5 ms·

Brazil is essentially living under a judicial dictatorship for the last 5 years or so. The media and press have been looking the other way (as well as actively

Brazil is essentially living under a judicial dictatorship for the last 5 years or so. The media and press have been looking the other way (as well as actively helping in the persecution) because they didn't like the people being persecuted, so they were fine with the whole thing.

croes 2y ago
That would mean it happened under Jair Bolsonaro
- dalmo3 2y ago
  The President is part of the executive branch, not the judicial branch.
- hexage1814 2y ago
  It did. Their excuse (both the court itself as well as the media trying to justify the court's actions) was/is something among the lines of "Oh, Bolsonaro would establish a dictatorship [an hypothetical that never happen, Bolsonaro unlike the Supreme Court, never crossed a red line], so we will instead establish our actual dictatorship to prevent his dictatorship". And here we are in 2024, Bolsonaro is not president anymore, the elections (organized by people who pretty much opposed Bolsonaro btw...) are over, but the Supreme Court is still arresting people. They are still having trials were the court is the accuser, the "victim", and the judge – all in the same figure. They are still ordering profiles on social media to be blocked. They are still trying to arrest journalists abroad. They are still sentencing protesters, or at best rioters, to 17 years in prison because they broke some stuff – they accuse those random people without any real power, random common people, to have threaten the rule of law. It's bad.
  - tail_exchange 2y ago
    Not the full story. You are omitting the fact that Bolsonaro made several allegations of voter fraud on social media, and Brazil had their own version of January 6th after he lost (what you called "at best rioters"). These decisions are a response to those events, but your post paints him as a blameless victim.
  - greiskul 2y ago
    Are we just going to ignore all the people that were camping in front of military barracks? The manifesto that was going around in the Army, in support of a coup to prevent Lula from taking power? How the US government, thanks to Biden, pressured generals in Brazil to uphold democracy (which means if Trump was president, there might have been a successful coup?). We have the documents. We have the witnesses. Don't play disingenuous games and try to gaslight us that it is all in our heads. Alexandre de Moraes will go down in Brazilian history as a men who did everything to keep Brazil a democracy.
    - matthewrobertso 2y ago
      Then why does Moraes need to censor people on Twitter? If the argument is ironclad, shouldn't it be able to defend itself from speech?
    - mamonster 2y ago
      One look at the photos of Bolsonaro eating the Florida KFC immediately after the elections would tell you immediately that he never had the "it" to be a dictator, especially one that would need to actually do the regime change(and not simply inherit like Maduro).
  - thor-rodrigues 2y ago
    It sounds very misleading to frame those responsible for storming into the Congress on January 8th, while attempting to "stop the steal" that the elections supposedly were, as simply "at best rioters, to 17 years in prison because they broke some stuff". This would only sense if you also believe the rioters of 6th of January that stormed the capital also "just" broke some stuff. Otherwise, this argument is just not okay.
  - marcosdumay 2y ago
    > Bolsonaro unlike the Supreme Court, never crossed a red line Crossing the line and failing is not the same as "never crossing the line". Anyway, Bolsonaro was quite supportive of that same structure. Because he wanted the money-flow that came with it (previously illegal flow, but since 2021, well, it's up to be seen). Just like Lula, and Dilma, and Temer...
  - meiraleal 2y ago
    > And here we are in 2024, Bolsonaro is not president anymore, the elections (organized by people who pretty much opposed Bolsonaro btw...) are over Crimes committed 2 years ago don't prescribe this fast, Bolsonaro will probably go to jail still.
silvestreh 2y ago
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. I don’t see how a government elected by the people can be considered a dictatorship. This also applies to Bolsonaro’s government as well. Just because you don’t agree with the ruling party doesn’t make it a dictatorship.
- seydor 2y ago
  > I don’t see how a government elected by the people can be considered a dictatorship That's not how it works
  - dankle 2y ago
    Thats exactly how it works. See russa, turkey, hungary now. Germany in 1930s.
  - Teocali 2y ago
    for me that’s exactly how it’s work. For a government to be a dictatorship, you need a dictator. And one key element which define a person as a dictator is that his word is law, that’s in the name. doesn’t seem to be the case in Brazil right now. The second key element, which more implied in the modern definition of dictator, is that it stay in position of power against the will of the majority of it’s country inhabitants. Against, doesn’t seem to be the case in Brazil right now. I would welcome any elements which would invalidate my (quite incomplete, I recon) perception of the situation.
    - ToucanLoucan 2y ago
      > for me that’s exactly how it’s work. For history it isn't. Read up on the fall of Wiemar Germany.
      - Teocali 2y ago
        I did. And Hitler was never elected in a position of power. He strong armed the weimar republic to be named in chancellor, and only after that he held some referendum to validate his decision. Also, when he is named chancellor, it’s been a while since the democratic value of weimar were hurting. Paul Von Hindenburg started as soon as 1930 to govern through executive act, ignoring and/or strong arming the Reichstag. Not really what I would call a healthy democratic government. Also, Hitler was named as chancellor through a plot of the current weimar government to avoid calling new elections, like the laws said they must.
epups 2y ago
This is what the far right in Brazil wants you to believe, but it's not true. It's especially not true in regards to X, as they have repeatedly ignored judicial decisions that are very similar to those by European courts (ie, remove illegal content).
- ilikehurdles 2y ago
  What's illegal in Brazil isn't illegal elsewhere. Their requests would impact people far outside their own jurisdiction.
  - Qwertious 2y ago
    ...how is that different to EU court rulings? Take your comment, and swap out "Brazil" with the name of any other country, and absolutely nothing changes.
- vintermann 2y ago
  Well, one of the people calling out this insanity is Glenn Greenwald. How can he be "the far right in Brazil", when his reporting on Lava Jato is one of the main reasons Lula is not in jail any longer?
  - Qem 2y ago
    I admire Glenn, he did a great job reporting on Snowden revelations and the Vaza-Jato scandal in Brazil. I believe his stand is principled, but he appears to have the shortcoming of often trying to apply concepts from the US legal and institutional framework to places where it simply doesn't apply, like trying to fit square pegs to round holes. This sent him into a wild goose chase in this case.
  - epups 2y ago
    Greenwald is an odd one, I'll give you that. He seems to see this issue from a libertarian perspective. He would also say that Germany banning Nazi speech is censorship, for example. It's worth nothing that his last professional occupation was being a stooge in a far right show.
Teocali 2y ago
Quick question : what’s a judicial dictatorship, for you ?
- meiraleal 2y ago
  Criminals facing the judicial system (and others doing crazy things to avoid it) is what's being considered a judicial dictatorship in Brazil by some. Crazy times.
orbitingpluto 2y ago
[flagged]
taway2024081712 2y ago
The seemingly unlimited[1] power of the Judiciary is showing its ugly head in many countries: Brazil, the US, Israel and many others. We take it as God-given word, but it's worth remembering that the theory of the separation of the Judiciary from the other powers came from the head of a single man, and maybe he was mistaken. There's no reason for judicial review, despite the name, be in the hands of the Judiciary and not Congress or other elected body. If laws are unclear, let those with the power to change it to determine its meaning and improve the wording. [1] Frankly, I believe this is Godel's loophole
- marcosdumay 2y ago
  The Brazilian Constitution doesn't even assign to the Judiciary unlimited power. All of it is legally subjected to the Congress. But it doesn't matter, the power is there anyway.

croes 2y ago

That would mean it happened under Jair Bolsonaro

dalmo3 2y ago
The President is part of the executive branch, not the judicial branch.
hexage1814 2y ago
It did. Their excuse (both the court itself as well as the media trying to justify the court's actions) was/is something among the lines of "Oh, Bolsonaro would establish a dictatorship [an hypothetical that never happen, Bolsonaro unlike the Supreme Court, never crossed a red line], so we will instead establish our actual dictatorship to prevent his dictatorship". And here we are in 2024, Bolsonaro is not president anymore, the elections (organized by people who pretty much opposed Bolsonaro btw...) are over, but the Supreme Court is still arresting people. They are still having trials were the court is the accuser, the "victim", and the judge – all in the same figure. They are still ordering profiles on social media to be blocked. They are still trying to arrest journalists abroad. They are still sentencing protesters, or at best rioters, to 17 years in prison because they broke some stuff – they accuse those random people without any real power, random common people, to have threaten the rule of law. It's bad.
- tail_exchange 2y ago
  Not the full story. You are omitting the fact that Bolsonaro made several allegations of voter fraud on social media, and Brazil had their own version of January 6th after he lost (what you called "at best rioters"). These decisions are a response to those events, but your post paints him as a blameless victim.
- greiskul 2y ago
  Are we just going to ignore all the people that were camping in front of military barracks? The manifesto that was going around in the Army, in support of a coup to prevent Lula from taking power? How the US government, thanks to Biden, pressured generals in Brazil to uphold democracy (which means if Trump was president, there might have been a successful coup?). We have the documents. We have the witnesses. Don't play disingenuous games and try to gaslight us that it is all in our heads. Alexandre de Moraes will go down in Brazilian history as a men who did everything to keep Brazil a democracy.
  - matthewrobertso 2y ago
    Then why does Moraes need to censor people on Twitter? If the argument is ironclad, shouldn't it be able to defend itself from speech?
  - mamonster 2y ago
    One look at the photos of Bolsonaro eating the Florida KFC immediately after the elections would tell you immediately that he never had the "it" to be a dictator, especially one that would need to actually do the regime change(and not simply inherit like Maduro).
- thor-rodrigues 2y ago
  It sounds very misleading to frame those responsible for storming into the Congress on January 8th, while attempting to "stop the steal" that the elections supposedly were, as simply "at best rioters, to 17 years in prison because they broke some stuff". This would only sense if you also believe the rioters of 6th of January that stormed the capital also "just" broke some stuff. Otherwise, this argument is just not okay.
- marcosdumay 2y ago
  > Bolsonaro unlike the Supreme Court, never crossed a red line Crossing the line and failing is not the same as "never crossing the line". Anyway, Bolsonaro was quite supportive of that same structure. Because he wanted the money-flow that came with it (previously illegal flow, but since 2021, well, it's up to be seen). Just like Lula, and Dilma, and Temer...
- meiraleal 2y ago
  > And here we are in 2024, Bolsonaro is not president anymore, the elections (organized by people who pretty much opposed Bolsonaro btw...) are over Crimes committed 2 years ago don't prescribe this fast, Bolsonaro will probably go to jail still.

silvestreh 2y ago

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. I don’t see how a government elected by the people can be considered a dictatorship. This also applies to Bolsonaro’s government as well. Just because you don’t agree with the ruling party doesn’t make it a dictatorship.

seydor 2y ago
> I don’t see how a government elected by the people can be considered a dictatorship That's not how it works
- dankle 2y ago
  Thats exactly how it works. See russa, turkey, hungary now. Germany in 1930s.
- Teocali 2y ago
  for me that’s exactly how it’s work. For a government to be a dictatorship, you need a dictator. And one key element which define a person as a dictator is that his word is law, that’s in the name. doesn’t seem to be the case in Brazil right now. The second key element, which more implied in the modern definition of dictator, is that it stay in position of power against the will of the majority of it’s country inhabitants. Against, doesn’t seem to be the case in Brazil right now. I would welcome any elements which would invalidate my (quite incomplete, I recon) perception of the situation.
  - ToucanLoucan 2y ago
    > for me that’s exactly how it’s work. For history it isn't. Read up on the fall of Wiemar Germany.
    - Teocali 2y ago
      I did. And Hitler was never elected in a position of power. He strong armed the weimar republic to be named in chancellor, and only after that he held some referendum to validate his decision. Also, when he is named chancellor, it’s been a while since the democratic value of weimar were hurting. Paul Von Hindenburg started as soon as 1930 to govern through executive act, ignoring and/or strong arming the Reichstag. Not really what I would call a healthy democratic government. Also, Hitler was named as chancellor through a plot of the current weimar government to avoid calling new elections, like the laws said they must.

epups 2y ago

This is what the far right in Brazil wants you to believe, but it's not true. It's especially not true in regards to X, as they have repeatedly ignored judicial decisions that are very similar to those by European courts (ie, remove illegal content).

ilikehurdles 2y ago
What's illegal in Brazil isn't illegal elsewhere. Their requests would impact people far outside their own jurisdiction.
- Qwertious 2y ago
  ...how is that different to EU court rulings? Take your comment, and swap out "Brazil" with the name of any other country, and absolutely nothing changes.
vintermann 2y ago
Well, one of the people calling out this insanity is Glenn Greenwald. How can he be "the far right in Brazil", when his reporting on Lava Jato is one of the main reasons Lula is not in jail any longer?
- Qem 2y ago
  I admire Glenn, he did a great job reporting on Snowden revelations and the Vaza-Jato scandal in Brazil. I believe his stand is principled, but he appears to have the shortcoming of often trying to apply concepts from the US legal and institutional framework to places where it simply doesn't apply, like trying to fit square pegs to round holes. This sent him into a wild goose chase in this case.
- epups 2y ago
  Greenwald is an odd one, I'll give you that. He seems to see this issue from a libertarian perspective. He would also say that Germany banning Nazi speech is censorship, for example. It's worth nothing that his last professional occupation was being a stooge in a far right show.

Teocali 2y ago

Quick question : what’s a judicial dictatorship, for you ?

meiraleal 2y ago
Criminals facing the judicial system (and others doing crazy things to avoid it) is what's being considered a judicial dictatorship in Brazil by some. Crazy times.

orbitingpluto 2y ago

[flagged]

taway2024081712 2y ago

The seemingly unlimited[1] power of the Judiciary is showing its ugly head in many countries: Brazil, the US, Israel and many others. We take it as God-given word, but it's worth remembering that the theory of the separation of the Judiciary from the other powers came from the head of a single man, and maybe he was mistaken. There's no reason for judicial review, despite the name, be in the hands of the Judiciary and not Congress or other elected body. If laws are unclear, let those with the power to change it to determine its meaning and improve the wording. [1] Frankly, I believe this is Godel's loophole

marcosdumay 2y ago
The Brazilian Constitution doesn't even assign to the Judiciary unlimited power. All of it is legally subjected to the Congress. But it doesn't matter, the power is there anyway.