Adventures of a Gringa

Political Correctness and Free Speech in Brazil

A new documentary offers a glimpse into two issues in conflict with one another that have been simmering recently in Brazil: the growing calls for political correctness along with questions about what constitutes free speech. One area where these two issues have stood out is in the world of Brazilian comedy, which the documentary examines.

The world of Brazilian humor is largely male-dominated (though that's changing), meaning that a lot of popular, mainstream comedy--such as TV and websites--has a lot of machista, homophobic jokes. With growing feminist and LGBT rights advocacy in Brazil, comedians are sometimes coming under fire for targeting women and gays. To a lesser extent, there's also emerging criticism of racism in comedy.

Part of the reason the documentary is compelling stems from the fact that you really can appreciate both sides of the political correctness debate. On one hand, you can understand why in some cases, people shouldn't take humor so seriously--it's a joke, after all. You can also see how those in favor of political correctness can sound a bit annoying, which I found surprising, since two of the activists featured in the film (LGBT activist and Congressman Jean Wyllys and feminist writer Lola Aronovich) are seasoned, compelling advocates. On the other hand, you can also understand why it's important to change the ways people think and promote tolerance, since humor not only reveals societal prejudices, but can help promote them. This is pertinent when it comes to homophobia, for example, since Brazil reportedly has the largest number of gay hate crime murders in the world.

Director Pedro Arantes told TRIP that it's possible to enjoy humor without feeling guilty:

"[Y]ou're going to laugh at something at some point and later on you're not going to find it funny anymore. Some things you didn't find funny before, you'll later find funny. That's one of the goals of the film. It's not to make anyone feel guilty because he laughed at something. When I was younger, I laughed a lot at gay jokes. Now, having thought about it, I really don't find those jokes funny anymore. You work through it in your head and from then on you don't find it funny anymore. The idea of the movie is to show this: guys, it's ok. We laugh and that's part of life. But we have to think things through. Guilt is a torturous feeling. You don't need to make yourself feel guilty--you just need to reflect."

The movie looks at how humor can reveal problems with limiting free speech. Comedian Rafinha Bastos has had this happen numerous times. After making a horribly tasteless joke about rape last year, he was asked to testify before prosecutors for "inciting rape." (As the movie shows, the incident also spurred a productive conversation about rape in Brazil.) He was sued by a famous singer after making a similarly tasteless joke about her baby, and the singer won in January. Pending appeals, Bastos will have to pay the singer R$100,000 (around $47,000). Just this week, he was involved in a new scandal, after Bastos called TV personality Luciano Huck an "inconsequential playboy" in an open letter. Huck was recently fined and lost his license after refusing a breathalyzer at a traffic stop. Huck said he would sue Bastos for making the comments, though Bastos has since apologized.

The film also explores how Brazilian comedy often reveals racism, homophobia, and sexism. In Brazil, hate speech is actually a crime: making disparaging remarks about religion, ethnicity, or race can actually lead to fines and even jail time. (Some LGBT activists are pushing for hate speech related to sexual orientation to be included in such laws.) But these laws restricting freedom of expression don't necessarily change attitudes, as Taylor Barnes describes in a recent Christian Science Monitor piece about hate speech crimes in Brazil:

Despite a constitutional principle of freedom of expression, Brazilian lawmakers and law enforcement have drawn the line when it comes to agitating racial, religious, or ethnic tensions. And though the legislation is widely accepted as legitimate, even advocates of criminalizing intolerance say the best the law can do is make an offender hold his or her tongue, rather than change the racial and religious tensions that still run deep in Brazilian society.

In a country where social movements are increasingly gaining traction, where dictatorship-era censorship legislation still lingers, and where rising levels of access to education and technology are helping to forge change, the debate to balance free speech and political correctness will be an interesting one to watch.

Hat tip to Alex Castro for the documentary.

Dzi Croquettes

Two Brazilian movies are playing in New York this month so they can qualify for the Oscars: Elite Squad 2 and Dzi Croquettes. Elite Squad will try to make the short list for best foreign film, and Dzi Croquettes will try to qualify for best documentary. Since I've already written a great deal about Tropa de Elite, it's time to talk a bit about Dzi Croquettes.

Dzi Croquettes tells the story of a thirteen man Brazilian troupe that performed cabaret in Brazil and Europe, achieving huge success doing avant garde and at the time, risqué performances. Liza Minnelli, who appears in the film, became something of a godmother to the troupe, and celebrities came to their shows in Paris and Brazil.

 

The movie is wonderful to watch because it's a story of incredible characters, who are loveable, crazy, and inspiring. It's also interesting from a cultural perspective, to see how a blending of cultural influences, styles, and techniques from Brazil and the U.S. came together to create a completely new phenomenon. Lennie Dale was a fascinating character alone. Originally from Brooklyn, New York, he was a Broadway performer who moved to Brazil and began singing and dancing there, and befriended and even performed with people like Elis Regina. (He also spoke beautiful Portuguese.) He founded Dzi Croquettes along with Brazilian performer Wagner Ribeiro, bringing to the group formal dance technique. While in Brazil, he spent a year in jail after getting caught with pot, and became a hit behind bars teaching the inmates to dance. He also got hit by a bus (literally) and was unable to perform for a time. Along with several others in the troupe, he was a fantastic dancer, making the archive footage of the dance scenes some of the best parts of the movie.

From a historical standpoint, it's amazing what the troupe got away with under the military dictatorship, somehow miraculously avoiding censorship, though the government tried to shut them down a few times. It's also incredible how they were able to express themselves so freely - both as performers and as gay men during the 1960s.

The movie also shows how the group had an enormous cultural influence, not only in dance, theater, and music, but even the Portuguese language (the word tiete, which is now in the Portuguese dictionary, was coined by the group.) Also, many of the foreigners interviewed in the movie became fans of Brazil, traveling there and even learning Portuguese, because of Dzi Croquettes.

Dzi Croquettes is playing at the IFC Center in New York starting today and running through November 24.

Just a Kiss

Much ado has been made about Globo's decision to cut a scene of a gay kiss from one of its most popular novelas, watched by millions across Brazil. When writers announced their intention to include the scene, there was an immediate backlash, and Globo execs nixed the idea. Allegedly, one of the main reasons was not necessarily that Brazilians weren't "ready" to see a gay couple kiss, but that advertisers would threaten to remove commericals during primetime slots. But it's not the first time it's happened. As Anderson Antunes wrote about the episode on South American Way:

"It’s at least the fifth time that Globo has bowed down to conservative pressures and back-peddled on decisions to air homosexual content. At one point Globo went so far as to censor a scene from an episode of The Simpsons in which Homer Simpson kisses his long-time friend Moe."

But last week, in what some believe is the writers' way of avenging their censorship, the show took a different turn: one of the gay characters was beaten to death by a gang of homophobes. (Globo has removed the few videos that were uploaded to Youtube.)

The chilling scene wasn't just an indictment of censorship; it unfortunately reflected reality. Beatings of gays, or of people attackers believe to be gay, continually appear in the news. The most recent case was of a young man who was attacked in downtown Rio de Janeiro in broad daylight by a group of men who thought he was gay. But one of the most publicized cases was that of a father and son who were attacked in São Paulo state in July, since attackers believed them to be a gay couple. The father was brutally beaten until he passed out, and during the attack screamed "He's my son! He's my son!" When he woke up, part of his ear had been torn off, supposedly from human teeth. He had an initial surgery to address injuries to his ear, but will need several plastic surgeries to repair the tissue, and the victim says he probably will not be able to afford them. Meanwhile, police apprehended two suspects, who were brought in and questioned, and one confessed, though he claimed the crime "wasn't motivated by sexual discrimination." Despite the confession, a judge ruled not to imprison the two aggressors, who have now been freed. After the incident, the father commented, "Is it possible that a father can't hug his son?"

 

Though Brazil's highest court legalized gay unions in May, public opinion has not dramatically shifted. An Ibope survey from July found that 55 percent of Brazilians are against gay civil unions. It also found that 55 percent of Brazilians are against gay couples adopting children. Unsurprisingly though, the survey found that those most accepting of gay unions are those with higher levels of education, higher income levels, and those who live in more developed areas of the country. Also, women were more likely than men to accept gay unions. The biggest influencing factor seemed to be age: 60 percent of 16 to 24 year-olds said they supported gay unions, compared to 39 percent of those between age 40 and 49 and only 27 percent of those 50 and older.

After the STF's historic decision, conservative groups began planning. The right wing Democrats Party proposed a bill in the São Paulo city council to create a "Heterosexual Pride Day" as a counter to the city's Gay Pride celebrations. As Andrew Downie wrote in the Christian Science Monitor:

"[Carlos Apolinário, the man who proposed the bill] did, however, feel compelled to make a symbolic move to shore up Brazil’s eroding “morals." Mr. Apolinário, who has the support of Brazil’s powerful Protestant church lobby, said, 'The creation of Heterosexual Day does not symbolize a struggle against gays but against what I believe are excesses and privileges.'"

Gay rights groups are up in arms, and argue that the proposed "holiday" was "in extremely poor taste." Then this past week, hackers attacked the Apolinário's site, making it redirect to a page protesting the bill and describing abuses against gays in Brazil.

But does it really matter what plot lines Globo uses in novelas, especially in reference to tolerance? There's evidence that novelas may have an impact on changing attitudes, and even on development. An Inter-American Development Bank study found that women living in regions with access to Globo had "significantly lower fertility" than women without access to Globo, and concluded that women tended to model their families after novela characters, who had fewer children. The effect was strongest amongst women with lower incomes, and those with similar ages to the novela characters.

It's very hard to tell what kind of impact Globo could have by featuring more positive scenes of gay couples. But it seems inevitable, and it's only a matter of time before network executives realize that audiences are ready for whatever keeps them coming back to watch six nights a week.

Rio de Janeiro: Tourist Mecca?

Recently, the Rio de Janeiro government announced its desire to make the city a gay tourist mecca and to compete with other gay-friendly destinations like Buenos Aires and Mexico City for travelers. The city's mayor, Eduardo Paes, declared that Rio is "a city without prejudice," and a newly appointed "diversity secretary hopes Rio's allure and gay events will attract more travelers. While the initiative is a worthy one, it's just part of the city's plan to attract more tourists leading up to the World Cup and Olympics. In 2010, the city received 1.61 million foreign tourists, pouring US$2 billion into the city. It was an increase from 1.49 million in 2009, and marked the largest amount of foreign tourists visiting the city in the past five years.

But considering that Rio is such a stunning city with so much to offer, the numbers are much lower than they could be. Compare last year's 1.6 million foreign tourists to 2.6 million in Buenos Aires, 3.3 million in Sydney, 6 million in Miami, and 7 million in Barcelona, to name a few. There are now more flights than before from North America, Europe, and Latin America, and a range of accomodations for different budgets, so why aren't there more visitors?

One cause could be prices. With the real at an all-time high, as well as inflation, Rio has become extremely expensive. Between the exchange rate and bigger price tags, especially for hotels, it's possible visitors are turning to cheaper destinations. Attractions are more expensive, too: a report this week showed that entry to the Christ the Redeemer and the Sugarloaf are more expensive than a ticket to the Eiffel Tower or the Statue of Liberty. The other cause could be the economic crisis; with fewer traditional travelers taking vacations, there's fewer visitors to be had.

Another likely cause is fear. Sadly, many potential visitors have erroneous assumptions about the city, thinking that city is a war zone, and that the worst of the city's violence takes place everywhere, even the wealthy areas. There are real risks, though, mainly being the victim of theft or a mugging. There are even stranger risks, like falling off a streetcar, or getting hit by an exploding manhole.

But most people are concerned about violence, so when prospective visitors see stories like this one from earlier in the week, they panic.

"Armed robbers have invaded a luxury Rio de Janeiro hotel, robbing guests of money and phones, Brazilian police say. Four men scaled the wall to enter the Santa Teresa Hotel in central Rio early in the morning, officers said...The Santa Teresa hotel, located in the neighbourhood of the same name, offers "peace of mind and safety" to guests, according to its website." (Read the full article from the BBC)

Santa Teresa is not exactly known for safety, but the most common crime there is getting mugged while walking on empty streets or at night. But this wasn't just any robbery. It was planned by an ex-employee, who also participated in the crime, and the hotel was just 100 meters from a police station. Plus, the nearby favelas are occupied by a pacification force.

Though the UPPs have been lauded by the local press and international media, some have questioned their efficacy, noting that in some cases, traffickers have simply been driven to other favelas. There's other issues too: this week, the director of the Special Police was robbed in his own office when R$5,000 in cash were taken from his desk (what he was doing with all that cash, though, is an entirely different question). Also, the construction company responsible for building UPP buildings as well as government-run health clinics is under investigation for being a shell company, failing to begin construction they were already paid for, and tax evasion.

With more attention on Rio and with public security policy in the spotlight, it's hard to find a strategy to convince potential visitors that the city is a secure destination. One of the newest major international reports is a Vanguard documentary from Current TV called City of God, Guns and Gangs, that premiered tonight. It was really well done, but the overall message wasn't entirely encouraging. The whole episode should go online sometime soon, but for now, here are some excerpts:

 

 

In light of these issues to contend with, tourism officials can only hope that visitors will overlook crime and exercise caution, and that the city can limit bad press leading up to 2014. Meanwhile, Cariocas can only hope that the governor's security strategy will actually pay off for those who call the city home.

Brazil News Round Up

The news has been a bit slow the last few days, but here are some interesting headlines from this week:

Carrefour to acquire Pão de Açucar with US$3 billion investment from BNDES, despite agreement with rival Casino

Brazil's Pao de Acucar agrees to investor buyout, Reuters

Carrefour and Casino: face off in Brazil, FT Beyond Brics

French food fight: two French firms fighting for dominance of the Brazilian retail market, The Economist

BNDES defends involvement in Pão de Açucar-Carrefour merger, Reuters Brazil

“BNDES support is good for consumers and good for Brazil," says CBD chairman, EXAME

 

Brazilian judge gives male couple approval for country’s first gay marriage, Washington Post

São Paulo state Judge Fernando Henrique Pinto ruled two men could convert their civil union into a full marriage. Brazil’s Supreme Court cleared the way in May for the recognition of same-sex civil unions, but stopped short of approving gay marriages. A court statement said Pinto made the decision based on the top court’s ruling on civil unions and on Brazil’s constitution, which outlines how a civil union can be converted into a legal marriage.

Here's a photo of the ceremony, via the Estadão Flickr feed. And here's a video:

 

Brazilians are the most optimistic people in the world, says study, Radar Online

On a scale of 0 to 10, Brazilians gave an average of 8.7 in their expectations of how satisfied they would be with their lives in 2014. The number was more than all of the 144 countries included in the study. In expecations for 2011, Brazil was also at the top.

Amazon Deforestation Rates Double as Brazil Weighs Bill to Pardon Farmers, Bloomberg

Deforestation rates in the Brazilian Amazon, the world’s biggest rain forest, more than doubled last month as farmers become more confident they’ll be granted amnesty for illegal logging. Almost 268 square kilometers (66,200 acres) of protected rain forest were cut down in May, up from 110 square kilometers a year ago, the National Institute for Space Research said today.

In related news, Globo reported that up to 60 percent of wood that comes from the Amazon is wasted in the extraction process.

Brazilian Congress to limit powers of FIFA, IOC, Miami Herald

In legislation aimed at reducing the bureaucracy for infrastructure work for both events, a clause was removed that allowed FIFA and the International Olympic Committee to request project changes without cost limits to the Brazilian government. It was approved late Tuesday by the lower house of Congress. The bill also added an element of transparency after critics had complained that details on future bidding processes did not have to be made available to the public.

Six thousand Brazilians barred from European countries in 2010, Globo

Spain barred the most Brazilians out of any European country, followed by France. Itamaraty is discussing the possibility of requiring proof of lodging and a copy of a bank statement [from European tourists entering Brazil], particularly for Spaniards.

But on the flip side, it was reported this week that Brazilians spent US$8.33 billion abroad from January to May of this year, a 45 percent increase from the same period last year.

Brazilians boiling, blaming Big Pharma for new FDA office in Brazil, Dag Blog

Brazilian officials are in Washington, D.C., today to speak with the Food and Drug and Administration to attempt to get them to change their minds about building an FDA office in Brasília. In what Brazilian magazine Epoca is calling the first speed bump in President Dilma Rousseff’s dealings with the United States, the U.S. announced on April 26 it’s plans to build an FDA office in Brasilia – a move Brazilian officials are saying was never discussed with them.

For more interesting Brazil stories as they happen, follow me on Twitter!

A Stable Union

All week, I'd been gathering material to write about Foxconn and high tech industries in Brazil, and then put everything on hold for the historic decision that came out of Brazil's Supreme Court today.

The STF ruled that gay couples have the same rights as straight couples, before the law as citizens and in terms of government, work, and legal benefits, including health insurance coverage, pensions, alimony, inheritances, property rights, health care proxy rights, and some say may even be argued to include the right to adoption. Previously, lower courts had issued mixed rulings about gay couples' rights, and the only way to try to exercise these types of rights was by going to court and trying your luck. The ruling comes after ten years of stalled legislation in Congress, and gay rights advocate legislators hailed the ruling but lamented the fact that the decision didn't come from those responsible for writing the nation's laws.

The ruling couldn't come at a better time. Not only have LBGT rights advocates been struggling with pushing legislation through Congress, but gay rights have become more of a visible issue, with reports of increased violence against gays and the continued persecution of and prejudice against LGBTs, even by politicians. Not only did the STF enshrine the legal principle that gay couples have equal rights, but also recognized the need for change in terms of how gays are treated in society as a whole, and many of the judges specifically cited discrimination as a basis for the ruling.

There were a couple other interesting things about the case. One of them is that the ruling was unanimous. One judge abstained, since he had worked with similar cases in the past, but all ten other judges ruled in favor. For a case of this magnitude that was opposed by many in Congress and by the Catholic Church, it was an unexpected surprise, just the cherry on top of a historic decision. The other interesting thing was that the case was brought by both the attorney general's office and by Sérgio Cabral, the governor of Rio state. This is particularly interesting because though Cabral is known for installing pacification units in favelas to try to reduce violence, he's not exactly a social reformer. I'd like to think he's altruistic, but I do wonder what his motivation was. I'd like to think it's because there are now enough openly gay constituents to throw their weight around, or it could be his close relationship to the president, who is in fact committed to social reform.

In the ruling, the judges cited a number of reasons for their decision, including the right to privacy, the freedom of expression, and even the right to pursue happiness. While some argued this type of decision should have come in the form of a law from Congress, it was hard to question the triumph of democratic principles. As usual, Minister Ellen Gracie was eloquent in her explanation:

"O reconhecimento hoje, pelo Tribunal, desses direitos, responde a pessoas que durante longo tempo foram humilhadas, cujos direitos foram ignorados, cuja dignidade foi ofendida, cuja identidade foi denegada e cuja liberdade foi oprimida. O Tribunal lhes restitui o respeito que merecem, reconhece seus direitos, restaura sua dignidade, afirma sua identidade e restaura a sua liberdade."

["Today, this court recognizes those rights which belong to people who for a long time were humiliated, whose rights were ignored, whose dignity was offended, and whose freedom was oppressed. This court restores them with the respect they deserve, recognizes their rights, restores their dignity, affirms their identity, and restores their freedom."']

There was the usual reaction from the Church and right wingers (Bolsonaro, the same controversial homophobic congressman I've written about, complained that after legalizing civil unions, they'd legalize pedophilia. He's really lovely, isn't he?), but otherwise the news seemed to reverberate without too much incident, at least for now. The only thing that seems to be confusing some is the difference between a civil union and marriage. The decision did not legalize gay marriage, but in Brazil, civil unions among straight couples are quite common, and are what we'd consider a common law marriage, but with certain rights guaranteed. So while it did not legalize marriage, it legalized something somewhat close to it. In a country where the Catholic Church still wields power, evangelical Christianity and its corresponding socially conservative values are on the rise, and abortion is still illegal, this kind of decision is truly momentous.

Perhaps one of the most important elements of the decision was the very definition of a civil union, called a "stable union." The court determined that such a relationship in fact applies to all women and men, regardless of whether they are in a same sex relationship, essentially redefining the Civil Code, which sets a legal precedent and also opens the door for similar decisions. In the code, the definition for a civil union is this:

"É reconhecida como entidade familiar a união estável entre o homem e a mulher, configurada na convivência pública, contínua e duradoura e estabelecida com o objetivo de constituição de família."

[Roughly: A civil union is recognized as a family entity between a man and a woman, who live together and have a stable, lasting relationship, and is established as constituting a family.]

That the decision officially recognized gay couples as families is one of the things that truly impacted the 60,000 gay couples in Brazil (though by the way, I think that number is conservative). Not only were they recognized as equals before the law, but they were recognized as equals as people, redefining the notion of what it means to be gay in Brazil. It's not just a victory for the Brazilian LGBT movement, but is also a victory for Brazilian democracy.

Pride

Last week, Jair Bolsonaro, a conservative congressman from Rio was interviewed on a popular Brazilian political comedy show, and spouted off a series of blatantly racist, homophobic, and pro-dictatorship comments - and with incredible arrogance and self-assurance, to boot.

On the one hand, I didn't think much of it: a right-wing politician known for radical views is a racist homophobe? Shocker. In fact, it wasn't the first time he'd made controversial comments on TV:  while searching for these videos, I found another video from CQC, from November 2010, where he makes homophobic comments. It didn't seem very out of the ordinary.

On the other hand, two things happened.

The first is that there was an immediate and huge backlash against the congressman. He's now being investigated and will have to testify for "breaking parliamentary decorum." Since racism is a crime in Brazil, he may also be investigated for racism as well. But the silver lining was that it really got people talking and started a dialogue, particularly in relation to homophobia. There have been protests and petitions, but it's also shined light on issues that are tend to be studiously avoided in Brazil. Racism, though denied as a myth by some, has traditionally had more attention than homphobia; gay rights is relatively new on the national scene despite the fact that Brazil has one of Latin America's largest LGBT movements dating back to the 1970s. It's just something people don't talk much about outside of more liberal or middle class urban circles, and even smaller things, like the concept of gay slurs being used in everyday conversation, still haven't quite been addressed. So the Bolsonaro debacle was fortunate, in this way, for drawing attention to an issue worth talking about.

The second was this. The thing that had me wondering about the incident from the get-go was the obvious dilemma in terms of the TV show. In the video, Bolsonaro implies that children somehow become gay if they have bad parents. But he didn't just say it on national TV - he said it on a show hosted and run by Marcelo Tas, whose own daughter is gay. This, I knew, because Luiza is a friend of mine, who I actually met through this blog (you may remember her guest post from 2009). As soon as I saw the video, I wondered what her dad would do.

The week after the original interview aired, the show let Bolsonaro "respond" to his previous comments (which just dug him even deeper into the bigot hole), and then at the end of the segment, Tas responded personally to Bolsonaro and "outed" his daughter (though since she's openly gay, it was more like "outing" himself as a parent):

Tas, as well as Luiza, who's already an activist, became symbols of tolerance and gay rights overnight. It's a pretty big deal, and it's been all over the news:

Marcelo Tas diz que conversou com a filha antes de dizer que ela é homossexual

Marcelo Tas, Jair Bolsonaro e o orgulho de ter um filho gay

"Ela é gay e eu tenho muito orgulho de ser pai da Luiza", diz Marcelo Tas em reposta ao deputado Jair Bolsonaro

Declarações como as de Bolsonaro contribuem para o debate, opina filha de Marcelo Tas

Luiza also gave a great interview to Estadão, which you can listen to here.

The discussion about homophobia and gay rights couldn't come at a better time. Recently, there's interest in several states and even the federal government to ensure rights for gay couples, specifically legalizing civil unions. Famous people, usually men, who are out of the closet or rumored to be gay face an uphill battle; for example, the (few) openly gay athletes in Brazil are often publicly harassed, even tormented. But above all, hate crimes against gays are amongst the worst in the world; in fact, one study found that Brazil has the highest rate of murders of gays of any country. Last year, there were 260 murders considered hate crimes against LGBTs, a 13 percent increase from 2009 and an 113 percent increase from 2007. The states with the most murders were Bahia and Alagoas, followed by São Paulo and Rio de Janeiro.

There's been a lot of talk about censoring Bolsonaro and people like him, or even shows like CQC that aired the interview. But sometimes it takes extremist views to wake people up and get them talking, and to highlight the importance of issues that are sometimes overlooked. I think it's unlikely Bolsonaro will face any serious charges or punishment, but really the best punishment would be losing the next election. (Plus, as several people I've talked to have mentioned, having Congress focus on Bolsonaro is a convenient distraction from addressing congressmen with serious charges of corruption, or worse.) Hopefully the incident will serve as an example that things need to change and can change, and one of the first steps, I think, began with Tas and Luiza.