FacebookTwitterRedditEmail

Curbing the Right to Protest in Brazil

Football, for the Brazilian, is as natural in flair and living as water for fish.  It shows: Brazil remains the most successful World Cup nation, winning five titles.  When it exits the competition, there are sighs of remorse and tears of desperation. When it wins, natural order is affirmed.  The story about the forthcoming tournament, to be hosted by Brazil, offers a very different picture.

Many matters have troubled the tournament from the beginning.  There are construction issues – the Arena de São Paulo Stadium remains incomplete.  “It’s not a good sign,” observed Marissa Payne of The Washington Post,[1] “when you give a news conference in front of what looks like plywood.”  One end of the stadium remains distinctly unfinished[2], with ugly scaffolding very much present, and a notable absence of roofing.  Brazilian clubs have been running ‘tests’ on the site, though only less than 40,000 could attend.  Nerves are fraying ahead of the opener between the host country and Croatia.

This, however, seems to pall in comparison given the bad atmosphere that lingers after the million strong protests in over 100 cities during the Confederations Cup last year.  Cities and streets were occupied. Violent clashes between the police and demonstrators ensued.

The protest book is filled with various grievances, but a few stand out.  The World Cup, in what is virtually without precedent, is being seen as an undue extravagance.  $4bn might well be invested on World Cup stadiums, but public services have been conspicuously left behind by the bookkeepers and accountants.

Infrastructure arguments have centred on efficiency for visitors, and urgency of completion, rather than such projects as housing and public transport.  Indeed, it was the latter that got protesters irate in the first place when they were promised a dramatic increase in the cost of fares.

Since then, the protest platform has broadened, directed against instances of chronic corruption, issues of healthcare and education, and an emphasis on cutting funding to the World Cup itself.  Like many such organizations of revolt, it has been characterised by inchoate strategies, seeking occupation and protest without firm direction.  Groups and agendas vary.  The support base was also affected in July last year when the more aggressive “Black Blocs” reaped the rewards of the protest by attacking banks and government buildings in the name of an anarchist, anti-capitalist credo.

Brazil’s President Dilma Rousseff[3] has been rather glib about the protests, preferring to focus on the infrastructure challenges posed by the World Cup.  Such is the price of democracy.  “Nobody does a (subway) in two years. Well, maybe China.”  The stress has been on reassurances about security, which will feature carved-up zones to enable better surveillance and population control.  Protests may well be factored into the “cost” of democracy, but the police have things covered.

Research by Article 19 for a report titled Brazil’s Own Goal: Protests, Police and the World Cup[4], shows something a touch more serious than mild banter over infrastructure and policing.  The right to protest is being clamped and clipped via policing and legislative channels.  Evidence of this was already beginning in July last year, when the Pope’s visit saw police ban banners that could “offend the integrity of the pontiff and the nation”.[5]

The law is being used as a blunt instrument against broader protests of all kinds.  The Ministry of Justice, in November, flagged the possibility of establishing “special courts” that would focus on “violators of order” with expediency during the World Cup.  Laws have followed, including such laws as Draft Law 728/2011, outlining crimes and violations directly related to the World Cup. The strikingly draconian feature of the law is the terrorism offence which will have specific application to protests carrying terms of imprisonment ranging from 15 to 30 years.

Other bills make it clear what shape the harsh line on law enforcement is taking.  Bill 5531/2013 targets those “threatening road transport safety”, an intended disincentive for those blocking transport.  PL 6307/2103 proposes an amendment to the Criminal Code that would fine and imprison those engaged in damaging private or public property “by the influence of the crowd in an uproar.” Vague amendments to the definition of terrorism are also on the books, a boon for authoritarians keen to stifle social movements.

Thomas Hughes[6], Executive Director of Article 19, suggests that the World Cup’s arrival has shone a rather stark light on state authoritarianism, a sad state given Brazil’s recent record on civic progress.  The formula of repression and violence is being used to target individual and collective freedom of expression. “Indeed, it seems that despite being led by President Dilma Roussef, who was herself tortured during the dictatorship, the state machinery still retains a military mindset, viewing even the most peaceful protest as a threat.”

On Wednesday night, 4,000 protesters[7], organised by the Homeless Workers Movement, marched in peaceful protest on the Arena, chanting for the provision of more low-income housing.  Strikes are being promised during the course of the tournament. (The latest[8] is already taking place – an open-ended strike by subway workers in São Paolo.)  Occupations of various office building are becoming a regular occurrence.

This promises to be a World Cup unlike any other, but that promise will say far more about state policy and protest than it will about football.  The price for Brazilian democracy may well be a cost it is unable to sustain.

Dr. Binoy Kampmark was a Commonwealth Scholar at Selwyn College, Cambridge.  He lectures at RMIT University, Melbourne. Email: bkampmark@gmail.com

Notes.


[1] http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/early-lead/wp/2014/06/02/sao-paulos-stadium-is-not-ready-at-all-for-the-world-cup/

[2] http://www1.skysports.com/football/news/11096/9334951/sao-paulo-world-cup-stadium-not-finished-sky-sports-news-geraint-hughes-reports-from-test-game

[8] http://time.com/2823698/sao-paulo-subway-workers-declare-open-ended-strike-days-from-world-cup/

More articles by:

Binoy Kampmark was a Commonwealth Scholar at Selwyn College, Cambridge. He lectures at RMIT University, Melbourne. Email: bkampmark@gmail.com

bernie-the-sandernistas-cover-344x550

June 18, 2019
John McMurtry
Koch-Oil Big Lies and Ecocide Writ Large in Canada
Robert Fisk
Trump’s Evidence About Iran is “Dodgy” at Best
Yoav Litvin
Catch 2020 – Trump’s Authoritarian Endgame
Thomas Knapp
Opposition Research: It’s Not Trump’s Fault That Politics is a “Dirty” Game
Medea Benjamin - Nicolas J. S. Davies
U.S. Sanctions: Economic Sabotage that is Deadly, Illegal and Ineffective
Gary Leupp
Marx and Walking Zen
Thomas Hon Wing Polin
Color Revolution In Hong Kong: USA Vs. China
Howard Lisnoff
The False Prophets Cometh
Michael T. Klare
Bolton Wants to Fight Iran, But the Pentagon Has Its Sights on China
Steve Early
The Global Movement Against Gentrification
Dean Baker
The Wall Street Journal Doesn’t Like Rent Control
Tom Engelhardt
If Trump’s the Symptom, Then What’s the Disease?
June 17, 2019
Patrick Cockburn
The Dark Side of Brexit: Britain’s Ethnic Minorities Are Facing More and More Violence
Linn Washington Jr.
Remember the Vincennes? The US’s Long History of Provoking Iran
Geoff Dutton
Where the Wild Things Were: Abbey’s Road Revisited
Nick Licata
Did a Coverup of Who Caused Flint Michigan’s Contaminated Water Continue During Its Investigation? 
Binoy Kampmark
Julian Assange and the Scales of Justice: Exceptions, Extraditions and Politics
John Feffer
Democracy Faces a Global Crisis
Louisa Willcox
Revamping Grizzly Bear Recovery
Stephen Cooper
“Wheel! Of! Fortune!” (A Vegas Story)
Daniel Warner
Let Us Laugh Together, On Principle
Brian Cloughley
Trump Washington Detests the Belt and Road Initiative
Weekend Edition
June 14, 2019
Friday - Sunday
Michael Hudson
Trump’s Trade Threats are Really Cold War 2.0
Bruce E. Levine
Tom Paine, Christianity, and Modern Psychiatry
Jason Hirthler
Mainstream 101: Supporting Imperialism, Suppressing Socialism
T.J. Coles
How Much Do Humans Pollute? A Breakdown of Industrial, Vehicular and Household C02 Emissions
Andrew Levine
Whither The Trump Paradox?
Jeffrey St. Clair
Roaming Charges: In the Land of 10,000 Talkers, All With Broken Tongues
Pete Dolack
Look to U.S. Executive Suites, Not Beijing, For Why Production is Moved
Paul Street
It Can’t Happen Here: From Buzz Windrip and Doremus Jessup to Donald Trump and MSNBC
Rob Urie
Capitalism Versus Democracy
Richard Moser
The Climate Counter-Offensive: Secrecy, Deception and Disarming the Green New Deal
Naman Habtom-Desta
Up in the Air: the Fallacy of Aerial Campaigns
Ramzy Baroud
Kushner as a Colonial Administrator: Let’s Talk About the ‘Israeli Model’
Mark Hand
Residents of Toxic W.Va. Town Keep Hope Alive
John Kendall Hawkins
Alias Anything You Please: a Lifetime of Dylan
Linn Washington Jr.
Bigots in Blue: Philadelphia Police Department is a Home For Hate
David Macaray
UAW Faces Its Moment of Truth
Brian Cloughley
Trump’s Washington Detests the Belt and Road Initiative
Horace G. Campbell
Edward Seaga and the Institutionalization of Thuggery, Violence and Dehumanization in Jamaica
Graham Peebles
Zero Waste: The Global Plastics Crisis
Michael Schwalbe
Oppose Inequality, Not Cops
Ron Jacobs
Scott Noble’s History of Resistance
Olivia Alperstein
The Climate Crisis is Also a Health Emergency
David Rosen
Time to Break Up the 21st Century Tech Trusts
FacebookTwitterRedditEmail