PML: José Genoino's resignation is a warning

247 - José Genoino's decision to resign his mandate as a federal deputy is "worrying," according to Paulo Moreira Leite. This is because the parliamentarian, "who has already taken up arms to confront the military dictatorship," concluded that he would not have the right to a defense in the Chamber. Read below the full text of the columnist's article. IstoÉ magazine:

Genoíno's resignation is a warning.
Capable of confronting the dictatorship with weapons in hand, the congressman concluded that he would not have the right to a full defense of his mandate in Congress.

My hypocrisy doesn't extend to saying I'm happy with José Genoíno's resignation from his position as a federal deputy.

I don't have the background to judge a character based on their history. But it's a worrying decision in several ways. Not for him, but for us.

A citizen who had already taken up arms to confront the military dictatorship at its worst moment – ​​the Médici years – in the Araguaia guerrilla war concluded that he would have no means to defend his dignity in Congress. The law guarantees Genoíno the right to a full defense, but he concluded that he would not have this guarantee.

With over 300,000 votes, Genoíno was the most voted-for congressman in São Paulo in 1998. He also achieved a prominent position in 1994 and was the only PT candidate, to this day, to reach a second round in the election for governor of São Paulo. In 2010, already reeling from the AP 470 scandal, he received 92,000 votes. He became an alternate and assumed the mandate he held until last week.

As an activist, Genoíno brought new and important figures to Brazilian politics, among them a leader named Chico Mendes and his slender disciple, Marina Silva. He shaped people and shaped himself as well. A democracy is not built with weekend proclamations or catchy phrases. It needs legitimate leaders, true representatives of the people, up to the task and their responsibilities. Considered by his own colleagues as one of the most influential parliamentarians in the Brazilian Congress, a tireless strategist and a loyal negotiator, Genoíno became an indispensable figure in the democracy built in the country from 1985 onwards, which produced the longest period of freedom in our history.

Elected for the first time in 1982, Genoíno engages with the right, the center, and of course, the left. Weeks before facing heart problems and having a 15 cm tube implanted in his aorta, he was debating a bill on drug use with his colleagues. I interviewed him at that time. Alert to the changes that time brings, Genoíno was concerned about the creation of overly rigid legislation, capable of forcing young students who smoke a joint on weekends to serve long sentences as if they were drug traffickers.

Let's think about it again. The Constitution guarantees, in its article 55, that it is up to Congress to decide on the removal from office of parliamentarians.

Although the Supreme Federal Court (STF) tried to turn this article into mere decoration, Congress reacted to maintain its prerogative, now in a perverse and unjust version: it intended to do everything, by any means, to revoke Genoíno's mandate and please that segment of voters convinced that the spectacular beheading of parliamentarians can be useful for our political system.

Our parliamentarians – the worst ones, my friends – are focused on reelection and, lacking any real achievements to show for themselves, without a consistent plan to offer, they submit to the laws of the most base political marketing. They are the ones who would impeach Genoíno, pose for photos with furrowed brows and moralistic speeches that TV loves.

Considering Genoíno's political stature, a giant compared to 99,9% of them, they would be forced, by their own hypocrisy, to perform a ritual we have already seen in the Supreme Court itself. To say that they regretted impeaching as corrupt a parliamentarian whose greatest asset is a modest house in Butantã, São Paulo.

It would, in fact, be such an obviously horrific crime that it was necessary to soothe one's conscience and feign remorse at that very moment.

Genoíno's resignation has this painful meaning: it is proof that the effort to criminalize Brazilian politicians and democratic activity itself, which was at the center of the ideological discourse about "vote buying" that could never be demonstrated with concrete facts, has borne fruit, convinced many people, and generated several harmful results.

Thrown into that universe of "oppressive publicity" that marked the trial, without the average citizen having access to a balanced view of the facts, he was never heard by Brazilians throughout the trial and, to ensure that he will not be heard again for a long period, he has already received a sentence prohibiting his interviews. In other words: not only was he the victim of an unjust sentence, but he also lost the right to complain.

And it is shameful to note that none of our "investigative journalists," our editorialists, columnists, Esso Prize jurors, and other champions domesticated by the profession have risen up to denounce a frontal attack on freedom of expression, which affects not only the convicted individual but also the very right of every reporter to listen to and interview whomever they wish, as happens in every country where the press is free.

Despite the brutality of Guantanamo, reserved for foreigners, the American justice system, so often remembered as an example of law and freedom, does not prohibit interviews with those sentenced to severe penalties, including the death penalty.

No American judge has the right to feel challenged when a death row inmate decides to defend their rights and claim they are innocent and were unjustly convicted. Several testimonies of this nature have resulted in best-selling books and even successful films.

Certain actions can also be questioned in Brazil in 2013.

Remember that raised fist on the day Genoíno was arrested? That's unacceptable. It's irritating, provocative, and should be avoided. It was one of the hallmarks of the June protests, but it's considered inappropriate for use in the choreography of those condemned.

It's understandable. In a world where words have been silenced and even a hand gesture is questioned, the goal is to impose submission, silence. Every act of pride, of resistance, will be condemned.

The aim is to mobilize the mob, the rabble, those who lack a clear social identity beyond resentment, as Hannah Arendt said. The argument is shamefully old: it is necessary to combat "privilege," "perks," "human rights," as Brazilian conservatism has preached since the time when citizens like Genoíno, his family and relatives, and so many other people who honored the struggle for democracy, denounced torture in the prisons of the dictatorship.

When they decided that Congress should not comply with Article 55 and retain the final say on the loss of mandate, the Supreme Court justices went so far as to define any contrary action as "insubordination."

We are in an environment of uncertainty and insecurity. After a politicized trial, we are witnessing a new institutional transformation. Medicine is no longer just medicine. It can become politics.

Roberto Kalil, currently the most prestigious cardiologist in the country, has made it clear that Genoíno is facing a serious and chronic illness. Fabio Jatene, a surgeon of the same caliber, also made a similar assessment. Experts from the IML (Institute of Legal Medicine) of the Federal District and the Chamber of Deputies confirm this condition. And even doctors appointed by Joaquim Barbosa to produce a report without the presence of an expert appointed by Genoíno – a legal right of every prisoner – were unable to write anything significantly different. Even stating that it was not "essential" to keep the congressman under house arrest, they raised conditions of well-being and medical care that do not exist in Brazilian prisons.

But even so, Genoíno's right to house arrest is not guaranteed. Requesting that this regime be considered permanent, instead of being extended for only 90 days before a new review, as Attorney General Rodrigo Janot wants, his lawyers point out that even drug traffickers have obtained this right in our courts.

They also cite a ruling from the Criminal Enforcement Court of the Federal District, which acknowledges the complete lack of resources in its prisons to handle cases of serious illness.

It is therefore understandable why Genoíno is fighting. He is currently waging a political battle for the right to life.