Pimenta guarantees debates on abortion, homophobia, and marijuana will be on the CDHM's agenda.

On the 21 Elected after successive boycott attempts by the government's own allied base, federal deputy Paulo Pimenta (PT-RS) is now the president of the Human Rights and Minorities Commission (CDHM) of the Chamber of Deputies. Showing that he learned his lesson from losing the position in 2013, when it went to pastor Marco Feliciano (PSC), the PT celebrates having secured representation for the segments it has historically defended. However, to advance on issues such as the criminalization of homophobia, Paulo Pimenta hopes to count on a Left Front and the mobilization of society. "The Commission is a space that provokes debate, but no Parliament advances without popular pressure," he states in this interview with Sul21.

Amidst monitoring social media over the phone, the Workers' Party congressman spoke about the strategies he intends to adopt to confront the most conservative legislature in recent times, led by the president of the Chamber of Deputies, Eduardo Cunha (PMDB-RJ). “We cannot back down an inch. I intend to put the debate on the decriminalization of abortion and marijuana, and the criminalization of homophobia on the agenda,” he asserted, adding that the LGBT agenda will also need the support of President Dilma Rousseff because of her speeches during the last election.

Pimenta also spoke about topics currently being debated in the National Congress, such as the possible approval of the PEC (Proposed Constitutional Amendment) on Journalism Diplomas, which he authored and is currently blocking the Chamber's voting agenda. He analyzed the country's political moment and the conservative wave manifesting in the streets as a medium- and long-term concern. A communications activist, Pimenta says he will lead the debate on the redemocratization of the media and criticized the federal government's inaction on this issue.

Sul21 – Society is politically divided. The demonstrations against the Dilma government saw a series of expressions of hatred and intolerance in the streets. How do you assess this scenario and the challenge you face at the CDH?

Paulo Pimenta - First of all, this scenario goes beyond Brazil. We are living through a moment of fierce confrontation due to a crisis of global capitalism. This manifests itself in different ways: in the high unemployment rates in Europe, in the growth of a conservative wave, in the existence of an agenda of religious intolerance, and in the evident issue of immigration. Brazil is not outside this context. In my opinion, the effects of the great transformation process in Brazil during Lula's two governments, which brought new citizens into the world of rights, made possible the reorganization of spaces in society. For example, domestic workers gained the right to have a formal employment contract. As they gained this right, it created additional obligations for those who hire them. This means altering an entire culture. There are also repercussions in the area of ​​education, where programs for access to education (Enem, Prouni, quotas, Fies) have placed the children of workers working alongside the children of employers. Airports are crowded. At least three out of ten Brazilians have flown since Lula was elected. All of this changed society and the level of dissatisfaction among the previously dominant classes. From 2010 onwards, the government began spending to avoid increased expenses and contain the crisis. This is no longer possible. With the last election (2014), the most conservative sector of the elite was convinced that Aécio Neves would win. The defeat at the polls did not quell the dissatisfaction of this segment of society. In turn, the government saw the need to make adjustments that increased interest rates, fuel prices, and electricity bills, contributing to the post-election dispute we are experiencing. This is what we saw in the streets on March 15th. We witnessed a large presence of different kinds of dissatisfaction. They don't yet have a clear agenda, but this is the underlying issue. Some say it was against corruption. I believe that aspect was also present. But, for example, here in Rio Grande do Sul, the entire PP party is being investigated (Operation Lava Jato), and there were no signs protesting this. Corruption does exist, but it affects the Brazilian political model, not just the PT (Workers' Party).

Sul21 – What were the mistakes of the PT and the government? The economic crisis, the fiscal adjustments adopted by Dilma, and the existence of corruption are undeniable facts.

Paulo Pimenta "The PT's mistake, in my opinion, was that, faced with the inability to advance political reform in the way we envisioned, it resorted to financing electoral campaigns in the same way others always did. It was within the law, but it involved raising funds from large companies that have contracts with the government. This is exactly what our adversaries did. For a party constituted with a social narrative and guided by ethics (PT), it is not enough now to say that others did what we did. This weakens the expectations that important sectors of society placed in us, including those who voted for Dilma because of this. The PT needs to make decisions that signal reactions to society. The party needs to take a stand with the members who are mentioned in this investigation. It cannot be pro forma actions. It cannot be 'everyone is innocent until proven guilty' because the trial could take 10 years and the party's discourse will be weakened, as will the government's anti-corruption actions. We need more than that." We need to make an effort to resume a common agenda with the PCdoB, PSOL, PSTU and the entire social movement, an agenda of common mobilizations that oppose this conservative agenda of society.

Sul21 – But the left and even the PT itself are divided. What to do?

Paulo Pimenta – We need to make an effort, at this historical moment, to unify a Left Front. We are facing a conservative wave that has only just begun. It is not yet clear how far it is willing to go. We saw (on March 15th) calls for a coup, for the return of the military dictatorship, for the end of political parties, and even a history professor speaking out against Paulo Freire.

Sul21 – This context weighs on society's expectations regarding the work of the Human Rights Commission. What will your strategy be to move forward in the face of such a conservative legislature in Congress?

Paulo Pimenta Between 2013 and 2014, the Federal Chamber and the Legislative Assemblies began to incorporate three sectors: the evangelical caucus – although not in its entirety because there are different nuances within this religiosity – the far right, represented by Congressman Jair Bolsonaro (PP-RJ), and political representatives from the public security sector who see human rights as a threat. There is a group of delegates who were elected with a discourse of hardening the police. This joining of forces forms a scenario of common agendas among them. Those from the far right and those from public security do not necessarily converge on public policies for same-sex couples, for example. But, to advance on issues of interest to their segments, they join forces when voting.

Sul21 – The PT (Workers' Party) lost ground in all the important congressional committees because of these alliances, and you almost weren't elected president of the Human Rights Commission. How will you ensure the voting on progressive issues?

Paulo Pimenta "There was a great risk that I wouldn't win because of the current composition of the Chamber, but we won. This has a very important symbol and meaning. The Human Rights Commission (CDH) will be 20 years old and plays a fundamental role in resistance, in the democratic struggle for representation of so-called minorities and marginalized agendas in society, such as the extermination of young black people. Maintaining this space was a great challenge. There were several attempts to prevent us from achieving this election, because this presidency is almost an institution. It lends prestige to themes and social segments that can be heard and gain support. That's what the other forces wanted to avoid. They did this when Marco Feliciano (PSC-SP) presided over the CDH. They called for conservative debates and agendas to reinforce the protagonism of Pastor Marco Feliciano."

Sul21 – What guarantee of real progress can there be on human rights agendas given Marco Feliciano's continued presence on the Human Rights Commission and this power struggle you described, which has the support of the Speaker of the House, Eduardo Cunha (PMDB-RJ)?

Paulo Pimenta - I will combine my work on the Commission with external agendas that allow for broad visibility of the issues we need to address in society and encourage government intervention. For example, I already have a series of visits scheduled to social work projects combating crack cocaine use, along with the Secretary of Human Rights of São Paulo, Eduardo Suplicy. I will also visit communities in Rio de Janeiro to assess the situation regarding the extermination of young Black people. I also want to investigate a complaint I received related to the state government of Rio Grande do Sul, alleging that they are sending mental health patients to the Itapuã Colonial Hospital. The situation in this facility is extremely precarious. It is a hospital derived from the old colonies created by Getúlio Vargas to house patients with leprosy and Hansen's disease and contain the epidemiology by isolating the sick. Currently, these patients are being abandoned. Many from that time still live there. Hospitals like this exist in several Brazilian states. I will intervene in this reality. I am fully in favor of the advancement and regulation of the states regarding the Anti-Asylum Law.

Sul21 – You took over the CDH saying you would make the Commission return to its genuine agendas. Do you intend to tackle the issues that have been stalled in Congress for years, such as the criminalization of homophobia?

Paulo Pimenta – No Parliament progresses without popular pressure. The Commission must be a provocative channel for debates in society, ensuring that people feel represented in that space. We will not be intimidated. We cannot back down an inch because of their presence there. On the contrary, I will defend all my positions: decriminalization of abortion, decriminalization of marijuana, criminalization of homophobia, among others. The debate will be heated, but we will face it. The Human Rights Commission will also be a tool for putting pressure on the government. Several of the parties on the Commission are also part of the government, and Dilma, during the last election, spoke about this issue (criminalization of homophobia). She will have to make a commitment to this for us to move forward.

Sul21 – What will be the first item on your agenda?

Paulo Pimenta - I managed to get a request approved for a public hearing with all the entities that work in the area of ​​Human Rights in Brazil, as well as the judiciary. We will debate and identify the main priority issues. But the participation of the segments called upon by fundamentalists is also planned. This act will be an important benchmark, in addition to having the possibility of promoting a dialogue between the two sides to confront their beliefs. In the debate, it is possible to hear the arguments and question whether, for example, when someone says they are against civil unions between people of the same sex and has a son or daughter who loves another person of the same sex, will they preach the same hatred or intolerance? We question whether this is the guidance they receive in the religious groups they are involved with, making them reflect on the values ​​of respect, love, and tolerance that are part of religiosity. To bring the debate to this level, not theorizing about the different doctrines that determine norms, but to make them realize that the human condition demands other behaviors from them.

Sul21 – What is your background in the field of Human Rights that legitimizes you to lead this Commission?

Paulo Pimenta "My terms in office in Santa Maria, as a state representative and in other mandates, have always been linked to the area of ​​Human Rights. This is an issue that has a different dimension today. I participated in the Parliamentary Inquiry Commission on the Prison System, and I was the rapporteur for the New Drug Law project. The great issue of Human Rights, which involves all segments, is the valuing of the human person and tolerance. We cannot simply conceptualize that it is necessary to accept or respect people in their conditions; we need to value them. Each being, in their difference, is something positive. We don't need some to 'allow' others to be as they are. 'Oh, I'm not homophobic because I have a gay friend.' We have to value the concept of everyone, not just those that society has defined as the standard. And we also need to encourage tolerance. This includes religious intolerance, gender intolerance, intolerance towards women, intolerance towards the occupation of social spaces, and intolerance towards economic conditions. This is the great difficulty for the government, in fact. People from certain classes have taken to the streets to offend others from different classes." Above all, I went to the Human Rights Commission so that the Workers' Party (PT) would be the party to occupy this space. It would be yet another one we would lose. I went to this trench more to resist and not retreat on rights that have been won.

Sul21 – The proposed constitutional amendment on the demilitarization of the police is scheduled for consideration. Is it possible that this issue will move forward? What is your opinion regarding the end of military influence in the police?

Paulo Pimenta – Today, in the current political landscape, the chance of approving bills like this is close to zero. We will only approve this constitutional amendment and any other project if there is significant social mobilization. On the same scale that other sectors organize themselves. For example, the evangelical caucus has already met to criticize the Rede Globo soap opera that showed a lesbian kiss. This ends up, in some way, turning the debate against them. But it demonstrates their capacity for mobilization. In the US, a law was passed this week allowing establishments to choose whether or not to cater to the LGBT community. I wouldn't be surprised if this is also presented in our Parliament. We already have absurdities like a bill to create a Heterosexual Pride Day and the Family Statute.

Sul21 – So-called minorities already suffer discrimination and face significant resistance from society when it comes to debating their issues. Don't you think Parliament should act to guarantee laws and prevent setbacks?

Paulo Pimenta – I think so. But there is an isolation of the government's base and a division in society. We need social mobilization. The government erred when it abdicated from contesting the fundamentals of its social programs within society. It erred in treating beneficiaries as mere consumers. It acted with technocracy and reduced the results of these programs to mere indicators. This alienates society from the government. Many do not understand the complexity of the moment. We have beneficiaries of Pronatec, Fies, and so many others in the streets along with the conservative wave that is calling for a series of setbacks today.

Sul21 – You are blocking the agenda for the Diploma Amendment, which would reinstate the mandatory hiring of journalists with degrees. This is your proposal; what are the chances of it being approved?

Pepper - We are in a position to approve the PEC (Proposed Constitutional Amendment). Fenaj's (National Federation of Journalists) work has been tireless. There has been no identifiable gain for society from the Supreme Federal Court's (STF) decision since the overturning of the journalism degree requirement. It has not improved the quality of journalism, it has not reduced the monopoly of media outlets, nor has it expanded spaces for participation. On the contrary, it has reduced investments in research in the field of Communication, closed Journalism courses in universities, compromised the quality of the courses as well, and has made labor relations more precarious. I'll give a concrete example. Recently, the accreditation of journalists from Folha de São Paulo in the Federal Senate. The requirement for a copy of their work permit revealed that a large number of professionals are hired as administrative assistants due to a 'company personnel policy'. There are several other consequences if we do not approve this PEC. When Minister Gilmar Mendes cast his vote, he reinterpreted the Federal Constitution in the article that states that there can be no law that causes embarrassment or restriction to free expression or freedom of speech. But we consulted the speeches of the constituent assembly to draft the PEC (Proposed Constitutional Amendment) and there is nothing to that effect. This article was included in the Constitution to prevent the country from returning to censorship. The minister, however, understood that the diploma is an impediment to freedom of expression because of the work of commentators, columnists, and other opinion leaders. But journalistic activity is not merely the expression of opinions. Mendes listed Medical Sciences, Engineering, and Law as exceptions; all other professions should be re-discussed regarding the requirement of higher education. This includes cooks, physical education teachers, among others that could be considered mid-level professions. The other areas of the Humanities are concerned about this decision. If we cannot reverse it, it could generate a ripple effect in other activities.

Sul21 – In your opinion, how far does freedom of expression go? Humor and social media play an important role in shaping people's opinions and often depoliticize the debate on important issues, in addition to sometimes being used to defame people and fabricate facts.

Paulo Pimenta – The debate on media regulation, which we haven't yet had, is fundamental to deepening all of this. The Federal Constitution already contains a series of unfulfilled legal provisions, such as the impossibility of politicians owning media concessions. The internet has greatly altered the communication landscape. The government, in turn, has been timid on this issue. Former Secretary Helena Chagas created a decree to define 'technical media' as a benchmark for public policies and the distribution of advertising resources. The decree defines that government agencies interested in broadcasting content in the media should seek outlets with greater reach, faster information delivery, and wider national scope. It is evident that, with this decree, only large media groups benefit. This was a mistake by the government, which is now paying the price. It's absurd to see Faustão being biased on the Sunday of the demonstrations with the Banco do Brasil banner behind him. This week, the Jornal Nacional (Brazilian news program) staged media spectacles with the facts of Operation Lava Jato, and during the breaks, commercials for Petrobras appeared. This demonstrates a lack of decisiveness on the part of the government regarding this issue. The government creates programs like Minha Casa, Minha Vida (My House, My Life) to benefit families of various income levels and Pronaf (National Program for Strengthening Family Farming) to incentivize small, medium, and large agricultural producers, and many others along the same lines. Why then doesn't it do the same with Communication? It needs to adopt the same criteria for all areas.