MercoPress. South Atlantic News Agency
Supermodel Gisele is a “bad Brazilian” claims Agriculture minister Dias
Supermodel Gisele Bündchen is a “bad Brazilian” whose environmental activism has harmed the country’s image abroad, the nation’s new Agriculture Minister Tereza Cristina Dias said on Monday. Read full article
Comments
Disclaimer & comment rulesA favourite trick of the right-wing: call anyone who doesn't agree with your policies unpatriotic. How dare someone have their own opinion and voice it honestly?
Jan 15th, 2019 - 12:32 pm - Link - Report abuse 0DemonTree
Jan 15th, 2019 - 02:13 pm - Link - Report abuse 0You'll never catch me saying anything negative about Gisele Bündchen who I think is knock dead beautiful!
”Luiz Nabhan Garcia, the Agriculture Ministry’s new Special Secretary for Land Affairs, told the media that he would be initiating a thorough review of all efforts in the last ten years to demarcate indigenous land; to provide titles for quilombolas (communities inhabited by the descendants of runaway slaves); as well as attempts to secure lands for agrarian reform settlements. According to Nabhan Garcia, some of these past actions will be undone, if “serious mistakes”, “unacceptable errors,” or “fraud” were found to have occurred.
Jan 15th, 2019 - 02:17 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Federal Prosecutor Júlio Araújo told BBC Brasil that the shift of indigenous reserve demarcation duties to the agriculture ministry, which represents ruralist interests, violates the rule of law: “This dismantling [of FUNAI) is unconstitutional because it renders unfunctional the policy of demarcation and this is a policy enshrined in the [1988 Brazilian] constitution.” That document assures indigenous groups a fair process for demarcating and permanently occupying their ancestral territories.
According to Marcio Santilli, a former president of FUNAI and one of the founders of the Social-Environmental Institute (ISA), a Brazilian NGO, taking back land already granted to indigenous groups will infringe on the law and violate indigenous land rights.”
https://news.mongabay.com/2019/01/bolsonaro-acts-brazils-socioenvironmental-groups-resist/
Terrence Hill (Notable esteemed Social Justice Warrior)
Jan 15th, 2019 - 04:40 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Yes, and why are women getting involved in a man's decision to determine! The real question is why do Caucasian type women have the right to an opinion that affects to the native indigenous peoples of the Amazon?
My case in point: On Sunday, Britain's Daily Star reported that Lady Gaga and Angelina Jolie — two white actresses — are competing for the role of Cleopatra, sparking outrage across social media. Social Justice Warriors (SJWs) demanded that the African queen should be played by a woman of color, even though the historical Cleopatra was Greek, not black.
“Majority Of Brazilians Against Reducing Indigenous Reservations
Jan 15th, 2019 - 10:38 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Datafolha poll shows that six in every ten people oppose policies against Native Brazilian territories; Bolsonaro administration promised to revise land grants”
https://www1.folha.uol.com.br/internacional/en/brazil/2019/01/majority-of-brazilians-against-reducing-indigenous-reservations.shtml
Like I said: You'll never catch me saying anything negative about Gisele Bündchen who I think is knock dead beautiful!
Jan 16th, 2019 - 01:06 pm - Link - Report abuse 0SUB: Environmental Protection & Conservation
Jan 16th, 2019 - 03:15 pm - Link - Report abuse 0REF: “your country conserves, that your country is on the global vanguard of conservation”:
Absolutely true! [Any facts/figures by the way?]
“Brazil environment chief accused of 'war on NGOs' as partnerships paused
Jan 17th, 2019 - 09:07 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Civil society groups condemn move by minister, appointed by far-right president Jair Bolsonaro, as illegal attack on environment
A group of eight networks of environmental organizations said there was “no justification” for the measure, which they described as unconstitutional, because contracts between the government and NGOs can only be suspended through a formal process after irregularities have been found.
Indigenous people and other environmental defenders live under precarious circumstances in rural areas with little rule of law – 46 environmental defenders were killed in 2017 in Brazil.”
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/jan/16/brazil-environment-chief-accused-of-war-on-ngos-as-partnerships-paused
“A favourite trick of the right-wing: call anyone who doesn't agree with your policies unpatriotic”.
Jan 17th, 2019 - 10:09 pm - Link - Report abuse 0A 'trick' used extensively by the PT......anyone who defends anti-left ideas is, in the PT's opinion, besides unpatriotic, also anti-democratic....heard to exaustion at the PT's political rallys....which would suggest that the PT's version of democracy differs to that in most democratic countries.....
Gleisi Hoffmann, PT's president, goes to caracas to attend Maduro's swearing in, and praises his 'democracy'.....just saying.
Heh, that makes sense. Shall we agree then, that this is a bad argument that ought not be used by either the PT, Ms Dias, or the Brexiters?
Jan 17th, 2019 - 11:15 pm - Link - Report abuse 0@Terry
What do you expect? They want to pave paradise and put up a parking lot. At least they're doing it for $$$, unlike the loony Americans I've seen online who literally want to end the world.
”CARACAS (REUTERS) - Venezuela will receive 2,000 Cuban doctors who left Brazil following a dispute between the Communist-run island and the government of far-right Brazilian President Jair Bolsonaro, who ordered an end to their stay after taking office this year.”
Jan 18th, 2019 - 10:45 am - Link - Report abuse 0https://www.usnews.com/news/world/articles/2019-01-17/venezuela-to-receive-2-000-cuban-doctors-pulled-from-brazil-maduro
@DT
Jan 18th, 2019 - 05:27 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Sure, why not !?...after all, it usually represents the personal opinion of some disgruntled politician, or those who have a cause to defend (not 'aaaalways' legitimate), and should not be taken so seriously, or given undue importance.
Personally, I think Min Dias is a bit radical...needs having her wings clipped.
@DT (contn of “pres B vows to tackle..”
“How many times ….. don't want hand whole Brazil back to natives? “ We finally agree on something… ‘n perhaps u can also see how impractical it’s for 600,000 ‘natives’ to “occupy” 1 mill sq kms (on western 'border') ? U might not agree, but I believe the solution adopted was disastrous…created a difficult situation to fix, which doesn’t attend the Indians’ interests (now they’ve been ‘civilized’) ; the “uncontacted” tribes should be left alone….perhaps they’ll have another century of peace.
Just fyi, agree with the preservation of “virgin” rain forest. Problem is that yrs ago, govt incentivized occupation - now the land is under dispute.
Land always has value…that, plus hard work is the solution ; How d’you think the few, who broke away from the MST, made it work ? or the 100s of small vegetable /fruit farmers located in dozens of municipalities around the Greater São Paulo, who supply a lot of the city’s needs ?
“Fertile land is a limited resource”…depends where, ‘n even then, it’s usually land that’s been prepared for farming (by someone else) - you rarely find land ‘naturally’ ready for planting…soil needs testing, fertilizers etc, for the crop you have in mind. Even ‘our’ vegetable patch needed it.
The land the MST always wants, at one time was neither fertile nor cleared, ‘n took decades of hard work ‘n money to make it what it is today.
Allende’s policy - take land fm trad’l owners, I/O opening up “new” land - imo, would only make sense if there was no other. “but he was elected on the promise of land reform” – yes, a populist move, ‘n easy to achieve when you expropriate land that is ‘ready’.
@JB
Jan 18th, 2019 - 06:52 pm - Link - Report abuse 0“perhaps u can also see how impractical it’s for 600,000 ‘natives’ to “occupy” 1 mill sq kms”
In Alaska 700,000 people occupy 1.7 m sq km, and no one's complaining about that. They even get 2 senators to represent them, which I bet your indigenous people don't have. It's not like people are clamouring to move to the jungle, why would it be an improvement for a small number of mining companies and agribusinesses to own the land?
The current situation certainly is not ideal, but almost any other solution would be worse for the people concerned.
Re Allende, what other land was there to take? Every bit of land is owned by someone, and will already be developed if it's suitable. Do you think he should have handed out plots in the desert to poor families? I presume you didn't put your vegetable patch on the side of a steep hill, or among rocks? Not all land is suitable for all things.
“Bündchen said the “bad Brazilians” were those responsible for Brazil’s worst deforestation figures in a decade.
Jan 19th, 2019 - 02:41 am - Link - Report abuse 0In a letter addressed to the minister, Tereza Cristina Dias, published in Brazilian media, Bündchen lamented government figures showing deforestation had increased by more than 13% in a year.
“An immeasurable heritage threatened by illegal deforestation and the squatting of public lands. These, yes, are the ‘bad Brazilians’,” she wrote.
In a tweet, she said: “Since 2006 I have been supporting projects and getting involved in socio-environmental causes”. In the letter she said that her grandparents were farmers, so she understood the importance of agriculture to Brazil.”
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/jan/17/gisele-bundchen-hits-back-at-ministers-bad-brazilian-jibe
@DT
Jan 19th, 2019 - 10:26 pm - Link - Report abuse 0C'mon, Alaska ??? a VERY different situation, but what if the US govt decided to “give” Alaska back to say, 500 eskimos (roughly same proprtion as Brazil's natives to its entire population, presuming the rest has been killed or died off), and remove all non-natives ?
Re Brazil's indians I do think they should have their own land - to either farm, hunt fish...they decide - there's has to be a solution that's neither 8 nor 80....but how much land is needed for this ? and I don't think the demarcation should have included large areas right on Brazil's borders with other countries - through which drugs and weapons are smuggled.
IMO, very bad planning. If both sides were really interested in finding sustainable solutions, I think there are worthwhile trade-offs to be made, which could satisfy both sides.
Re Chile, I'm not so sure that all (if any,) unnocupied land, or govt-owned land was only in desertic areas...Chicureo could clarify that. But even if there was none available, and no other choice but to expropriate, fair compensation should have been paid....was it ? I think Chicureo said it wasn't.... Land sure isn't suitable for everything, but when farmland is 'suitable', it's because someone put time, work and money into it.
Our vegetable patch was formed by cutting away useless undebrush, some very small trees, to then carve several terraces out of the hillside....(about 1000 sq mts)... then had the soil tested, and prepared it (dig it up, use fertizer, form rows to receive the seed) to grow what we wanted. No such thing as a free lunch, or just throwing down seed, lying on your back, and waiting.
Special Privileges & Immunities = Corruption run amuck
Jan 20th, 2019 - 09:14 am - Link - Report abuse 0https://i2.wp.com/www.humorpolitico.com.br/wp-content/uploads/2019/01/Flavio-Passando-por-Cima-da-Justica.jpg?w=700&ssl=1
““bad Brazilians” were those responsible for Brazil’s worst deforestation figures in a decade.”
Jan 20th, 2019 - 11:19 am - Link - Report abuse 0Yes. And of course they blame the messenger, rather than those doing the damage.
“Alaska ??? a VERY different situation”
Is it? Remote land, not very fertile or useful, naturally has a low population density. And if you want it to stay as it is, then you better keep it that way. I see it differently to you. If you want to avoid deforestation then you have to protect the land, in which case the Indians may as well live on it, because no one else can do so without damaging the forest, unless they adopt the same lifestyle.
Also, it would be equivalent to giving Alaska to 934,000 Eskimos, actually more than the current population. Come to think, Canada recently did something similar, splitting off the territory of Nunavut with a population of 36,000 and an area of 1.75 sq km, of which 83% are Inuit.
As for the borders, not knowing or caring where the natives lived, the respective governments agreed frontiers that cut right through their territory. Up until now the tribes on the Venezuelan side have suffered a lot more than those on the Brazilian. But why are reservations a problem for the border defence? Are the police not allowed to patrol inside them?
Re Chile, no, fair compensation was not paid. According to the report Chicureo linked to, they got government bonds which paid interest less than inflation, and to less than the market value.
As for land, I've only grown food in my own garden, but I would certainly take basically flat, fertile land that has been left to go wild over a steep, rocky hillside (or any other naturally poor conditions) that is already cultivated. Sure you have to put more effort in initially, but in the long term it'll pay off. In reality though, everyone else has the same idea. Apart from reservations and other protected areas, is there really land just sitting around uncultivated in Brazil, that could be farmed? If so, why?
@DT
Jan 20th, 2019 - 09:52 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Gisele's reply to Minister Dias, “Bad Brazilians” were those responsible...in a decade“ ...GB refers to past govts, when she says ”in a decade“, but seems to blame Bolsonaro, in advance, for what ”might“ happen...the 'messenger' should make that clear.
Comparison of Alaska/ Amazon...”remote“, ”low population density” is abt all they have in common. Their enormous differences are what make them attractive (or not) in different ways. The uncontacted Brzln natives live like in the 1500s ; the 'inuit', living in the northern regions of Alaska /Canada, 100s of miles from the rest of the population (likely to remain alone for yrs to come), live off the 'land', 'n maintain a discrete connection with civilization. Most Canadians live within 200 miles of the USA/CDA border (w/ population density under 4 /sq km - up north, it's less than 1.
Just to set the record straight, I am against indiscriminate deforestation, only to attend private biz interests...and afaic, should be analyzed under a different scope of the reservations. The 1st is a matter of preserving nature, the 2nd is a humanitarian issue, and I think it's going to be difficult to reconcile both issues in the same discussion.
The reason I think the reservations were badly planned, is because the govt knew the land was rich in minerals...so almost inevitably would cause problems later on. Another thought : In Brazil alone, Yanomani territory near the VZ border, extends continuously for 94,000 sq kms, 72% of England...what if tomorrow they decided to go to the UN and request to be declared an independent nation ? a nation within Brazil...and what abt those on the western border ?
Chicureo got govt bonds? probably just a bit better than bog roll...d'you agree with that, 'for the greater good' ?
Clearly flat land is ideal, but not necsrly 'already' fertile, but you can't get away from hard work if you want to farm it.
Think there IS uncultivated land lying around, which would make deforestation unnecsry.
Re GB, if this year is the worst for a decade that's Temer's fault. But there's nothing wrong with criticising proposed legislation, either. If the government eg decided to reduce the sentence for murder by half, then I'm sure you'd be saying it's a terrible idea and campaigning against it if you thought you could, rather than waiting to see the results.
Jan 21st, 2019 - 01:17 am - Link - Report abuse 0And you aren't really convincing me of the differences between Alaska/Northern Canada and the Amazon. Most Brazilians live within 300 miles of the coast, and if the natives in the Amazon are living a more traditional lifestyle than the ones in the north, that's just another argument in favour of reserves. Also, there are oil and minerals in the Arctic, but many people oppose exploiting it because it would damage the environment.
As for declaring independence, the UN would tell them to piss off. It's a club of countries, many of which have separatist regions; they are never going to support true self-determination. If you want evidence, just look at the Kurds, or Somaliland. And the UN did nothing about Catalonia last year.
Do you think then, that the natives should only be allowed to keep their land if their is nothing useful there? Or if there are minerals there, they can only keep it if they allow mining? For the greater good, like Chicureo was saying? What if I buy a bunch of forest and there's gold in it? Can the government force me to mine?
And yeah, flat land is not always ideal, depends on rainfall, type of soil etc. But most of those things cannot be easily changed, so it's the same principle. Farming almost inevitably requires hard work, but the initial work is not necessarily significant compared to the ongoing work. If there is uncultivated land lying around, why is there so much deforestation?
As for Chicureo's family, not sure what I think. Seems like they managed the reform pretty badly, but I'm not opposed to it in principle. In the UK we had estate duty which is less direct, is that any better?
REF: “Bündchen’s criticism of government attempts to take away environmental protections”
Jan 21st, 2019 - 08:25 am - Link - Report abuse 0SAVE BRAZIL:
https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2018-10-31/saving-the-climate-means-eating-less-red-meat
@DT
Jan 21st, 2019 - 06:08 pm - Link - Report abuse 0I'd protest - if I thought it was worthwhile - after a determined policy I didn't like, was implemented. In this case, I suppose if a few 'responsible' celebrities voice their opinions, it does no harm, and might even encourage govt to 'humanize' its ideas before signing them into law.
I'm not trying to convince you, I simply disagree. “Most Brazilians live within 300 miles of the coast”...sure, that is a tendency in any country of continental size, but even so, central Brazil is being developed very quickly... Alaska / Northern Canada are sparsely populated because the environment isn't particularly hospitable, 'n isn't much there, except snow.
“Do you think then, that the natives should only be allowed to keep their land if their is nothing useful there?”....“keep their land”....which land is that ? what they occupied 300 years ago, or the demarcated reserves ? I ask because if it refers to the latter, there was/is plenty of land - covered in dense jungle - which would attend their needs, without being in the middle of mineral rich areas....the reserves were demarcated in a hell of a rush, without sufficient study, for purely political reasons, and which, if left as they are, means Brazil cannot explore it's own riches. And to the indians it doesn't make one iota of difference if they are allocated jungle that is not sitting on mineral reserves....unless of course, the indians intend to explore it economically, which besides not being allowed, would defeat the whole purpose of the reservations....if you bought land and found gold on it , it would automatically be expropriated (by govt). So if you find gold, keep it a secret.
The deforestation occurs as the already cultivated area expands....instead of opening up other areas in other regions. A matter of convenience.
Being opposed to, or in favour of what occurred in Chile, in principle, should not have excluded careful examination of each individual case -othrwise, some are bound to be treated unfairly.
“I suppose if a few 'responsible' celebrities voice their opinions, it does no harm, and might even encourage govt to 'humanize' its ideas before signing them into law.”
Jan 22nd, 2019 - 12:53 am - Link - Report abuse 0Exactly.
“I simply disagree”
Well, there are a lot of similarities all the same. The US population is not concentrated on the coasts, nor is the Chinese, or the Indian, or the Russian. Unlike a desert or tundra, the rainforest is brimming with life, but that doesn't mean lots of humans can, or want to live there. Sharing space isn't the issue, Brazil has plenty; what you want is the resources.
“which land is that ? what they occupied 300 years ago, or the demarcated reserves ?”
The land they occupied 30 or 50 years ago, which in some cases has been made into a reserve. And given that the 1988 constitution set a 5 year deadline to demarcate indigenous reserves, I don't think rush is the best word to describe it. As for plenty of jungle elsewhere, surely there must already be people living in it? Humans spread everywhere, they don't leave land empty that they could live on. But regardless, moving people is not the simple matter you make it out to be, and definitely not something that should be done without consideration, or in a 'hell of a rush'. And would you take land from the reserves for farmers, too? That's what B promised in at least one case.
”if you bought land and found gold on it , it would automatically be expropriated (by govt)”
Seriously? That can't be right.
Re expropriating/redistributing land, I guess I think it depends on how the current owners got it, and whether it will benefit or harm the country. There could be so many different circumstances.
DT
Jan 22nd, 2019 - 05:51 pm - Link - Report abuse 0The further away from the coast, population density tends to decrease....but AMZ is attractive for many reasons, other than accomodating natives....'n I don't see other 'people' leaving the coastal areas in Alaska, or Canada (or US border region) to move north.
But ok, I agree, if the mining industry, cattle farming 'n the agribusiness weren't as big or as important as they are, the AMZ would not be in danger of being chopped down.
“The land they occupied 30 or 50 years ago”, or 300 years ago, not much difference, as until the last 30 years it was never regarded as an issue. The fact the 1988 Constitution set a 5 year deadline, is irrelevant to the politicians....as are many other things, stated in the Constitution (and other laws), but are simply not practiced because Congress hasn't bothered to 'regulate' them.
Altho the natives have been protesting for about the same time, no serious govt studies were carried out, everything was decided 'n implemented without due diligence...i.e., in a rush. And the result is far from satisfactory.
The population density in the jungle must average less than 2/sq km, so they are hardly tripping over each other.
I'm not insinuating moving people around is easy, like putting them in buses and taking them elsewhere, I'm simply saying there was insufficient planning, which is causing all the trouble now.
Previous govts encouraged occupation of the lower AMZ, and 100s of thousands went....During Lula/Dilma's govts, they demarcated the reserves, and included land distributed prior to the PT....the reserves obliged many farmers to abandon their land (under great protest)...so naturally, farmers and indians don't get on too well.
The Federal govt is owner of everything a few feet under the surface....that's the law. Same as if you discovered oil...you'd be expropriated.
“There could be so many different circumstances”....that's what I'm saying...each case should be examined separately, to avoid problems later on.
@JB
Jan 23rd, 2019 - 04:50 pm - Link - Report abuse 0The Amazon must be more livable than northern Canada, but there's a reason it isn't already settled. People moved across the US quick enough and that was colonised after Brazil.
“30 or 50 years ago”, or 300 years ago, not much difference”
I think it makes a difference. Going back to how things were 300 years ago is obviously impractical, and likely to be more unfair than leaving it alone, but restoring land to people who are still alive is reasonable (still sucks for the farmers, I guess that explains the hostility). Did the government at least give them compensation?
And I only mentioned the deadline to show there has been plenty of time, but I'm not surprised the various governments simply put off considering it and then finished in a rush. But what are the guidelines in the constitution for establishing reservations? I'm skeptical there is a clause saying land should be treated differently if it has valuable minerals.
2/sq km actually seems kind of high for hunter-gatherers, although I suppose they do practice some kind of agriculture. But if you push them into too small a space their lifestyle will become unsustainable and they'll have to leave or die. Unless the government intervenes they'll be competing with each other for resources with unpleasant results.
I wonder what the average population density is for rural parts of Brazil? I was looking at Acre and Wikipedia says pop dens is 4.5/sq km for the state, but over half the population lives in the biggest city.
“The Federal govt is owner of everything a few feet under the surface....that's the law.”
Huh. I suppose you'd get in trouble if you dug a nice wide valley around your gold deposit before 'discovering' it? But what if you bought a bunch of land to make a nature reserve and someone comes in illegally and finds gold? The government will just take it off you and start digging it up?
@DT
Jan 23rd, 2019 - 06:46 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Fact is AMZ, N.Alaska, N.Canada, US, are all different environments, which attract people in different ways....so it's clear that each one is affected differently.
I said “ '30 or 50 years ago', or 300 years ago, not much difference” because 50 years ago, the indians were in much the same situation as 300 years ago....
I don't know what the Constitution says abt reserves, or in what detail, if anything, but I find it ridiculous that the Constitution should define something as dynamic as the issue in question....what did Congress know about the mineral reserves in 1988 ?? The Brazilian Constitution unfortunately went in to so much impracticable detail, i/o just stating principles, that today it conflicts with other laws....a paradise for lawyers. It even defines that students in public school need to be fed.
Have you any idea of the space in 2 million sq metres ? Anyway, I'm not saying to 'push them into small spaces”, but since they live in communities of several hundred - at most - perhaps 1000 hectare farms (with fish farms ) would be viable ...all I'm saying is that it was irresponsible to demarcate humongous areas without due diligence.
Don't have figures but am pretty sure population density in rural areas is very low....our land is approx 120 hectares, with 2 people living on it....absurdly low if compared to any urban area..
Well if someone comes in illegally and finds gold, I suggest you make a deal with them to mine as much gold as you can before it becomes public knowledge. The govt will expropriate it and do geological testing on it....if there IS gold, you'd probaly be paid for the land, in govt bonds, payable over 20 years....in other words, you'd be screwed....without the benefit of sexual intercourse..
Oh well, I agree about your constitution. Everyone seems to think it's a magical document and if they put what they want in there, the government won't be able to take it away later.
Jan 23rd, 2019 - 09:58 pm - Link - Report abuse 0I found a copy in English:
https://www.constituteproject.org/constitution/Brazil_2014.pdf
Chapter VIII deals with 'Indians', and there is no provision for removing land from the reservation because it contains minerals, but the 3rd section says:
“Utilization of water resources, including their energy potential, and prospecting and mining of mineral wealth on indigenous lands may only be done with the authorization of the National Congress, after hearing from the communities involved, which shall be assured of participation in the results of the mining, as provided by law.”
So Congress could allow mining there anyway.
I also noticed the last clause of the preceding section, it's exactly the kind of thing you were talking about:
“Those over sixty-five years of age are guaranteed free urban public transportation.”
“Have you any idea of the space in 2 million sq metres ?”
Of course not, but your idea would definitely be against the constitution since it says they should not be forced to assimilate or change their traditional lifestyle. And *that* is the kind of principle that does belong there. Besides, if the population density in rural areas is not much higher outside the reservations than in them, then they don't seem particularly excessive.
“if there IS gold, you'd probaly be paid for the land, in govt bonds, payable over 20 years”
Lovely. I suppose the Brazilian bonds would be worth more than the ones Chicureo's family were supposed to get, but that's pretty harsh. Don't invite any geologists to visit!
@DemonTree
Jan 24th, 2019 - 08:39 am - Link - Report abuse 0REF: “it's a magical document and if they put what they want in there, the government won't be able to take it away later”
True - a parasites' BIBLE!
https://i2.wp.com/www.humorpolitico.com.br/wp-content/uploads/2019/01/Laranja-Foro-Privilegiado.jpg?zoom=0.8999999761581421&fit=480%2C360&ssl=1
DARE to TAKE the IMMUNITIES+PRIVILEGES AWAY?
@DT
Jan 24th, 2019 - 04:19 pm - Link - Report abuse 0A lot of what's written in the Constitution should not be ..should be regulated in the “Lei Ordinária” {Common and /or Civil Law ?}, or simple 'resolutions'....not the Constitution, because when some legal aspect needs to modified (or updated - which is not uncommon), it requires Congressional approval (Constitutional Amendmant)....which of course is an opportunity for 'bargaining', which can come at a heavy price (to the taxpayer).
“...against the constitution since it says they should not be forced to assimilate or change their traditional lifestyle” (pg 154 ?)
Agree, the indians DO have constitutional rights, but even these, like those of anyone else, can be restricted / modified if the reason is “strong” enough....in this case, I don't think people want to reallocate the reservations for the sake of screwing them, because they think they are unimportant, but because it's clear there is a lot at stake, economically, besides the security aspect of border protection.
If the ONLY areas available were the current reservations, or the only places they would “not be forced to change their traditonal lifestyle”, ok, but they aren't.
Regardless of what the law says, I reckon some indians will end up being reallocated, no matter whatever government is in power....the pressure will come from big business, and we both know that big business has the power to sway most governments /Congresses, as when the choice comes down to the indians, or economic development/ tax revenue, it's fairly easy to guess the outcome.
But getting back to 2 million sq metres....our land, 1,2 million , is enormous....imagine a farm of 10 million...for a small community to work 'n produce on ? and hunt or fish (if cut by some large river..). But ok, what you or I think won't change anything.
If we found gold (by churning up the river bed 'n sifting through it), we'd do our best to keep it quiet for as long as possible. But I'll face that problem when /if it arises (LOL).
@JB
Jan 24th, 2019 - 09:59 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Yeah, laws giving pensioners free public transport should not be in the constitution, and it's full of stuff like that. I'm guessing it's a symptom of lack of trust, in government and in society, that people want even the smallest right as close to written in stone as they can get it.
“I don't think people want to reallocate the reservations for the sake of screwing them”
Of course not. They want $$$ for themselves and friends, and if any of them are not completely corrupt, for Brazil. But I daresay they do think the Indians are unimportant. They're poor, and you've told me how the rich people in Brazil think the poor are just there to follow their orders.
Anyway, the constitution does say the Indians can be removed from their lands, but only in case of catastrophe or epidemic, or more relevantly, in the interests of national sovereignty - which I suppose they might apply to the border regions. Congress is also supposed to guarantee their immediate return as soon as the risk ends, but I think we can guess when that would be.
But what other areas are available for them to go to, apart from the current reservations and proposed ones?
“when the choice comes down to the indians, or economic development/ tax revenue, it's fairly easy to guess the outcome.”
It's not inevitable; it depends on the government and the attitude of ordinary people, and also the state of the economy. But unfortunately all those things are working against the Indians (and the Amazon) right now.
Brazil IS enormous, there's so much space I can't even imagine it, so it seems odd you're still fighting over land. I wish we had some wild areas left. Even the national parks have farms and villages in them, and the only (small) forests are mostly fir trees planted in rows to harvest as wood.
“we'd do our best to keep it quiet for as long as possible.”
You'd better be careful or Dias'll be calling you a bad Brazilian next. ;)
Commenting for this story is now closed.
If you have a Facebook account, become a fan and comment on our Facebook Page!