Brazilian Columnist Decries Selective Application of Rights, Erosion of Freedoms

The commentary by Fernando Schüler in Estadão raises a critical issue facing Brazil: the creeping relativization and selectivity of fundamental rights. This is not merely an academic debate but a tangible problem affecting the very fabric of the nation's legal and democratic order, particularly concerning freedom of expression and parliamentary immunity.

“

You have a parliamentarian who goes to the podium of the Chamber, in the exercise of his parliamentary prerogative, he considers that there is a public agent in the country practicing abuse of authority, makes his denunciation and is now being prosecuted by the Brazilian State itself.

Schüler's analysis of recent cases involving federal deputies Marcel van Hattem and Gustavo Gayer, alongside pastor Silas Malafaia, provides stark examples of this troubling trend. The columnist argues that the application of law and constitutional guarantees has become inconsistent, seemingly dependent on the political leanings or perceived status of the individuals involved. This selective justice, he contends, undermines the principle of equality before the law.

“

It is precisely for this that the constituent granted, guaranteed, parliamentary immunity in relation to any words, opinions and voices. And here I emphasize the expression 'any', precisely so that this debate would be free, not in the interest of the parliamentarians, but in the interest of society.

Specifically, the cases highlight concerns about the erosion of parliamentary immunity, a crucial safeguard for robust legislative debate. When a parliamentarian faces prosecution for statements made in the exercise of their duty, it chills free speech and discourages holding public officials accountable. Similarly, the prosecution of a citizen for strong criticism of authorities, even if deemed offensive by some, raises questions about the limits of free speech in a democracy. Schüler's perspective suggests that Brazil is moving towards a state where rights are not absolute but are subject to interpretation and application based on power dynamics.

“

(He is) a pastor who has no forum, a common citizen, prosecuted in the Supreme Federal Court, for having called authorities, in this case generals, cowards.

From a Brazilian viewpoint, as presented in this commentary, the concern is not just about individual cases but about the broader implications for democratic health. The piece implicitly questions whether Brazil is truly upholding the spirit of its constitution, which guarantees individual liberties and the rights of its representatives. The implication is that a healthy democracy requires consistent application of rights, not a selective approach that benefits some while penalizing others. This is a vital conversation for Brazil as it navigates the complexities of its political and legal landscape.

“

It means that we live in a democracy where, if a citizen considers that some authorities are cowards, they cannot call them cowards.