MercoPress. South Atlantic News Agency
Bolsonaro complies with court order and apologizes to a woman lawmaker because of offensive remarks
Following on a court order, Brazilian president Jair Bolsonaro issued a retraction note to opposition Congresswoman Maria do Rosário (PT-RS) because of his statements about rape. During a discussion in 2003, when Bolsonaro was still congressman, he said that Mary of the Rosary “did not deserve to be raped” because she was “too ugly”. Read full article
Comments
Disclaimer & comment rulesREF: “Due to a court order, I publicly apologize for my past speeches”:
Jun 16th, 2019 - 10:06 am - Link - Report abuse 0http://www.chargeonline.com.br/php/charges/AUTO_vasqs.jpg
A piece of irrelevant evidence....yeah, totally irrelevant, as to why Bolsonaro said she was too ugly to be raped, is the fact that Maria do Rosário, a few days earlier, while Bolsonaro was giving a speech in Congress, and was expressing his opinion on the infamous one-sided “Truth Commission” (created by Dilma), Maria do Rosario had called Bolsonaro a rapist....of course, that was ok, and in hindsight, he should've agreed and kept silent.
Jun 18th, 2019 - 09:35 pm - Link - Report abuse 0How odd, that he didn't ask her for an apology...
Jun 18th, 2019 - 10:01 pm - Link - Report abuse 0RE “Polls: Fernández-Fernández”
I read that Brazil had had two coups, three if you count chucking out the monarchy and becoming a republic. At least it's less than Argentina.
“no one I knew was concerned”
You knew me. Also Terry, but he doesn't count. Anyway, why would you be concerned? You'd rather the military take over than see Lula elected again, right?
I don't know if the STF was influenced by VB's comments, and I also don't know if the army would have taken action if the decision had gone the other way, but I definitely think the military exceeded their role.
I read the article you linked to about Haddad. He seemed to be evasive about it, but when pressed said he wouldn't pardon him. Perhaps he was trying to appeal to Lula's hard core supporters, without putting off the people who believe the law should be respected? Didn't work, anyway.
”8 STF judges were appointed by Lula (3) / Dilma (5).“
That would've been enough to free him if all voted in favour. IIRC, Lula's voted to leave him free, Dilma's to jail him. The judges appointed by earlier presidents also voted in Lula's favour.
”FHC's 2nd term was well seen as Brazil was improving.”
Yeah, until the recession, anyway. But then you agree it is possible to amend Brazil's constitution if Congress cooperates?
As for the spending cap, irrespective of its merits as a policy, I don't think such things belong in the constitution, and I don't think governments should be attempting to tie their successors' hands in this way. It strays a long way from the intended purpose of a constitution.
@DT
Jun 19th, 2019 - 07:55 pm - Link - Report abuse 0“How odd, that he didn't ask her for an apology...” B is obviously not as easily offended as some idiots are...even when they provoke the insult.
Re F-F Polls :
“three if you count chucking out the monarchy”…the 1st two are ancient history afaic.
Me : “no one I knew was concerned”; You : “You knew me” (??). Was referring to people whom I “know”...here…those who were aware of ‘n understood the circumstances.
“why would you be concerned?” I wasn’t.
Lula or the Military ? the latter, every time.
Doesn’t the Army, as important as any of the other 3 branches of government, have the right to be concerned, to express its opinion ?
”Haddad, when pressed, said no”…why did he have to be “pressed” ? If he had no intention to (release the toad) he would’ve said no, the first time he was questioned. More likely he did consider the possibility. Probably thought it would give him votes.
Regarding the STF’s votes to reject Lula’s HCs, some (the declared lefties) are always predictable ‘n will find a way to justify the unlikely.
”FHC's 2nd term was well seen as Brazil was improving”….that, in 1998, not after Lula’s 2nd term (when the crisis exploded).
Of course the Constitution can be amended – for the better – if Congress cooperates ; It approved the cap, and it can “un-approve” it at any time, when & if the situation permits. No one's hands are tied. It was a 20 year plan, that can be undone, if need be...and if its only purpose is to control irresponsible spending, what is wrong with it ?
Also agree that the Constitution addresses matters that are not worthy of being in it.
But it was drawn up by basically, the left…which is loath to remove the superfluous crap from it now, because it attends ‘their’ aspirations..
@JB
Jun 19th, 2019 - 10:46 pm - Link - Report abuse 0I'd say the opposite; B WAS offended, or he wouldn't have responded like he did.
“Lula or the Military ? the latter, every time.”
Exactly. You would hardly be concerned about an event you didn't mind happening, and would even actively approve in some circumstance. How many of the people you know voted for Lula in 2002 or 2006? If it's few or none, they're not representative of the general population.
I certainly have never considered the army a branch of government. I would expect them to express opinions on defence matters, alliances like NATO, maybe even other foreign affairs if it looked like they could lead to war. Not on legal or constitutional issues. So in Brazil's case, discussing whether a military intervention in Venezuela is feasible and likely to improve or worsen the situation is appropriate. Making a statement addressed to the Supreme Court before a decision that has nothing to do with military matters is not.
“Of course the Constitution can be amended – for the better – if Congress cooperates”
Or for the worse, eg if they decide to legalise some of their activities. But I think my original point was that Lula did not try to amend the constitution, to give him and the PT more power. Unlike Chavez, and Maduro, and Morales, and plenty of others over the years.
As for the plan, my objection is as I said; it's not the sort of thing that should be in the constitution. Now future governments will need (IIRC) a 2/3 majority to overturn it. Presume you would have objected if it was something you disagreed with, like guaranteeing funding for education at a certain level?
Living in the past [GOOD old days?], aren't we?
Jun 20th, 2019 - 10:33 am - Link - Report abuse 0http://www.chargeonline.com.br/php/DODIA//mariano.jpg
@DT
Jun 20th, 2019 - 10:11 pm - Link - Report abuse 0If B was offended he would've reacted / replied asa she insulted him, not days later ...imo, he was just trying to ridicule her. ..like a kid who says you can't play ball because it’s his...and you reply, “afaic, you can shove it” ...then the kid gets offended. Sew shit, reap it.
You asked me If I was concerned”….why would I be, or see it (the military) as a threat if I considered them better than the alternative ? yr point ?
I was acquainted with quite a few people who voted for Lula in 2002/06. I didn’t agree with them, yet there was no fanaticism, hatred, just differences of opinion. Most of my closer friends did not vote for him…just a matter of upbringing and perception.
Today, with all that’s happened in btwn, it’s a totally different cup of tea.
The Armed Forces here has always been an unofficial, 4th, moderating power - in the background, not actively participating in the political scenario….except when shit hits the fan. Agree, not like in the UK, but that's how it is.
You asked me if the “Constitution can be amended – for the better – if Congress cooperates”; I said “of course” (if it cooperates). You then said “Or for the worse”…Sure, who can guarantee it’ll always do the right, moral thing ?
Presently it is desperately trying to disfigure the Anti-Crime package (against corruption, organized crime, violent crime) signed by 2 million Brazilians in 2015, 'n perfected by Moro. They only want to legislate to protect their own butts.
For better or worse, not all of Congress supports “Lulopetismo”, and is not in favor of a one-party system which was clearly Lula’s objective, to obtain domination through bribing its members (starting with the ‘mensalão’).
Agree, the ‘cap’ plan does not have to be in the Constitution. But its principle makes sense. If the state of the economy improves, it can be easily overturned.
Funding education (all levels) is in the Constitution …and I have nothing against that. You presumed ‘wrong’(ly).
@Jack Bauer
Jun 21st, 2019 - 01:28 am - Link - Report abuse 0REF: “If the state of the economy improves”
This “IF” is not all THAT small!
https://www.gdpuk.com/images/easyblog_articles/2221/b2ap3_large_crisis-in-progress-sign.jpg
@JB
Jun 21st, 2019 - 04:25 pm - Link - Report abuse 0I was assuming B replied immediately, in anger. If it was several days later then there's no excuse for not responding more maturely; demanding an apology or asking for her to be censured. Politicians should not be acting like school kids.
“Yr point ?”
I thought I made it clear. You can't be concerned about something unless you think it's a bad thing. Since you don't think the army taking over is bad, there's no way you could be concerned about it. And ditto for any of your friends who agree about the military dictatorship. But if the Armed Forces really see their role as a 4th power, including stepping in when 'necessary' (according to them), that's all the more reason to worry they might interfere in government.
Congress has done a lot of shit, but they are also trying to stop some of Bolsonaro's bad ideas, like handing the power to decide on indigenous reserves to the Ministry of Agriculture (what have they to do with farming?), so its not all bad.
“is not in favor of a one-party system which was clearly Lula’s objective”
I don't believe it. His plan seemed to be to keep on getting 'posts' elected, and while I disapprove of the stand-ins, staying in power because you're popular is very different to instituting one-party rule.
”Funding education (all levels) is in the Constitution …and I have nothing against that. You presumed ‘wrong’(ly).”
Guedes recently cut education funding, and you defended him saying it was necessary to balance the budget. You didn't mention funding was guaranteed by the constitution (how did he cut it, then?). If he'd been able to cut more, there's a decent chance he would have... you approve of his hands being tied by the constitution in this way?
REF: “balance the budget”:
Jun 21st, 2019 - 05:02 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Please TRY it:
REF: “Deputados pressionam para que reforma da Previdência afrouxe regras para recebimento dos próprios benefícios”:
https://twitter.com/folha/status/1142014296311783424
DT
Jun 21st, 2019 - 08:35 pm - Link - Report abuse 0“I was assuming B replied immediately, in anger”. well, your assumption sounds like a 'catch 22' situation....respond immy, your wrong to....respond later, you shouldn't.
IF he had felt offended he might have asked her for a public retraction, but he really couldn't care less. But he can never win, can he ?
“You can't be concerned about something unless you think it's a bad thing.”....ok, so we're on the same page with that. The military doesn't worry me at all.
“I don't believe it.”....all I can say, read the statutes of the Foro de SP.....their objective is clear.
Each 'post', more stealing, arranging the necry financing to guarantee the total corruption of Congress, and then go passing laws giving himself more 'n more power...you are very - no, extremely naive when it comes down to understanding Lula's and the PT's intentions.
The “popularity” is just one of the ways of staying in power until you've got the system under control...then it's too late to complain....go nibbling at the edges until sudddenly the house collapses. You sound like someone who'd wake up when the roof is caving in.
What Guedes did is foreseen in, and allowed by, the Constitution.....and when Dilma cut education funds, that was OK ?....because a leftist could never take the wrong decision...is that it ?
Guedes did nothing wrong, simply prioritized scare funds. And temporary cuts, representing 3,4 % of the funds for Federal Universities is no apocalypse.. just a contingency until things get better...what don't you understand ?
If I failed to mention everything, it's simply because... ..there's not enough space here....so I try to stick to what was asked.....
“If he'd been able to cut more, there's a decent chance he would have...Wrong. He ”could've” cut a damned sight more....but he didn't....go back 'n see what I wrote....he made a contingency representing only a small part of the discretionary expenses...
What the Constitution foresees in an emergency, sounds ok.
@JB
Jun 21st, 2019 - 09:36 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Nah. Correct way to respond is ask for an apology, or for Congress to sanction her. But insulting back is more understandable/forgivable if it's a heat of the moment thing. What did she actually say to him, in context?
“passing laws giving himself more 'n more power”
Such as?
“You sound like someone who'd wake up when the roof is caving in.”
And you sound like someone who doesn't care if it does, so long as the 'right' people are in charge (the military)
“when Dilma cut education funds, that was OK ?”
I never said so. You're always putting words in my mouth. Whether cuts are good or bad does not depend on who makes them.
“If I failed to mention everything, it's simply because... ..there's not enough space here”
That's fair enough, I have the same problem. If you have space now, then what limits does the constitution set on education funding? And how do Guedes' cuts work with that? 'Discretionary spending' doesn't count in the total?
@JB / @DT
Jun 22nd, 2019 - 12:10 am - Link - Report abuse 0Nice to know that Brazil is in such GREAT [greased] hands:
https://www.politicos.org.br/ranking
DT
Jun 23rd, 2019 - 06:59 pm - Link - Report abuse 0“Correct way to respond is ask for an apology”. Sure, that would work - as it did when Wyllys spat in Bolsonaro's face ; the matter went to the Ethics Commission. Wyllys defiantly said he reacted 'spontaneously' becos Bolsonaro had annoyed him, 'n that he'd “spit on him as many times as he pleased”. Even no apology to a 2nd politician who also got covered in spit. The Commission refused to suspend him, only issuing a mild warning. Nice.
D'you think Maria do Rosário would've apologised, if demanded of her ? She called him a 'rapist'.
Me:“passing laws giving himself more 'n more power”; You: “such as ?”
How about like Maduro in VZ....remove all STF judges, replacing them w/ his puppets; ignore majority votes in Congress against him ; call for a new Constitution; not allow the opposition to participate in the last election...just a gradual encroachment on people's rights and freedoms, until he controlled all branches of govt...Luckily, here the left-wing's balloon was popped.
”And you sound like someone who doesn't care if it does, so long as the 'right' people are in charge (the military)”....tut, tut...no need to get nasty (LOL)...Clearly, you doubt Lula was a fan of the FdeSP (altho he founded it), and can see no wrong in anything he did, far less in what he intended to, if his project for power had'nt gone up the spout.
I never said “the military” are the “right people in charge”....that's yr conclusion. The fact remains, 'n I'll say it in a nice way : you are too trusting, never believing some people can, and will, give in to the worst temptations, even it it means stepping on the people to do it.
“Whether cuts are good or bad...”. My point was, Dilma made much larger cuts, in a situation not as bad as now, 'n you condemn PG ? why ? becos he's not a socialist ?
In Oct Congress votes the follwg year's budget, distributing projected revenue as seen best, including to Education, divided btwn obligatory/discretionary expenses. It's Constitutional Law.
“he'd spit on him as many times as he pleased”
Jun 23rd, 2019 - 09:41 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Lol. Protestors here prefer throwing milkshakes. I don't know if Maria do Rosário would've apologised; Brazilian commissions are a bit toothless by the sounds of it, and your politicians can't even come up with entertaining insults.
“How about like Maduro in VZ...”
Exactly my point. Lula didn't do any of those things. He didn't even try and get a third term like so many Lat Am Presidents.
“Clearly, you doubt Lula was a fan of the FdeSP”
I doubt he had a 'project of power', because he didn't do the things necessary to consolidate power. What sucks about Latin America is that the people who play by the rules get shafted, and those who lie, cheat and steal get ahead. And yet again, the right has got ahead... impeached the elected President, and put the most popular candidate for the next election in jail. I think I WAS too trusting, believing that ending corruption was any kind of priority for Moro, when really it was all about politics. Putting the 'right' people in charge - who are they, if not the military?
“Dilma made much larger cuts, in a situation not as bad”
You said before she didn't cut enough...?
Commenting for this story is now closed.
If you have a Facebook account, become a fan and comment on our Facebook Page!