Violent protest must become a non-bailable offense.

The right to assembly and demonstration is nothing more than the sacred right to freedom of expression for which this country has fought so hard throughout its history. Therefore, it must be protected at all costs, as it is the principal value of a democracy. A country where there is even the slightest obstacle to such a right is certainly not a democratic country.

This fundamental right, however, cannot be confused with what violent groups are doing in Brazil under various pretexts, such as protesting against the terrible public transportation system that still exists in the country or against the holding of the 2014 World Cup.

It's pointless to explain what the phrase "What violent groups are doing in Brazil" refers to. The country is still shocked by the latest attack by this (political) group that insists on imposing its will by force and that already has on its record the criminal attack on a cameraman from TV Bandeirantes that left him between life and death.

It's no use coming up with this farce that "a small group" promoted vandalism and other violent acts. Everyone who joins in this type of protest knows very well what the outcome will be. They are even going to the streets counting on the violent outcome of the protest they are going to carry out, because by declaring that "there will be no World Cup" they are basically saying the following: "we are going to prevent the World Cup from taking place through intimidation by force".

Now, by starting fires in public places, firing mortars, throwing Molotov cocktails, sticks and stones, and firing marbles with slingshots (which transform the innocent glass spheres into projectiles that can even be fatal, depending on where they hit a person), these protesters seek to instill fear in society.

Ultimately, this is blackmail, coercion, and intimidation. In short: it's a crime.

It is very strange and suspicious that the mainstream press has not yet, with its inexhaustible resources, undertaken a thorough assessment of all that the violent protests have already caused in terms of loss of human life and damage to public and private property. This inventory of the chaos would shock the country…

Regardless, society is fed up with this type of criminal activity. CNT/MDA Survey A survey released last November revealed that 93,4% of people reject the Black Blocs, which, in reality, encompasses all those who participate in demonstrations where this type of protest tactic appears, as all participants know it will occur.

Those who attend protests knowing they will degenerate into violence, and who march alongside demonstrators who cover their faces precisely to protect themselves from the consequences of the violent acts they intend to commit, are taking the risk of injuring or even killing someone.

Several deaths have already occurred in the protests that erupted starting last year, in addition to mutilations, etc. Some of these acts against human life stemmed from police repression, but others from the irresponsibility of violent and masked protesters.

The police's lack of preparedness is well known, but only a madman could advocate allowing acts like those that have been widely publicized. Everyone saw the insane attack on São Paulo's city hall last year, when those protesters could have caused a tragedy, as they were out of their minds.

It must be repeated: it is nonsense to say that not everyone who participates in these protests should be held accountable for acts of violence committed by some of these groups. Only a fool could believe that those who go to these protests don't know that there will be violence. They know and even expect it, which is why they shout "there won't be a World Cup," because they think they will prevent it by force.

The same applies to those who seek to undermine public administrations by trying to force them to adopt free public transportation for all, regardless of municipal budgets, always based on the principle that ALL mayors simply don't adopt it because they don't want to.

However, not wanting the 2014 World Cup to be held in the country or wanting the contractual adjustments in public transport to be simply abolished overnight is a right, and demonstrating for such causes is also a right, as long as those who think this way do not seek to enforce their points of view through the use of force.

Herein lies the crux of the matter: if those who resort to violence know that the acts they are committing will have consequences commensurate with the level of abuse perpetrated, they will think twice before doing what they are doing.

Therefore, since dialogue with these groups is impossible, as any attempt at it results in violent and irrational rhetorical or physical retaliation, the law must be toughened.

What is being advocated here, then, is that anyone caught engaging in acts of violence during protests should be kept in custody until they face trial for either assuming the risk of causing serious harm to the physical integrity of other citizens or for actually causing such harm.

There is not the slightest loophole in this premise to accuse it of being dictatorial or of violating fundamental rights such as freedom of expression. It is more than reasonable to say that everyone can demonstrate as much as they want, even disrupting traffic and the right of others to come and go, as long as they do not cause fires or destruction of public or private property.

It's not asking too much. Can't you protest by simply disrupting people's right to come and go and saying whatever you want and more? Isn't that enough? Do you need to destroy, set fires, intimidate, and even seriously injure someone just because they passed near your protest? If you're not content with the right to protest peacefully and want to go beyond that, you're a criminal.

The Brazilian police are violent, of course. There's no doubt about that, nobody is saying otherwise. But using that argument is stating the obvious – police violence doesn't authorize anyone to be equally violent.

A police officer who uses force beyond what the law allows – since the State, constitutionally, has a monopoly on the use of force – must be severely punished. However, the same applies to a protester who grants himself a right he does not have, that of using force to intimidate society until it agrees with him.

For example, there is currently a (small) group that says it will not allow the World Cup to be held in the country and, to enforce its will, resorts to violent acts. Now imagine if the group (much larger, according to polls) that wants the World Cup decides to go to the homes of those who don't want it and vandalize their property and even assault them…

We cannot allow the law of force to be imposed in the country, the premise that whoever is most "efficient" in its use wins. And if dialogue with those who want to enforce this barbarity is not possible, then let the law be used to make them understand that life in society requires everyone to accept a minimum set of rules.