Unnecessary and unconstitutional
Proposed by the federal government, bill that defines terrorism freezes Lower House agenda and threatens freedom of protest
The calendar of the first session of the Lower House of Congress after the July recess provides some idea of how tumultuous the human rights agenda will be in the Legislative in the second half of the year. In addition to resuming the debate on the problematic Amendment 171/1993 that reduces the age of criminal responsibility, the list of bills to be debated on Tuesday, August 4, includes a proposal by the Executive that defines the crime of terrorism and threatens the right to protest and to political expression.
Since it is being fast-tracked, Bill 2016/2015 presented in late June by the Minister of Justice, José Eduardo Cardozo, and the Minister of Finance, Joaquim Levy, freezes the voting agenda starting on Monday, August 3. The bill may also be examined simultaneously in the full session of the house and in the three commissions where it needs to be approved – Constitution and Justice, Foreign Relations and National Defense, and Public Security and Combat of Organized Crime.
According to Rafael Custódio, coordinator of Justice at Conectas, there is not a single crime enumerated in the bill that is not already accounted for in the country’s Criminal Code. “In addition to being absolutely unnecessary, the proposal is imprecise, subjective and unconstitutional because it includes political and ideological motivation on the list of elements that constitute terrorism. These are two fundamental guarantees established by the Constitution that cannot, under any circumstances, be considered offenses,” he explained. “Countries that have tried to do this have been condemned internationally, such as the case of Chile in the Inter-American Court of Human Rights,” he added.
The text by the federal government defines terrorist organizations as those “whose preparatory or executory acts occur for reasons of political ideology, xenophobia, discrimination or prejudice based on race, skin color, ethnicity, religion or gender and whose purpose is to cause terror, exposing people or property to danger or posing a threat to public safety or public peace, or to coerce officials to either do or not do something”.
The right to protest
Bill 2016/2015 also contains another threat to social movements: amendments submitted by Congressman José Carlos Aleluia alter the original wording to include, in the definition of the crime, street demonstrations.
“The difficulty of defining terrorist activities without this leading to the criminalization of protests is recognized internationally,” reads a technical statement published by the Criminal Justice Network, of which Conectas is part. According to the statement, the bill “violates democratic freedoms: it does not protect any new legal interest and it exposes Brazilian citizens to the criminal censorship of political protest”. The organizations also called for the Foreign Relations Commission to hold a public hearing to debate the bill before it is voted.
Click here to read the statement of the Criminal Justice Network.
“Recent examples have shown how loopholes in the law can be used to repress the fundamental right to protest,” said Custódio. “If the bill is approved, the government will have made an historic error, with serious consequences for Brazilian democracy.”
