, lose his right to demonstrate? Couldn’t you talk? Couldn’t give interviews? Would you have to control third parties by spreading your words on social networks?
not only from the point of view of rights, but from the very nature of contemporary communication, in which there is no way to control the fluidity and traffic between platforms. Once by Moraes, who saw abuse in the former president’s attitudes, the defense responded and asked for clarification.
More gabbing people on legal topics may analyze better, but the minister’s response was not clear, it was above all political. Avoided the error of determining the prohibition of interviews and speech. I would thus interpret the message to Bolsonaro and his lawyers: justice is not foolish, so they are not foolish. It is not difficult to understand. But if the radicals want, they can always force a pre -trial detention.
Gift Link: Did you like this text? Subscriber can release seven free hits from any link per day. Just click on F Blue below.
