Safatle: The Brazilian judicial system criminalizes rebellion.
The philosopher Vladimir Safatle argues that the Brazilian judicial system, coupled with a society in crisis with its own traumas regarding sovereignty, has entered the dangerous territory of generalized distortion; he says: "In Brazil, one of the main functions of the Judiciary is to seek, in every way, to criminalize revolt, even if it means using vocabulary worthy of the most base psychologism in service of servitude."
247 – Philosopher Vladimir Safatle argues that the Brazilian judicial system, coupled with a society in crisis with its own traumas regarding sovereignty, has entered the dangerous territory of widespread distortion. He says: “In Brazil, one of the main functions of the Judiciary is to seek, in every way possible, to criminalize revolt, even if it means using vocabulary worthy of the most base psychologism in service of servitude.”
"The defendant has a distorted personality, geared towards disrespecting the constituted Powers, which can be seen, with regard to the Judiciary, by having disobeyed one of the precautionary measures imposed by the 7th Criminal Chamber of the Court of Justice of the State of Rio de Janeiro (prohibition from attending demonstrations and protests), which led to the decree of her preventive detention (see pp. 4.522/4.523) [...]. Disrespect for the Executive Branch can be evidenced, for example, by the confrontation with the military police in the marches and the 'Occupy Cabral' movement (it is unbelievable that the then governor of this state and his family had their right to come and go restricted). Disrespect for the Legislative Branch, in turn, can be verified, for example, by the 'Occupy Chamber' movement."
This is an excerpt from Judge Flavio Itabaiana's sentence against 23 protesters who participated in the 2013 and 2014 demonstrations, sentencing them to five and seven years in prison under a closed regime for forming a criminal gang, corruption of minors, aggravated damage, and bodily harm. No police officer was convicted of inciting violence, infiltrating groups of protesters with the clear intent of initiating confrontations, or causing bodily harm to protesters who were blinded or seriously injured. However, there is a conviction of protesters who were fighting against abusive increases in transportation fares, against the erosion of parliamentary democracy, against spending on the World Cup, and against corruption.