6 ms·

In my country at least a lot of that has to do with the media and our current supreme court. Despite Brazil having the most advanced constitution in the world

In my country at least a lot of that has to do with the media and our current supreme court. Despite Brazil having the most advanced constitution in the world regarding human rights, local leaders have been ignoring it outright, and when the president complained the media portrayed the president as a genocidal dictator, and when the president sued the governors and mayors to force them to obey the constitution, the supreme court literally ruled the Virus is so dangerous that ignoring the constitution and eroding rights is fine. After that it only got worse, the supreme court been making lately more and more decisions that ignore the laws instead of enforcing them. EDIT: people been downvoting me. Instead of downvoting why you don't present your argument instead, and let me present mine, this way we can have a conversation that might enlighten readers of this site?

MeinBlutIstBlau 6y ago
I feel like redditors in particular hate Bolsanaro just because he's right wing. What you've said is incredibly sad though.
- whimsicalism 6y ago
  > Bolsanaro He is much more than just "right wing." He routinely praises the junta and says that their mistake was not killing enough leftists. That is not normal.
  - MeinBlutIstBlau 6y ago
    There is nothing wrong with a Junta as a form of government. Often times military governments are required to transition to a democratic one. I mean half of south america basically had them. They are effective forms of government required to retain order and stability so that democracy can ensue. The reason we don't see them be successful in african countries because they are often very poor, have immense cultural issues, and the government can't effectively maintain control. Even established regimes can't even perform basic functions of governance because corruption even within their own administration.
    - whimsicalism 6y ago
      > required to retain order and stability There've been numerous transitions to democracy that have occurred without juntas. Your dog-whistling about cultural issues in Africa ignores the failure of juntas in places as diverse as Greece, Burma, and Egypt. Ultimately though, the merits of juntas in general are not relevant. Do you agree with Bolsonaro that Brazil would have been better off if the military had disappeared more leftists? Do you think that is a reasonable stance for a head of state to hold?
      - MeinBlutIstBlau 6y ago
        Yes and yes
cesarb 6y ago
> and when the president sued the governors and mayors to force them to obey the constitution, the supreme court literally ruled the Virus is so dangerous that ignoring the constitution and eroding rights is fine. Do you have a reference for that? The closest I could find is ADI 6341 (http://portal.stf.jus.br/processos/detalhe.asp?incidente=5880765 http://portal.stf.jus.br/processos/detalhe.asp?incidente=588... which seems to be the one talked about by https://noticias.uol.com.br/saude/ultimas-noticias/redacao/2020/04/15/stf-tem-4-votos-a-favor-de-autonomia-de-governadores-durante-a-pandemia.htm https://noticias.uol.com.br/saude/ultimas-noticias/redacao/2...), but that was a party (Partido Democrático Trabalhista - PDT) suing the president, not the president suing anyone, so you must be talking about a different event.
- speeder 6y ago
  That was one of the cases yes. Just so you understand the context: To prevent a dictator abusing executive powers to prevent protests and whatnot, the constitution allow quarantines and lockdowns only under very specific conditions: 1. Only the president can call for a lockdown, curfew or quarantine. 2. Only because of war or another very serious emergency. 3. After the president calls for it, the congress must approve or deny in 24 hours. 4. After congress approval, it must be approved by the Republic Council (it has people like the vice president, senate leader, minister of justice, etc...) And the Defense Council (it has in it ministers and commanders relates to military). The supreme court decision is extremely dangerous, because the way it works is that now mayors and governors can literally suspend a citizen basic rights (free movement, free speech, right to assembly, etc...)

MeinBlutIstBlau 6y ago

I feel like redditors in particular hate Bolsanaro just because he's right wing. What you've said is incredibly sad though.

whimsicalism 6y ago
> Bolsanaro He is much more than just "right wing." He routinely praises the junta and says that their mistake was not killing enough leftists. That is not normal.
- MeinBlutIstBlau 6y ago
  There is nothing wrong with a Junta as a form of government. Often times military governments are required to transition to a democratic one. I mean half of south america basically had them. They are effective forms of government required to retain order and stability so that democracy can ensue. The reason we don't see them be successful in african countries because they are often very poor, have immense cultural issues, and the government can't effectively maintain control. Even established regimes can't even perform basic functions of governance because corruption even within their own administration.
  - whimsicalism 6y ago
    > required to retain order and stability There've been numerous transitions to democracy that have occurred without juntas. Your dog-whistling about cultural issues in Africa ignores the failure of juntas in places as diverse as Greece, Burma, and Egypt. Ultimately though, the merits of juntas in general are not relevant. Do you agree with Bolsonaro that Brazil would have been better off if the military had disappeared more leftists? Do you think that is a reasonable stance for a head of state to hold?
    - MeinBlutIstBlau 6y ago
      Yes and yes

cesarb 6y ago

> and when the president sued the governors and mayors to force them to obey the constitution, the supreme court literally ruled the Virus is so dangerous that ignoring the constitution and eroding rights is fine. Do you have a reference for that? The closest I could find is ADI 6341 (http://portal.stf.jus.br/processos/detalhe.asp?incidente=5880765 http://portal.stf.jus.br/processos/detalhe.asp?incidente=588... which seems to be the one talked about by https://noticias.uol.com.br/saude/ultimas-noticias/redacao/2020/04/15/stf-tem-4-votos-a-favor-de-autonomia-de-governadores-durante-a-pandemia.htm https://noticias.uol.com.br/saude/ultimas-noticias/redacao/2...), but that was a party (Partido Democrático Trabalhista - PDT) suing the president, not the president suing anyone, so you must be talking about a different event.

speeder 6y ago
That was one of the cases yes. Just so you understand the context: To prevent a dictator abusing executive powers to prevent protests and whatnot, the constitution allow quarantines and lockdowns only under very specific conditions: 1. Only the president can call for a lockdown, curfew or quarantine. 2. Only because of war or another very serious emergency. 3. After the president calls for it, the congress must approve or deny in 24 hours. 4. After congress approval, it must be approved by the Republic Council (it has people like the vice president, senate leader, minister of justice, etc...) And the Defense Council (it has in it ministers and commanders relates to military). The supreme court decision is extremely dangerous, because the way it works is that now mayors and governors can literally suspend a citizen basic rights (free movement, free speech, right to assembly, etc...)