AGU questions Supreme Court decision to criminalize homophobia and generates strong reaction | National newspaper

In June 2019, the Supreme Federal Court ruled that homophobia and transphobia can be framed in the crime of racism, with a penalty of up to three years and a fine. The measure is valid until Congress passes a specific law for the case. In the decision, the ministers indicated that it is a crime to incite or spread prejudice, that is, to make hate speech. But they understood that it is not a crime to be against same-sex relationships and to say in a religious temple, as a belief.

A year and four months later, the Attorney General’s Office filed an appeal claiming that the Supreme Court must clarify which religious acts cannot be considered homophobic crimes. In the action, the attorney general of the Union, José Levy, wants to know if the measure affects religious freedom, disclosure on the ways of exercising sexuality, access to public places, such as bathrooms, changing rooms and transportation, and philosophical conviction. or politics.

And it maintains that “the protection of citizens identified with the LGBTI + group cannot criminalize the disclosure, whether in the academic, media or professional sphere, of each and every one of the considerations on the ways of exercising sexuality, without fear for such manifestations to be understood as incitement to discrimination ”.

And that “it is important to clarify that not only religious freedom, but also freedom of expression itself, supports the possibility of a non-degrading demonstration on sexual morality.”

Another point questioned by AGU is that the decision interferes with the control of access to public places. AGU says it wants to safeguard the privacy of visitors who are considered vulnerable, who, according to the agency, are “vulnerable to each and every one of the people who may suffer some kind of violence to be prevented in the context of the decision.”

AGU’s inquiries generated strong criticism. The author of the action in the STF that criminalized homophobia, attorney Paulo Iotti, asked the Supreme Court on Thursday (15) to reject the AGU’s appeal. He considers that the government wants a “carte blanche”, a loophole for homophobic acts to be practiced.

“It is one thing to say that it is a sin, it is another thing to say that LGBTI people would be dangerous, that they would be trying to destroy our society, harm our children and other things that are real words. You want to feel discriminated against for not being able to expel an LGBTI person from a public space. That is absurd. It tries to disguise a claim of discrimination in human rights language, which is regrettable, ”says lawyer Paulo Iotti.

AGU’s lawsuit was filed the day after the retirement of Minister Celso de Mello, rapporteur of the case in the Supreme Court. Now, the action should be directed to his replacement. Judge Kassio Marques was appointed by President Jair Bolsonaro, but he still needs to have his name approved by the Senate. The sabbatical will be next week. If approved, Kassio Marques will decide whether the issue will be taken to plenary.

According to the Gay Group of Bahia, which publishes annual reports of violent deaths of LGBT people in Brazil, in 2019, every 26 hours, only one LGBT + was killed or committed suicide as a victim of prejudice due to sexual orientation. There were 329 deaths of homotransphobia victims. According to the data, Brazil is the world champion in crimes against sexual minorities, with more than half of the murders of LGBT people in the world.

The singer Daniela Mercury requested this Friday a meeting of the Human Rights Observatory of the National Council of Justice. In the letter to Minister Luiz Fux, president of the Supreme Court and CNJ, Daniela Mercury affirms that “AGU’s request is vague, it does not explain what kind of situations it really refers to, but rather it tries to legitimize discriminatory behavior. It goes to the point of asking for the right to segregate people in public spaces, such as bathrooms and public transport cars. Turns out, he’s trying to resurrect the horrible, outdated doctrine of apartheid, separate but equal. We cannot accept that there is a right to discriminate ”.