Judge Eduardo Siqueira and the shameless excuse

It's difficult – indeed, extremely difficult! – to know what the most shameful actions were committed by one of the representatives of Brazilian justice, Judge Eduardo Siqueira, during the (filmed) conversations with the municipal guards. There was everything – or almost everything: flashing his credentials, insults, tearing up the ticket and throwing it on the ground, in addition to the famous: "I know so-and-so, so-and-so, and so-and-so." Impressive. It seemed like a film about the history of Brazil, or rather: a film about the part of Brazil that makes us feel very ashamed to be Brazilian.

And it didn't stop there: in a new video circulating on social media, Judge Eduardo Siqueira, in the middle of the conversation, spoke in French with the municipal guards to demonstrate his superiority. I confess to you that imagining poor and black people being judged by people like that makes me feel sick with indignation. The worst of all, however – and those who thought things couldn't get worse were mistaken – was reading a passage from the statement in which the Judge said he was the victim of a setup. In his words: "Unfortunately, persecuted ever since, yesterday I ended up being the victim of a real setup."

In 2020, dear readers, although the competition is fierce, I don't know if there will be an event where the lack of shame has been so blatant (not counting the actions of the President of the Republic, obviously).

Remember, ladies and gentlemen, that the arbitrary, degrading, and humiliating treatment of a municipal guard, who was merely performing his duties, was carried out by a representative of the justice system. In other words: the Judge, who should have been responsible for alleviating the pain, was the one who caused the pain. 

And instead of apologizing, he resorted to an unspeakable argument to claim he was a victim. In fact, upon reflection, perhaps he's right after all: what a burden it is to look in the mirror, isn't it?

Regarding the legal argument used by the Judge, beyond the discussion of whether or not his presentation was correct, I believe the example serves – and, therefore, I will use it with my students – to demonstrate why we should (never) study (only) the law. This is because, as my friend and great jurist Paulo Ferrarese rightly observed, when Londoners were asked to turn off their lights at night during World War II in order to hinder enemy bombing, no Londoner considered leaving their lights on, even though the law guaranteed them the right to do so; they simply did not exercise their right because exercising this right would put everyone at risk.

If one only looks at the law, therefore, without studying history, philosophy, psychoanalysis, etc., the Judge's argument makes sense, just as it made sense for Eichmann, during Nazism, to apply the law and take the Jews to concentration camps...

By the way, the excuse that he was the victim of a setup reminded me of Rubens Ricupero and Boris Casoy. They, albeit indirectly, also felt they were victims of a setup and, therefore, blamed the cameras for their actions. Boris Casoy, for example, while a clip of two street sweepers wishing everyone happy holidays was being shown, exclaimed – laughing – the following: “What a load of crap! Two garbage collectors wishing everyone happiness from atop their brooms...” 

Remember Boris Casoy's apology when he was sued? His words "leaked" and shouldn't have aired. They weren't spoken on the program, but during a commercial break. Oh, yes. Poor Boris...

The court understood that "the statement was made in a moment of relaxation, theoretically off-air." Result: acquitted. Of course: the fault lay with the camera, of course. Or rather: with the inattentive cameraman... By the way, does anyone dare to say what happened to the cameraman who, through carelessness, let it leak? Exactly. And Boris? Well, what happened to Boris is what a racist, prejudiced society that hates the poor has to offer: he remained the anchor of the news program and even came out as a victim.

This explains why the municipal guard, who performed his duties within the law, said he can't sleep. He knows the answer that the law has for the poor in this country. Anyone who wants to understand how the law protects Black people and the poor should read Carlos Alberto Medeiros' book, "Na lei e na raça" (In Law and Race), in which he demonstrates the first applications of the Afonso Arinos Law in Brazil. 

Otelino, a Black man, didn't get the job... because he was Black. And he recorded the violent outburst from the clinic owner who refused to hire him. But the clinic owner was a powerful man and president of the national psychiatry association. As a result, he obtained a statement from AFONSO ARINOS HIMSELF (AUTHOR OF THE LAW) saying he wasn't racist. As a result, Otelino was persecuted and almost sued for defamation.

"And you still have hope for change, even knowing that nothing will happen to the judge who humiliated the municipal guard?", a friend asked me.

My answer is always the same: my grandfather came from Bahia as a child and slept on the streets. He did all sorts of things until he became a tailor. And here I am today. So I wasn't given the right to be without hope; carrying it with me is a duty of gratitude – a matter of principle, therefore.

Djefferson Amadeus is a criminal defense lawyer, holds a master's degree in law and philosophical hermeneutics, a postgraduate degree in philosophy from PUC-Rio, a postgraduate degree in criminal procedure from ABDCONS-RJ, and is a member of MNU, IANB, FEJUNN, and ABJD.