Reinaldo Azevedo reiterates death threats.

Next Monday, this blog will be seven years old. Never, as in this last week, have I received so many threats of assault and death. Never has so much vulgarity been sent here. As is normal in these cases, I must take the necessary measures, which I have already begun to do. Messages of this nature will be sent to the Police — also to the Federal Police, which has a division that deals with internet-related crimes. And why?

Because I decided to remind everyone that Brazil lives, at least for now, under a democratic regime, in which the rule of law prevails. Because I decided to remind everyone that no one, majority or minority, has the right to suspend constitutional prerogatives. Because I decided to remind everyone that, in a democracy, governors, mayors, and the president of the Republic are legitimately elected executive authorities.

"So, should we agree with everything they do?" No! There is a way to challenge the order—which, in democracies, also belongs to the realm of order. The opposite of that is anarchy.

Just watch the news on TV, including and especially that of TV Globo. I'm not making a value judgment now. I'm just stating a fact. If we were to transcribe the news from the channel—including GloboNews (if anyone has the means, please do so to verify)—and subject it to a word cloud, the pair "peaceful form" would appear huge, bold, in capital letters. Secondly, I'm sure, the adverb "peacefully" would appear. Thirdly, I believe, would come "small group"—referring to the troublemakers—and then "minority," to designate the same group.

This appears to characterize an editorial decision. It has been established as the fair line of reporting that the demonstrations are peaceful. Period. Now for a judgment: THEY ARE NOT! It has been decided that those who resort to vandalism are forces that have infiltrated the peaceful majority. Now for another judgment: THIS IS NOT TRUE!

Tell me a single democracy in the world where bringing a city to virtual paralysis, as happened in São Paulo, is considered a "peaceful form" of protest. The slogan that called for the demonstration spoke for itself: "Let's stop São Paulo." Those who violate a fundamental right, guaranteed by the Constitution, of millions of people are not peaceful. Why didn't they ask the public authorities to isolate the Anhangabaú Valley, for example, so that it could accommodate the protesters?

The answer is simple and obvious: because it wouldn't cause disruption. By causing actual harm to millions of people, pressure is placed on public authorities, who are then taken hostage by the cause. Thus, paralyzing the city is part of an escalation of aggression, of which vandalism and looting are higher degrees, but not yet the extreme point, which corresponds to the elimination of the enemy, to their death. It came close in São Paulo and Rio, with the attempted lynching of police officers. And that is the nature of the threats I receive.

Thus, it is evident that the protesters received more than sympathetic coverage from TV Globo and most media outlets. These are the literal words of journalist and Jornal Nacional presenter Patrícia Poeta when referring to the suspension of fare increases in São Paulo and Rio: "It was a victory for the protesters who peacefully took to the streets in recent days."

At no point did the representatives of the Free Fare movement explicitly criticize the violence. On the contrary: one of its leaders said he was against the vandalism, of course!, but classified the acts of vandalism as a "popular revolt." And that was it! Yesterday, Mayara Vivian was able to announce on national television that the fight continues, now for free public transportation and also against urban and rural land ownership. Today, there will be a celebration of irrationality. But I've already started addressing issues that belong in another post.

It's quite true that this blog surpassed 300 visits yesterday and that posts are reproduced by hundreds, perhaps thousands, of other blogs. But I'm tiny compared to Globo and other TV networks, right? So these brave souls, who fight for a better world—even though journalists have to hide from them, even while supporting them—can't tolerate one or two opposing opinions? Just as they refuse to negotiate (either they take everything or they paralyze the city), they can't accept that someone disagrees with their cause and methods? Indeed. It seems that, in the world of these patriots, freedom will always be the freedom of those who agree. "The movement cannot be held responsible for the threats." Really? What sentiment and what morality are being mobilized?

I consider it a kind of naive indulgence to think that we are witnessing an "interesting shift" in the country's climate. I'll address this in another post, also from this morning/early morning. We're not, not at all! Not the way things are being done.

I will never support a movement that violates a fundamental right of the Constitution.

I will never support a movement that makes the country more intolerant of dissent.

I will never support a movement that forces public authorities to make an irrational decision.

I will never support a movement that aims to make the individual even more dependent on the state.

I will never support a movement that severely undermines investments that could generate more jobs, income, and benefits for the population.

I will never support a movement that does not recognize the existence of institutional bodies.

“Ah, but the PT is also doing badly,” someone will say. Let one important thing be established here and forever: THE CHOICES OF THE PT MEMBERS DO NOT CONDITION MY CHOICES. They don't even define what I DON'T THINK, understand? Oh, yes: I ended up not answering the question. Why would they need even Reinaldo Azevedo's favorable opinion? Because they are incapable of hearing a “no” and of dealing with contradiction.

Below is a previous news report about the case: