person:fernando haddad

    • Open Letter from U.S. and Global Sociologists in Support of Brazilian Sociology Departments

      On April 25th, Brazilian President Jair Bolsonaro, along with his Minister of Education, Abraham Weintraub, declared the government’s intent to “decentralize investments in philosophy and sociology” within public universities, and to shift financial support to “areas that give immediate returns to taxpayers, such as veterinary science, engineering, and medicine.”

      As professors, lecturers, graduate students, post-doctoral fellows, and other scholars in sociology and related disciplines at colleges and universities in the United States and worldwide, we write to declare our unwavering support for continued funding for sociology programs at Brazilian universities. We oppose President Bolsonaro’s attempt to disinvest in sociology, or any other program in the humanities or social sciences.

      As historical and contemporary sociologists, we understand that the decades-long marketization of higher education has convinced many politicians - in Brazil, in the United States, and globally - that a university education is valuable only insofar as it is immediately profitable. We reject this premise.

      The purpose of higher education is not to produce “immediate returns” on investments. The purpose of higher education must always be to produce an educated, enriched society that benefits from the collective endeavor to create human knowledge. Higher education is a purpose in and of itself.

      An education in the full range of the arts and sciences is the cornerstone of a liberal arts education. This is as true in Brazil as it is in the United States as it is in any country in the world.

      Brazilian sociology departments produce socially engaged and critical thinkers, both in Brazil and worldwide. Brazilian sociologists contribute to the global production of sociological knowledge. They are our colleagues within the discipline and within our shared departments and institutions. When sociologists from abroad conduct research or other academic work in Brazil, we are welcomed by Brazilian sociologists and by their departments. Many of our own students receive world-class training in sociology at Brazilian universities.

      President Bolsonaro’s intent to defund sociology programs is an affront to the discipline, to the academy, and, most broadly, to the human pursuit of knowledge. This proposal is ill-conceived, and violates principles of academic freedom that ought to be integral to systems of higher education in Brazil, in the United States, and across the globe. We urge the Brazilian government to reconsider its proposition.

    • Brazilian Government To Defund Philosophy in Public Universities

      Jair M. Bolsonaro, the current president of Brazil, has announced on Twitter his plans to stop government funding of philosophy and sociology in the nation’s public universities.

      A rough translation is: “The Minister of Education, Abraham Weintraub, is studying how to decentralize investment in philosophy and sociology at universities. Students who have already enrolled will not be affected. The objective is to focus on areas that generate immediate return to the taxpayer, such as: veterinary, engineering, and medicine.”

      By way of explanation, he added:

      Again, roughly translated, this says: “The role of the Government is to respect the taxpayer’s money, teaching young people to read, write, and learn job skills that generates income for the person and well-being for the family, which improves the society around them.”

      Those with more knowledge of the situation are encouraged to share what they know in the comments here, or by email to

    • Le post de Rodrigo (reçu par email de @isskein):

      Some friends have written to ask about the Brazilian government’s announcement of an attack on the humanities ( –– and, very kindly, how/whether that affected me personally. As I thought other people might be interested, here’s a couple of things.
      Secondary things first: the decision, whatever it is, does not affect me directly, as PUC-Rio is thankfully under the jurisdiction of a rather more stable authority, the Vatican. (Well, the Jesuits, technically –– and let me tell you, one really comes to appreciate the charms of actual warrior priests when faced with the Holy Crusade LARPers we currently have in power.) Indirectly, however, this decision, whatever it is, can have effects across the board.

      “Whatever it is” is the main thing at this point. There is no decision as such yet, and the announcement is quite vague, possibly because, not having much of a clue how the state machine works, they still don’t know how to implement it. “Decentralising funds” doesn’t really mean anything, and public universities have autonomy to employ their resources, so “defunding the humanities” is not something Brasília can decide like that. What this can mean in the long run, however, is two things. One is something that has already been happening for a while and was already expected to get worse: a substantial cut in research funding across the board, but especially for the humanities. This does have an impact on non-public universities as well, or at least the few like PUC that do research, since the vast majority of research in Brazil is publicly funded, particularly in the humanities. The other thing, which was also expected to some extent, is that the new chancellors the government will pick for federal universities will be politically and ideologically aligned with it, and will implement this policy.

      It is worth pointing out that, because of the notoriously perverse way HE recruitment works in Brazil, the humanities tend to be the courses of choice for the students who went to the worst schools (read poor, black, brown, indigenous), as they’re easier to get into. So defunding the humanities is indirectly also a policy of restricting access to HE, reverting the positive trend of expansion established in the last two decades. With the economic crisis, of course, that reversal had already begun.

      Now, as for the context. This government’s ideological core is not just anti-intellectual, but made up of wannabe alt-right ideologues, conspiracy nuts and a bunch of ressentis who managed to square their belief in free competition with their utter failure in life by constructing the fantasy of a communist-globalist plot against the(ir) world. Less charmingly, they are historical revisionists (regarding the dictatorship, the Nazis, slavery...) and climate denialists. It is therefore in their interest to eliminate anything that refers to a reality other than the one they have fabricated or deals with the development of critical tools for analysing evidence. This extends to the war they are already waging against the state departments that deal with the census, statistics and applied research. The more they can make the world inaccessible by either fact or interpretation, the freer they are from the resistance imposed by reality –– including from the very possibility of statistically assessing the impact that their actions will have.

      Why now, though? Bolsonaro is too divisive and politically inept, his programme potentially too harmful, to build a stable majority. It’s still unclear whether he can deliver a pension reform, which is essential to ensure the continuing support of big capital, and his popularity rates have taken a considerable fall since January, especially among the poor. (See: He knows, on the other hand, that his greatest asset is a very engaged core base of true believers. US friends will be familiar with this behaviour from Trump: whenever the boat rocks, he will throw his base a bait, and this is mostly what this announcement is.

      Unlike Trump, Bolsonaro doesn’t even have economic recovery going for him, so if things remain as they are, we should expect him to become more divisive, and his support to become more unstable (in every sense). But there’s another political rationale to this attack specifically. As more poor people were making it into university, especially in the humanities, the left was also losing most of its direct presence in the peripheries and favelas. This means that this layer of the university-educated poor, who have increasingly taken on a protagonist role, have become central to any future left strategy in the country. This was the background from which hailed Marielle Franco, an object of especially vicious hate for Bolsonarismo, and in relation to whose death they still have serious questions to answer (

      If you’re worried and you’d like to help, stay tuned to this story, stay in touch with colleagues in Brazil or in your countries/institutions who are doing stuff on Brazil, keep an eye on the news and be ready to call out reporting in your countries that normalises the absurdity of so much that’s going on. It might be a tad premature right now, but motions from union branch and professional association motions might be in a good order at some point; every little bit helps. It is likely that there’ll be opportunities in the future for putting pressure on foreign governments to get them to put pressure on Brazil to curb the worst impulses of this government. Several measures announced in these early months were retracted once there was some pushback, so that does not seem a far-fetched possibility. In the meantime, you might consider circulating this manifesto by 600 scientists from all over the world demanding that the EU hold Brazilian trade to minimal indigenous rights and environmental standards: This is the kind of thing we’ll probably be seeing more of in the near future.

    • MEC bloqueia 30% do orçamento de três universidades federais; outras unidades também são atingidas

      Mãos de tesoura Entidades que monitoram o investimento no ensino superior detectaram novo bloqueio de verbas de instituições federais no fim de abril, após Abraham Weintraub assumir o Ministério da Educação. Cerca de R$ 230 milhões foram contingenciados.

      Mãos de tesoura 2 Várias unidades do país sofreram com o congelamento de valores previstos no orçamento de investimentos e outras despesas correntes, mas o volume da tesourada em três universidades chamou a atenção: a Federal da Bahia, a de Brasília e a Federal Fluminense.

      Mãos de tesoura 3 De acordo com números preliminares, o valor bloqueado nas três entidades corresponde a mais da metade do contingenciamento imposto a todas as universidades. Procurado, o MEC informou que UFBA, UnB e UFF tiveram 30% das dotações orçamentárias bloqueadas.

      Mãos de tesoura 4 Em nota, a pasta disse que “estuda os bloqueios de forma que nenhum programa seja prejudicado e que os recursos sejam utilizados da forma mais eficaz. O Programa de Assistência Estudantil não sofreu impacto em seu orçamento.”

      Verão passado Em 2018, a UFF foi palco de um rumoroso “ato contra o fascismo”, na reta final da eleição presidencial. Já a UnB foi palco recentemente de debates com Fernando Haddad (PT) e Guilherme Boulos (PSOL).

    • British Philosophical Association Defends Philosophy in Brazil

      The Executive Committee of the British Philosophical Association (BPA) has issued a statement responding to Brazil’s president, Jair Bolsonaro, who last week proposed that federal funding for the study and teaching of philosophy and sociology be ended.

      The statement reads:
      The British Philosophical Association is highly alarmed by President Bolsonaro’s plans to remove funding from Philosophy and Sociology in Brazilian Universities. Such a move is not in Brazil’s interests – having well-funded, vibrant, internationally-connected philosophy and sociology departments is crucial to healthy universities and, by extension, to healthy societies. Philosophers, alongside colleagues in the humanities, arts and social sciences, have a crucial role in helping us to understand, question, invent and reinvent the communities, towns, cities, societies and economies in which we exist. They help us understand what is valuable and why. They help us understand the results and implications of the fruits of science and technology.

      The proposal to defund philosophy departments in Brazil is bad for philosophy as a worldwide discipline; philosophy directly benefits from the diversity of experiences of the people that contribute to it. Brazil has been home to generations of distinguished philosophy scholars: Paulo Freire, Oswaldo Chateaubriand, Newton da Costa, Walter Carnielli, Itala D’ottaviano, Vladimir Safatle, Ana Paula Cavalcanti Simioni to name but a few. Brazil’s philosophy departments attract visiting philosophers from all over the world to study alongside leading figures. Brazil’s universities have produced philosophers who have gone on to work at leading universities around the world; for example, Roberto Mangabeira Unger is Professor at Harvard Law School, and two of the three Editors-in-Chief of Synthese, one of the world’s top ranking philosophy journals, are Brazilian and trained at the University of Sao Paulo – Catarina Dutilh Novaes and Otavio Bueno.

      This move strikes a blow against academic freedom and freedom more broadly; while President Bolsonaro’s statements have been framed as an attempt to channel investment towards programmes of study which might provide shorter-term benefits to Brazil’s economy, the BPA note that authoritarian governments often attempt to silence philosophers and sociologists as a move to make it more difficult for people to express views critical of those in power. The British Philosophical Association calls on leaders around the world to urge President Bolsonaro to reconsider this move.

    • La direction du président Jair Bolsonaro (PSL) a bloqué les dernières heures de bourses d’études et de doctorat offertes par Capes (Coordination pour l’amélioration du personnel de l’enseignement supérieur).
      Selon les informations communiquées par les coordonnateurs de programme, les fonds inutilisés temporairement auraient été retirés du système d’agence de développement rattaché au ministère de l’Éducation.

      Les bourses ont été accordées à des étudiants ayant déjà défendu leur travail récemment et seraient destinées à des étudiants approuvés dans le cadre de processus de sélection terminés ou en cours.

      La coupure a pris les universités par surprise a touché non seulement les domaines de l’homme, mais la direction du ministre Abraham Weintraub a déclaré que ce n’était pas la priorité des investissements publics, mais également de la science.

      À l’Institute of Biosciences of USP, 38 bourses d’études ont été coupées - 17 masters, 19 doctorats et deux postdoctoraux.
      voir plus :

  • Bolsonaro’s victory and the debacle of Brazil’s Workers Party - World Socialist Web Site

    Bolsonaro’s victory and the debacle of Brazil’s Workers Party
    31 October 2018

    The election last Sunday of Jair Bolsonaro, the fascistic and buffoonish former army captain and seven-term federal legislator from Rio de Janeiro, poses a serious threat to the working class in Brazil and throughout Latin America.

    Having won 55 percent of the vote—compared to 44 percent for his opponent, Workers Party (Partido dos Trabalhadores–PT) candidate Fernando Haddad—Bolsonaro has already begun to assemble what will unquestionably be the most right-wing Brazilian government since the end of the two-decade-long military dictatorship that came to power in a US-backed coup in 1964.


  • « Infox » au Brésil : comment les fausses informations ont inondé WhatsApp

    Le scrutin présidentiel brésilien est un exemple inédit de propagation de « fake news » et de propagande politique sur l’application de messagerie appartenant à Facebook. S’il fallait une ultime preuve que la désinformation et la propagande politique peuvent être diffusées à travers l’application WhatsApp, les élections présidentielles brésiliennes en ont offert un exemple inquiétant. Le second tour du scrutin est prévu dimanche 28 octobre et oppose Fernando Haddad (Parti des travailleurs – PT, gauche) et (...)

    #Facebook #WhatsApp #manipulation #élections

  • Brazilian media report that police are entering university classrooms to interrogate professors

    In advance of this Sunday’s second-round presidential election between far-right politician Jair #Bolsonaro and center-left candidate Fernando Haddad, Brazilian media are reporting that Brazilian police have been staging raids, at times without warrants, in universities across the country this week. In these raids, police have been questioning professors and confiscating materials belonging to students and professors.

    The raids are part a supposed attempt to stop illegal electoral advertising. Brazilian election law prohibits electoral publicity in public spaces. However, many of the confiscated materials do not mention candidates. Among such confiscated materials are a flag for the Universidade Federal Fluminense reading “UFF School of Law - Anti-Fascist” and flyers titled “Manifest in Defense of Democracy and Public Universities.”

    For those worrying about Brazilian democracy, these raids are some of the most troubling signs yet of the problems the country faces. They indicate the extremes of Brazilian political polarization: Anti-fascist and pro-democracy speech is now interpreted as illegal advertising in favor of one candidate (Fernando Haddad) and against another (Jair Bolsonaro). In the long run, the politicization of these two terms will hurt support for the idea of democracy, and bolster support for the idea of fascism.

    In the short run, the raids have even more troublesome implications. Warrantless police raids in university classrooms to monitor professor speech have worrisome echoes of Brazil’s 1964-1985 military regime — particularly when the speech the raids are seeking to stop is not actually illegal.

    Perhaps the most concerning point of all is that these raids are happening before Bolsonaro takes office. They have often been initiated by complaints from Bolsonaro supporters. All of this suggests that if Bolsonaro wins the election — as is widely expected — and seeks to suppress the speech of his opponents, whom he has called “red [i.e., Communist] criminals,” he may have plenty of willing helpers.
    #université #extrême_droite #Brésil #police #it_has_begun
    Je crois que je vais commencer à utiliser un nouveau tag, qui est aussi le nom d’un réseau : #scholars_at_risk

    • Brésil : à peine élu, Jair Bolsonaro commence la chasse aux opposants de gauche

      Les universités dans le viseur

      Enfin, toujours pour lutter contre l’opposition à gauche, Jair Bolsonaro entend faire pression sur les professeurs d’université qui parleraient de politique pendant leurs cours.

      Le président élu a récemment scandalisé une partie du monde éducatif en accusant des professeurs, cités avec leurs noms et prénoms, de défendre les régimes de Cuba et de Corée du Nord devant leurs élèves, dans une vidéo diffusée sur Internet.

      Et pour y remédier, il compte installer des pancartes devant les salles de cours pour appeler les étudiants à dénoncer leurs professeurs par le biais d’une « hotline » téléphonique dédiée à la question.

    • Au Brésil, vague de répression dans les universités à la veille du second tour

      Quelques jours avant le second tour de l’élection présidentielle brésilienne, qui voit s’affronter le candidat d’extrême droite Jair Bolsonaro et le candidat du Parti des travailleurs (PT) Fernando Haddad, les campus universitaires du pays ont fait face à une vague inédite de répression de la liberté d’expression. Jeudi 25 octobre, la police a investi 27 universités, à la demande des tribunaux électoraux, dont les juges sont chargés de faire respecter les règles de communication et de propagande électorales des partis en lice. Les forces de police étaient à la recherche de supposé matériel de propagande électorale illégale. En fait, ces opérations ont visé des banderoles antifascistes, de soutien à la démocratie, un manifeste en soutien à l’université publique, des débats et des cours sur la dictature, la démocratie et les « fakes news » – ces mensonges ayant été largement diffusés pendant la campagne, en particulier par l’extrême-droite… [1]

      À Rio, une juge a ainsi fait enlever une banderole du fronton du bâtiment de la faculté de droit de l’université fédérale Fluminense (UFF), sur laquelle était inscrit, autour du symbole antifasciste du double drapeau rouge et noir, « Droit UFF antifasciste ». À l’université de l’État de Rio, les agents électoraux ont retiré une banderole en hommage à Marielle Franco, l’élue municipale du parti de gauche PSOL assassinée en pleine rue en mars dernier.

      220 000 messages de haine en quatre jours contre une journaliste

      Dans une université du Pará, quatre policiers militaires sont entrés sur le campus pour interroger un professeur sur « son idéologie ». L’enseignant avait abordé la question des fake news dans un cours sur les médias numériques. Une étudiante s’en est sentie offensée, alléguant une « doctrine marxiste », et l’a dit à son père, policier militaire. Une enquête du journal la Folha de São Paulo a pourtant révélé mi-octobre que des entreprises qui soutiennent le candidat d’extrême droite avaient acheté les services d’entreprises de communication pour faire envoyer en masse des fausses nouvelles anti-Parti des travailleurs directement sur les numéros whatsapp – une plateforme de messagerie en ligne – des Brésiliens. L’auteure de l’enquête, la journaliste Patricia Campos Melo, et le quotidien de São Paulo, ont ensuite reçu 220 000 messages de haine en quatre jours ! [2] Le journal a demandé à la police fédérale de lancer une enquête.

      Mais ce sont des conférences et des débats sur la dictature militaire et le fascisme qui ont pour l’instant été interdits. C’est le cas d’un débat public intitulé « Contre la fascisme, pour la démocratie », qui devait avoir lieu à l’université fédérale de Rio Grande do Sul (la région de Porto Alegre). Devaient y participer l’ex-candidat du parti de gauche PSOL au premier tour de la présidentielle, Guilherme Boulos, un ancien ministre issu du Parti des travailleurs, des députés fédéraux du PT et du PSOL. « J’ai donné des cours et des conférences dans des universités en France, en Angleterre, au Portugal, en Espagne, en Allemagne, en Argentine, et ici, même pendant la dictature. Aujourd’hui, je suis censuré dans l’État, le Rio Grande do Sul, que j’ai moi-même gouverné. Le fascisme grandit », a réagi l’un des députés, Tarso Genro, sur twitter.

      Une banderole « moins d’armes, plus de livres » jugée illégale

      Dans le Paraíba, les agents du tribunal électoral se sont introduits dans l’université pour retirer une banderole où était simplement inscrit « moins d’armes, plus de livres ». « Cette opération de la justice électorale dans les universités du pays pour saisir du matériel en défense de la démocratie et contre le fascisme est absurde. Cela rappelle les temps sombres de la censure et de l’invasion des facultés », a écrit Guilherme Boulos, le leader du PSOL, sur twitter, ajoutant : « Le parti de la justice a formé une coalition avec le PSL », le parti de Bolsonaro. « De telles interventions à l’intérieur de campus au cours d’une campagne électorale sont inédites. Une partie de l’appareil d’État se prépare au changement de régime », a aussi alerté l’historienne française, spécialiste du Brésil, Maud Chirio, sur sa page Facebook.

      Dimanche dernier, dans une allocution filmée diffusée pour ses supporters rassemblés à São Paulo, Jair Bolsonaro a proféré des menaces claires à l’égard de ses opposants. « Ou vous partez en exil ou vous partez en prison », a-il dit, ajoutant « nous allons balayer ces bandits rouges du Brésil », et annonçant un « nettoyage jamais vu dans l’histoire de ce pays ». Il a précisé qu’il allait classer le Mouvements des paysans sans Terre (MST) et le Mouvement des travailleurs sans toit (MTST) comme des organisations terroristes, et menacé Fernando Haddad de l’envoyer « pourrir en prison aux côtés de Lula ».

    • We deplore this attack on freedom of expression in Brazil’s universities

      107 international academics react to social media reports that more than 20 universities in Brazil have been invaded by military police in recent days, with teaching materials confiscated on ideological grounds

      Reports have emerged on social media that more than 20 universities in Brazil have been subjected in recent days to: invasions by military police; the confiscation of teaching materials on ideological grounds; and the suppression of freedom of speech and expression, especially in relation to anti-fascist history and activism.

      As academics, researchers, graduates, students and workers at universities in the UK, Europe and further afield, we deplore this attack on freedom of expression in Brazil’s universities, which comes as a direct result of the campaign and election of far-right President Bolsonaro.

      Academic autonomy is a linchpin not only of independent and objective research, but of a functioning democracy, which should be subject to scrutiny and informed, evidence-based investigation and critique.

      We call on co-workers, colleagues and students to decry this attack on Brazil’s universities in the name of Bolsonaro’s wider militaristic, anti-progressive agenda. We will not stand by as this reactionary populist attacks the pillars of Brazil’s democracy and education system. We will campaign vigorously in whatever capacity we can with activists, educators and lawmakers in Brazil to ensure that its institutions can operate without the interference of this new – and hopefully short-lived – government.
      Dr William McEvoy, University of Sussex, UK (correspondent)
      Dr Will Abberley, University of Sussex
      Nannette Aldred, University of Sussex
      Patricia Alessandrini, Stanford University, USA
      Dr Michael Alexander, University of Glasgow
      Steven Allen, Birkbeck, University of London
      Dr Katherine Angel, Birkbeck, University of London
      Pedro Argenti, University of Antwerp, Belgium
      Nick Awde, International Editor, The Stage newspaper, London
      Professor Ian Balfour, York University, Toronto, Canada
      Lennart Balkenhol, University of Melbourne, Australia
      Nehaal Bajwa, University of Sussex
      Dr Louis Bayman, University of Southampton
      Mark Bergfeld, former NUS NEC (2010-2012)
      Professor Tim Bergfelder, University of Southampton
      Dr Patricia Pires Boulhosa, University of Cambridge
      Dr Maud Bracke, University of Glasgow
      Max Brookman-Byrne, University of Lincoln
      Dr Conrad Brunström, Maynooth University, Ireland
      Dr Christopher Burlinson, Jesus College, Cambridge
      Professor Martin Butler, University of Sussex
      Professor Gavin Butt, University of Sussex
      Cüneyt Çakirlar, Nottingham Trent University
      Guilherme Carréra, University of Westminster
      Geoffrey Chew, Royal Holloway, University of London
      Dr Maite Conde, University of Cambridge
      Dr Luke Cooper, Anglia Ruskin University, UK, and Institute of Human Sciences, Vienna, Austria
      Dr Sue Currell, University of Sussex
      Professor Dimitris Dalakoglou, Vrije University, Amsterdam, Netherlands
      William Dalziel, University of Sussex
      Dr April de Angelis, Royal Holloway, University of London
      Dr Olga Demetriou, Durham University
      Dr Stephanie Dennison, University of Leeds
      Dr Steffi Doebler, University of Liverpool
      Dr Sai Englert, SOAS University of London
      James Erskine, University of Sussex and Birkbeck, University of London
      Professor Martin Paul Eve, Birkbeck, University of London
      John Fallas, University of Leeds
      Dr Lynne Fanthome, Staffordshire University
      Dr Hannah Field, University of Sussex
      Dr Adrian Garvey, Birkbeck, University of London
      Dr Laura Gill, University of Sussex
      Dr Priyamvada Gopal, University of Cambridge
      Bhavini Goyate, University of Sussex
      Dr Craig Haslop, University of Liverpool
      Professor Björn Heile, University of Glasgow
      Dr Phil Hutchinson, Manchester Metropolitan University
      Professor Martin Iddon, University of Leeds
      Dr Eleftheria Ioannidou, University of Groningen, Netherlands
      Dr Chris Kempshall, University of Sussex
      Andrew Key, University of California, Berkeley, USA
      Professor Laleh Khalili, SOAS University of London
      Dr Theodore Koulouris, University of Brighton
      Professor Maria Lauret, University of Sussex
      Professor Vicky Lebeau, University of Sussex
      Professor James Livesey, University of Dundee, Scotland
      Professor Luke Martell, University of Sussex
      Dr N Gabriel Martin, Lebanese American University, Lebanon
      Wolfgang Marx, University College, Dublin, Ireland
      Andy Medhurst, University of Sussex
      Professor Philippe Meers, University of Antwerp, Belgium
      Dr Shamira A Meghani, University of Cambridge
      Niccolo Milanese, CESPRA EHESS, Paris, France and PUC Rio de Janeiro, Brazil
      Dr Ian Moody, CESEM – Universidade Nova, Lisbon
      Professor Lucia Naqib, University of Reading
      Dr Catherine Packham, University of Sussex
      Professor Dimitris Papanikolaou, University of Oxford
      Mary Parnwell, University of Sussex
      Professor Deborah Philips, University of Brighton
      Dr Chloe Porter, University of Sussex
      Dr Jason Price, University of Sussex
      Dr Duška Radosavljević, Royal Central School of Speech and Drama, University of London
      Francesca Reader, University of Sussex and University of Brighton
      Naida Redgrave, University of East London
      Professor Nicholas Ridout, Queen Mary, University of London
      Professor Lucy Robinson, University of Sussex
      Dr Kirsty Rolfe, University of Sussex
      Dr Joseph Ronan, University of Brighton
      Dr Michael Rowland, University of Sussex
      Dr Zachary Rowlinson, University of Sussex
      Professor Nicholas Royle, University of Sussex
      Dr Eleanor Rycroft, University of Bristol
      Dr Jason Scott-Warren, University of Cambridge
      Dr Deborah Shaw, University of Portsmouth
      Dr Lisa Shaw, University of Liverpool
      Kat Sinclair, University of Sussex
      Sandrine Singleton-Perrin, University of Essex
      Despina Sinou, University of Paris 13 – Sorbonne Paris Cité, France
      Dave Smith, University of Hertfordshire
      John Snijders, Durham University
      Dr Samuel Solomon, University of Sussex
      Dr Arabella Stanger, University of Sussex
      Professor Rob Stone, University of Birmingham
      Bernard Sufrin, Emeritus Fellow, Dept of Computer Science, University of Oxford
      Dr Natasha Tanna, University of Cambridge
      Professor Lyn Thomas, University of Sussex
      Simon Thorpe, University of Warwick
      Dr Gavan Titley, Maynooth University, Ireland
      Dr Pamela Thurschwell, University of Sussex
      Dr Dominic Walker, University of Sussex
      Dr Ed Waller, University of Surrey and University of Portsmouth
      Dr Kiron Ward, University of Sussex
      Helen Wheatley, University of Warwick
      Ian Willcock, University of Herfordshire
      Professor Gregory Woods, Nottingham Trent University
      Dr Tom F Wright, University of Sussex
      Dr Heba Youssef, University of Brighton

    • Brazil Court Strikes Down Restrictions on University Speech

      Brazil´s Supreme Court issued an important decision striking down restrictions on political speech on university campuses in a unanimous ruling yesterday. Meanwhile, president-elect Jair Bolsonaro´s allies in Congress are pressing ahead with efforts to restrict what students and educators can discuss in the classroom.

      The court ruling overturned decisions by electoral court judges who recently ordered universities across the country to clamp down on what they considered illegal political campaigning. The orders were spurred by complaints from anonymous callers and, in a few cases, by members of conservative groups.

      For example, at Grande Dourados Federal University, court officials suspended a public event against fascism, according to the student group that organized it. At Campina Grande Federal University, police allegedly seized copies of a pamphlet titled “Manifesto in defense of democracy and public universities” and hard drives, said a professors´ association.

      At Rio de Janeiro State University, police ordered the removal of a banner honoring Marielle Franco, a black lesbian human rights defender and councilwoman murdered in March, despite not having a judicial order.

      The attorney general, Raquel Dodge, asked the Supreme Court to rule the electoral court judges´ decisions unconstitutional, and Supreme Court justice Cármen Lúcia Rocha issued an injunction stopping them. The full court upheld that decision on October 31.

      “The only force that must enter universities is the force of ideas,” said Rocha.

      “The excessive and illegitimate use of force by state agents … echoes somber days in Brazilian history,” said Justice Rosa Weber, referring to Brazil´s 1964 – 1985 military dictatorship.

      The ruling comes as Bolsonaro, who remains in Congress until he assumes the presidency on January 1, and his allies push a bill that would prohibit teachers from promoting their own opinions in the classroom or using the terms “gender” or “sexual orientation,” and would order that sex and religious education be framed around “family values.”

      A state representative-elect from Bolsonaro´s party has even called on students to film and report teachers who make “political-partisan or ideological statements.” Bolsonaro made a similar call in 2016. State prosecutors have filed a civil action against the representative-elect, alleging she instituted “an illegal service for the political and ideological control of teaching activities.”

      In his long career in Congress, Bolsonaro has endorsed abusive practices that undermine the rule of law, defended the dictatorship, and has been a vocal proponent of bigotry.

      More than ever, Brazil needs its judiciary to defend human rights within and outside the classroom.
      #cour_suprême #justice

    • Présidentielle au Brésil : relents de dictature militaire

      Présidentielle au Brésil : Bolsonaro et le « risque d’un retour à l’ordre autoritaire en Amérique latine »

      Porté par plus de deux cents universitaires, responsables politiques et citoyens d’Europe et du Canada, ce manifeste s’inscrit dans un mouvement mondial de soutien à la démocratie face à la violence déchaînée par la candidature de Jair Bolsonaro au Brésil. Il est ouvert aux démocrates de toutes les sensibilités politiques. Face au risque imminent d’un retour à l’ordre autoritaire en Amérique latine, la solidarité internationale est impérative.

      Nous, citoyens, intellectuels, militants, personnalités politiques vivant, travaillant et étudiant en Europe et au Canada, exprimons notre vive inquiétude face à la menace imminente de l’élection de Jair Bolsonaro à la présidence du Brésil le 28 octobre 2018.

      Le souvenir de la dictature militaire

      La victoire de l’extrême droite radicale au Brésil risque de renforcer le mouvement international qui a porté au pouvoir des politiciens réactionnaires et antidémocratiques dans de nombreux pays ces dernières années.

      Bolsonaro défend ouvertement le souvenir de la dictature militaire qui a imposé sa loi au Brésil entre 1964 et 1985, ses pratiques de torture et ses tortionnaires. Il méprise le combat pour les droits humains. Il exprime une hostilité agressive envers les femmes, les Afro-descendants, les membres de la communauté LGBT +, les peuples autochtones et les pauvres. Son programme vise à détruire les avancées politiques, économiques, sociales, environnementales et culturelles des quatre dernières décennies, ainsi que l’action menée par les mouvements sociaux et le camp progressiste pour consolider et étendre la démocratie au Brésil.

      L’élection de Bolsonaro menace les fragiles institutions démocratiques pour la construction desquelles les Brésilien·ne·s ont pris tant de risques. Son arrivée au pouvoir serait aussi un frein majeur à toute politique internationale ambitieuse en matière de défense de l’environnement et de préservation de la paix.

      Premiers signataires : Martine Aubry , maire de Lille, ancienne ministre (PS) ; Luc Boltanski , sociologue, directeur d’études, EHESS ; Peter Burke , historien, professeur émérite à l’université de Cambridge ; Roger Chartier , historien, directeur d’études EHESS/Collège de France ; Mireille Clapot , députée de la Drôme, vice-présidente de la commission des affaires étrangères (LRM) ; Laurence Cohen , sénatrice du Val-de-Marne (PCF) ; Didier Fassin , professeur de sciences sociales, Institute for advanced study, Princeton ; Carlo Ginzburg , professeur émérite à UCLA et à l’Ecole normale supérieure de Pise ; Eva Joly , députée européenne (groupe Verts-ALE) ; Pierre Louault , sénateur d’Indre-et-Loire (UDI) ; Paul Magnette, bourgmestre de Charleroi, ex-ministre président de la Wallonie, ex-président du Parti socialiste belge ; Thomas Piketty , directeur d’études à l’EHESS.

    • Une pétition qui a été lancé avant l’élection...
      Defend Democracy in Brazil. Say No to Jair Bolsonaro

      Defend Democracy in Brazil,

      Say No to Jair Bolsonaro

      We, citizens, intellectuals, activists, politicians, people living, working, and studying in Europe and Canada, wish to express our growing alarm at the imminent threat of Jair Bolsonaro’s election to the presidency on October 28, 2018. The potential victory of a far-right radical in Brazil would reinforce a dangerous international trend of extremely reactionary and anti-democratic politicians gaining state power in recent years.

      Bolsonaro explicitly defends the Brazilian military dictatorship that ruled the country from 1964-85 and praises torture and torturers. He condemns human rights efforts. He has expressed aggressive and vile hostility toward women, people of African descent, the LGBT+ community, indigenous people, and the poor. His proposed policies would effectively undo all of the political, social, economic, labor, environmental, and cultural gains of the last four decades, efforts by social movements and progressive politicians to consolidate and expand democracy in Brazil. A Bolsonaro presidency also threatens to undermine the still fragile democratic politics that people throughout Brazil have risked so much to build.

      His election would seriously hamper any ambitious international effort for environmental protection, against climate change and for the preservation of peace.

      Adapted version of the text « Defend Democracy in Brazil, Say No to Jair Bolsonaro! »

  • Après une campagne électorale marquée par des fakenews, le fasciste Jair Bolsonaro est élu président du #brésil

    Avec 92,08% des urnes comptées, le fasciste Jair Bolsonaro, du Parti social-libéral (PSL), obtient 55,70% contre 44,30% pour le candidat du PT, Fernando Haddad, et est élu président du Brésil après une campagne basée sur un discours de haine, l’absence de débats présidentiels et soutenu par une énorme propagation de fakenews via les réseaux sociaux, notamment via WhatsApp.


  • The three types of WhatsApp users getting Brazil’s Jair Bolsonaro elected | World news | The Guardian

    If the Brexit vote and Donald Trump’s charge to the White House were jet-propelled by Facebook, the rise of Brazil’s likely next president, the far-right firebrand Jair Bolsonaro, owes much to WhatsApp.

    The Facebook-owned messaging app is wildly popular in Brazil, with about 120 million active users, and has proved to be the ideal tool for mobilizing political support – but also for spreading fake news.

    To understand the motivations, hopes and fears of Bolsonaro’s tens of millions of supporters I joined four pro-Bolsonaro WhatsApp groups.

    After four months of receiving an average of 1,000 messages per group, per day, this is what I found:

    There are three key clusters of members, who I classified as Ordinary Brazilians, Bolsominions, and Influencers.

    They use sophisticated image and video editing software to create convincing and emotionally engaging digital content. They are smart and know how to manipulate content into memes and short texts that go viral.

    They work fast to undermine any person or news outlet that criticizes Bolsonaro. For example, after the French far-right leader Marine Le Pen’s described some of Bolsonaro’s comments as “extremely unpleasant”, the Influencers quickly published a meme accusing her of being a communist.

    Some of the fake news stories are simply astonishing. A group of “movers and shakers” created a bogus flyer claim that Bolsonaro’s leftist rival Fernando Haddad, planned to sign an executive order allowing men to have sex with 12-year-olds.

    During the first round of votes they repeatedly circulated fake videos that showed malfunctioning electronic voting machines in order to reinforce the idea that the elections were rigged.

    These three groups have different roles, but they have a lot in common: they share a total disbelief in Brazil’s representative democracy and have concluded that the system only serves those at the top.

    Despite their support for the idea of military intervention, they don’t want a new dictatorship, arguing instead that Brazil needs someone to end the corruption that has benefited politicians of both the left and the right – and devastated the country’s economy.

    #Whatsapp #Brésil #Infox

  • #Brésil, la responsabilité du #centre...

    Centrists paved the way for the far right in Brazil

    To understand Jair Bolsonaro’s rise, we need to look at centrists’ reckless efforts to exploit institutional meltdown.

    Barring an unprecedented upset, the far-right candidate Jair Bolsonaro will be elected president of Brazil this Sunday with a comfortable margin over his runoff opponent, the Workers’ Party’s (PT) Fernando Haddad. This will crown a stunning run by the first-time candidate that saw his party, the formerly minuscule Social Liberal Party (PSL), jump from one to 52 federal representatives, propel a number of unknowns to success in the gubernatorial elections and place allies and relatives of Bolsonaro among the most voted across the country.

    So how did a candidate with a well-documented history of openly anti-democratic, racist, misogynistic, homophobic remarks, with very little by way of specified policies other than the promise of being a law-and-order hardman who will “banish the reds” and stop the country’s “moral degradation”, come to sweep the board like that?

    These were always going to be the most anti-systemic elections in Brazilian history. Since 2013, the country’s political system has been haemorrhaging legitimacy owing to widely perceived lack of accountability, a crippling economic crisis and an endlessly ramifying corruption scandal involving all major parties. A series of desperate attempts have been made to protect the establishment and steady the boat, not least throwing former president Dilma Rousseff overboard in a highly dubious impeachment. They have only managed to create more instability and fragilise institutions even further - not least the judiciary, whose erratic interventions have made it look partisan and weak at once.

    It is ironic that Bolsonaro, a member of parliament for 27 years, who has been named in corruption investigations and is supported by some of the shiftiest sectors of Brazilian politics, could successfully present himself as the anti-systemic candidate. In order to understand his rise, we need to look beyond PT’s undeniable mistakes to how the centre right, in its reckless efforts to create instability and exploit institutional meltdown, has endangered the country’s democracy and paved the way for the far right.

    In 1994, the Brazilian party system hit upon a formula. While the bulk of it remained an amorphous mass of less than public interests, low on ideological commitment but with very expensive habits, two parties had the cadre, ideas and prestige to marshal this gelatinous blob into opposing blocs: the Workers’ Party on the centre left and the Social Democrats (PSDB) on the centre right. Elections were fought between the armies regimented by the two; whoever won took most of the other’s side as spoil.

    The seeds of the far right’s rise started to be sown in the early 2000s, when PT rode the global commodity boom to promote an economic bonanza that raised the standards of living for the poorest while also benefiting the rich. Lula’s success made it impossible for opponents to claim that PT wasn’t working; the country was unequivocally better off than it had been under PSDB. The only available route of attack lay in exploiting moral concerns around elements of PT’s agenda, like women’s and LGBT rights, and reheated Cold War “red scares”. In this, the centre right had support from major media groups and political leaders from the growing Brazilian Pentecostal community, whose electoral profile is essentially tied to moral issues. The more immoderate elements of this tacit alliance were increasingly brought into an echo chamber in which paranoid claims and bogus accusations would be dignified with comments by opposition politicians and media pundits, and thus fed back into a few news cycles until everyone moved on to the next fabricated outrage. An editorial market for anachronistic anti-communist propaganda boomed. Inevitably, this opened the door of mainstream debate, and of centre right parties themselves, to the far right.

    PT, in turn, invariably chose negotiation over conflict, trusting that its popular support would always allow it to buy adversaries off and prevent PSDB from reconstituting its bloc. This meant avoiding direct confrontation with the media, a highly unregulated sector that PT had always vowed to democratise, and building an alliance with the Pentecostal right, which included watering down its own progressive agenda. This, of course, only furthered the far right’s mainstream penetration.

    Things changed in 2005, when a scheme of parliamentary bribes opened a new line of attack: the message now was that PT was “the most corrupt party of all times” - a tough bar to clear in Brazilian politics. Centre-right leaders believed that letting the scandal run its course would return them to office in 2006, but they were wrong. Lula recovered, won re-election and elected his successor, Rousseff, twice.

    After the Petrobras scandal broke in 2014, however, with the economy already in a tailspin and dissatisfaction with the political class as a whole on the rise, PT was against the ropes like never before. This is why, in 2016, PSDB decided not to run the risk of allowing another comeback. Rather than wait for the elections, they joined a rising hard right and PT’s coalition partner, MDB, in a parliamentary manoeuvre to oust president Rousseff. Among those in the political, business and media establishment who supported the move, the calculation was obvious: having led the opposition for 13 years, and having come close to winning in 2014, PSDB was a shoo-in for the 2018 race.

    Except they were wrong again. First, they mistook the rising anti-systemic sentiment for a rejection of PT only. Secondly, they failed to consider how much that sentiment would be compounded by the sorry spectacle of the impeachment itself, and the nature of the government it put in place - which passed a number of draconian austerity measures and had a cabinet like a corruption all-star team. So unpopular was it, in fact, that it ended up being a boost to PT, which recovered some of its support in the comparison. This was, in fact, the reason why Lula’s trial was fast-tracked - the establishment’s assumption again being that, with the former president out of the race, the PSDB candidate would have an easy ride. Fatefully, it was also what triggered PT’s decision to field a candidate rather than support one from a less rejected centre-left party.

    What the centre right did not realise was that they were no longer driving in the right lane on their own: they were now competing with a force much better positioned to not only ride the anti-systemic tide, but to reap a number of seeds that they had sown.

    The anti-corruption campaign that led to Rousseff’s downfall had turned against key MDB and PSDB figures; both parties have lost almost half their seats in parliament. The style of agitation fostered in the early 2000s, based on moral panics and “red scares”, had developed a life on its own on the internet and on WhatsApp groups. Whereas the procedure in the past was for media pundits and politicians to lend these stories a measure of respectability, these figures of authority themselves had now become targets. It is not uncommon to see people justify their vote for Bolsonaro with the fear of a communist dictatorship or that public schools are turning children gay, and to accuse the whole establishment of being in on the plot. Meanwhile, the Pentecostal right has rallied behind Bolsonaro, and Record, a media conglomerate owned by one of the country’s biggest evangelical churches, is angling to be to him what Fox is to Donald Trump. Ironic, no doubt, when one remembers how much Globo, the country’s biggest media corporation since the 1960s, actively supported Rousseff’s impeachment and minimised the anti-Bolsonaro protests that swept the country before the first round of the elections.

    In the end, no amount of judicial interventions and open support from financial markets could do the trick: PSDB’s Geraldo Alckmin took less than five percent of the vote. The party, whose founders came out of the struggle against the military dictatorship, has declared neutrality in the runoff, as have most others, despite the many worrying antidemocratic signs coming from Bolsonaro and his camp.

    A Bolsonaro government will be a recomposition of the country’s elite, bringing formerly bit-part players centre stage, but certainly not the clean break his voters imagine. It will continue the socially regressive policies of the outgoing Temer government, hitting the poor hard and stifling social mobility for a generation. The realities of building a parliamentary majority will no doubt contradict his anti-corruption discourse. It is unclear how long Bolsonaro will manage to be all things to all people, which raises fears that he might amplify the more belligerent and autocratic elements of his persona as compensation. There have been several cases of violence against journalists, LGBT people and left-wing supporters since the election’s first round, and Bolsonaro’s discourse continues to court political violence explicitly.

    As for the political and economic establishment, which until now had in PSDB their natural representatives, it has largely signalled that it is prepared to roll with the new times. Markets have been elated since Bolsonaro took the lead; industrialists have started flocking to him. When a case of electoral fraud with the potential to annul the elections emerged - businessmen had been paying for bulk “fake news” messages supporting Bolsonaro on WhatsApp - most of the media and the electoral court dealt with the case in cool, muted terms. This only strengthened the impression that the same forces that moved to impeach Rousseff have made already made their choice.

    The assumption is clearly that Bolsonaro will be willing to outsource key areas of policy to them and that his antidemocratic tendencies can be controlled; that trying to tame his disruption is better than risking another centre-left comeback. A dangerous gamble, no doubt, considering both who the candidate is and the fact that it was exactly that kind of logic that brought them, and the country, to this situation.
    #Bolsonaro #extrême_droite
    via @isskein

  • Brésil : apocalypse now !

    Jair Bolsonaro n’est pas un « Trump tropical », ni un « populiste » au sens où l’on entend communément et ces analogies contribuent à le banaliser dangereusement. Dans le registre brésilien de l’insulte politique, « populiste » reste d’ailleurs synonyme de « communiste » et se place au plus haut degré de l’échelle de Richter de la détestation pour l’ensemble des droites. Sont ainsi taxés de « populisme » et voués aux gémonies tous les partisans de l’État-Providence et un social-démocrate comme Fernando Haddad.

    #Brazil #global_fascism #far_right #MacCarthysm

  • Le soutien du « Wall Street Journal » à Bolsonaro au Brésil s’inscrit dans la tradition du quotidien

    Un éditorial assure que le candidat d’extrême droite ne représente pas une menace. Le journal économique avait défendu avant lui Pinochet.

    La tradition veut qu’un éditorial soit emblématique d’une prise de position graduelle du journal dans lequel il est publié. Celui du 10 octobre paru dans l’auguste quotidien économique et très conservateur Wall Street Journal ne semble pas déroger à la règle.

    Dans ce texte intitulé « Brazilian swamp drainer », que l’on pourrait traduire en français par « le Brésilien qui assèche le marécage », sous-entendu le marécage politicien, le comité éditorial du journal new-yorkais a ouvertement soutenu le candidat d’extrême droite à la présidentielle, Jair Bolsonaro.

    Rédigées dans un style direct, dru, ne répugnant ni aux raccourcis ni aux grosses ficelles, ces quelques lignes ont déclenché depuis une semaine moult remous sur les réseaux sociaux, avec certaines saillies du type : « Marine Le Pen le trouve toxique », en référence à la récente prise de distance de la présidente du Rassemblement national, « pas le WSJ ».

    Dans son éditorial, le quotidien assure que le capitaine parachutiste de réserve, « un populiste conservateur » selon le WSJ, ne représente pas une menace pour le Brésil, quatrième plus grande démocratie au monde. Il ne dit mot en revanche sur le fait que le candidat a défendu la dictature militaire (1964-1985), nommé un général à la retraite à ses côtés ayant évoqué l’éventualité d’un coup d’Etat militaire moderne et promis de donner carte blanche à l’armée et à la police pour tirer à vue sur des criminels. Rien non plus sur ses outrances répétées à l’égard des femmes, des homosexuels et des Noirs.

    Le programme de Haddad comparé aux mesures de Chavez

    « Après des années de corruption et de récession, peut-on lire, des millions de Brésiliens semblent penser qu’un outsider est exactement ce dont le pays a besoin. Peut-être qu’ils en savent plus que les réprobations internationales. » Une façon de rappeler, à sa manière, le score écrasant du candidat Bolsonaro au premier tour de la présidentielle, le 7 octobre, avec 47 % des voix contre 29 % à Fernando Haddad, son adversaire du Parti des travailleurs.

    Ce dernier, toujours selon le quotidien, aurait pour but de réécrire la Constitution afin d’y inclure la possibilité de recourir à une Assemblée constituante « sur le modèle vénézuélien ». Le candidat désigné par l’ancien président Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva, aujourd’hui incarcéré, souhaiterait aussi, d’après l’éditorial, réformer les règles de promotions militaires en donnant plus de pouvoir au président. Autant de propositions, s’alarme le WSJ, sorties tout droit de « l’agenda de Hugo Chavez », l’éternelle bête noire du quotidien.

    A contrario, le nouveau poulain brésilien du journal ne « propose pas de changer la Constitution » mais promet de restaurer la présence des policiers dans les centres urbains et ruraux, « où la loi ne règne plus ». Surtout, assure le quotidien financier, le conseiller économique et bras droit de Bolsonaro, Paulo Guedes – que le journal curieusement ne mentionne pas nommément – affirme vouloir, une fois au pouvoir, « vendre des parts du géant pétrolier public Petrobras, déréguler au maximum l’économie et réduire la dépense publique ». La messe est dite. Le choix assumé.

    Des odes à Pinochet, Fujimori et Videla

    Chose étrange, cet éditorial en faveur de l’actuel homme fort du Brésil a un air de déjà-vu. On se souvient d’un texte de 1980, resurgi dans les réseaux sociaux ces derniers jours et intitulé « Les Chiliens votent l’extension du pouvoir de Pinochet, assurant la continuation de la libre entreprise ». Le dictateur chilien venait de remporter un référendum sur la Constitution lui permettant de prolonger son mandat de huit ans. Mais une plongée rapide dans les archives du journal renvoie à un goût prononcé pour toute sorte de politiciens autoritaires d’une certaine droite dure et d’extrême droite, surtout d’Amérique latine.

    Dans une liste éclairante, réalisée par le Huffington Post, on retrouve non seulement les articles du WSJ regrettant la mort de l’ancien dictateur chilien en 2006 (« Il a pris le pouvoir lors d’un coup d’Etat en 1973, mais il a finalement créé un environnement propice aux institutions démocratiques » ou « Il est responsable des morts et des tortures qui ont eu lieu sous son égide, mais si Salvador Allende avait réussi à transformer le Chili en un autre Cuba, beaucoup plus auraient pu mourir ») mais aussi ceux, bienveillants, sur le Péruvien Alberto Fujimori et le dictateur argentin Jorge Rafael Videla.

    Pour Fujimori, on apprend du WSJ que « le style autoritaire » pourrait être excusé, car « on peut affirmer que sous sa direction, le pays s’est en fait frayé un chemin vers la modernité ». Pour l’Argentin, le journal avait qualifié la guérilla opposée au dictateur de « terroristes », un terme utilisé par la junte. La liste n’est pas exhaustive.

  • #Élections_au Brésil : les marchés, l’industrie et l’agrobusiness soutiennent l’extrême-droite

    Le premier tour de l’élection présidentielle brésilienne se tient ce dimanche 7 octobre. Dans les derniers sondages, le candidat d’extrême droite et nostalgique de la dictature militaire, Jair Bolsonaro, arrive toujours en tête, progressant même de 28 à 32 % dans les intentions de vote. Le candidat gauche du Parti de travailleurs, Fernando Haddad, arrive deuxième dans les sondages, avec 21 %. Juste après l’annonce de ces dernières enquêtes d’opinion, la bourse de São Paulo a enregistré une hausse de (...)

    En bref

    / #Droites_extrêmes, Élections , #Amériques, #Finance, #Conservateurs

    • Au Brésil les salauds ont préferé mettre Lula en prison et faire élire un type d’extrême droite en croyant que le chantage à la peur ferait élire leur propre pourri. Évidemment la direction politique de France 2 interroge sa « correspondante » qui dit que la « population est fatiguée par 14 ans de gauche » alors que c’est la droite corrompue qui gouverne depuis trois ans ! Ne manquait qu’un petit coup de Venezuela pour finir le champagne chez ces médias voyous


  • Brésil : vers un duel entre gauche et extrême-droite à la présidentielle ?

    Le candidat de gauche Fernando Haddad pourrait affronter celui de l’extrême-droite, Jair Bolsonaro, au second tour de l’élection présidentielle brésilienne, selon le scénario le plus probable. Un duel inédit au Brésil, alors que le candidat néolibéral, soutenu par une partie du secteur financier, tente de rattraper son retard avant le premier tour qui se déroule le 7 octobre. Décryptage. Le 7 octobre, les 150 millions d’électeurs brésiliens choisiront leur nouveau président de la République, les (...)


    / Élections , #Droites_extrêmes, #Politique, #Amériques, #Sociaux-démocrates, #Gauche_radicale


  • Les arbres, espèce en voie de disparition à São Paulo

    Après cinq ans de polémiques, la Mairie de São Paulo vient d’autoriser le plus grand abattage d’arbres jamais réalisé. Afin de permettre la construction d’un programme immobilier de luxe au sud de la ville, le conseil municipal du maire Fernando Haddad (PT – Parti des Travailleurs) a autorisé l’abattage de pas moins de 1 787 arbres, dont des centaines sont les restes d’un fragment de la Mata Atlantica (Forêt Atlantique).

    La ville de São Paulo a autorisé la coupe de 72 514 arbres ces 14 dernières années, soit 14 arbres par jour.

    Malgré l’obtention de la licence environnementale, le complexe immobilier n’a pas encore obtenu son permis de construire. Des modifications devront être apportées au projet initial, composé de 56 immeubles résidentiels, avec des appartements de 367 m² minimum, une tour de bureaux, deux clubs, un terrains de golf et un centre commercial.