For Caetano, "it's grotesque" for Feliciano to preside over Minorities.

Bahia 247

Caetano Veloso expressed his opinion this Sunday in his column in O Globo about the choice of Congressman Pastor Feliciano (PSC-SP) to lead the Human Rights and Minorities Commission. In an article that begins by discussing the controversy raised by Minister Marta Suplicy (PT-SP) that the 'Vale Cultura' (Culture Voucher) could be used to pay for cable TV and ends by talking about Brazil's 'mini-GDP', the Bahian singer and songwriter sees the 'risks' of the congressman, considered homophobic, leading the commission.

"It's difficult to accept that a commission supposedly protecting minorities should be presided over by a man who angrily shouts that if homosexuals want to do 'their dirty deeds,' they should do them secretly in their bedrooms, in their homes, never kissing in places where their daughters might see 'two bearded men with shaved legs kissing.'" Below is the full text of the article 'A Little Common Sense,' published in O Globo.

A bit of common sense

Fortunately, Minister Marta Suplicy backed down from the decision to include cable TV companies among the cultural producers benefiting from the ministry's mechanisms. Cacá Diegues' article last week made it clear how absurd the application of the new rule would be. Cable TV companies make a lot of money, they are big money, and they don't even translate the English titles of the series, almost all of which are American, that they show. A ministry that wishes to encourage cultural creation in Brazil has no reason to include them in its incentive programs.

Is it credible that Marco Feliciano was chosen as president of the Human Rights and Minorities Commission? In the explanation he offered to the faithful of his church, Africa is repeatedly referred to as "that country," which shows ignorance regarding the subject he addressed with such vehemence. Clearly, he sees Africa as a unified whole. Well, the curse of those who, mythically, populated Africa has been used before by racists in various places to justify slavery. Feliciano uses it carelessly to explain Idi Amin, AIDS, famines, etc. An authority responsible for a human rights commission cannot base his words and actions on religious dogmas. Even less so if he demonstrates gross simplism in their interpretation.

It's difficult to accept that a commission supposedly protecting minorities should be presided over by a man who angrily shouts that if homosexuals want to do "their dirty deeds," they should do them secretly in their bedrooms, in their homes, never kissing in places where their daughters might see "two bearded men with shaved legs kissing." The demand for gay marriage is a demand from a represented minority that should be studied by parliamentary commissions that address the issue calmly, lucidly, and impartially. You may follow a faith that determines that same-sex acts are a sin (in fact, they are THE BIGGEST SIN, as someone who meditated on the subject observed, since it is a sin that, among all others, used to arouse the wrath even of unbelievers, being incomparable to false testimony, gluttony, or even free sexual activity between people of opposite sexes), but this religious curse cast upon a topic cannot enter a group of legislators who should be following the movement of society, listening to its forces and trends. There are religious people and atheists who hate same-sex acts and consider Africans cursed, but this does not represent the movement of society as a whole. Surveys in most Western countries (including Brazil) do not say this. And, more importantly, beyond the democratic aspect of these surveys, there must be non-negotiable principles of rights, such as the right to equal respect and opportunities. It is simply grotesque that a religious person who speaks in such a fanatical tone should be elected president of a commission that should protect those who lack respectability and opportunities.

I hope that Marina Silva's mention, whom I greatly admire, of exchanging "one prejudice for another," in the case of the discussion about the presidency of the Human Rights and Minorities Commission, does not mean that opposing Feliciano's choice, in the terms I do, is a mere exchange of prejudices. Against what, incidentally, would the prejudices of those who discuss the choice be? Against evangelicals? Against pastors? Against religious people in general? Yes, undoubtedly there are. I see in films and TV jokes, in conversations and published texts, intolerance against the vitality with which neo-Pentecostal churches are establishing themselves in Brazil. The hypocrisy of the preachers, the greed for money, in short, everything that can be pointed out in any religious organization is almost always the aspect highlighted. But I have never identified with this attitude. I see the growth of evangelical churches as a form of progress on our path to where we should go. I have never accepted the anti-Candomblé campaigns they touted. But things calmed down. Religion is a huge subject. I read Mangabeira. I think. I follow close people who are deeply religious. Some are Catholic, others Evangelical, and still others Spiritist or Candomblé practitioners. I myself don't follow any religion. But even if I did, I would have to understand that the Human Rights Commission must address relevant issues in a non-sectarian way.

Will Brazil, in addition to its mini-GDP, now have to endure such nonsense? There are many absurdities that could delay our progress. Contrary to what Feliciano says, the African continent is rising. Will Brazil, so full of promises since forever, get stuck?

At least Marta saw the light.