A senator of a republic gives an interview concerning a candidate for the presidency of the same republic. The candidate claims that the senator’s accusations are groundless. What happens? Is a candidate suing a senator? No. Prior to this, the radio station that broadcast the interview was subject to censorship.

You might think that this behavior is part of democracy. But that’s your problem. Those who compromise on the relativization of democracy may end up with the relativization of their own rights. And this is usually not very pleasant for the unprepared, who believe that they can count on the protection of the law.

Presidential candidate of the Republic Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva and Vice President Simone Tebet Maira Gabrilli – Photo: Reproduction/ND

Today in Brazil, the law is a state of mind. At least for part of the judiciary, especially for electoral justice. Minister Maria Claudia Bucchianeri of the Supreme Electoral Court condemned the Jovem Pan group for the aforementioned interview with Senator Mara Gabrilli (PSDB-SP) in which she links Lula to the death of Celso Daniel, the former mayor of Santo André. The TSE’s decision predetermined the removal in various media and platforms of videos with incriminating content presented by the senator.

Mara Gabrilli claimed that Lulu was blackmailed by businessman Ronan Maria Pinto not to be appointed as a mentor in the Celso Daniel case. “Lula paid 12 million reais as blackmail to keep Ronan Maria Pinto silent. The São Paulo State Ministry eventually covered up the case,” the senator said in an interview with Jovem Pan. She said that several businessmen, including her father, were extorted by the PT at the time.

In its decision, the TSE claims that the issue is already known. “The above content has already been considered uninformative by the TSE, in addition to damaging the image of the candidate,” said Minister Maria Claudia. “It is common knowledge and common knowledge that the murder case of former mayor Celso Daniel has been closed before the judiciary and those responsible have been duly prosecuted and convicted and are serving their sentences.” “There was no participation of the PT and its members,” concludes the justice of the peace.

Excellent. Then they agree on the following: any court decision on any issue automatically makes this subject prohibited. Anyone who speaks about him without repeating the terms of the court decision should have his tongue cut off – with all the respect and sympathy that are characteristic of the current times of fighting a wave of hatred. Shut up, he’s dead, but he’s fine.

Brazilian justice condemned Lula – always him, offended – for corruption (the verdict was confirmed by a higher court). Why weren’t the stations that broadcast statements by PT members accusing the judge of partiality not censored at the time? Wasn’t Lula “properly prosecuted, tried and served time”? It must have been a distraction.